4.7 Article

Assessment of toxic effects of triclosan on the terrestrial snail (Achatina fulica)

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 108, 期 -, 页码 225-230

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.01.044

关键词

Triclosan; Terrestrial environment; Snail (Achatina fulica); Chronic toxicity test; Risk assessment; Antioxidant enzymes

资金

  1. Program of Environmental Protection Commonweal Research [2011467054, 201109052-1]
  2. National Science and Technology Project of Water Pollution Control and Abatement of China [2012ZX07501-003-06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Triclosan (TCS) is a broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent used in personal care products, and as a result, is widespread in the environment. Toxicity tests of TCS on aquatic organisms have been reported, but limited toxicity data on terrestrial species are available. in this study, the 28-d chronic toxicity of TCS on the biomass, shell diameter growth, and total food intake of the terrestrial snail Achatina fulica were tested. Moreover, biochemical responses, including changes in the activity of catalase (CAT), superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD), and the content of malondialdehyde (MDA), were examined after 14-d and 28-d exposure. Results showed that TCS had toxic effects on the biomass, shell diameter growth, and total food intake of A. fulica with no observed effect concentration (NOEC) values of 24 mg kg(-1). As for the antioxidant enzymes, TCS caused significant oxidative stress even at the low concentration of 24 mg kg(-1). The CAT and POD activities at the high concentrations of 200 and 340 mg kg(-1), respectively, were significantly inhibited. The SOD and CAT activity in treatments below 118 mg kg(-1) and the MDA content in all treatments showed dose-effect relationships. This study demonstrated that TCS caused adverse effects on terrestrial invertebrates, and provided valuable information for the risk assessment imposed by TCS in the terrestrial environment. (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