4.7 Article

Mixture toxicity assessment of wood preservative pesticides in the freshwater amphipod Gammarus pulex (L.)

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 72, 期 2, 页码 441-449

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2008.07.017

关键词

Wood preservative; Mixture toxicity; Additive; Gammarus pulex; Cypermethrin; Propiconazole; Tebuconazole; IPBC

资金

  1. Agence de l'Eau Rhone
  2. Mediterranee et Corse (France)
  3. Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (Switzerland)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

All over the world, insecticides and fungicides are used to protect wood against pathogens. To document the environmental toxicity of wood preservative mixtures, freshwater amphipods Gammarus pulex (L.) were submitted to organic pesticides given independently or in mixtures. When given independently at environmentally realistic concentrations, propiconazole and tebuconazole (triazoles fungicides) were not toxic for G. pulex, 3-iodo-2-propinyl butyl carbamate (IPBC, fungicide) was moderately toxic, and cypermethrin (pyrethroid insecticide) was extremely toxic. 96-h LC50 were, respectively, 4703, 1643, 604, and 0.09 mu g L-1. When amphipods were submitted to a mixture mimicking the composition of a commercial solution (18.2% of cypermethrin, 45.8% propiconazole, 17.2% tebuconazole, 18.8% IPBC), the overall toxicity was equal to that of the most toxic component, namely cypermethrin. But, when organisms were submitted to the real commercial mixture containing pesticides, solvents and additives, the toxic effects were markedly higher. Moreover, a third mixture with only 0.002% cypermethrin showed lethality 2.5-18-fold higher than those predicted by the commonly used models. The present results show that toxicity of wood preservative mixtures cannot be assessed starting only from the toxicities of each single component. Furthermore, the present data strongly suggest that the environmental impacts of wood preservative mixtures might be frequently underestimated. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. 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