4.7 Article

Hormetic dose responses induced by organic flame retardants in aquatic animals: Occurrence and quantification

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 820, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153295

Keywords

Organic flame retardants; Hormesis; Dose response; Stress biology; Aquatic environment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study provides evidence of hormesis induced by organic flame retardants in aquatic animals and discusses the significance of quantitative features and potential risk assessment.
The organic flame retardants (OFRs) have attracted global concerns due to their potential toxicity and ubiquitous presence in the aquatic environment. Hormesis refers to a biphasic dose response, characterized by low-dose stimulation and high-dose inhibition. The present study provided substantial evidence for the widespread occurrence of OFRsinduced hormesis in aquatic animals, including 202 hormetic dose response relationships. The maximum stimulatory response (MAX) was commonly lower than 160% of the control response, with a combined value of 134%. Furthermore, the magnitude of MAX varied significantly among multiple factors and their interactions, such as chemical types and taxonomic groups. Moreover, the distance from the dose of MAX to the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) (NOAEL: MAX) was typically below 10-fold (median = 6-fold), while the width of the hormetic zone (from the lowest dose inducing hormesis to the NOAEL) was approximately 20-fold. Collectively, the quantitative features of OFRs-induced hormesis in aquatic animals were in accordance with the broader hormetic literature. In addition, the implications of hormetic dose response model for the risk assessment of OFRs were discussed. This study offered a novel insight for understanding the biological effects of low-to-high doses of OFRs on aquatic animals and assessing the potential risks of OFRs in the aquatic environment.

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