4.7 Article

Phthalates bioconcentration in the soft corals: Inter- and intra- species differences and ecological aspects

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 297, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134247

关键词

Soft corals; PAEs; Bioconcentration; Metabolism; Genova aquarium; Reefs

资金

  1. University of Milano Bicocca FAR 2020

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The bioconcentration of phthalates in soft corals showed significant differences among the surveyed species, with long chain phthalates having lower bioconcentration factors and short chain phthalates having higher bioconcentration factors. The presence of phthalic acid monoesters indicated species-specific metabolic transformation involving DEHP among the surveyed soft coral species.
The bioconcentration of dimethyl phthalate (DMP) diethyl phthalate (DEP) dibutyl phthalate (DBP) butyl benzyl phthalate (BBzP), di-(2-ethy hexyl) phthalates (DEHP), mono-butyl phthalate (MBP), mono-benzyl phthalate (MBzP), mono-(2-ethy hexyl) phthalate (MEHP) in the soft corals Coelogorgia palmosa, Sinularia sp., Sarcophyton glaucum, and Lobophytum sp. was investigated. Specimens were cultured in a microcosm environment built-up at the Genova Aquarium and analyses were carried out by in vivo SPME-LC-MS/MS. The distributions of the phthalates among the four surveyed species resulted significantly different. Calculated bioconcentration factors (BCFs) showed values spanning over two orders of magnitude, from a minimum of log10 BCFDEP = 1.0 in Sarcophyton glaucum to a maximum of log10 BCFDBP = 3,9 calculated for Coelogorgia palmosa. Moreover, the calculated BCFs of the long chain phthalates resulted up to three orders of magnitude lower than theoretically predicted (from logK(ow)), whereas BCF of short chain phthalates resulted higher. This, together with the detection of phthalic acid monoesters, suggests the presence of species-specific different metabolic transformation among the surveyed soft coral species that involve DEHP.

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