4.7 Article

Coupling biological assays with diffusive gradients in thin-films technique to study the biological responses of Eisenia fetida to cadmium in soil

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 339, 期 -, 页码 340-346

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.06.049

关键词

Cd; Bioavailability; Diffusive gradients in thin-films; Eisenia fetida; Biological response

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21237001, 21477053, 21277068, 21577062]
  2. Social Development Science & Technology Demonstration Project of Jiangsu Province [BE2015708]
  3. Science and Technology Support Project of Shanghai [14DZ1206303]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work sets out to investigate biological responses of Eisenia fetida to Cd, based on the bioavailable rather than total concentration of Cd, in soils. E. fetida was cultured for 14d in three selected Chinese soils amended with 0.1-40 mg kg(-1) Cd. Potentially bioavailable concentrations of Cd were measured in soil solution, in extractions using CaCl2 and HAc solutions, and using the technique of diffusive gradients in thin-films (DGT). Antioxidant system responses in E. fetida to Cd were measured as biological endpoints. Biological responses were more highly correlated with Cd concentrations evaluated using bioavailable methods than with total concentrations. Cd concentration measured using DGT and CaCl2 extraction provided the narrowest ranges of lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) values based on biological responses, indicating the potential use of these measurements in management of soil quality and setting soil remediation standards. The LOEC values obtained from 15 field soils contaminated by Cd were similar to those from the three Cd-amended soils and suggested that DGT in particular can be a good tool to predict stress responses of E. fetida to Cd in soils. The study shows the potential of combining biological response and DGT measurements in risk assessment. (C) 2017 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