4.7 Article

Biochemical and reproductive effects of red mud to earthworm Eisenia fetida

Journal

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
Volume 168, Issue -, Pages 279-286

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.10.097

Keywords

Biomarker; Alumina production; Oxidative stress; Eisenia fetida; Red mud disposal

Funding

  1. Croatian Science Foundation (HrZZ) [IP-09-2014-4459]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Red mud (RM) is the main waste of alumina production whose disposal poses a problem. The research of various possible effects of red mud on soil organisms has been scarce. We have exposed earthworms (Eisenia fetida) to red mud: artificial soil mixtures. The tested samples of red mud were of different origin: Croatian (CRAM) and Hungarian (HURM). The effects of exposure on the metabolic and oxidative status of earthworms were measured using several biochemical biomarkers (acetylcholinesterase, catalase and glutathione S-transferase activity and metallothionenin content) and reproductive success was assessed upon counting the number of hatched juveniles. The LC50 value for CRAM was 40% and for HURM 62% of red mud in the growth medium on weight basis, respectively. A significant effect (p < 0.001) of the RM concentration and origin, as well as significant interactions between the origin of RM and the applied concentrations on all measured biomarkers were observed. CRRM had a higher content of different metals as well as a higher conductivity in comparison to HURM. The reproduction was inhibited after exposure to both RMs. Namely, 25% CRAM caused a 53.26% reduction in the number of juveniles, whereas 18% HURM caused a 68.84% reduction, and 50% HURM caused 97.9% reduction, respectively. Both RMs caused changes in the measured biomarkers related to an oxidative stress. Consequently, the possible adverse effects on soil organisms before the environmental application of red mud should be assessed to avoid further environmental damage.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available