4.7 Article

Paralytic shellfish toxins in phytoplankton and shellfish samples collected from the Bohai Sea, China

Journal

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN
Volume 115, Issue 1-2, Pages 324-331

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.12.023

Keywords

Bohai Sea; Paralytic shellfish toxins (PSTs); Phytoplankton; Shellfish; High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)

Funding

  1. Public Science and Technology Research Funds Project of Ocean from the State Ocean Administration (SOA) [201305010]
  2. programs of the Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [41176100, U1406403]
  3. programs from the Qingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology [2016ASKJ02, 2015ASKJ02]
  4. Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA11020304]
  5. program from the Center of Marine Development of China [AOCZDA20130]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Phytoplankton and shellfish samples collected periodically from 5 representative mariculture zones around the Bohai Sea, Laishan (LS), Laizhou (LZ), Hangu (HG), Qinhuangdao (QHD) and Huludao (HLD), were analysed for paralytic shellfish toxins (PSTs) using an high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method. Toxins were detected in 13 out of 20 phytoplankton samples, and N-sulfocarbamoyl toxins (C1/2) were predominant components of PSTs in phytoplankton samples with relatively low toxin content. However, two phytoplankton samples with high PST content collected from QHD and LS had unique toxin profiles characterized by high-potency carbamoyl toxins (GTX1/4) and decarbamoyl toxins (dcGTX2/3 and dcSTX), respectively. PSTs were commonly found in shellfish samples, and toxin content ranged from 0 to 27.6 nmol/g. High level of PSTs were often found in scallops and clams. Shellfish from QHD in spring, and LZ and LS in autumn exhibited high risks of PST contamination. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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