| Literature DB >> 29391422 |
Jie Liu1, Xiaoying Zhang1, Mengran Yang1, Meiying Hu1, Guohua Zhong2.
Abstract
Bioremediation techniques coupling with functional microorganisms have emerged as the most promising approaches for in-situ elimination of pesticide residue. However, the environmental safety of bio-products based on microorganisms or engineered enzymes was rarely known. Here, we described the toxicity assessment of two previously fabricated fungal bio-composites which were used for the biodegradation of chlorpyrifos, to clarify their potential risks on the environment and non-target organisms. Firstly, the acute and chronic toxicity of prepared bio-composites were evaluated using mice and rabbits, indicating neither acute nor chronic effect was induced via short-term or continuous exposure. Then, the acute mortality on zebrafish was investigated, which implied the application of fungal bio-composites had no lethal risk on aquatic organisms. Meanwhile, the assessment on soil organic matters suggested that no threat was posed to soil quality. Finally, by monitoring, the germination of cabbage was not affected by the exposure to two bio-products. Therefore, the application of fungal bio-composites for chlorpyrifos elimination cannot induce toxic risk to the environment and non-target organisms, which insured the safety of these engineered bio-products for realistic management of pesticide residue, and provided new insights for further development of bioremediation techniques based on functional microorganisms.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29391422 PMCID: PMC5794795 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-20265-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Oral toxic effects of LF and PE bio-composites on mouse organs. (A) Effects on organs of female mice and (B) paraffin sections of affected organs. (C) Effects on organs of male mice and (D) paraffin sections of affected organs.
The ocular tolerability towards two bio-composites in rabbit eyes (n = 4).
| Formulation | Time | Conjunctiva | Iris hyperemia | Corneal opacity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Congestion | Swelling | Discharge | ||||
| Control | 10 min | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 h | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| LF | 10 min | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 h | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| PE | 10 min | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 h | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Figure 2Assessment of mouse serum biochemistry and physiology after continuous oral intake of LF and PE bio-composites for 20 d. The levels of (A) ALT, (B) AST, (C) CRE, (D) GLU, (E) BUN, (F) HGB, (G) PLT and (H) RBC.
Figure 3The micronucleus effects on mice bone marrow cells via chronic exposure to two fungal bio-composites. The micronucleus rates (top) and related micro-observation images (below).
The acute toxicity (48 h) of two chlorpyrifos-degrading bio-composites on zebrafish (n = 10).
| Time (h) | Treatment | LC50 (mg L−1) | Regression equation |
| 95% confidence limits (mg L−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | LF | 324.1 | y = −6.534 + 2.603 | 0.974 | 282.1~384.5 |
| PE | 223.7 | y = −6.140 + 2.613 | 0.935 | 198.9~255.2 | |
| 48 | LF | 204.6 | y = −6.382 + 2.762 | 0.972 | 139.7~360.6 |
| PE | 170.8 | y = −7.388 + 3.309 | 0.960 | 121.1~262.7 |
Figure 4Effects of two fungal bio-composites on soil respiration and microbial biomass via chronic exposure. The effects on soil respiration caused by (A) LF and (B) PE bio-composites. The contents of (C) OC, (D) ON and (E) OP in soil.
The seed germination and DI of downy mildew in cabbage under exposure of LF and PE bio-composites.
| Treatment | Dosage (mg L−1) | Germination (%) (7 d) | DI (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 d | 21 d | |||
| LF | 10 | 97.02 ± 0.60a | 15.74 ± 0.45d | 17.01 ± 0.07cd |
| 50 | 96.23 ± 0.54b | 17.63 ± 0.23a | 18.13 ± 0.25b | |
| 100 | 95.91 ± 0.23c | 17.01 ± 0.38b | 17.83 ± 0.41c | |
| PE | 10 | 96.95 ± 0.36a | 16.03 ± 0.42cd | 16.94 ± 0.56d |
| 50 | 96.17 ± 0.43b | 16.42 ± 0.31c | 17.06 ± 0.93cd | |
| 100 | 95.22 ± 0.51c | 18.01 ± 0.28a | 18.15 ± 0.51a | |
| Control | 97.14 ± 0.45a | 15.82 ± 0.35d | 16.81 ± 0.33d | |
Note: The data presented are the means with standard deviations of three separate experiments. Different letters indicate significant differences among dosages (p < 0.05, Duncan’s test).