4.7 Article

Measuring and modelling mixture toxicity of imidacloprid and thiacloprid on Caenorhabditis elegans and Eisenia fetida

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 72, 期 1, 页码 71-79

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2008.07.006

关键词

Concentration addition; Synergism; Antagonism; Dose level dependence; Neonicotinoids; Piperonyl butoxide

资金

  1. European Union project NoMiracle (European Commission, FP6) [003956]
  2. University of Reading
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [ceh010023] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While the standard models of concentration addition and independent action predict overall toxicity of multicomponent mixtures reasonably, interactions may limit the predictive capability when a few compounds dominate a mixture. This study was conducted to test if statistically significant systematic deviations from concentration addition (i.e. synergism/antagonism, dose ratio- or dose level-dependency) occur when two taxonomically unrelated species, the earthworm Eisenia fetida and the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans were exposed to a full range of mixtures of the similar acting neonicotinoid pesticides imidacloprid and thiacloprid. The effect of the mixtures on C. elegans was described significantly better (p<0.01) by a dose level-dependent deviation from the concentration addition model than by the reference model alone, while the reference model description of the effects on E. fetida could not be significantly improved. These results highlight that deviations from concentration addition are possible even with similar acting compounds, but that the nature of such deviations are species dependent. For improving ecological risk assessment of simple mixtures, this implies that the concentration addition model may need to be used in a probabilistic context, rather than in its traditional deterministic manner. Crown Copyright (C) 2008 Published by Elsevier Inc. 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