4.7 Article

Comparative evaluation of toxicological effects and recovery patterns in zebrafish (Danio rerio) after exposure to phosalone-based and cypermethrin-based pesticides

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 160, 期 -, 页码 265-272

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.05.055

关键词

Zebrafish; Cypermethrin; Phosalone; Biomarker; Recovery

资金

  1. Inonu University Research Fund [2012/171]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the toxic effects and recovery patterns in zebrafish (Danio redo) after exposure to phosalone-based (PBP) and cypermethrin-based (CBP) pesticides. Initially, the 96 h LC50 values of the pesticides were calculated as being 5.35 mu g of active ingredient (AI) L-1 for CBP and 217 mu g AI L-1 for PBP based on measured concentrations. Accordingly, experimental groups were exposed to three sublethal concentrations of pesticides for 96 h, separately, and then zebrafish were transferred to pesticide-free conditions for 10 and 20 days recovery periods. Biochemical markers were assessed including carboxylesterase (CaE), acetylcholinesterase (AChE), glutathione S-transferase (GST), lactate dehydrogenase, glutathione peroxidase, catalase, alanine and aspartate aminotransferase (ALT, AST) activities after the exposure and recovery periods. Also, the pesticide concentrations in test water were quantified by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis. Our results showed that AChE and CaE activities were significantly inhibited and GST was induced by both pesticides after 96 h exposure. For PBP exposure, the decreases for GST induction and CaE inhibition showed a partial recovery in pesticide-free conditions. However, the decreases in AChE activity for CBP exposure and insufficient increases in same enzyme activity for PBP exposure after 20 days in pesticide-free conditions indicated that the projected recovery period was not enough to the recovery of AChE activities and for the improvement of fish health.

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