4.7 Article

The sensitivity of Daphnia magna and Daphnia curvirostris to 10 veterinary antibacterials and to some of their binary mixtures

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 115, 期 -, 页码 67-74

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.02.003

关键词

Daphnia curvirostris; Daphnia magna; Sulfonamides; Fluoroquinolones; Comparison; Mixtures

资金

  1. University of Padua

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability of Daphnia curvirostris for the acute toxicity test usually performed on Daphnia magna, and to compare the sensitivity of the two species toward 10 antibacterials [enrofloxacin (EFX), ciprofloxacin(CPX), sulfaguanidine (SGD), sulfadiazine (SDZ), sulfamethazine (SMZ), sulfaquinoxaline (SQO), sulfaclozine (SCZ), sulfamerazine (SMA), sulfadimethoxine (SDM) and trimethoprim (TMP)] and some of their binary mixtures. Furthermore, a tentative prolonged-toxicity test (lasting 13 d) was settled up in order to evidence toxic responses with drug concentrations that were uneffective in the classic 48 h immobilization test. Results showed that D. curvirostris was more sensitive than D. magna to the majority of compounds (6 out of 10). Lowest 48 h EC50s, were obtained with EFX (4.3 mg L-1 in D. curvirostris) and SGD (6.2 mg L-1 in D. magna). The toxicity of paired compounds was always concentration-additive or less than concentration-additive. In the prolonged-toxicity test mortality and/or reproduction inhibition were constantly observed. It was concluded that: (1) D. curvirostris could be a suitable model for the evaluation of acute toxicity of antibacterials since its sensitivity was generally greater than that of D. magna; (2) the toxicity of EFX and SGD should be given special attention as the two compounds, in the prolonged test, showed to be active at concentrations of 0.9 mg L-1 and 2.5 mg L--1,L- respectively; (3) the concentration addition is usually a reasonable worst case estimation of the environmental impact of antibacterial mixtures. (C) 2014 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