4.7 Article

Biochemical and standard toxic effects of acetaminophen on the macrophyte species Lemna minor and Lemna gibba

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 21, 期 18, 页码 10815-10822

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-014-3059-5

关键词

Aquatic plants; Pharmaceutical drugs; Paracetamol; Oxidative stress; Biomarkers

资金

  1. European Funds through COMPETE
  2. National Funds through the Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT) [PEst-C/MAR/LA0017/2013]
  3. Human Potential Operational Programme (National Strategic Reference Framework)
  4. European Social Fund (EU)
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PEst-C/MAR/LA0017/2013] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acetaminophen is globally one of the most prescribed drugs due to its antipyretic and analgesic properties. However, it is highly toxic when the dosage surpasses the detoxification capability of an exposed organism, with involvement of an already described oxidative stress pathway. To address the issue of the ecotoxicity of acetaminophen, we performed acute exposures of two aquatic plant species, Lemna gibba and Lemna minor, to this compound. The selected biomarkers were number of fronds, biomass, chlorophyll content, lipid peroxidation (TBARS assay), and proline content. Our results showed marked differences between the two species. Acetaminophen caused a significant decrease in the number of fronds (EC50 = 446.6 mg/L), and the establishment of a dose-dependent peroxidative damage in L. minor, but not in L. gibba. No effects were reported in both species for the indicative parameters chlorophyll content and total biomass. However, the proline content in L. gibba was substantially reduced. The overall conclusions point to the occurrence of an oxidative stress scenario more prominent for L. minor. However, the mechanisms that allowed L. gibba to cope with acetaminophen exposure were distinct from those reported for L. minor, with the likely involvement of proline as antioxidant.

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