4.5 Article

Uptake and toxicity of methylmethacrylate-based nanoplastic particles in aquatic organisms

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 35, 期 7, 页码 1641-1649

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/etc.3076

关键词

Plastic nanoparticle; Toxicity; Uptake; Daphnia magna; Corophium volutator

资金

  1. Norwegian Research Council (NFR) [209685/E50]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The uptake and toxicity of 2 poly(methylmethacrylate)-based plastic nanoparticles (PNPs) with different surface chemistries (medium and hydrophobic) were assessed using aquatic organisms selected for their relevance based on the environmental behavior of the PNPs. Pure poly(methylmethacrylate) (medium; PMMA PNPs) and poly(methylmethacrylate-co-stearylmethacrylate) copolymer (hydrophobic; PMMA-PSMA PNPs) of 86nm to 125nm were synthesized using a miniemulsion polymerization method. Fluorescent analogs of each PNP were also synthesized using monomer 7-[4-(trifluoromethyl)coumarin]acrylamide and studied. Daphnia magna, Corophium volutator, and Vibrio fischeri were employed in a series of standard acute ecotoxicity tests, being exposed to the PNPs at 3 different environmentally realistic concentrations (0.01mg/L, 0.1mg/L, and 1.0mg/L) and a high concentration 500mg/L to 1000mg/L. In addition, sublethal effects of PNPs in C. volutator were determined using a sediment reburial test, and the uptake and depuration of fluorescent PNPs was studied in D. magna. The PNPs and fluorescent PNPs did not exhibit any observable toxicity at concentrations up to 500mg/L to 1000mg/L in any of the tests except for PMMA-PSMA PNPs and fluorescent PNPs following 48-h exposure to D. magna (median lethal concentration values of 879mg/L and 887mg/L, respectively). No significant differences were observed between labeled and nonlabeled PNPs, indicating the suitability of using fluorescent labeling. Significant uptake and rapid excretion of the fluorescent PNPs was observed in D. magna. Environ Toxicol Chem 2016;35:1641-1649. (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