4.5 Article

Brodifacoum Toxicity in American Kestrels (Falco sparverius) with Evidence of Increased Hazard on Subsequent Anticoagulant Rodenticide Exposure

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 468-481

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/etc.4629

关键词

Wildlife toxicology; Toxicokinetics; Rodenticide; Biomarkers; Species extrapolation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A seminal question in ecotoxicology is the extent to which contaminant exposure evokes prolonged effects on physiological function and fitness. A series of studies were undertaken with American kestrels ingesting environmentally realistic concentrations of the second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide (SGAR) brodifacoum. Kestrels fed brodifacoum at 0.3, 1.0, or 3.0 mu g/g diet wet weight for 7 d exhibited dose-dependent hemorrhage, histopathological lesions, and coagulopathy (prolonged prothrombin and Russell's viper venom times). Following termination of a 7-d exposure to 0.5 mu g brodifacoum/g diet, prolonged blood clotting time returned to baseline values within 1 wk, but brodifacoum residues in liver and kidney persisted during the 28-d recovery period (terminal half-life estimates >50 d). To examine the hazard of sequential anticoagulant rodenticide (AR) exposure, kestrels were exposed to either the first-generation AR chlorophacinone (1.5 mu g/g diet) or the SGAR brodifacoum (0.5 mu g/g diet) for 7 d and, following a recovery period, challenged with a low dose of chlorophacinone (0.75 mu g/g diet) for 7 d. In brodifacoum-exposed kestrels, the challenge exposure clearly prolonged prothrombin time compared to naive controls and kestrels previously exposed to chlorophacinone. These data provide evidence that the SGAR brodifacoum may have prolonged effects that increase the toxicity of subsequent AR exposure. Because free-ranging predatory and scavenging wildlife are often repeatedly exposed to ARs, such protracted toxicological effects need to be considered in hazard and risk assessments. Environ Toxicol Chem 2020;39:468-481. (c) 2020 SETAC

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