4.7 Article

Ecotoxicity of CdTe quantum dots to freshwater mussels:: Impacts on immune system, oxidative stress and genotoxicity

期刊

AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY
卷 86, 期 3, 页码 333-340

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2007.11.013

关键词

quantum dots; nanotoxicology; immunocompetence; oxidative stress; genotoxicity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to examine the toxic effects of cadmium-telluride (CdTe) quantum dots on freshwater mussels. Elliption complanata mussels were exposed to increasing concentrations of CdTe (0, 1.6, 4 and 8 mg/L) and cadmium sulfate (CdSO4, 0.5 mg/L) for 24 h at 15 degrees C. After the exposure period, they were removed for assessments of immunocompetence, oxidative stress (lipid peroxidation) and genotoxicity (DNA strand breaks). Preliminary experiments revealed that CdTe dissolved in aquarium water tended to aggregate in the particulate phase (85%) while 15% of CdTe was found in the dissolved phase. Immunotoxicity was characterized by a significant decrease in the number of hemocytes capable of ingesting fluorescent beads, and hemocyte viability. The cytotoxic capacity of hemocytes to lyse mammalian K-562 cells was significantly increased, but the number of circulating hemocytes remained unchanged. Lipid peroxidation was significantly increased at a threshold concentration of 5.6 mg/L in gills and significantly reduced in digestive glands at a threshold concentration <1.6 mg/L CdTe. The levels of DNA strand breaks were significantly reduced in gills at <1.6 mg/L CdTe. In digestive glands, a transient but marginal increase in DNA strand breaks occurred at the lowest concentration and dropped significantly at the higher concentrations. A multivariate analysis revealed that the various response patterns differed based on the concentration of CdTe, thus permitting the identification of biomarkers associated with the form (colloidal vs. molecular) of cadmium. Crown Copyright (c) 2007 Published by 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