4.7 Article

Environmentally relevant bisphenol A concentrations effects on the seagrass Cymodocea nodosa different parts elongation: perceptive assessors of toxicity

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 27, 期 7, 页码 7267-7279

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-07443-6

关键词

BPA; Effect concentrations; Endpoint; Growth; Marine angiosperms; Plant part length; Toxicity assessors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Toxicity data on bisphenol A (BPA) effects on aquatic macrophytes remain scarce. Therefore, environmentally relevant BPA concentrations (0.03, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1, and 3 mu g L-1) were tested on the seagrass Cymodocea nodosa different parts length increase. All plant parts, at low BPA concentrations (0.03-0.3 mu g L-1), elongated equally to the control, while their lengthening and elongation rates gradually decreased by increasing BPA concentrations. A gradual increase of Toxicity index with increasing BPA concentrations was observed but was lower for juvenile blades and higher for plagiotropic rhizomes and adult leaves. In all parts, the LOECs were 0.3 and the NOECs 0.1 mu g L-1 at 10th day. Juvenile blades displayed, under acute stress, lengthening inhibition at lower concentrations than the rhizomes and adult blades, but at a lower extent. The EC50 values were lower for the rhizome internodes, followed by the adult blades and higher for the juvenile blades. Using as a biological endpoint the elongation, all C. nodosa parts and specifically the rhizomes and adult blades, followed by intermediate blades, adult sheaths, and juvenile blades, seemed to be sensitive BPA toxicity assessors. The evaluation of the relative sensitivity of the different parts to BPA toxicity could help identify the most suitable seagrass part for early diagnosis of the risk posed by BPA to seagrass meadows and could constitute a valuable tool to derive the seawater quality criteria and to be used in BPA monitoring programs for rational management of the coastal environment.

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