Cargando…

Tissue Distribution of Several Series of Cationic Surfactants in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Following Exposure via Water

[Image: see text] Bioaccumulation assessment is important for cationic surfactants in light of their use in a wide variety of consumer products and industrial processes. Because they sorb strongly to natural surfaces and to cell membranes, their bioaccumulation behavior is expected to differ from ot...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kierkegaard, Amelie, Chen, Chang’er, Armitage, James M., Arnot, Jon A., Droge, Steven, McLachlan, Michael S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2020
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7343282/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32062967
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b07600
Descripción
Sumario:[Image: see text] Bioaccumulation assessment is important for cationic surfactants in light of their use in a wide variety of consumer products and industrial processes. Because they sorb strongly to natural surfaces and to cell membranes, their bioaccumulation behavior is expected to differ from other classes of chemicals. Divided over two mixtures, we exposed rainbow trout to water containing 10 alkyl amines and 2 quaternary alkylammonium surfactants for 7 days, analyzed different fish tissues for surfactant residues, and calculated the tissues’ contribution to fish body burden. Mucus, skin, gills, liver, and muscle each contributed at least 10% of body burden for the majority of the test chemicals. This indicates that both sorption to external surfaces and systemic uptake contribute to bioaccumulation. In contrast to the analogue alkylamine bases, the permanently charged quaternary ammonium compounds accumulated mostly in the gills and were nearly absent in internal tissues, indicating that systemic uptake of the charged form of cationic surfactants is very slow. Muscle–blood distribution coefficients were close to 1 for all alkyl amines, whereas liver–blood distribution coefficients ranged from 13 to 90, suggesting that the dominant considerations for sorption in liver are different from those in blood and muscle. The significant fraction of body burden on external surfaces can have consequences for bioaccumulation assessment.