4.7 Article

Psychotropic drugs in mixture alter swimming behaviour of Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes) larvae above environmental concentrations

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 4964-4977

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-014-3477-4

关键词

Psychotropics; Locomotor activity; Japanese medaka; Video tracking; Environmental risk evaluation

资金

  1. Aquitaine region (Medic'eau project)
  2. French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety ANSES ( Psycheau project)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Psychiatric pharmaceuticals, such as anxiolytics, sedatives, hypnotics and antidepressors, are among the most prescribed active substances in the world. The occurrence of these compounds in the environment, as well as the adverse effects they can have on non-target organisms, justifies the growing concern about these emerging environmental pollutants. This study aims to analyse the effects of six psychotropic drugs, valproate, cyamemazine, citalopram, sertraline, fluoxetine and oxazepam, on the survival and locomotion of Japanese medaka Oryzias latipes larvae. Newly hatched Japanese medaka were exposed to individual compounds for 72 h, at concentrations ranging from 10 mu g L-1 to 10 mg L-1. Lethal concentrations 50 % (LC50) were estimated at 840, 841 and 9,136 mu g L-1 for fluoxetine, sertraline and citalopram, respectively, while other compounds did not induce any significant increase in mortality. Analysis of the swimming behaviour of larvae, including total distance moved, mobility and location, provided an estimated lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) of 10 mu g L-1 for citalopram and oxazepam, 12.2 mu g L-1 for cyamemazine, 100 mu g L-1 for fluoxetine, 1,000 mu g L-1 for sertraline and > 10,000 mu g L-1 for valproate. Realistic environmental mixture of the six psychotropic compounds induced disruption of larval locomotor behaviour at concentrations about 10- to 100-fold greater than environmental concentrations.

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