4.8 Article

Aromatic Naphthenic Acids in Oil Sands Process-Affected Water, Resolved by GCxGC-MS, Only Weakly Induce the Gene for Vitellogenin Production in Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Larvae

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 47, 期 12, 页码 6614-6620

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es304799m

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council [228149]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Process waters from oil sands industries (OSPW) have been reported to exhibit estrogenic effects. Although the compounds responsible are unknown, some aromatic naphthenic acids (NA) have been implicated. The present study was designed to investigate whether aromatic NA might cause such effects. Here we demonstrate induction of vitellogenin genes (vtg) in fish, which is a common bioassay used to indicate effects consistent with exposure to exogenous estrogens. Solutions in water of 20-2000 mu g L-1 of an extract of a total OSPW NA concentrate did not induce expression of vtg in larval zebrafish, consistent with earlier studies which showed that much higher NA concentrations of undiluted OSPW were needed. Although 20-2000 mu g L-1 of an esterifiable NA subfraction of the OSPW NA concentrate did induce expression, this was of much lower magnitude to that induced by much lower concentrations of 17 alpha-ethynyl estradiol, indicating that the effect of the total NAs was only weak. However, given the high NA concentrations and large volumes of OSPW extant in Canada, it is important to ascertain which of these esterifiable NA in the OSPW produce the effect. Up to 1000 mu g L-1 of an OSPW subfraction containing only alicyclic NA, and considered by most authors to be NA sensu stricto, did not produce induction; but, as predicted, 10-1000 mu g L-1 of an aromatic NA fraction did. Such effects by the aromatic acids are again consistent with those of only a weak estrogenic substance. These findings may help to focus studies of the most environmentally significant OSPW-related pollutants, if reproduced in a greater range of OSPW.

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

4.8
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