4.8 Article

Comparative Toxicokinetics of Organic Micropollutants in Freshwater Crustaceans

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 47, Issue 15, Pages 8809-8817

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es400833g

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science foundation [315230-141190]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [315230_141190] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Exposure and depuration experiments for Gammarus pulex and Daphnia magna were conducted to quantitatively analyze biotransformation products (BTPs) of organic micropollutants (tramadol, irgarol, and terbutryn). Quantification for BTPs without available standards was performed using an estimation method based on physicochemical properties. Time-series of internal concentrations of micropollutants and BTPs were used to estimate the toxicokinetic rates describing uptake, elimination, and biotransfonnation processes. Bioaccumulation factors (BAF) for the parents and retention potential factors (RPF), representing the ratio of the internal amount of BTPs to the parent at steady state, were calculated. Nonlinear correlation of excretion rates with hydrophobicity indicates that BTPs with lower hydrophobicity are not always excreted faster than the parent compound. For irgarol, G.pulex showed comparable elimination, but greater uptake and BAF/RPF values than D.magna. Further, G. pulex had a whole set of secondary transformations that D. magna lacked. Tramadol was transformed more and faster than irgarol and there were large differences in toxicokinetic rates for the structurally similar compounds irgarol and terbutryn. Thus, predictability of toxicokinetics across species and compounds needs to consider biotransformation and may be more challenging than previously thought because we found large differences in closely related species and similar chemical structures.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available