4.7 Article

Acute toxicity, oxidative stress and DNA damage of chlorpyrifos to earthworms (Eisenia fetida): The difference between artificial and natural soils

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 255, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126982

关键词

Artificial soil; Natural soil; Antioxidant enzymes; Oxidative damage; Integrated biomarker response

资金

  1. National Key R&D Programof China [2016YFD0800202, 2017YFD0200307]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41771282]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, China [ZR2017MD005]
  4. Special Funds of Taishan Scholar of Shandong Province, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pesticides can damage the soil environment, including damage to sentinel organisms such as earthworms. When assessing the toxicity of pesticides towards earthworms, assays are usually performed using standardized artificial soil, however, soil physicochemical properties may affect pesticide toxicity. In the present study, the toxicity of a commonly used insecticide (chlorpyrifos) to earthworms (Eisenia fetida) was determined in artificial soil and three typical natural soils (fluvo-aquic soil, black soil and red clay) by measuring acute and subchronic toxicity. Soil tests were conducted to measure the acute toxicity of chlorpyrifos to Eisenia fetida quantified by the half lethal concentration (LC50) while subchronic toxicity tests assessed the impact of low dose chlorpyrifos exposure (0.01, 0.1, 1 mg/kg; up to 56 d) on reactive oxygen species content, antioxidant enzymes activities, detoxifying enzyme activity, malondialdehyde content, and 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine content. Subchronic toxicity was quantified using the integrated biomarker response (IBR) which highlighted that the toxicity of chlorpyrifos in artificial and natural soils was not the same. Outcomes from artificial soil studies may underestimate (fluvo-aquic soil and red clay) or overestimate (black soil) chlorpyrifos effects. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. 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