4.7 Article

Lethal and sublethal toxicity of the industrial chemical epichlorohydrin on Rhinella arenarum (Anura, Bufonidae) embryos and larvae

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 263, 期 -, 页码 784-791

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.10.018

关键词

Epichlorohydrin; Amphibian development; Standardized toxicity bioassays

资金

  1. CONICET-UNSAM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lethal and sublethal toxicity of the major chemical used in epoxide compounds, epichlorohydrin (ECH) was evaluated on the early life cycle of the common South American toad, Rhinella arenarum (Anura, Bufonidae). The stages evaluated were (according to Del Conte and Sirlin): early blastula (S.3-S.4), gastrula (S.10-S.12), rotation (S.15), tail bud (S.17), muscular response (S.18), gill circulation (S.20), open mouth (S.21), opercular folds (S.23) and complete operculum (S.25). The LC50 and EC50 values for lethal and sublethal effects were calculated. The early blastula was the most sensitive stage to ECH both for continuously and pulse-exposures (LC50-24 h = 50.9 mg L-1), while S.20 was the most resistant (LC50-24 h = 104.9 mg L-1). Among sublethal effects, early blastula was also the most sensitive stage (LOEC-48 h = 20 mg L-1) and it has a Teratogenic Index of 2.5, which indicates the teratogenic potential of the substance. The main abnormalities were persistent yolk plugs, cell dissociation, tumors, hydropsy, oral malformations, axial/tail flexures, delayed development and reduced body size. ECH also caused neurotoxicity including scarce response to stimuli, reduction in the food intake, general weakness, spasms and shortening, erratic or circular swimming. Industrial contamination is considered an important factor on the decline of amphibian populations. Considering the available information about ECH's toxicity and its potential hazard to the environment, this work shows the first results of its developmental toxicity on a native amphibian species, Rhinella arenarum. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据