4.5 Article

Understanding Ecotoxicological Responses of Fish Embryos and Gill Cells to Cationic Polymers

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
Volume 41, Issue 9, Pages 2259-2272

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/etc.5410

Keywords

Cationic polymer; Animal alternatives; Aquatic toxicology

Funding

  1. CEFIC LRI [ECO46]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, a series of fish embryo toxicity and fish gill cytotoxicity assays were conducted to establish a baseline understanding of several representative categories of polyquaterniums. The results showed that toxicity was correlated with cationic polymer charge density, and could be ameliorated by humic acid.
Cationic polymers are considered by the scientific and regulatory communities as a group of greater interest amongst the polymers in commerce. As a category, relatively little hazard information is available in the public literature. Very few examples exist of published, high-quality polymer characterization and quantification of exposure. In the present study we describe a series of fish embryo toxicity (FET) and fish gill cytotoxicity assays used to establish a baseline understanding of several representative polyquaternium categories (PQ-6, PQ-10, PQ-16) in animal alternative models, accompanied by high-quality analytical characterization. Materials were chosen to encompass a range of molecular weights and charge densities to determine the influence of test material characteristics on toxicity. Both chorionated and dechorionated FET assays were generally similar to published acute fish toxicity data. Toxicity was correlated with cationic polymer charge density, and not with molecular weight, and was a combination of physical effects and likely toxicity at the site of action. Toxicity could be ameliorated by humic acid in a dose-dependent manner. Fish gill cytotoxicity results were orders of magnitude less sensitive than FET test responses. Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;00:1-14. (c) 2022 SETAC

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