Click here to close Hello! We notice that you are using Internet Explorer, which is not supported by Echinobase and may cause the site to display incorrectly. We suggest using a current version of Chrome, FireFox, or Safari.
Echinobase
ECB-ART-40629
Sci Total Environ 2008 May 15;3942-3:275-82. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.01.045.
Show Gene links Show Anatomy links

Toxicity and phototoxicity of water-accommodated fraction obtained from Prestige fuel oil and Marine fuel oil evaluated by marine bioassays.

Saco-Alvarez L , Bellas J , Nieto O , Bayona JM , Albaig├ęs J , Beiras R .


Abstract
Acute toxicity and phototoxicity of heavy fuel oil extracted directly from the sunken tanker Prestige in comparison to a standard Marine fuel oil were evaluated by obtaining the water-accommodated fraction (WAF) and using mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis and sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus embryogenesis bioassays, and copepod Acartia tonsa and fish Cyprinodon variegatus survival bioassays. Aromatic hydrocarbon (AH) levels in WAF were measured by gas chromatography. Prestige WAF was not phototoxic, its median effective concentrations (EC50) were 13% and 10% WAF for mussel and sea urchin respectively, and maximum lethal threshold concentrations (MLTC) were 12% and 50% for copepod and fish respectively. Marine WAF resulted phototoxic for mussel bioassay. EC50s of Marine WAF were 50% for sea urchin in both treatments and 20% for mussel under illumination. Undiluted Marine WAF only caused a 20% decrease in mussel normal larvae. Similar sensitivities were found among sea urchins, mussels and copepods, whilst fish were less sensitive. Unlike Marine WAF, Prestige WAF showed EC50 values at dilutions below 20%, and its toxicity was independent of lighting conditions. The differences in toxicity between both kinds of fuel could not be explained on the basis of total AH content.

PubMed ID: 18304607
Article link: Sci Total Environ


Genes referenced: LOC100887844