4.7 Article

Sequential assessment via, daphnia and zebrafish for systematic toxicity screening of heterogeneous substances

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 216, 期 -, 页码 292-303

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.06.001

关键词

UV-filter substances; Daphnia magna; Zebrafish embryo; Sequential environmental toxicity assessment; Heterogeneous substance

资金

  1. KIST TRC [2E26272]
  2. Institutional Project [2E26230]
  3. KIST Europe (ORP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Environment and organisms are persistently exposed by a mixture of various substances. However, the current evaluation method is mostly based on an individual substance's toxicity. A systematic toxicity evaluation of heterogeneous substances needs to be established. To demonstrate toxicity assessment of mixture, we chose a group of three typical ingredients in cosmetic sunscreen products that frequently enters ecosystems: benzophenone-3 (BP-3), ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate (EHMC), and titanium dioxide nanoparticle (TiO2 NP). We first determined a range of nominal toxic concentration of each ingredient or substance using Daphnia magna, and then for the subsequent organismal level phenotypic assessment, chose the wild-type zebrafish embryos. Any phenotype change, such as body deformation, led to further examinations on the specific organs of transgenic zebrafish embryos. Based on the systematic toxicity assessments of the heterogeneous substances, we offer a sequential environmental toxicity assessment protocol that starts off by utilizing Daphnia magna to determine a nominal concentration range of each substance and finishes by utilizing the zebrafish embryos to detect defects on the embryos caused by the heterogeneous substances. The protocol showed additive toxic effects of the mixtures. We propose a sequential environmental toxicity assessment protocol for the systematic toxicity screening of heterogeneous substances from Daphnia magna to zebrafish embryo in-vivo models. (C) 2016 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