4.7 Article

Toxicokinetics and bioaccumulation of polycyclic aromatic compounds in wood frog tadpoles (Lithobates sylvaticus) exposed to Athabasca oil sands sediment

Journal

AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY
Volume 207, Issue -, Pages 217-225

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2018.11.006

Keywords

Amphibian larvae; Uptake and elimination; Oil sands sediment; Polycyclic aromatic compounds

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) [STPGP 463041-14]
  2. NSERC postgraduate scholarship
  3. University of Ottawa

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We performed accumulation-elimination experiments of polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) in wood frog tadpoles (Lithobates sylvaticus) using river sediment from Canada's Athabasca oil sands region. The PACs in wood frog tadpoles were similar to 2x higher on average when the animals were in direct contact with PAC-contaminated sediment than when they were separated from the sediment with a screen and exposed only to aqueous PACs. These results suggest that sediment exposure/ingestion contributes as much to PAC accumulation in tadpoles as exposure via aqueous pathways. Alkyl-substituted PAC concentrations in exposed tadpoles exceeded those of the unsubstituted (parent) PACs by about 10 x. Bioaccumulation factors ranged between 0.01 and 4.93, with parent PACs having higher bioaccumulation factors than alkylated PACs. Wood frog tadpoles efficiently eliminated and metabolized most parent and alkyl-substituted PACs, though some compounds (e.g., C4-naphthalenes) had higher bioaccumulation potential and may serve as effective markers of exposure. Here we present a comprehensive analysis of the toxicokinetics and bioaccumulation of PACs (52 analytes) in amphibian larvae, and highlight the importance of sediment exposure when considering the bioaccumulation and potential biological impact of PACs in benthic and epibenthic organisms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available