4.7 Article

Bioaccumulation of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in Gammarus pulex: Relative importance of different exposure routes and multipathway modeling

期刊

AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY
卷 154, 期 -, 页码 107-113

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2014.05.015

关键词

Biomonitor; Biodynamic model; Toxicokinetics; Dietary exposure; Persistent organic pollutants; Freshwater invertebrate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Characterizing the exposure routes of an organism and its ability to regulate accumulated contaminants is a crucial step toward developing a biomonitor. To date, very little data are available on the bioaccumulation kinetics of PBDEs in freshwater biota. This study aims at investigating the potential use of a litter-degrader widely distributed in European freshwaters, Gammans pulex, as an indicator of exposure to PBDEs. In aquatic microcosms, gammarids were exposed to a mixture of brominated congeners (BDE-28, 47, 66, 85, 99, 100, 153, 154 and 183) to assess their ability to bioconcentrate PBDEs. Results show that all tested congeners are highly internalized by G. pulex and uptake rates of PBDEs are closely related to their partition coefficients (K-ow). The determination of the elimination rate of BDE-47, the congener most readily accumulated by gammarids, indicated that metabolism and excretion of this congener are low in G. pulex, which argues in favor of its use as a quantitative biomonitor. Finally, bioaccumulation experiments were performed using contaminated leaves to determine the relative importance of dietary uptake in the contamination of gammarids. Even though water is the preeminent exposure route, a significant uptake of BDE-47 through food was observed (27%). We propose a biodynamic model that takes into account both exposure routes to describe BDE-47 bioaccumulation. This study supports the use of this ubiquitous amphipod as an early warning monitor of the bioavailable contamination of freshwaters by PBDEs. (C) 2014 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