4.5 Article

A robust bioassay to assess the toxicity of metals to the antarctic marine microalga Phaeocystis antarctica

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 34, 期 7, 页码 1578-1587

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/etc.2949

关键词

Polar ecotoxicology; Water-quality guideline; Metal; Contaminant; Flow cytometry

资金

  1. Australian government through an Australian Antarctic Science Grant [AAS 4100]
  2. CSIRO Wealth from Oceans Flagship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite evidence of contamination in Antarctic coastal marine environments, no water-quality guidelines have been established for the region because of a paucity of biological effects data for local Antarctic species. Currently, there is limited information on the sensitivity of Antarctic microalgae to metal contamination, which is exacerbated by the lack of standard toxicity testing protocols for local marine species. In the present study, a routine and robust toxicity test protocol was developed using the Antarctic marine microalga Phaeocystis antarctica, and its sensitivity was investigated following 10-d exposures to dissolved copper, cadmium, lead, zinc, and nickel. In comparisons of 10% inhibition of population growth rate (IC10) values, P. antarctica was most sensitive to copper (3.3 g/L), followed by cadmium (135 g/L), lead (260 g/L), and zinc (450 g/L). Although an IC10 value for nickel could not be accurately estimated, the no-observed-effect concentration value for nickel was 1070 g/L. Exposure to copper and cadmium caused changes in internal cell granularity and increased chlorophyll a fluorescence. Lead, zinc, and nickel had no effect on any of the cellular parameters measured. The present study provides valuable metal-ecotoxicity data for an Antarctic marine microalga, with P. antarctica representing one of the most sensitive microalgal species to dissolved copper ever reported when compared with temperate and tropical species. Environ Toxicol Chem 2015;34:1578-1587. (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