4.7 Article

A novel study for joint toxicity of typical aromatic compounds in coal pyrolysis wastewater by Tetrahymena thermophile

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111880

关键词

Joint toxicity; Aromatic compounds; Coal pyrolysis wastewater; Tetrahymena thermophile

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program - China [2017YFB0602804]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coal pyrolysis wastewater containing aromatic compounds mixture can lead to strong joint toxicity to aquatic environment, with different compounds showing varied toxicity mechanisms and levels.
The coal pyrolysis wastewater (CPW) contributed to aquatic environment contamination with amount of aromatic pollutants, and the research on joint toxicity of the mixture of aromatic compounds was vital for environmental protection. By using Tetrahymena thermophile as non-target organism, the joint toxicity of typical nonpolar narcotics and polar narcotics in CPW was investigated. The results demonstrated that the nonpolar narcotics exerted chronic and reversible toxicity by hydrophobicity-based membrane perturbation, while polar narcotics performed acute toxicity by irreversible damage of cells. As the most hydrophobic nonpolar narcotics, indole and naphthalene caused the highest joint toxicity in 24 h with the lowest EC50mix (24.93 mg/L). For phenolic compounds, the combination of p-cresol and p-nitrophenol also showed the top toxicity (EC50mix = 10.9 mg/L) with relation to high hydrophobicity, and the joint toxicity was obviously stronger and more acute than that of nonpolar narcotics. Furthermore, by studying the joint toxicity of nonpolar narcotics and polar narcotics, the hydrophobicity-based membrane perturbation was the first step of toxicity effects, and afterwards the acute toxicity induced by electrophilic polar substituents of phenols dominated joint toxicity afterwards. This toxicity investigation was critical for understanding universal and specific effects of CPW to aquatic organisms.

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