4.7 Article

Evaluation of the aquatic toxicity of two veterinary sulfonamides using five test organisms

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 81, 期 6, 页码 788-793

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.07.003

关键词

Sulfonamides; Veterinary; Toxicity; Daphnia; Algae; Lemna

资金

  1. MURST (Ministero dell'Universita e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aquatic toxicity of sulfaquinoxaline (SQO) and sulfaguanidine (SGD) was evaluated on the following test organisms: Daphnia magna (reproduction test), Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, Scenedesmus dimorphus, Synecococcus leopoliensis (algal growth inhibition test) and Lemna gibba (duckweed growth inhibition test). Furthermore, the additivity of the two compounds was measured on D. magna (acute immobilisation test) and P. subcapitata (algal growth inhibition test) using the isobologram method. Results show that SQO and SGD are more toxic to green algae and daphnids, respectively, than other veterinary sulfonamides (SAs) and that their mixtures have a less then additive interaction. Taking into account the highest concentrations detected so far in surface waters for SQO (0.112 mu g L-1) and for SGD (0.145 mu g L-1) and the lowest NOECs obtained with the five test organisms, divided by an assessment factor of 10, the following PNECs and risk quotients (RQs) were calculated. SQO: PNEC 2 mu g L-1; RQ 0.056. SGD: PNEC 39.5 mu g L-1; RQ 0.004. Consequently, at the concentrations actually detected in the aquatic environment, the two SAs alone should not harm the freshwater organisms. However, it seems advisable, for veterinary mass treatments, the use of other SAs that have a lesser impact on the aquatic environment. Furthermore, considering the high probability of having complex mixtures of different SAs residues in water, each individual contamination should be evaluated by applying to the SAs mixtures the conservative criteria of additivity. (c) 2010 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