Literature DB >> 15230313

Overview and comparison of lipid-containing semipermeable membrane devices and oysters (Crassostrea gigas) for assessing organic chemical exposure.

James N Huckins1, Harry F Prest, Jimmie D Petty, Jon A Lebo, Maureen M Hodgins, Randal C Clark, David A Alvarez, William R Gala, Alexis Steen, Robert Gale, Christopher G Ingersoll.   

Abstract

We performed 20-d, flow-through exposures of lipid-containing semipermeable membrane devices (SPMDs) and Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) to three concentrations (nominally 10, 100, and 250 ng/L) of a diverse mixture of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Exposure water was seawater free of particulates larger than 0.1 microm. The results of these controlled laboratory studies demonstrated that SPMDs and oysters concentrate the same chemicals but that the relative amounts accumulated are different. For oysters, the 20-d mean (across treatments) concentration factors (CFs) of test compounds with log Kow < or = 4.8 were much lower (4.0- to 20-fold lower) than those of the same compounds in SPMDs. In contrast, the 20-d CFs of PAHs with log Kow > or = 5.6 in oysters from the low-level treatment were higher than the corresponding CFs for SPMDs. The CFs of these compounds in oysters from the low-level treatment ranged from approximately 3.0- to 13-fold higher than those in oysters from the high-level treatment. This physiologically mediated difference in oyster CFs appears to be linked to active feeding in the low-level treatment and to apparent toxicity-induced cessation of feeding (i.e., valve closure) in the high-level treatment. Because CFs for these compounds in oysters were not independent of exposure concentrations, it follows that tissue levels were not proportional to exposure concentration. However, both sampling approaches have advantages and disadvantages, and the appropriateness of their use depends on the goals of a given study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15230313     DOI: 10.1897/03-366

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem        ISSN: 0730-7268            Impact factor:   3.742


  5 in total

Review 1.  Overview of passive Chemcatcher sampling with SPE pretreatment suitable for the analysis of NPEOs and NPs.

Authors:  Heidi Ahkola; Sirpa Herve; Juha Knuutinen
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2012-09-15       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Improvements in pollutant monitoring: optimizing silicone for co-deployment with polyethylene passive sampling devices.

Authors:  Steven G O'Connell; Melissa A McCartney; L Blair Paulik; Sarah E Allan; Lane G Tidwell; Glenn Wilson; Kim A Anderson
Journal:  Environ Pollut       Date:  2014-07-07       Impact factor: 8.071

3.  Passive samplers accurately predict PAH levels in resident crayfish.

Authors:  L Blair Paulik; Brian W Smith; Alan J Bergmann; Greg J Sower; Norman D Forsberg; Justin G Teeguarden; Kim A Anderson
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 7.963

4.  Adapting current model with field data of related performance reference compounds in passive samplers to accurately monitor hydrophobic organic compounds in aqueous media.

Authors:  Pokem Temoka; Gerd Pfister; Bernhard Henkelmann; Karl-Werner Schramm
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2017-10-07       Impact factor: 2.513

5.  Predicting polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in resident aquatic organisms using passive samplers and partial least-squares calibration.

Authors:  Norman D Forsberg; Brian W Smith; Greg J Sower; Kim A Anderson
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2014-05-19       Impact factor: 9.028

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.