4.7 Article

Possible ecological risk of two pharmaceuticals diclofenac and paracetamol demonstrated on a model plant Lemna minor

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 302, 期 -, 页码 351-361

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.09.057

关键词

Diclofenac; Paracetamol; Lemna minor; Oxidative stress; Antioxidant mechanism

资金

  1. Specific Research Program at the Faculty of Science, Masaryk University Brno

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lemna minor is often used in environmental risk assessment and it can be supposed that usually evaluated parameters will be reliable even for assessing the risk of pharmaceuticals. Subtle changes in duckweed plant number, biomass production, and leaf area size induced by 10-day-exposure to diclofenac (DCF) and paracetamol (PCT) (0.1, 10, and 100 mu g/L), excepting 100 mu g/L DCF, are in contrast with considerable changes on biochemical and histochemical level. Both drugs caused a decrease in content of photosynthetic pigments (by up to 50%), an increase in non-photochemical quenching (by 65%) and decrease in relative chlorophyll fluorescence decay values (by up to 90% with DCF). Both DCF and especially PCT increased amount of reactive nitrogen and oxygen species in roots. DCF-induced effects included mainly increased lipid peroxidation (by 78%), disturbation in membrane integrity and lowering both oxidoreductase and dehydrogenase activities (by 30%). PCT increased the content of soluble proteins and phenolics. Higher concentrations of both DCF and PCT increased the levels of oxidised ascorbate (by 30%) and oxidised thiols (by up to 84% with DCF). Glutathion-reductase activity was elevated by both pharmaceuticals (nearly by 90%), glutathion-S-transferase activity increased mainly with PCT (by 22%). The early and sensitive indicators of DCF and PCT phytotoxicity stress in duckweed are mainly the changes in biochemical processes, connected with activation of defense mechanisms against oxidative stress. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. 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