4.6 Article

Cardiotoxic and neurobehavioral effects of sucralose and acesulfame in Daphnia: Toward understanding ecological impacts of artificial sweeteners

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpc.2023.109733

关键词

Sucralose; Acesulfame K; Aquatic toxicity; Acetylcholinesterase; Behaviour; Concerted response; Daphnia magna; Heart rate; Neurotoxicity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Artificial sweeteners have neurotoxic effects on aquatic life, highlighting the need for risk reassessment and international regulatory standards.
Artificial sweeteners are widely used in food and pharmaceuticals, but their stability and persistence raise concerns about their impact on aquatic life. Although standard toxicity tests do not reveal lethal effects, recent studies suggest a potential neurotoxic mode of action. Using environmentally relevant concentrations, we assessed the effects of sucralose and acesulfame, common sugar substitutes, on Daphnia magna focusing on biochemical (acetylcholinesterase activity; AChE), physiological (heart rate), and behavioural (swimming) endpoints. We found dose-dependent increases in AChE and inhibitory effects on heart rate and behaviour for both substances. Moreover, acesulfame induced a biphasic response in AChE activity, inhibiting it at lower concentrations and stimulating at higher ones. For all endpoints, the EC50 values were lower for acesulfame than for sucralose. Additionally, the relationship between acetylcholinesterase and heart rate differed depending on the substance, suggesting possible differences in the mode of action between sucralose and acesulfame. All observed EC50 values were at & mu;g/l levels, i.e., within the levels reported for wastewater, with adverse effects observed at as low as 0.1 & mu;g acesulfame /l. Our findings emphasise the need to re-evaluate risk assessment thresholds for artificial sweeteners and provide evidence for the neurotoxic effects of artificial sweeteners in the environment, informing international regulatory standards.

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

4.6
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