4.7 Review

Toxins of cyanobacteria

期刊

MOLECULAR NUTRITION & FOOD RESEARCH
卷 51, 期 1, 页码 7-60

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mnfr.200600185

关键词

anatoxin-a; aplysiatoxin; cylindrospermopsin; lyngbyatoxin; microcystin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Blue-green algae are found in lakes, ponds, rivers and brackish waters throughout the world. In case of excessive growth such as bloom formation, these bacteria can produce inherent toxins in quantities causing toxicity in mammals, including humans. These cyanotoxins include cyclic peptides and alkaloids. Among the cyclic peptides are the microcystins and the nodularins. The alkaloids include anatoxin-a, anatoxin-a(S), cylindrospermopsin, saxitoxins (STXs), aplysiatoxins and lyngbyatoxin. Both biological and chemical methods are used to determine cyanotoxins. Bioassays and biochemical assays are nonspecific, so they can only be used as screening methods. HPLC has some good prospects. For the subsequent detection of these toxins different detectors may be used, ranging from simple UV-spectrometry via fluorescence detection to various types of MS. The main problem in the determination of cyanobacterial toxins is the lack of reference materials of all relevant toxins. In general, toxicity data on cyanotoxins are rather scarce. A majority of toxicity data are known to be of microcystin-LR. For nodularins, data from a few animal studies are available. For the alkaloids, limited toxicity data exist for anatoxin-a, cylindrospermopsin and STX. Risk assessment for acute exposure could be relevant for some types of exposure. Nevertheless, no acute reference doses have formally been derived thus far. For STX(s), many countries have established tolerance levels in bivalves, but these limits were set in view of STX(s) as biotoxins, accumulating in marine shellfish. Official regulations for other cyanotoxins have not been established, although some (provisional) guideline values have been derived for microcystins in drinking water by WHO and several countries.

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