2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2013.05.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Genomic and phenotypic response of hornyhead turbot exposed to municipal wastewater effluents

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
15
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
(97 reference statements)
1
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is attributed to stingray ecology and preference for nearshore habitats that separate them from deeper, more diversely contaminated sediment where historic and current outfall pipes release wastewater (∼8 km offshore and >60 m deep). Although wastewater pharmaceuticals do have effects in biota that use habitat near the outfall pipes in southern California (Vidal‐Dorsch et al ), round stingray tissue previously tested for pharmaceutical contamination resulted in both low frequency of detections for measured compounds and low concentrations of those that were above the limit of detection (e.g., diphenhydramine, an antihistamine; Lyons et al ). Thus, PCBs represent the dominant contaminant at the mainland site.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is attributed to stingray ecology and preference for nearshore habitats that separate them from deeper, more diversely contaminated sediment where historic and current outfall pipes release wastewater (∼8 km offshore and >60 m deep). Although wastewater pharmaceuticals do have effects in biota that use habitat near the outfall pipes in southern California (Vidal‐Dorsch et al ), round stingray tissue previously tested for pharmaceutical contamination resulted in both low frequency of detections for measured compounds and low concentrations of those that were above the limit of detection (e.g., diphenhydramine, an antihistamine; Lyons et al ). Thus, PCBs represent the dominant contaminant at the mainland site.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although there are many researches on contaminants removal from wastewater during its treatment process, studies on the toxicity removal of wastewater are still limited (Mendonca et al, 2013;Ma et al, 2013;Zhao et al, 2014;Zhang et al, 2013a). It was illustrated that conventional activated sludge technology used in WWTPs can effectively reduce the toxicity of wastewater to Vibrio fischeri Surujlal-Naicker et al, 2015), and A 2 /O treatment technology could successfully remove the acute toxicity of influent to zebrafish (Zhang et al, 2013a;Vidal-Dorsch et al, 2013). However, there is still no study on the comparison of toxicity removal by different treatment techniques.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In earlier work by this same group examining gene expression patterns by microarray, the ability to distinguish patterns among sites was significantly improved when data from field caught flounder was combined with responses observed in controlled laboratory exposures . More recent work coming out of the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) on another flatfish, adult horneyhead turbot (Baker et al, 2009Vidal-Dorsch et al, 2013) also reveals complex patterns in gene expression, with many of the same transcripts examined in this study (CYP1A, VTG, HEP, GPDH) being differentially regulated in field caught turbot from sewage impacted areas of southern California and in turbot exposed to sewage effluent in the laboratory. However in the SCCWRP studies the direction of response was not always the same, with the laboratory exposed fish generally showing downregulation as compared to controls, while many of these transcripts were upregulated in field caught organisms.…”
Section: Expression Patterns Among All the Genes Evaluatedmentioning
confidence: 81%