4.5 Article

Aqueous toxicity and food chain transfer of quantum Dots™ in freshwater algae and Ceriodaphnia dubia

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 27, 期 9, 页码 1958-1963

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1897/07-637.1

关键词

quantum dots; aqueous toxicity; food chain transfer; Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata; Ceriodaphnia dubia

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [P20 RR-16460, P20 RR016460-01, P20 RR016460] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Innovative research and diagnostic techniques for biological testing have advanced during recent years because of the development of semiconductor nanocrystals. Although these commercially available, fluorescent nanocrystals have a protective organic coating, the inner core contains cadmium and selenium. Because these metals have the potential for detrimental environmental effects, concerns have been raised over our lack of understanding about the environmental fate of these products. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency test protocol and fluorescence microscopy were used to determine the fate and effect of quantum dots (QDs; Qdot((R)) 545 ITK (TM) Carboxyl Quantum Dots [Fisher Scientific, Fisher part Q21391MP; Invitrogen Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR, USA]) using standard aquatic test organisms. No lethality was measured following 48-h exposure of Ceriodaphnia dubia to QD suspensions as high as 110 ppb, but the 96-h median lethal concentration to Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata was measured at 37.1 ppb. Transfer of QDs from dosed algae to C. dubia was verified with fluorescence microscopy. These results indicate that coatings present on nanocrystals provide protection from metal toxicity during laboratory exposures but that the transfer of core metals from intact nanocrystals may occur at levels well above toxic threshold values, indicating the potential exposure of higher trophic levels. Studies regarding the fate and effects of nanoparticles can be incorporated into models for predictive toxicology of these emerging contaminants.

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

4.5
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