4.7 Article

Herbicide toxicity on river biofilms assessed by pulse amplitude modulated (PAM) fluorometry

期刊

AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY
卷 165, 期 -, 页码 160-171

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2015.05.001

关键词

Pesticides; Periphyton; Chlorophyll fluorescence; Dose-response curves; Rapid light curves; Environmental risk assessment

资金

  1. PoToMAC (Potential Toxicity of pesticides in Continental Aquatic Environments: passive sampling and exposure/impact on biofilms) programme [ANR-11-CESA-022]
  2. French National Agency for Water and Aquatic Environments (ONEMA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of Rapid light curves (RLCs) as a toxicity endpoint for river biofilms was examined in this study and compared to classical fluorescence parameters i.e. minimal fluorescence (F-0), optimal and effective quantum yields of photosystem II (F-v/F-m and Phi(PSU)). Measurements were performed after exposure to five concentrations of diuron (from 0.3 to 33.4 mu g L-1), its main degradation product (DCPMU) (from 1.0 to 1014 mu g L-1) and norflurazon (from 0.6 to 585 mu g L-1) with the lowest exposure concentrations corresponding to levels regularly encountered in chronically contaminated sites. Biofilm responses were evaluated after 1, 5,7 and 14 days of exposure to the different toxicants. Overall, the responses of both classical fluorescence parameters and RLC endpoints were highly time dependent and related to the mode of action of the different compounds. Interestingly, parameters calculated from RLCs (alpha, ETRmax and I-k) were useful early markers of pesticide exposure since they revealed significant effects of all the tested toxicants from the first day of exposure. In comparison, classical fluorescence endpoints (F-0 and F-v/F-m,) measured at day 1 were only affected in the DCPMU treatment. Our results demonstrated the interest of RLCs as early markers of toxicant exposure particularly when working with toxicants with less specific mode of action than PSII inhibitors. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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