ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2016
Bioanalytical and instrumental screening of the uptake of sediment-borne, dioxin-like compounds in roach (Rutilus rutilus).
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Towards the review of the European Union Water Framework Directive: Recommendations for more efficient assessment and management of chemical contamination in European surface water resources.The Science of the total environment · 2017Article
- Project house water: a novel interdisciplinary framework to assess the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of flood-related impacts.Environmental sciences Europe · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To examine the uptake of dioxin-like compounds (DLCs), common roaches (Rutilus rutilus) were exposed for 28 days to differently contaminated sediments from two major European rivers in a purpose-built facility. Dietary transfer of DLCs was investigated by exposing fish to sediments inoculated or non-inoculated with black worms (Lumbriculus variegatus). Dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (DL-PCBs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs), measured via high-resolution gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS) in sediments and whole fish, were used to calculate toxicity equivalent quotients (TEQs). TEQs were compared with biological toxicity equivalent quotients (BEQs) determined via the 7-ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase (EROD) assay, performed with mammalian (H4IIE) and fish (RTL-W1) liver cell lines. TEQs and BEQs indicated an uptake of sediment-borne DLCs by roach, which was independent of sediment contamination levels, but rather reflected sediment-specific characteristics. For most sediment treatments, DLC uptake did not increase with time. Highest congener-specific uptake (DL-PCB 123) was 10-fold compared to control. Exposure to worm-inoculated sediment of highest overall DLC contamination caused a 2-fold (TEQ and H4IIE BEQ) greater uptake of DLCs by fish compared to the respective non-inoculated treatment. H4IIE cells showed the greatest sensitivity (0.37 ± 0.25 pM TCDD) and the strongest correlation with TEQs (r (2) = 0.79), hence, they seem to be best suited for DLC screening of sediments and biota, amended by compound-specific instrumental analysis if required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.