4.7 Article

Effects of Exposure to Oxamyl, Carbofuran, Dichlorvos, and Lindane on Acetylcholinesterase Activity in the Gills of the Pacific Oyster Crassostrea gigas

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 327-332

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/tox.20491

关键词

AChE; Crassostrea; pesticides; biomarker

资金

  1. Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas del Noroeste, La Paz, Mexico
  2. SEP-CONACYT [38827-B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity has been used to test the exposure of mollusk bivalves to pesticides and other pollutants. The Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas is a species with a worldwide distribution, and it has a high commercial value. The use of this species as a bioindicator in the marine environment, and the use of measurements of AChE activity in tissues of C. gigas require prior evaluation of organisms exposed to several toxic compounds in the laboratory. In our study, the effects of pesticides on AChE activity in the gills and mantle tissues of C. gigas were analyzed by exposing animals to organophosphate (dichlorvos), carbamate (carbofuran and oxamyl), and organochlorine (lindane) pesticides. Adult Pacific oysters were exposed to several concentrations (0.1-200 mu M) of dichlorvos, carbofuran, and oxamyl for 96 h, and lindane (1.0 and 2.5 mu M) was applied for 12 days. In gill tissues, all pesticides analyzed caused a decrease in AChE activity when compared to the control unexposed group. The mean inhibition concentration (IC50) values were determined for dichlorvos, carbofuran, and oxamyl pesticides. Dichlorvos had the highest toxic effect, with an IC50 of 1.08 mu M; lesser effects were caused by oxamyl and carbofuran, with IC(50)s of 1.67 and 3.03 mu M, respectively. This study reports the effects of pesticides with several chemical structures and validates measurement of AChE activity in the gill tissues of C. gigas for use in environmental evaluations or food quality tests. (C) 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Environ Toxicol 25: 327-332, 2010.

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