Submit a preprint


Assimilation efficiencies and elimination rates of silver, cadmium and zinc accumulated by trophic pathway in *Gammarus fossarum*use asterix (*) to get italics
Ophélia Gestin, Christelle Lopes, Nicolas Delorme, Laura Garnero, Olivier Geffard and Thomas Lacoue-LabarthePlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
<p>To improve the assessment of metal toxicity in aquatic organisms, it is important to consider the different uptake pathways (i.e. trophic or aqueous). The bioaccumulation of dissolved metals such as Cd and Zn in gammarids is beginning to be well described. However, there are very few data on the contribution of the dietary pathway, and its associated toxicokinetic parameters. Among these, the assimilation efficiency (AE) is an essential parameter for the implementation of models that take the trophic pathway into account. This study aims to estimate the assimilation efficiencies and elimination rates of two types of food, i.e. alder leaves and chironomid larvae, contaminated with three metals (Ag, Cd and Zn) of major concern for the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The pulse-chase-feeding method was used. Gammarids were fed with alder leaves or chironomid larvae previously contaminated with 110mAg, 109Cd or 65Zn, for a short period of time (1 to 5 hours), followed by an elimination phase of 14 days. At different time points, the gammarids were placed alive on the gamma detector to individually quantify whole body concentrations of 110mAg, 109Cd or 65Zn. Our results indicate that: i) Cd has the highest assimilation efficiency (39% for leaves and 19% for larvae), followed by Zn (15% for leaves and 9% for larvae) and Ag (5% for leaves); ii) for Cd and Zn, the AE were higher when gammarids were fed with leaves than with larvae; iii) the elimination rates of metals seem to depend more on the food matrix than on the metal assimilated; and thus iv) the biological half-life calculated from the kes is 5.1 days for Ag, between 4.9 and 13 days for Cd and between 3.8 and 13 days for Zn.</p> should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
https://You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://
https://You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
Trophic transfer, Amphipods, Metals, Alder leaves, Chironomids larvae, Dietary pathway
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Aquatic ecotoxicology, Bioaccumulation/biomagnification
Adriano Rutz suggested: Sammy Pontrelli, Adriano Rutz suggested: Andreas Sichert, BÁRBARA CLASEN suggested: The manuscript evaluated assimilation efficiencies and elimination rates in Gammarus fossarum fed two types of food (alder leaves and chironomid larvae), contaminated by Ag, Cd and Zn. , BÁRBARA CLASEN suggested: The study presents important results for aquatic toxicology., BÁRBARA CLASEN suggested: I have just a few considerations:, BÁRBARA CLASEN suggested: Abstract, BÁRBARA CLASEN suggested: What does the acronym AE mean?, BÁRBARA CLASEN suggested: Introduction, BÁRBARA CLASEN suggested: Lines 113-120: This information should be in material and methods., BÁRBARA CLASEN suggested: Material and methods, BÁRBARA CLASEN suggested: Line 138: How many days?, David Amouroux [] suggested: suggested reviewer, David Amouroux [] suggested: Le Faucheur Severine <>, David Amouroux [] suggested: Legeay Alexia <>, David Amouroux [] suggested: CLAUDIA COSIO <>, Davide Anselmo Luigi Vignati suggested: Séverine Le Faucheur:, Davide Anselmo Luigi Vignati suggested: Claude Fortin: No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Ecotox Env Chem. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe []
2023-07-15 10:27:34
Patrice Couture