4.5 Article

Chronic toxicity of 50 metals toCeriodaphnia dubia

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED TOXICOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 3, Pages 375-386

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jat.4049

Keywords

acute toxicity; Daphnia; electronegativity; LOEC; NOEC; physiological toxic effect; reproduction

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute for Environmental Studies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The chronic toxicity of 50 metals on water flea,Ceriodaphnia dubia, was investigated, revealing a wide range of IC20 values for different metals and unknown data for some. The study showed that the IC50 values of different metals were not significantly correlated with factors such as electronegativity and atomic weight.
Metals are essential elements for human life but may cause disorders when exposure is excessive. Previously, we reported on the acute toxicity of 50 metals; however, the chronic toxicity data of some metals are not available. Therefore, we conducted chronic toxicity tests to determine the effects of 50 metals on the water flea,Ceriodaphnia dubia. The IC(20)of 20 metals (Be, Sc, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Y, Ru, Ag, Cd, In, Te, W, Os, Pt, Au, Hg, Tl and Pb) were <100 mu g/L; nine metals (Al, V, As, Se, Zr, Nb, Rh, Sb and Bi) were 100 <= IC20< 1000 mu g/L; 16 metals (Li, Mg, K, Ti, Mn, Fe, Ga, Ge, Rb, Sr, Mo, Sn, Cs, Ba, Re and Ir) were 1000 <= IC20 <= 100 000 mu g/L; and two metals (Na and Ca) were >100 000 mu g/L. Three metals (Pd, Hf and Ta) did not show IC(20)at the upper limit of respective aqueous solubility, and IC(20)s were not obtained. The maximum test concentrations (almost aqueous solubility) of Pd, Hf and Ta were 83, 2400 and 5.3 mu g/L, respectively. These data show the high correlation between our IC(50)s forC. dubiaand those forDahpnia magnapublished previously. The IC(50)s of 47 metals were not correlated with electronegativity, first ionization energy, atomic weight, atomic number, covalent radius, atomic radius or ionic radius.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available