4.7 Article

Effects of sampling, preparation and defecation on metal concentrations in selected invertebrates at urban sites

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 52, 期 7, 页码 1095-1103

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00442-9

关键词

bioindication; cadmium; lead; copper; zinc; AAS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to obtain basic information for designing standardized test preparation methods, the heavy metals Zn, Cu, Cd and Pb were measured in gastropods (Xerolenta obvia), oligochaetes (Lumbricus terrestris), isopods (Armadillidium vulgare, Trachelipus rathkei) and carabids (Harpalus rubripes, Calathus fuscipes) using different sampling methods and different modes of sample treatment. In some of the experiments, higher Zn, Cd and Pb, and lower Cu-contents were observed in isopods and carabids trapped with formalin-pitfalls compared to manually collected specimens (which were allowed to defecate). Defecation had marked effects on the levels of all four metals investigated in oligochaetes, and on Cd and Pb in gastropods and isopods. Cellulose was fed as an accelerator of gut passage and showed a significant effect on the Pb concentration in the soft body of gastropods. Deionate-washed isopods (A. vulgare) showed higher Cd concentrations than ultrasonic-cleaned individuals. No marked differences were observed between heat-dried and freeze-dried isopods. Carabids showed strong sex-specific differences in metal concentrations. Based on these and previous results, invertebrates should be: collected in vivo, allowed to defecate, be freeze-fixed and (at least in arthropods) ultrasonic-cleaned, determined to species level and in certain groups (carabids) also to sex, and then be sized or sorted by size (age) before further preparation and analysis. If any of these treatments is impractical, comparable sampling and preparation methods are recommended as a minimum requirement in order to avoid bias in the results and/or interpretation. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. 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