Effects of waterborne copper nanoparticles and copper sulphate on rainbow trout, (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Physiology and accumulation

Shaw, Benjamin J.; Al-Bairuty, Genan A.; Handy, Richard D.

doi:10.1016/j.aquatox.2012.02.032

Cited by 201 publications

(159 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

132

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cu is more bioavailable in aquatic than in terrestrial systems, where it can be bound in minerals. In addition to the known toxic effect of exposure to non-nano Cu, there is the potential for additional nano-related toxicity resulting from exposure to Cu NPs in the environment (Garner and Keller, 2014;Perreault et al, 2012;Baun et al, 2008;Manusadžianas et al, 2012;Shaw et al, 2012). The following studies present a hierarchical assessment of Cu NP toxicity.…”

Section: Toxicity Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative environmental fate and toxicity of copper nanomaterials

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TGiven increasing use of copper-based nanomaterials, particularly in applications with direct release, it is imperative to understand their human and ecological risks. A comprehensive and systematic approach was used to determine toxicity and fate of several Cu nanoparticles (Cu NPs). When used as pesticides in agriculture, Cu NPs effectively control pests. However, even at low (5-20 mg Cu/plant) doses, there are metabolic effects due to the accumulation of Cu and generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Embedded in antifouling paints, Cu NPs are released as dissolved Cu + 2 and in nano-and micron-scale particles. Once released, Cu NPs can rapidly (hours to weeks) oxidize, dissolve, and form CuS and other insoluble Cu compounds, depending on water chemistry (e.g. salinity, alkalinity, organic matter content, presence of sulfide and other complexing ions). More than 95% of Cu released into the environment will enter soil and aquatic sediments, where it may accumulate to potentially toxic levels (> 50-500 μg/L). Toxicity of Cu compounds was generally ranked by high throughput assays as: Cu + 2 > nano Cu(0) > nano Cu(OH) 2 > nano CuO > micron-scale Cu compounds. In addition to ROS generation, Cu NPs can damage DNA plasmids and affect embryo hatching enzymes. Toxic effects are observed at much lower concentrations for aquatic organisms, particularly freshwater daphnids and marine amphipods, than for terrestrial organisms. This knowledge will serve to predict environmental risks, assess impacts, and develop approaches to mitigate harm while promoting beneficial uses of Cu NPs.

show abstract

Section: Toxicity Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative environmental fate and toxicity of copper nanomaterials

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, Zhao et al (2007) showed that particle size is directly correlated with relevant factors that affect nanotoxicity in organisms. The characteristics of waterborne metal NP have been reported in several studies by using the single particle sized surface area, aggregation, and zeta potential (Zhao et al, 2011;Shaw et al, 2012;Isani et al, 2013). However, each study has inherent limitations about how the different NP sizes can induce a variety of particle properties that subsequently affect nanotoxicity.…”

Section: Size-dependent Toxicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wang and Rainbow (2006) suggested that specific subcellular distribution of chemicals could reflect their toxic reactions. Recently, most studies have shown negative effects and tissue accumulations of metal NPs among aquatic organisms (Zhao et al, 2011;Farmen et al, 2012;Shaw et al, 2012;Maes et al, 2014). However, little is known, about the subcellular distribution and the mechanistic modeling for describing the nano-characteristics of toxicokinetics and subcellular partitioning in aquatic organisms, especially for NP size-dependent physiochemical properties and parameters.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toxicokinetic Modeling Challenges for Aquatic Nanotoxicology

Chen

2016

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nanotoxicity has become of increasing concern since the rapid development of metal nanoparticles (NPs). Aquatic nanotoxicity depends on crucial qualitative and quantitative properties of nanomaterials that induce adverse effects on subcellular, tissue, and, organ level. The dose-response effects of size-dependent metal NPs, however, are not well investigated in aquatic organisms. In order to determine the uptake and elimination rate constants for metal NPs in the metabolically active/detoxified pool of tissues, a one-compartmental toxicokinetic model can be applied when subcellular partitioning of metal NPs data would be available. The present review is an attempt to describe the nano-characteristics of toxicokinetics and subcellular partitioning on aquatic organisms with the help of the mechanistic modeling for NP size-dependent physiochemical properties and parameters. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models can provide an effective tool to estimate the time course of NP accumulation in target organs and is useful in quantitative risk assessments. NP accumulation in fish should take into account different effects of different NP sizes to better understand tissue accumulative capacities and dynamics. The size-dependent NP partition coefficient is a crucial parameter that influences tissue accumulation levels in PBPK modeling. Further research is needed to construct the effective systems-level oriented toxicokinetic model that can provide a useful tool to develop quantitatively the robustly approximate relations that convey a better insight into the impacts of environmental metal NPs on subcellular and tissue/organ responses in aquatic organisms.

show abstract

“…The responses of Na [12] suggested an ionoregulatory toxicity of CuNP to rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). In addition, exposure to the Cr ion also inhibited the gill Na + /K + -ATP activity in Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) [35].…”

Section: Biomarker Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chromium nanoparticles (CrNP) are mainly applied in catalysts, pigments, and electroplating and tanning processes, as well as trace elements in food additives [10][11]. Due to their continuous release into the aquatic environment, both acute and chronic toxicity of CuNP have been observed in various aquatic species, including phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish, in which CuNP showed similar types of toxic effects as ionic Cu [12][13][14][15][16]. In our previous study, the presence of CrNP significantly inhibited the reproduction and growth of Daphnia magna, and the antioxidant enzyme activities were simultaneously decreased [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential Toxicity in Crucian Carp Following Exposure to Metallic Nanoparticles of Copper, Chromium, and Their Mixtures: A Comparative Study

Liu¹,

Yan²,

Xia³

et al. 2017

Pol. J. Environ. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although study of the toxicity of metallic nanoparticles in aquatic organisms is increasing, there is still little known about their combined toxicity, especially in a comparative and integrated approach. The objective of this study is to compare the toxicity of copper nanoparticles (CuNP), chromium nanoparticles (CrNP), and their mixtures to crucian carp (Carassius auratus) through a comprehensive approach. A high median lethal concentration of CuNP (390.75 mg/L) and CrNP (551.03 mg/L) was calculated from the acute toxicity, indicative of low toxicity to crucian carp. After exposure for 10 d at sublethal concentrations, several biomarker responses, including the activities of brain acetylcholinesterase (AChE), gill sodium/ potassium-activated ATP (Na + /K + -ATP), liver superoxide dismutase (SOD), and catalase (CAT) were significantly inhibited by all nanoparticles in most cases, implying the neurotoxicity, osmoregulatory toxicity, and oxidative damage of metallic nanoparticles. Thereafter, the integrated biomarker response version 2 (IBRv2) integrating all biomarker responses was applied to compare the toxicity, and therefore the toxicity order was tentatively proposed as: the mixtures ≈ CuNP＞CrNP, suggesting a synergistic effect in the mixtures. The findings will help to understand the ecological impacts of metallic nanoparticles in an aquatic environment in a more complete and accurate picture.

show abstract

Effects of waterborne copper nanoparticles and copper sulphate on rainbow trout, (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Physiology and accumulation

Cited by 201 publications

References 49 publications

Comparative environmental fate and toxicity of copper nanomaterials

Comparative environmental fate and toxicity of copper nanomaterials

Toxicokinetic Modeling Challenges for Aquatic Nanotoxicology

Potential Toxicity in Crucian Carp Following Exposure to Metallic Nanoparticles of Copper, Chromium, and Their Mixtures: A Comparative Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About