4.2 Article

Toxicity of Formulated Glyphosate (Glyphos) and Cosmo-Flux to Larval Colombian Frogs 1. Laboratory Acute Toxicity

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15287390902929709

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The spraying of coca (Erythroxylum coca) with glyphosate in Colombia has raised concerns about possible impacts on amphibians. There are few toxicity data for species other than those from temperate regions, and these have not been generated with the combination of formulated glyphosate (Glyphos) and the adjuvant, Cosmo-Flux (coca mix) as used in coca control in Colombia. In order to characterize toxicity of the spray mixture to frogs from Colombia, Gosner stage-25 tadpoles of Scinax ruber, Dendropophus microcephalus, Hypsiboas crepitans, Rhinella granulosa, Rhinella marina, Rhinella typhonius, Centrolene prosoblepon, and Engystomops pustulosus were exposed to the coca mix at concentrations of glyphosate ranging from 1 to 4.2 mg a.e./L diluted in dechlorinated tap water in glass containers. Cosmo-Flux was added to Glyphos in the proportion of 2.3% v/v, as used in aerial application for coca control. Exposures were for 96 h at 23 +/- 1.5 degrees C with 12:12-h light/dark cycle. Test solutions were renewed every 24 h. Concentrations, measured within the first hour and at 24 and 96 h using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Abraxis, LLC), ranged from 70 to 130% of nominal values. LC50 values ranged from 1200 to 2780 g glyphosate acid equivalents (a.e.)/L for the 8 species tested. Data suggest that sensitivity to Roundup-type formulations of glyphosate in these species is similar to that observed in other tropical and temperate species. In addition, sensitivity of larval amphibians to Roundup-type formulations spans a relatively narrow range. Finally, toxicity of the mixture as used to spray coca was likely driven by the surfactant in the glyphosate formulation, as the addition of Cosmo-Flux did not enhance toxicity above those reported for Vision = Roundup (R).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据