4.5 Article

TOXICITY OF THE CONVENTIONAL ENERGETICS TNT AND RDX RELATIVE TO NEW INSENSITIVE MUNITIONS CONSTITUENTS DNAN AND NTO IN RANA PIPIENS TADPOLES

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 873-879

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/etc.2890

关键词

Amphibians; Munitions constituents; Aquatic toxicology; Behavioral toxicology

资金

  1. US Army's Environmental Quality Technology Basic Research Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An initiative within the US military is targeting the replacement of traditional munitions constituents with insensitive munitions to reduce risk of accidental detonation. The purpose of the present study was to comparatively assess toxicity of the traditional munitions constituents 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) and 1,3,5-trinitroperhydro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) with the new insensitive munitions constituents 2,4-dinitroanisole (DNAN) and 3-nitro-1,2,4-triazol-5-one (NTO). The following exposure durations were performed with Rana pipiens (leopard frog) tadpoles: TNT and DNAN, 96h and 28d; RDX, 10 d and 28d; NTO, 28 d. The 96-h 50% lethal concentration (LC50) values and 95% confidence intervals for TNT and DNAN were 4.4mg/L (4.2mg/L, 4. 7mg/L) and 24.3mg/L (21.3mg/L, 27.6mg/L), respectively. No significant impacts on survival were observed in the 10-d exposure to RDX up to 25.3mg/L. Effects on tadpole swimming distance were observed with a lowest-observed-effect concentration (LOEC) of 5.9mg/L RDX. In the 28-d exposures, the LOECs for survival for TNT, DNAN, and NTO were 0.003mg/L, 2.4mg/L, and 5.0mg/L, respectively. No significant mortality was observed in the RDX chronic 28-d exposure up to the highest treatment level tested of 28.0mg/L. Neither tadpole developmental stage nor growth was significantly affected in any of the 28-d exposures. Rana pipiens were very sensitive to chronic TNT exposure, with an LOEC 3 orders of magnitude lower than those for insensitive munitions constituents DNAN and NTO. Environ Toxicol Chem 2015;34:873-879. (c) 2015 SETAC

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

4.5
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