Next Article in Journal
Heavy Metal Uptake, Translocation, and Bioaccumulation Studies of Triticum aestivum Cultivated in Contaminated Dredged Materials
Previous Article in Journal
Degradation of Metalaxyl and Mefenoxam and Effects on the Microbiological Properties of Tropical and Temperate Soils
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Dietary Exposure of Fathead Minnows to the Explosives TNT and RDX and to the Pesticide DDT using Contaminated Invertebrates

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2005, 2(2), 286-292; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph2005020012
Submission received: 10 January 2005 / Accepted: 10 April 2005 / Published: 14 August 2005

Abstract

:
Explosive compounds have been released into the environment during manufacturing, handling, and usage procedures. These compounds have been found to persist in the environment and potentially promote detrimental biological effects. The lack of research on bioaccumulation and bioconcentration and especially dietary transfer on aquatic life has resulted in challenges in assessing ecological risks. The objective of this study was to investigate the potential trophic transfer of the explosive compounds 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) and hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) using a realistic freshwater prey/predator model and using dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), a highly bioaccumulative compound, to establish relative dietary uptake potential. The oligochaete worm Lumbriculus variegatus was exposed to 14C-labeled TNT, RDX or DDT for 5 hours in water, frozen in meal-size packages and subsequently fed to individual juvenile fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). Fish were sampled for body residue determination on days 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 14 following an 8-hour gut purging period. Extensive metabolism of the parent compound in worms occurred for TNT but not for RDX and DDT. Fish body residue remained relatively unchanged over time for TNT and RDX, but did not approach steady-state concentration for DDT during the exposure period. The bioaccumulation factor (concentration in fish relative to concentration in worms) was 0.018, 0.010, and 0.422 g/g for TNT, RDX and DDT, respectively, confirming the expected relatively low bioaccumulative potential for TNT and RDX through the dietary route. The experimental design was deemed successful in determining the potential for trophic transfer of organic contaminants via a realistic predator/prey exposure scenario.

Introduction

Explosive compounds were released to the environment during the manufacturing, handling, use, and disposal of munitions at military sites in the United States and throughout the world. The result was contamination of ground and superficial waters, and soils and sediments, sometimes at exceedingly high concentrations (e.g., 34 mg/L for TNT in superficial water) [12]. Explosives such as 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) and hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) and their degradation products typically degrade slowly in many environmental matrices, therefore yielding long-term contamination at the military sites where they were released [3]. The nitroaromatic compound TNT was the most abundantly produced explosive in the world and was released to surface and groundwater mainly from runoff and leaching from storage and disposal areas and from receiving lagoons at munitions production and processing plants [1]. The cyclonitramine compound RDX is one of the most commonly used and most powerful munitions and was released in waste streams generated during manufacturing and processing activities, leaching from storage lagoons and burial areas, and from demilitarization operations [1]. RDX has a lower sorption coefficient in topsoil and is more commonly found in groundwater compared to TNT [4].
Challenges in establishing ecological risks and remediation goals at contaminated military sites typically exist because of inadequate knowledge of the environmental fate and effects of explosives in aquatic ecosystems. Explosives and several related compounds are known to cause a variety of adverse effects in animals. Organism-level effects have been reported in a relatively small number of aquatic species (see review [1] and also [59]. The fate of explosives and related compounds in fish and aquatic invertebrates is poorly understood. Explosives and related compounds have low potential to bioaccumulate in animals as expected due to their low hydrophobicity [1016]. Moreover, recent investigations revealed that TNT entering animals undergo extensive chemical transformations and the bioaccumulation of breakdown products typically exceeds the bioaccumulation of the parent compound in animal tissue [1317]. All investigations of the bioaccumulation of explosive compounds in aquatic organisms used spiked water as the exposure medium.
Fish bioaccumulate xenobiotic compounds through direct absorption (mostly through the gills) from contaminated water and through the ingestion of contaminated food [18] and water. Dietary exposure to organic contaminants results in significant bioaccumulation for a variety of compounds [1920] and sometimes results in detrimental biochemical and physiological effects [21, 22]. While the dietary uptake of explosives in aquatic species has never been investigated, significant bioaccumulation of TNT metabolites in a species of salamander through exposure to contaminated prey has been reported [23]. Therefore, there is potential for dietary uptake of TNT and other explosives in fish.
This study investigates the potential for dietary uptake of the explosives, TNT and RDX, to the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). The organochlorine dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was used as a comparative compound because it is substantially more hydrophobic, and hence bioaccumulative, than explosives. Methods were designed to provide realistic exposure estimates for the trophic transfer of explosive compounds in aquatic systems. The source of dietary uptake was the freshwater oligochaete, Lumbriculus variegatus, pre-exposed to contaminants. Previous investigations of dietary uptake of xenobiotics typically used spiked food pellets.

Materials and Methods

Chemicals

Radiolabeled trinitrotoluene (14C-TNT, 40 Ci/mol) was purchased from Chem Service (Westchester, PA). Non-labeled TNT was purchased from Sigma Chemical (St. Louis, MO). Radiolabeled hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (14C-RDX) was purchased from New England Nuclear Research Products (Boston, MA). Non-labeled RDX (>98 percent pure) was obtained from the Naval Surface Warfare Center (Indian Head, MD). Radiolabeled dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (14C-DDT) was purchased from Sigma Chemical Co. (St. Louis, MO). Manufacturer reported radiochemical purity and chemical purity were >98 percent for all compounds.

Experimental Organisms

Oligochaete worms, Lumbriculus variegatus, were obtained from a commercial vendor (Aquatic Bio Systems Inc., Fort Collins, CO) and maintained under flow-through culture conditions according to standard procedures [24] before use in the experiments. Typical individual worm mass was 6 mg. Laboratory-cultured juvenile fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) approximately 6 weeks old were purchased from Aquatic Bio Systems Inc. (Fort Collins, CO). Fish were maintained in dechlorinated tap water prior to use in the experiments. Typical fish biomass was 100 mg.

Aqueous Exposure of Prey Worms

Exposure solutions were created by spiking 1 L of water with 2 ml of an acetone solution consisting of radiolabeled and non-radiolabeled compounds (TNT and RDX) or radiolabeled compound only (DDT). The specific activity (disintegrations per minute [dpm]/μmol) of the TNT and RDX exposure water was determined by measuring radioactivity (dpm/ml) via liquid scintillation counting (LSC) and explosive concentrations (μmol/ml) via high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Target water concentrations were 5, 8, and 0.02 mg/L for the TNT, RDX and DDT exposures, respectively. Target radioactivity in water was 33, 66, and 3dpm/μL for the TNT, RDX, and DDT exposures, respectively.
Approximately 650 worms were exposed to 14C-TNT, 14C-RDX or 14C-DDT for 5 hours in separate 1-L glass beakers. Such short exposure period was selected to maximize the fraction of the total radioactivity in the tissue corresponding to parent compound, as the relative contribution of the breakdown products of TNT increase with exposure duration for L. variegatus[14]. Transfer factors were determined as the ratio between radioactivity in the worm (dpm/mg) and in the exposure water (dpm/μL). Water samples were taken for chemical analysis at the beginning and end of the exposure period. At termination of the exposure period, a subset of worms was sampled for chemical analysis and a subset was processed for use as prey items in the dietary exposure experiment. Groups of two worms were wrapped in aluminum foil packages and frozen (−20°C) until fed to the fathead minnows.

Dietary Exposure of Predator Fish

Individual fish were placed in 600-ml glass beakers with 500 ml dechlorinated tap water. Fish were fed twice a day at 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM with a meal consisting two frozen worms. Three replicate fish were sampled on days 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 14. Fish sampling took place 8 hours after the morning feeding to allow purging of food from the gut.

Chemical Analysis

Water Samples

Water (1 ml) from worm and fish exposure beakers were mixed in 12 ml of xylene-based scintillation cocktail (3a70b, Research Product International, Mt. Prospect, IL) and analyzed for radioactivity on a Tri-Carb Liquid Scintillation Analyzer (Model 2500 TR, Packard Instrument, Meridien, CT, USA). Water was also analyzed for TNT, RDX, and the TNT breakdown products aminodinitrotoluenes (ADNTs) and diaminonitrotolunes (DANTs) using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency method 8330 [25].

Worm Samples

For radioactivity analysis, two worms in six replicates were placed in scintillation cocktail and analyzed as described above. For TNT and RDX, 20 worms in triplicates were transferred to polypropylene bead-beater vials. Each vial received 100 mg of 1-mm glass beads and 0.5 ml of HPLC-grade acetonitrile. Samples were homogenized using a mini bead-beater (Biospec, Barttlesville, OK) for 100 sec at 4200 oscillations/min and sonicated for 1 hour at 18ºC in a water bath. Samples were centrifuged for 10 min at 7500 g at 4ºC. A fraction of the acetonitrile supernatant (0.05 ml) was assayed for radioactivity as described above and another fraction received 0.5 ml of 1% CaCl2, and was filtered through a PTFE 0.45-μm syringe filter into amber sample vials for HPLC analysis as described above. Laboratory reporting limits for tissue samples were approximately 1.2 mg/kg (6μmol/kg) for all analytes. For DDT, 20 worms in triplicates were transferred to scintillation vials. Each vial received 5 ml of HPLC grade acetonitrile. Samples were homogenized using probe sonication and centrifuged for 10 min at 7500-x g at 4ºC. A fraction of the acetonitrile supernatant (1 ml) was analyzed for radioactivity as described above and another fraction (1 ml) was used for separation of DDT parent compound and breakdown products using the thin layer chromatography analysis as previously described [26].

Fish samples

Fish sampled at different time points of the dietary exposure were individually transferred to scintillation vials. Each vial received 1.0 ml of tissue solubilizer (T2, Research Product International, Mt. Prospect, IL). Following complete tissue solubilization (overnight), each vial received 1.0 ml of 1.2 N hydrochloric acid and was assayed for radioactivity as described above.

Data Analysis

For fish bioaccumulation data, completely randomized one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis) was used to determine differences between means of the various exposure periods at a 0.05 level of significance. Pairwise comparisons (Fisher LSD method) were used to determine significant differences between fish burden at different exposure periods.

Results and Discussion

Radioactivity was used as a surrogate for expressing the sum concentration of parent compound and all the degradation products for TNT, RDX and DDT in water and whole animal samples. Parent compound and all its degradation products will be collectively referred to as TNT*, RDX*, and DDT*.

Bioaccumulation in Prey

Aqueous exposures of L. variegatus were conducted to produce prey material for use in the dietary transfer experiments. Mean measured compound concentration in the exposure solution was 4.8 mg/L for TNT and 8.1 mg/L for RDX. The concentration of DDT in the water was not measured using analytical chemistry. Breakdown of parent compound during the 5-h aqueous exposure, determined using HPLC analysis, was minimal (<3%) for TNT and non-detectable for RDX. The relative accumulation of compounds in prey tissue was expressed as water-to-prey transfer factors calculated as the ratio between radioactivity in the worm (dpm/mg) and in the exposure water (dpm/μL). The 5-hour transfer factor for DDT* in L. variegatus was much greater than those of TNT* or RDX*, and the relative bioaccumulation of TNT* was greater than that of RDX*, based on concentration determinations using total radioactivity (Table 1). Using measured tissue concentrations of parent compounds in worms determined using HPLC analysis (7.48 and 2.14 μg/g for TNT and RDX, respectively), 5-h bioconcentration factors (BCFs) were much lower (1.5 and 0.27 μL/g for TNT and RDX, respectively) than the transfer factors determined using radioactivity presented in Table 1. Higher relative bioaccumulation of DDT* in L. variegatus was expected based on the major differences in Kow among the compounds used in this study (log Kow = 6.2, 1.60 and 0.87 for DDT [27], TNT [28], and RDX [29], respectively) and the positive relationship between log BCF and log Kow[30].
The relative contribution of parent compound to the overall bioaccumulation of radioactive compounds in L. variegatus varied substantially among exposures (Table 2). While for DDT the parent compound was dominant in worm tissues, TNT and RDX parent compound was present at much lower concentrations compared to its breakdown products. The fraction of total radioactivity corresponding to non-solvent-extractable metabolites also varied greatly and was highest for RDX and lowest for DDT. Extractable breakdown products were identified as 2- and 4-ADNT for the TNT exposure and dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD) for the DDT exposure (Table 2). Peaks of potential RDX breakdown products were not discernible in HPLC chromatograms, indicating the polar nature of non-identified extractable breakdown products of RDX. The bioaccumulation profile reported for L. variegatus in an aqueous exposure to TNT by Belden et al. [17] was similar to that determined in this study, indicating that TNT is efficiently biotransformed in L. variegatus, as reported for other aquatic invertebrates [31, 1314], terrestrial invertebrates [17] and fish [15]. Different from the nitroaromatic explosive TNT, the cyclonitramine explosive RDX was less efficiently biotransformed in L. variegatus as all extractable radioactivity corresponded to the parent compound. Biotransformation of RDX has been reported for microorganisms [32] and plants [33] but not for invertebrates or fish. The breakdown of DDT in the tissues of L. variegatus was minimal, as expected based on the reported inefficiency of that invertebrate to metabolize hydrophobic organic compounds [34]. Unextractable radioactivity detected in animal tissue corresponded likely to covalently bound products associated with organic molecules. Such strong binding has been previously reported for TNT in invertebrates [14,16], cell cultures [35] and plants [36]. RDX was found as either parent compound or bound residues in the intracellular compartment of plant roots [37].

Dietary Bioaccumulation in Predator Fish

Detectable concentrations of TNT*, RDX* and DDT* in fish fed contaminant-laden prey worms were determined over the 14-day exposure period (Figure. 1) using radioactivity as a surrogate for the parent compounds and their breakdown products. Tissue concentrations of TNT* and RDX* did not vary significantly over time (Figure. 1). However, an overall trend for increasing DDT* body burden was observed (Figure. 1) and concentrations measured at experiment termination were significantly higher than those determined during the first seven exposure periods. Therefore, the concentration of DDT in fish would likely have increased beyond levels detected at day 14 if the experiment had continued for longer exposure periods. Based on results from preliminary experiments, the whole-body concentrations of TNT and its major breakdown products and RDX in fish fed contaminant-laden worms were too low for detection and quantification using acetonitrile extraction and HPLC analysis. Therefore, the identity of the compounds accumulated in exposed fish from this experiment is unknown.
The experimental design employed in this study proved successful for investigating the potential for dietary uptake of organic contaminants from invertebrates to fish. Juvenile fathead minnows consumed contaminant-laden frozen worms quickly and completely. Hansen et al. [38] also successfully used L. variegatus as the contaminant source in an investigation of metal dietary uptake in juvenile rainbow trout.
Prey-to-predator transfer factors or bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) were determined as the ratio between radioactivity in the fish (dpm/mg) and in the prey (dpm/mg). The BAF for DDT* (0.422g/g) was substantially higher compared to that for TNT* (0.018g/g) and RDX* (0.010g/g) (Table 2). Comparison of those ratios indicates that while the concentration of DDT* in the fish was approaching the concentration of DDT* in its food source, the concentration of TNT* and RDX* in fish represented only a very small fraction of the concentration in the prey (>2 percent). The higher potential for trophic transfer of DDT and hydrophobic organochlorine compounds relative to less hydrophobic and more readily metabolized compounds has been well documented [39]. Johnson et al. [23] used earthworms exposed to TNT or PCBs (Arochor 1260) as prey and salamanders as predator to investigate the dietary uptake of those compounds in terrestrial systems. In that investigation, dietary bioaccumulation was much greater for the highly hydrophobic PCBs than for TNT and its metabolites, therefore corroborating our finding of much greater trophic transfer of DDT compared to TNT in the aquatic prey-predator system. The bioaccumulation factor for DDT obtained in this study (0.422 g/g) was lower than similar factors (0.89 – 2.80 g/g) reported for hydrophobic organochlorine compounds in rainbow trout [40], likely due to the short exposure duration used in the present study.
Fish were held for 10-hours in clean water to allow for the digestion of their last meal and also the egestion of undigested prey from their guts. However, this period may not have been sufficient for complete gut clearance. Therefore, radioactivity associated with undigested prey in the fish gut may have accounted for at least a fraction of the radioactivity determined in whole fish. For TNT*, the radioactivity associated with a meal (two frozen worms), approximately 13,000 dpm, far exceeded the mean radioactivity in fish at exposure termination (3,100 dpm). For RDX, the radioactivity associated with a meal, approximately 3,000 dpm, also far exceeded the mean radioactivity in fish at exposure termination (370 dpm). Therefore, for both explosives, even a small amount of undigested prey could have accounted for the whole body burden measured in the fish. For DDT*, however, the mean radioactivity associated with a meal (4,400 dpm) was substantially lower than the mean concentration in the fish at exposure termination (24,200 dpm), indicating that most of the body burden in fish corresponded to radioactivity present in fish tissues rather than associated with undigested prey.

Conclusions

The experimental design employing frozen aquatic worms as prey and juvenile fish as predator proved successful for investigating the potential for dietary uptake of organic contaminants in aquatic systems. This study demonstrated that dietary transfer from invertebrates to fish was negligible for TNT and RDX but relatively high for DDT, a compound substantially more hydrophobic than TNT and RDX.
Figure 1. Body burden expressed as radioactivity (disintegrations per minute) per milligram of mass representing the total concentration (as parent compound equivalents) of the parent compound (TNT, RDX or DDT) and all its degradation products at different time points during the 14-day dietary exposure period.
Figure 1. Body burden expressed as radioactivity (disintegrations per minute) per milligram of mass representing the total concentration (as parent compound equivalents) of the parent compound (TNT, RDX or DDT) and all its degradation products at different time points during the 14-day dietary exposure period.
Ijerph 02 00286f1
Table 1. Radioactivity in water, prey (Lumbriculus variegatus), and fish (Pimephales promelas) expressed as mean (± 1 standard deviation) disintegrations per minute (dpm) per unit of volume or mass representing the total concentration of the parent compounds (TNT, RDX or DDT) and all their degradation products. Transfer factors represent the ratio between prey body residue (dpm/mg) and water concentration (dpm/L) and between fish body burden (dpm/mg) and prey body burden (dpm/mg).
Table 1. Radioactivity in water, prey (Lumbriculus variegatus), and fish (Pimephales promelas) expressed as mean (± 1 standard deviation) disintegrations per minute (dpm) per unit of volume or mass representing the total concentration of the parent compounds (TNT, RDX or DDT) and all their degradation products. Transfer factors represent the ratio between prey body residue (dpm/mg) and water concentration (dpm/L) and between fish body burden (dpm/mg) and prey body burden (dpm/mg).
Concentration (dpm/mg)Transfer factor

Water (dpm/μL)Prey (dpm/mg)Fish (dpm/mg)Water to prey (μL/mg)Prey to fish*(mg/mg)
TNT38.3 ± 3.71,245.6 ± 453.522.7 ± 10.532.50.018
RDX135.1 ± 4.0280.0 ± 19.02.8 ± 0.72.10.010
DDT2.0 ± 1.0423.7 0 ± 158.5178.8 ± 28.4214.50.422
*Bioaccumulation factor
Table 2. Percent of total sum-molar concentrations in worm tissues corresponding to unextractable or extractable parent, known or unknown compounds. Numbers (1–4) represent mean ± 1 standard deviation. Unextractable is defined as compounds that are resistent to solvent extraction from tissue. Extractable compounds includes the parent compound, known, or identified, compounds and unknown compounds, which are more polar than the parent compound and were not identified.
Table 2. Percent of total sum-molar concentrations in worm tissues corresponding to unextractable or extractable parent, known or unknown compounds. Numbers (1–4) represent mean ± 1 standard deviation. Unextractable is defined as compounds that are resistent to solvent extraction from tissue. Extractable compounds includes the parent compound, known, or identified, compounds and unknown compounds, which are more polar than the parent compound and were not identified.
ExposureUnextractableExtractable

ParentKnownUnknown
TNT11.9 ± 4.74.6 ± 0.913.8 ± 4.073.7 ± 8.1
RDX36.0 ± 9.512.9 ± 5.7051.1 ± 3.8
DDT2.6 ± 0.692.5 ± 0.51.5 ± 0.34.0 ± 0.7

Acknowledgements

This study was supported with funds from the Department of the Army, Environmental Quality Technology (EQT) Program (Dr. M. John Cullinane, program manager). Permission was granted by the Chief of Engineers to publish this material. The authors would like to thank Mr. Cory McNemar and Mr. Henry Banks for providing technical assistance and Drs. Jeffery Steevens and Roderic Millward for their insightful comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Talmage, S. S.; Opresko, D. M.; Maxwell, C.J.; Welsh, C. J. E.; Cretella, F. M.; Reno, P. H.; Daniel, F. B. Nitroaromatic munition compounds: Environmental effects and screening values. Rev Environ. Contam. Toxicol 1999, 16, 1–156. [Google Scholar]
  2. Fuchs, J. S.; Oneto, M. L.; Casabe, N. B.; Gomez, S. O.; Tarulla, R.; Vaccarezza, M.; Sanchez-Rivas, C.; Kesten, E. M.; Wood, E. J. Ecotoxicological characterization of a disposal from a munition plant. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol 2001, 67, 696–703. [Google Scholar]
  3. Pennington, J. C.; Brannon, J. M. Environmental fate of explosives. Thermochimica Acta 2002, 384, 163–172. [Google Scholar]
  4. Sheremater, T. W.; Halasz, A.; Paquet, L.; Thiboutot, S.; Amplemen, G.; Hawari, J. The fate of the cyclic nitramine explosive RDX in natural soil. Environ. Sci. Technol 2001, 35, 1037–1040. [Google Scholar]
  5. Nipper, M.; Carr, R. S.; Biedenbach, J. M.; Hooten, R. L.; Miller, K.; Saepoff, S. Development of marine toxicity data for ordnance compounds. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol 2001, 4, 308–318. [Google Scholar]
  6. Lotufo, G. R.; Farrar, J. D.; Inouye, L. S.; Bridges, T. S.; Ringelberg, D. B. Toxicity of sediment-associated nitroaromatic and cyclonitramine compounds to benthic invertebrates. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 2001, 20, 1762–1771. [Google Scholar]
  7. Steevens, J. A.; Duke, B. M.; Lotufo, G. R.; Bridges, T. S. Toxicity of the explosives 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene, hexahydro-l,3,5trinitro-l,3,5-triazine, and octohydro-l,3,5,7-tetranitro-l,3,5,7-tetrazocine in sediments to Chironomus tentans and Hyalella azteca low dose hormesis and high-dose mortality. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 2002, 21, 1475–1482. [Google Scholar]
  8. Conder, J. M.; La Point, T. W.; Steevens, J. A.; Lotufo, G. R. Recommendations for the assessment of TNT toxicity in sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 2004a, 23, 141–149. [Google Scholar]
  9. Saka, M. Developmental toxicity of p,p′-dichlorophyenyltrichloroethane, 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene, their metabolites, and benzo[a]pyrene in Xenopus laevis embryos. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 2004, 23, 1065–1073. [Google Scholar]
  10. Liu, D. H.; Bailey, H. C.; Person, J. G. Toxicity of complex munitions wastewater to aquatic organisms. Bishop, W. E., Cardwell, R. D., Heidolph, B. B., Eds.; In Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Sixth Symposium; ASTM STP 802; American Society for Testing and Materials: Philadelphia, PA, 1983; pp. 135–150. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lang, P. Z.; Wang, Y.; Chen, D. B.; Wang, N.; Zhao, X. M.; Ding, Y. Z. Bioconcentration, elimination and metabolism of 2,4-dinitrotoluene in carps, (Cyprinus carpio L). Chemosphere 1997, 35, 1799–1815. [Google Scholar]
  12. Wang, Y.; Wang, Z. J.; Wang, C. X.; Wang, W. H. Uptake of weakly hydrophobic nitroaromatics from water by semipermeable membrane devices (SPMDs) and by goldfish (Carassius auratus). Chemosphere 1999, 38, 51–66. [Google Scholar]
  13. Houston, J. G.; Steevens, J. A. The role of metabolism in the toxicity of 2, 4, 6-trinitrotoluene and its degradation products to the aquatic amphipod Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
  14. Belden, J. B.; Ownby, D. R.; Lotufo, G. R.; Lydy, M. J. Accumulation of trinitrotoluene (TNT) in aquatic organisms: Part 2-Bioconcentration in aquatic invertebrates and potential for trophic transfer to channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). Chemosphere 2005, 58, 1161–1168. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ownby, R. D.; Belden, J. B.; Lotufo, G. R.; Lydy, M. J. Accumulation of trinitrotoluene (TNT) in aquatic organisms: Part 1-Bioaccumulation and distribution in channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). Chemosphere 2005, 58, 153–1159. [Google Scholar]
  16. Conder, J. M.; La Point, T. W.; Bowen, A. T. Preliminary kinetics and metabolism of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene and its reduced metabolites in an aquatic oligochaeta. Aquat. Toxicol 2005, 69, 199–213. [Google Scholar]
  17. Lachance, B.; Renoux, A.Y.; Sarrazin, M.; Hawari, J.; Sunahara, G. L. Toxicity and bioaccumulation of reduced TNT metabolites in the earthworm Eisenia andrei exposed to amended forest soil. Chemosphere 2004, 55, 1339–1348. [Google Scholar]
  18. Qiao, P.; Gobas, F. A.; Farrell, A. P. Relative contributions of aqueous and dietary uptake of hydrophobic chemicals to the body burden in juvenile rainbow trout. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol 2000, 39, 369–377. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hellou, J.; Mackay, D.; Banoub, J. H. Dietary and aqueous exposure of finfish to organochlorine compounds-A case study. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol 1998, 34, 280–288. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gutjahr-Gobell, R. E.; Black, D. E.; Mills, L. J.; Pruell, R. J.; Taplin, B. K.; Jayaraman, S. Feeding the mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) a diet spiked with non-ortho- and mono-ortho-substituted polychlorinated biphenyls: Accumulation and effects. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 1999, 18, 699–707. [Google Scholar]
  21. Au, D. W. T.; Chen, P.; Pollino, C. A. Cytological changes in association with ethoxyresorufin O-deethylase induction in fish upon dietary exposure to benzo[a]pyrene. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 2004, 23, 1043–1050. [Google Scholar]
  22. Werner, I.; Geist, J.; Okihiro, M.; Rosenkranz, P.; Hinton, D. E. Effects of dietary exposure to the pyrethroid pesticide esfenvalerate on medaka (Oryzias latipes). Mar. Environ. Res 2002, 54, 609–614. [Google Scholar]
  23. Johnson, M. S.; Franke, L. S.; Lee, R. B.; Holladay, S. D. Bioaccumulation of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene and polychlorinated biphenyls through two routes of exposure in a terrestrial amphibian: Is the dermal route significant? Environ. Toxicol. Chem 1999, 18, 873–878. [Google Scholar]
  24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates, 2nd ed; EPA 600/R-99/064; Office of Research and Development, Mid-Continent Ecology Division: Duluth, MN, 2000.
  25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nitroaromatic and nitroamines by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Method 8330. In Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW846; Update III, Part 4 1(B); Washington DC, 1997.
  26. Lotufo, G. R.; Farrar, J. D.; Bridges, T. S. Effects of exposure source, worm density, and sex on DDT bioaccumulation and toxicity in the marine polychaete Neanthes arenaceodentata. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 2000, 19, 472–484. [Google Scholar]
  27. DeBruijm, J.; Busser, F.; Seinen, W.; Hermens, J. Determination of octanol/water partition coefficients for hydrophobic organic chemicals with the “slow-stirring” method. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 1989, 8, 499–512. [Google Scholar]
  28. Major, M. A.; Johnson, M. S.; Salice, C. J. Bioconcentration, bioaccumulation and biomagnification of nitroaromatic nitramine explosive and their breakdown products. (87-874677-01). U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine Toxicology Report 2002. [Google Scholar]
  29. Banerjee, S.; Yalkowsky, S.; Valvani, S. Water solubility and octanol/water partition coefficients of organics. Limitations of the solubility-partition coefficient correlation. Environ. Toxicol. Technol 1980, 14, 1227–1229. [Google Scholar]
  30. Meylan, W. M.; Howard, P. H.; Boethling, R. S.; Aronson, D.; Printup, H.; Gouchie, S. Improved method for estimating bioconcentration/bioaccumulation factor from octanol/water partition coefficient. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 1999, 18, 664–672. [Google Scholar]
  31. Conder, J. M.; Lotufo, G. R.; Turner, P. K.; La Point, T. W.; Steevens, J. A. Solid phase microextraction fibers for estimating the toxicity and bioavailability of sediment-associated organic compounds. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Management 2004b, 7, 387–397. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lee, S. Y.; Brodman, B. W. Biodegradation of l,3,5-trinitro-l,3,5-triazine (RDX). A-Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environ Eng. J. Environ. Sci. Health 2004, 39, 61–75. [Google Scholar]
  33. Best, E. P. H.; Sprecher, S. L.; Larson, S. L.; Fredickson, H. L.; Bader, D. F. Environmental behavior of explosives in groundwater from the Milan Army Ammunition Plant in aquatic and wetland plant treatments, uptake and fate of TNT and RDX in plants. Chemosphere 1999, 39, 2057–2072. [Google Scholar]
  34. Harkey, G. A.; Lydy, M. J.; Kukkonen, J.; Landrum, P. F. Feeding sensitivity and assimilation of PAH and PCB in Diporeia spp. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 1994, 13, 1445–1456. [Google Scholar]
  35. Leung, K. H.; Yao, M.; Stearns, R.; Chiu, S. H. L. Mechanism of bioactiviation and covalent binding of 2,4,6,-trinitrotoluene. Chem. Biol. Interac 1995, 97, 37–51. [Google Scholar]
  36. Bhadra, R.; Wayment, D. G.; Williams, R. K.; Barman, S. K.; Stone, M. B.; Hughes, J. B.; Shanks, J. V. Studies on plant-mediated fate of the explosives RDX and HMX. Chemosphere 2001, 44, 1259–1264. [Google Scholar]
  37. Bhadra, R.; Wayment, D. G.; Hughes, J. B.; Shanks, J. V. Confirmation of conjugation processes during TNT metabolites by axenic plant roots. Environ. Sci. Technol 1999, 33, 446–452. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hansen, J. A.; Lipton, J.; Welsh, P. G.; Cacela, D.; MacConnell, B. Reduced growth of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fed a live invertebrate diet pre-exposed to metal-contaminated sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 2004, 23, 1902–1911. [Google Scholar]
  39. Suedel, B. C.; Boraczek, J. A.; Peddicord, R. K. Trophic transfer and biomagnification potential of contaminants in aquatic ecosystems. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol 1994, 136, 21–84. [Google Scholar]
  40. Fisk, A. T.; Norstrom, R. I.; Cymbalisty, C. D.; Muir, D. G. Dietary accumulation and depuration of hydrophobic organochlorines - bioaccumulation parameters and their relationship with the octanol/water partition coefficient. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 1998, 77, 951–961. [Google Scholar]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Houston, J.G.; Lotufo, G.R. Dietary Exposure of Fathead Minnows to the Explosives TNT and RDX and to the Pesticide DDT using Contaminated Invertebrates. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2005, 2, 286-292. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph2005020012

AMA Style

Houston JG, Lotufo GR. Dietary Exposure of Fathead Minnows to the Explosives TNT and RDX and to the Pesticide DDT using Contaminated Invertebrates. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2005; 2(2):286-292. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph2005020012

Chicago/Turabian Style

Houston, Jerre G., and Guilherme R. Lotufo. 2005. "Dietary Exposure of Fathead Minnows to the Explosives TNT and RDX and to the Pesticide DDT using Contaminated Invertebrates" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2, no. 2: 286-292. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph2005020012

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop