Ecotoxicological assessment of biosolids by microcosms

Groth, Vitor Avelar; Carvalho-Pereira, Ticiana; Silva, Eduardo Mendes da; Niemeyer, Júlia Carina

doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.07.029

Cited by 17 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Within the literature, study conclusions from experiments using non-spiked biosolids are variable. Groth et al (2016) found that reproduction bioassays in biosolids-amended soils produced a minimum of 100 juveniles/vessel higher than numbers observed in reference soils (2016): the difference between population abundance within reference and treatment soils across the trials did meet this criterion to signal an effect, nor were there a statistically signi cant impact of biosolids observed. Artuso et al…”

Section: Folsomia Candida Chronic Bioassay Resultsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Is Land-Applying Biosolids to Agricultural Areas “Sustainable”? Part One: Assessing the Potential Chronic, Sublethal and Lethal Ecotoxicity of Biosolids on Folsomia Candida and Lumbricus Terrestris.

Puddephatt

McCarthy

Serre

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ecotoxicity of biosolids has been studied extensively using single-compound toxicity testing and ‘spiking’ studies; however, little knowledge exists on the ecotoxicity of biosolids as they are land-applied in the Canadian context. The purpose of this study is to elucidate the chronic, sublethal (i.e., behavioural), and lethal impacts of land- applying biosolids on the environmentally-relevant Folsomia candida (springtails) and Lumbricus terrestris (earthworms) and concomitantly ascertain whether the use of biosolids for nutrient amendment is a sustainable practice. This study is part of a larger multi-compartment program which includes terrestrial plants and aquatic arthropods. After an extensive review of government protocols and existing research in the literature, the current study attempted to elucidate the true nature of the potential ecotoxicity of land-applying biosolids, within a laboratory context. Protocols were developed or modified (e.g., using Evans’ boxes (Evans 1947) for chronic and sublethal testing on L. terrestris). Subsequently, two biosolids were tested on springtails and earthworms using avoidance and reproductive bioassay endpoints, at application rates that are standard (8 tonnes ha-1) and worst-case scenarios (22 tonnes ha-1). Results indicated no effect of biosolids at the environmentally-relevant concentration; the worst-case scenario exhibited a positive significantly significant relationship (indicating preference for treatment conditions). We suggest that further assessment of the potential ecotoxicological impact of biosolids employ i) environmentally-relevant organisms, ii) appropriate bioassays including the use of whole-organism endpoints, and iii) multi-kingdom testing (e.g., Kingdom Plantae, Animalia) to comprehensively elucidate answers. Lastly, in situ (field assays) are strongly encouraged in future studies.

show abstract

Section: Folsomia Candida Chronic Bioassay Resultsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Is Land-Applying Biosolids to Agricultural Areas “Sustainable”? Part One: Assessing the Potential Chronic, Sublethal and Lethal Ecotoxicity of Biosolids on Folsomia Candida and Lumbricus Terrestris.

Puddephatt

McCarthy

Serre

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…its' clearance of ROS products, moreover, the reduced GSH is also known to be involved in ROS detoxification processes. 49 Herein, results indicated that AITC increased SOD (Cu/Zn) and iNOS, but decreased catalase, GSH in AGS cells (Figure 3A), that will lead to the production of ROS and RNS. On the other hand, AITC did not significantly alter these antioxidant enzymes in SNU-1 cells (Figure 3B), in addition to iNOS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…It is being focused to consider carcinogenicity and safety assessment based on induction of oxidative DNA damage amounts. Intracellular catalase is named an antioxidant enzyme based its' clearance of ROS products, moreover, the reduced GSH is also known to be involved in ROS detoxification processes 49 . Herein, results indicated that AITC increased SOD (Cu/Zn) and iNOS, but decreased catalase, GSH in AGS cells (Figure 3A), that will lead to the production of ROS and RNS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Allyl isothiocyanate induces DNA damage and inhibits DNA repair‐associated proteins in a human gastric cancer cells in vitro

Shih,

Hsu,

Lai

et al. 2023

Environmental Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Allyl isothiocyanate (AITC) is abundant in cruciferous vegetables and it present pharmacological activity including anticancer activity in many types of human cancer cells in vitro and in vivo. Currently, no available information to show AITC affecting DNA damage and repair‐associated protein expression in human gastric cancer cells. Therefore, in the present studies, we investigated AITC‐induced cytotoxic effects on human gastric cancer in AGS and SNU‐1 cells whether or not via the induction of DNA damage and affected DNA damage and repair associated poteins expressions in vitro. Cell viability and morphological changes were assayed by flow cytometer and phase contrast microscopy, respectively, the results indicated AITC induced cell morphological changes and decreased total viable cells in AGS and SNU‐1 cells in a dose‐dependently. AITC induced DNA condensation and damage in a dose‐dependently which based on the cell nuclei was stained by 4′, 6‐diamidino‐2‐phenylindole present in AGS and SNU‐1 cells. DNA damage and repair associated proteins expression in AGS and SNU‐1 cells were measured by Western blotting. The results indicated AITC decreased nuclear factor erythroid 2‐related factor 2 (NRF2), heme oxygenase‐1 (HO‐1), glutathione, and catalase, but increased superoxide dismutase (SOD (Cu/Zn)), and nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) in AGS cells, however, in SNU‐1 cells are increased HO‐1. AITC increased DNA‐dependent protein kinase (DNA‐PK), phosphorylation of gamma H2A histone family member X on Ser139 (γH2AXpSer139), and heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) in AGS cells. AITC increased DNA‐PK, mediator of DNA damage checkpoint protein 1 (MDC1), γH2AXpSer139, topoisomerase II alpha (TOPIIα), topoisomerase II beta (TOPIIβ), HSP90, and heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) in SNU‐1 cells. AITC increased p53, p53pSer15, and p21 but decreased murine double minute 2 (MDM2)pSer166 and O6‐methylguanine‐DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) in AGS cells; however, it has a similar effect of AITC except increased ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3‐related protein (ATR)pSer428, checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1), and checkpoint kinase 2 (CHK2) in SNU‐1 cells. Apparently, both cell responses to AITC are different, nonetheless, all of these observations suggest that AITC inhibits the growth of gastric cancer cells may through induction off DNA damage in vitro.

show abstract

“…Holistic observations from test organisms directly, using a series of lifecycle endpoints that indicate toxic impact, are reasonably su cient. For example, using both terrestrial and aquatic organisms, Groth et al (2016) found insigni cant ecotoxicological effects of two industrial biosolids products on select biota.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Potential Chronic, Lethal, and Multigenerational Ecotoxicity of Land-Applying Biosolids using Zea mays, Glycine max, Phaseolus vulgaris and Brassica rapa

Puddephatt

McCarthy

Serre

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The uncertainty of potential toxicity when land-applying municipal biosolids to agricultural fields needs to be clarified considering the concomitant benefit for nutrient amendment and sustainability of resource recovery. This research is part of a larger program that assessed the toxicity of biosolids to terrestrial and aquatic organisms and this study specifically examined the toxicity of two biosolids when applied to four environmentally-relevant field crops. New bioassays were necessary to test the ecotoxicity of biosolids throughout the entire life cycle of each crop: Zea mays (corn), Glycine max (soybeans), Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean), and Brassica rapa (field mustard). It was hypothesized that biosolids would exhibit impact at both an environmentally-relevant application rate (8 tonnes ha-1) and a worst-case scenario (22 tonnes ha-1). The ecotoxicity of biosolids was tested using chronic, lethal, and multigenerational endpoints (i.e., F1 generation viability). Overall, study findings indicated a positive response to nutrient amendment using biosolids at either application rate. Negative responses to biosolids were seen in early growth stages of some cultivars (Zea mays) but disappeared or became positive as plants matured: these observations would have been made if existing protocols had been followed. Brassica rapa exhibited a negative germination rate when exposed to biosolids; however, further work is necessary to elucidate whether the effect is a result of nutrient additions or physical compaction on the small seed. The complete life-cycle bioassays of crops suggest that plants grown in the biosolids-amended soil were significantly larger and produced more seeds compared to reference assays. These results lend scientific support for their sustainable use in land-application strategies in Canada.

show abstract

Ecotoxicological assessment of biosolids by microcosms

Cited by 17 publications

References 23 publications

Is Land-Applying Biosolids to Agricultural Areas “Sustainable”? Part One: Assessing the Potential Chronic, Sublethal and Lethal Ecotoxicity of Biosolids on Folsomia Candida and Lumbricus Terrestris.

Is Land-Applying Biosolids to Agricultural Areas “Sustainable”? Part One: Assessing the Potential Chronic, Sublethal and Lethal Ecotoxicity of Biosolids on Folsomia Candida and Lumbricus Terrestris.

Allyl isothiocyanate induces DNA damage and inhibits DNA repair‐associated proteins in a human gastric cancer cells in vitro

Assessing the Potential Chronic, Lethal, and Multigenerational Ecotoxicity of Land-Applying Biosolids using Zea mays, Glycine max, Phaseolus vulgaris and Brassica rapa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About