4.7 Article

Integrated biomarker response index as a useful tool for environmental assessment evaluated using transplanted mussels

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 66, 期 3, 页码 574-583

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.05.032

关键词

biomarkers; chemical pollutants; Mediterranean mussel; transplantation experiment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mytilus galloprovincialis mussels from a clean area were transplanted from 2003 to 2005 to several stations in the Bay of Cannes (North-Western Mediterranean Sea) including a site considered as reference, for I month at the end of spring (May). Several biomarkers (AChE, GST and CAT activities, TBARS and MT concentrations) were measured in the transplanted organisms. The concentrations of metals (Cd, Cu and Zn) were determined in the transplanted mussels, PAH and PCB analyses were performed in the mussels caged in 2004. The integrated biomarker response (IBR) was calculated; pollutant concentrations in mussels were displayed as star plots and compared to IBR star plots. Visualization was thus possible between sites for comparison with exposure conditions. Results demonstrated that the mussels from the Old harbour site (VP) are characterized by elevated copper and PCB concentrations, those from Canto harbour (PC) presented high PCB contents and those from the mouth of the Siagne River (ES) high PAH concentrations compared to the animals transplanted in the reference site (IL). In 2003, there was a visual correlation between the copper gradient measured in the transplanted mussels and the IBR variation. In 2004, the agreement between the copper gradient and the PCB gradient measured in the caged mussels and the IBR variation was good whereas the PAH gradient did not seem to contribute to the IBR demonstrating that the chosen biomarkers did not respond to PAHs. In 2005, IBR showed that other contaminants, not measured might be present in VP, PC and ES compared to the reference station (IL). (c) 2006 Elsevier 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