| Literature DB >> 27800488 |
Ilenia Saggese1, Gianluca Sarà2, Francesco Dondero1.
Abstract
We investigated the functional trait responses to 5 nm metallic silver nanoparticle (AgNPs) exposure in the Lessepsian-entry bivalve B. pharaonis. Respiration rate (oxygen consumption), heartbeat rate, and absorption efficiency were evaluated across an 8-day exposure period in mesocosmal conditions. Basal reference values from not-exposed specimens were statistically compared with those obtained from animals treated with three sublethal nanoparticle concentrations (2 μg L-1, 20 μg L-1, and 40 μg L-1). Our data showed statistically significant effects on the average respiration rate of B. pharaonis. Moreover, complex nonlinear dynamics were observed as a function of the concentration level and time. Heartbeat rates largely increased with no acclimation in animals exposed to the two highest levels with similar temporal dynamics. Eventually, a decreasing trend for absorption efficiency might indicate energetic constraints. In general, these data support the possible impact of engineered nanomaterials in marine environments and support the relevance of functional trait assessment in present and future ecotoxicological studies.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27800488 PMCID: PMC5069385 DOI: 10.1155/2016/1872351
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
ANOVA details for the effects of 5 AgNP exposure on B. pharaonis normalized respiration rate (RR).
| Source | DF | MS |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CONC | 3 | 8570.4 | 3.62 |
|
| TIME | 4 | 5490.6 | 2.32 | ns |
| CONC × TIME | 12 | 4336.8 | 1.83 | ns |
| Residuals | 40 | 2365.7 |
Factors tested for dependence were concentration (CONC) and exposure time (TIME). Shown are DF, degree of freedom; MS, mean square; F, F-test result; and P, P value [∗ = P ≤ 0.05; and ns = no significant difference (P > 0.05)].
Figure 1Effects of 5 nm AgNP on average B. pharaonis respiration rates (RR). Shown is the normalized average (±SEM) respiration rate (μmol h−1 g−1) across the 8-day exposure period. The ANOVA post hoc test did not show statistically significant differences between the control not-exposed samples and the AgNP treated ones (TNK-test P > 0.05).
Figure 2B. pharaonis respiration rates (RR) dynamics. The plot shows respiration rates (RR, μmol h−1 g−1) versus AgNP concentrations (μg L−1). Continuous line: average RR; dotted-line, 1-SD confidence interval.
ANOVA details for the effects of AgNP exposure on B. pharaonis heart beat rate (HBR).
| Source | DF | MS |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CONC | 4 | 215.2 | 5.342 |
|
| TIME | 3 | 510.8 | 12.679 |
|
| CONC × TIME | 12 | 124.8 | 3.098 |
|
| Residuals | 40 | 40.3 |
Factors tested for dependence were concentration (CONC) and exposure time (TIME). Shown are DF, degree of freedom; MS, mean square; F, F-test result; and P, P value [∗∗ = P ≤ 0.01; ∗∗∗ = P ≤ 0.001; and ns = no significant difference (P > 0.05)].
Figure 3B. pharaonis heartbeat rates (HBRs) dynamics. The plot shows heartbeat rates (HBRs, beat min−1) versus AgNP concentrations (μg L−1). Continuous line: average HBR; dotted-line, 1-SD confidence interval.
ANOVA post hoc comparison for HBR.
| CONC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | |
| CONC × | TIME | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 0 | 0 | — | |||||||||||||||||||
| 0 | 2 | ns | — | ||||||||||||||||||
| 0 | 4 | ns | ns | — | |||||||||||||||||
| 0 | 6 | ns | ns | ns | — | ||||||||||||||||
| 0 | 8 | ns | ns | ns | ns | — | |||||||||||||||
| 2 | 0 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | — | ||||||||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | — | |||||||||||||
| 2 | 4 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | — | ||||||||||||
| 2 | 6 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | — | |||||||||||
| 2 | 8 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | — | ||||||||||
| 20 | 0 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | — | |||||||||
| 20 | 2 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | — | ||||||||
| 20 | 4 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | — | |||||||
| 20 | 6 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | — | ||||||
| 20 | 8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ns | ns | ns | — | |||||
| 40 | 0 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | — | ||||
| 40 | 2 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ns | — | |||
| 40 | 4 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ns | ns | — | ||
| 40 | 6 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | — | |
| 40 | 8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
|
| ns | — |
SNK-test and P value [∗ = P ≤ 0.05; ∗∗ = P ≤ 0.01; ∗∗∗ = P ≤ 0.001; and ns = no significant difference (P > 0.05)].
Figure 4B. pharaonis absorption efficiency (AE). AE average (±SEM) values for the effects of 5 nm AgNP exposure are depicted. The decreasing trend observed was not statistically significant (1-way ANOVA, P = 0.18).