4.3 Article

Cellular Energy Allocation to Assess the Impact of Nanomaterials on Soil Invertebrates (Enchytraeids): The Effect of Cu and Ag

出版社

MDPI AG
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph120606858

关键词

energy available; energy consumption; energy budget; Oligochaeta; nanomaterials

资金

  1. FEDER through COMPETE Programa Operacional Factores de Competitividade
  2. National funding through FCT-Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia [NANOkA FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-008944 (Ref. FCT PTDC/BIA-BEC/103716/2008)]
  3. National funding through FCT PhD grant [SFRH/BD/63261/2009]
  4. EU [263215, 604305]
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/63261/2009] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of several copper (Cu) and silver (Ag) nanomaterials were assessed using the cellular energy allocation (CEA), a methodology used to evaluate the energetic status and which relates with organisms' overall condition and response to toxic stress. Enchytraeus crypticus (Oligochatea), was exposed to the reproduction effect concentrations EC20/(50) of several Cu and Ag materials (CuNO3, Cu-Field, Cu-Nwires and Cu-NPs; AgNO3, Ag NM300K, Ag-NPs Non-coated and Ag-NPs PVP-coated) for 7 days (0-3-7d). The parameters measured were the total energy reserves available (protein, carbohydrate and lipid budgets) and the energy consumption (Ec) integrated to obtain the CEA. Results showed that these parameters allowed a clear discrimination between Cu and Ag, but less clearly within each of the various materials. For Cu there was an increase in Ec and protein budget, while for Ag a decrease was observed. The results corroborate known mechanisms, e.g., with Cu causing an increase in metabolic rate whereas Ag induces mitochondrial damage. The various Cu forms seem to activate different mechanisms with size and shape (e.g., Cu-NPs versus Cu-Nwires), causing clearly different effects. For Ag, results are in line with a slower oxidation rate of Ag-NMs in comparison with Ag-salt and hence delayed effects.

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

4.3
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