4.3 Article

Ecological Risk Assessment of Urban Streams Using Fish Biomarkers of DNA Damage and Physiological Responses

Journal

POLISH JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Volume 29, Issue 2, Pages 1077-1086

Publisher

HARD
DOI: 10.15244/pjoes/104660

Keywords

ecological risk; single-cell gel electrophoresis; heavy metal; DNA damage; 7-ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase

Funding

  1. Basic Environmental Research Program of the Geum River System, (NIER-2018)
  2. Ministry of the Environment, Korea
  3. Daejeon Green Environment Center under the Research Development Program (Year 2017)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ecological risk assessment was carried out in two urban streams, viz. Gap Stream (GS) and Miho Stream (MS), in the Geum River Watershed during July 2013-October 2014. The techniques used in this study included multi-level fish biomarkers of DNA damage based on single-cell gel electrophoresis (SCGE) coupled with the study of physiological responses based on 7-ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase (EROD) and acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activities in fish species. Biomarker values of tail DNA (tDNA), tail length (T-L), and tail extent moment (TEM) in impacted zone (I-z) were 2.0-3.6-fold greater than in controls (C-z). Nucleus image analysis showed that the nucleus had circular particle forms in the C-z as compared with a longitudinal oval form with broken particles from the nucleus in the I-z. Physiological response analysis of EROD and AchE activities indicated that their levels were higher in the I-z than in the C-z. Such DNA damages and greater physiological responses in the I-z were attributed to chemical contaminants discharged from the wastewater disposal plants and industrial complex. This combination of DNA damage and physiological responses approach can be used as a key tool for early-warning detection of chemical contaminants and concomitant risks to the ecological health of urban streams.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available