4.7 Article

Lipophilic Toxins in Wild Bivalves from the Southern Gulf of California, Mexico

期刊

MARINE DRUGS
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/md19020099

关键词

lipophilic toxins; dinoflagellates; cyclic imines; bivalves; LC-MS; MS

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACyT) [1776, 248468]
  2. FORDECyT project [260040, IPN-SIP: 2020-0571]
  3. CONACyT [703129]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the lipophilic toxins in bivalves from the Gulf of California in Mexico, finding interspecific differences in toxin types and concentrations at the same sampling sites. However, overall, the levels of toxins in bivalves were within human consumption standards.
Most of the shellfish fisheries of Mexico occur in the Gulf of California. In this region, known for its high primary productivity, blooms of diatoms and dinoflagellates are common, occurring mainly during upwelling events. Dinoflagellates that produce lipophilic toxins are present, where some outbreaks related to okadaic acid and dinophisystoxins have been recorded. From January 2015 to November 2017 samples of three species of wild bivalve mollusks were collected monthly in five sites in the southern region of Bahia de La Paz. Pooled tissue extracts were analyzed using LC-MS/MS to detect lipophilic toxins. Eighteen analogs of seven toxin groups, including cyclic imines were identified, fortunately individual toxins did not exceed regulatory levels and also the total toxin concentration for each bivalve species was lower than the maximum permitted level for human consumption. Interspecific differences in toxin number and concentration were observed in three species of bivalves even when the samples were collected at the same site. Okadaic acid was detected in low concentrations, while yessotoxins and gymnodimines had the highest concentrations in bivalve tissues. Although in low quantities, the presence of cyclic imines and other lipophilic toxins in bivalves from the southern Gulf of California was constant.

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