4.5 Article

Perfluoroalkyl contaminants in plasma of five sea turtle species: Comparisons in concentration and potential health risks

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 31, 期 6, 页码 1223-1230

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/etc.1818

关键词

Marine turtles; Reptiles; Environmental pollutants; Trophic magnification; Persistent organic pollutants

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DBI-0552828]
  2. Department of Defense ASSURE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The authors compared blood plasma concentrations of 13 perfluoroalkyl contaminants (PFCs) in five sea turtle species with differing trophic levels. Wild sea turtles were blood sampled from the southeastern region of the United States, and plasma was analyzed using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Mean concentrations of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), the predominant PFC, increased with trophic level from herbivorous greens (2.41?ng/g), jellyfish-eating leatherbacks (3.95?ng/g), omnivorous loggerheads (6.47?ng/g), to crab-eating Kemp's ridleys (15.7?ng/g). However, spongivorous hawksbills had surprisingly high concentrations of PFOS (11.9?ng/g) and other PFCs based on their trophic level. These baseline concentrations of biomagnifying PFCs demonstrate interesting species and geographical differences. The measured PFOS concentrations were compared with concentrations known to cause toxic effects in laboratory animals, and estimated margins of safety (EMOS) were calculated. Small EMOS (<100), suggestive of potential risk of adverse health effects, were observed for all five sea turtle species for immunosuppression. Estimated margins of safety less than 100 were also observed for liver, thyroid, and neurobehavorial effects for the more highly exposed species. These baseline concentrations and the preliminary EMOS exercise provide a better understanding of the potential health risks of PFCs for conservation managers to protect these threatened and endangered species. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2012;31:12231230. (c) 2012 SETAC

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