4.5 Article

Mixtures of Chemical Pollutants at European Legislation Safety Concentrations: How Safe Are They?

期刊

TOXICOLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 141, 期 1, 页码 218-233

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfu118

关键词

bioassays; effects; mixtures; ecotoxicology; biomarkers

资金

  1. RADAR [265721]
  2. French Office Water and Aquatic Environment
  3. French Ministry for Ecology and Sustainable Development [P181 DRC50]
  4. MRC [G0801056] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Medical Research Council [G0801056] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) [G1000081/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The risk posed by complex chemical mixtures in the environment to wildlife and humans is increasingly debated, but has been rarely tested under environmentally relevant scenarios. To address this issue, two mixtures of 14 or 19 substances of concern (pesticides, pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, a surfactant, and a plasticizer), each present at its safety limit concentration imposed by the European legislation, were prepared and tested for their toxic effects. The effects of the mixtures were assessed in 35 bioassays, based on 11 organisms representing different trophic levels. A consortium of 16 laboratories was involved in performing the bioassays. The mixtures elicited quantifiable toxic effects on some of the test systems employed, including i) changes in marine microbial composition, ii) microalgae toxicity, iii) immobilization in the crustacean Daphnia magna, iv) fish embryo toxicity, v) impaired frog embryo development, and vi) increased expression on oxidative stress-linked reporter genes. Estrogenic activity close to regulatory safety limit concentrations was uncovered by receptor-binding assays. The results highlight the need of precautionary actions on the assessment of chemical mixtures even in cases where individual toxicants are present at seemingly harmless concentrations.

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

4.5
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