Microcrustaceans: biological models to evaluate a remediation process of glyphosate-based formulations

Autores
Reno, Ulises; Gutierrez, Marìa Florencia; Longo, Melisa; Vidal, Eduardo Gabriel; Regaldo, Luciana María; Negro, Antonio Carlos; Mariani, Melisa Lourdes; Zalazar, Cristina Susana; Gagneten, Ana María
Año de publicación
2015
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Ecotoxicity studies using two glyphosate-based formulations (Eskoba® and Sulfosato Touchdown®) were undergone with three microcrustacean species to establish their LC50 values and to evaluate the efficacy of cleaning treatments with UV/H2O2.Samples were collected at the beginning of the process −50 mg acid equivalent per liter of glyphosate without H2O2 and at different treatment timepoints: 2, 4, and 6 h. Three microcrustacean species were used as biological models.The Eskoba® LC50 ranged between 14.49 and 95.23 acid equivalents (a.e.) mg L−1and for Sulfosato Touchdown® between 0.31 and 1.74 a.e. mg L−1. The glyphosate-based formulations registered the following order of sensitivities: Ceriodaphnia dubia > Daphnia magna > Notodiaptomus conifer. The treatment duration and mortality (%) were negative and significantly correlated for both formulations, indicating that the remediation process diminished the glyphosate concentration. Therefore, microcrustacean mortality decreased linearly with the remediation time. C. dubia and N. conifer were more sensitive than the holarctic D. magna to the remediation process, since the first two species showed greater percentage of mortality at 6 h of processes, compared with D. magna, for both formulations evaluated. Sulfosato Touchdown® was more toxic but showed greater degradability than Eskoba®. The results provide relevant information regarding (1) the urgency to clearly identify the additives on product labels, (2) the efficiency of UV/H2O2 process for reducing adverse effects of two glyphosate-based formulations, and (3) the importance of developing studies to evaluate the effectiveness of cleaner technologies with an emphasis on microcrustacean species as biological models
Fil: Reno, Ulises. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias. Laboratorio de Ecotoxicologia; Argentina
Fil: Gutierrez, Marìa Florencia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Santa Fe. Instituto Nacional de Limnologia (i); Argentina
Fil: Longo, Melisa. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias. Laboratorio de Ecotoxicologia; Argentina
Fil: Vidal, Eduardo Gabriel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Santa Fe. Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Industria Química (i); Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias. Laboratorio de Ecotoxicologia; Argentina
Fil: Regaldo, Luciana María. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias. Laboratorio de Ecotoxicologia; Argentina
Fil: Negro, Antonio Carlos. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Santa Fe. Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Industria Química (i); Argentina
Fil: Mariani, Melisa Lourdes. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Santa Fe. Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico Para la Industria Química (i); Argentina
Fil: Zalazar, Cristina Susana. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Santa Fe. Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico Para la Industria Química (i); Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias Hídricas; Argentina
Fil: Gagneten, Ana María. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias. Laboratorio de Ecotoxicologia; Argentina
Materia
Uv/H2o2 Remediation Process
Glyphosate-Based Formulations
Microcrustaceans
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/9723
Acceder
id CONICETDig_8376f049ffe668a6a2ea6031497ac213
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/9723
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Microcrustaceans: biological models to evaluate a remediation process of glyphosate-based formulationsReno, UlisesGutierrez, Marìa FlorenciaLongo, MelisaVidal, Eduardo GabrielRegaldo, Luciana MaríaNegro, Antonio CarlosMariani, Melisa LourdesZalazar, Cristina SusanaGagneten, Ana MaríaUv/H2o2 Remediation ProcessGlyphosate-Based FormulationsMicrocrustaceanshttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.5https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1Ecotoxicity studies using two glyphosate-based formulations (Eskoba® and Sulfosato Touchdown®) were undergone with three microcrustacean species to establish their LC50 values and to evaluate the efficacy of cleaning treatments with UV/H2O2.Samples were collected at the beginning of the process −50 mg acid equivalent per liter of glyphosate without H2O2 and at different treatment timepoints: 2, 4, and 6 h. Three microcrustacean species were used as biological models.The Eskoba® LC50 ranged between 14.49 and 95.23 acid equivalents (a.e.) mg L−1and for Sulfosato Touchdown® between 0.31 and 1.74 a.e. mg L−1. The glyphosate-based formulations registered the following order of sensitivities: Ceriodaphnia dubia > Daphnia magna > Notodiaptomus conifer. The treatment duration and mortality (%) were negative and significantly correlated for both formulations, indicating that the remediation process diminished the glyphosate concentration. Therefore, microcrustacean mortality decreased linearly with the remediation time. C. dubia and N. conifer were more sensitive than the holarctic D. magna to the remediation process, since the first two species showed greater percentage of mortality at 6 h of processes, compared with D. magna, for both formulations evaluated. Sulfosato Touchdown® was more toxic but showed greater degradability than Eskoba®. The results provide relevant information regarding (1) the urgency to clearly identify the additives on product labels, (2) the efficiency of UV/H2O2 process for reducing adverse effects of two glyphosate-based formulations, and (3) the importance of developing studies to evaluate the effectiveness of cleaner technologies with an emphasis on microcrustacean species as biological modelsFil: Reno, Ulises. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias. Laboratorio de Ecotoxicologia; ArgentinaFil: Gutierrez, Marìa Florencia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Santa Fe. Instituto Nacional de Limnologia (i); ArgentinaFil: Longo, Melisa. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias. Laboratorio de Ecotoxicologia; ArgentinaFil: Vidal, Eduardo Gabriel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Santa Fe. Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Industria Química (i); Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias. Laboratorio de Ecotoxicologia; ArgentinaFil: Regaldo, Luciana María. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias. Laboratorio de Ecotoxicologia; ArgentinaFil: Negro, Antonio Carlos. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Santa Fe. Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Industria Química (i); ArgentinaFil: Mariani, Melisa Lourdes. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Santa Fe. Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico Para la Industria Química (i); ArgentinaFil: Zalazar, Cristina Susana. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Santa Fe. Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico Para la Industria Química (i); Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias Hídricas; ArgentinaFil: Gagneten, Ana María. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias. Laboratorio de Ecotoxicologia; ArgentinaSpringer2015-10info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/9723Reno, Ulises; Gutierrez, Marìa Florencia; Longo, Melisa; Vidal, Eduardo Gabriel; Regaldo, Luciana María; et al.; Microcrustaceans: biological models to evaluate a remediation process of glyphosate-based formulations; Springer; Water, Air And Soil Pollution; 226; 10-2015; 349-3590049-6979enginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1007/s11270-015-2616-yinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11270-015-2616-yinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-03T09:44:47Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/9723instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-03 09:44:48.003CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Microcrustaceans: biological models to evaluate a remediation process of glyphosate-based formulations
title Microcrustaceans: biological models to evaluate a remediation process of glyphosate-based formulations
spellingShingle Microcrustaceans: biological models to evaluate a remediation process of glyphosate-based formulations
Reno, Ulises
Uv/H2o2 Remediation Process
Glyphosate-Based Formulations
Microcrustaceans
title_short Microcrustaceans: biological models to evaluate a remediation process of glyphosate-based formulations
title_full Microcrustaceans: biological models to evaluate a remediation process of glyphosate-based formulations
title_fullStr Microcrustaceans: biological models to evaluate a remediation process of glyphosate-based formulations
title_full_unstemmed Microcrustaceans: biological models to evaluate a remediation process of glyphosate-based formulations
title_sort Microcrustaceans: biological models to evaluate a remediation process of glyphosate-based formulations
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Reno, Ulises
Gutierrez, Marìa Florencia
Longo, Melisa
Vidal, Eduardo Gabriel
Regaldo, Luciana María
Negro, Antonio Carlos
Mariani, Melisa Lourdes
Zalazar, Cristina Susana
Gagneten, Ana María
author Reno, Ulises
author_facet Reno, Ulises
Gutierrez, Marìa Florencia
Longo, Melisa
Vidal, Eduardo Gabriel
Regaldo, Luciana María
Negro, Antonio Carlos
Mariani, Melisa Lourdes
Zalazar, Cristina Susana
Gagneten, Ana María
author_role author
author2 Gutierrez, Marìa Florencia
Longo, Melisa
Vidal, Eduardo Gabriel
Regaldo, Luciana María
Negro, Antonio Carlos
Mariani, Melisa Lourdes
Zalazar, Cristina Susana
Gagneten, Ana María
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Uv/H2o2 Remediation Process
Glyphosate-Based Formulations
Microcrustaceans
topic Uv/H2o2 Remediation Process
Glyphosate-Based Formulations
Microcrustaceans
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.5
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Ecotoxicity studies using two glyphosate-based formulations (Eskoba® and Sulfosato Touchdown®) were undergone with three microcrustacean species to establish their LC50 values and to evaluate the efficacy of cleaning treatments with UV/H2O2.Samples were collected at the beginning of the process −50 mg acid equivalent per liter of glyphosate without H2O2 and at different treatment timepoints: 2, 4, and 6 h. Three microcrustacean species were used as biological models.The Eskoba® LC50 ranged between 14.49 and 95.23 acid equivalents (a.e.) mg L−1and for Sulfosato Touchdown® between 0.31 and 1.74 a.e. mg L−1. The glyphosate-based formulations registered the following order of sensitivities: Ceriodaphnia dubia > Daphnia magna > Notodiaptomus conifer. The treatment duration and mortality (%) were negative and significantly correlated for both formulations, indicating that the remediation process diminished the glyphosate concentration. Therefore, microcrustacean mortality decreased linearly with the remediation time. C. dubia and N. conifer were more sensitive than the holarctic D. magna to the remediation process, since the first two species showed greater percentage of mortality at 6 h of processes, compared with D. magna, for both formulations evaluated. Sulfosato Touchdown® was more toxic but showed greater degradability than Eskoba®. The results provide relevant information regarding (1) the urgency to clearly identify the additives on product labels, (2) the efficiency of UV/H2O2 process for reducing adverse effects of two glyphosate-based formulations, and (3) the importance of developing studies to evaluate the effectiveness of cleaner technologies with an emphasis on microcrustacean species as biological models
Fil: Reno, Ulises. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias. Laboratorio de Ecotoxicologia; Argentina
Fil: Gutierrez, Marìa Florencia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Santa Fe. Instituto Nacional de Limnologia (i); Argentina
Fil: Longo, Melisa. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias. Laboratorio de Ecotoxicologia; Argentina
Fil: Vidal, Eduardo Gabriel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Santa Fe. Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Industria Química (i); Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias. Laboratorio de Ecotoxicologia; Argentina
Fil: Regaldo, Luciana María. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias. Laboratorio de Ecotoxicologia; Argentina
Fil: Negro, Antonio Carlos. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Santa Fe. Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Industria Química (i); Argentina
Fil: Mariani, Melisa Lourdes. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Santa Fe. Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico Para la Industria Química (i); Argentina
Fil: Zalazar, Cristina Susana. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Santa Fe. Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico Para la Industria Química (i); Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias Hídricas; Argentina
Fil: Gagneten, Ana María. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias. Laboratorio de Ecotoxicologia; Argentina
description Ecotoxicity studies using two glyphosate-based formulations (Eskoba® and Sulfosato Touchdown®) were undergone with three microcrustacean species to establish their LC50 values and to evaluate the efficacy of cleaning treatments with UV/H2O2.Samples were collected at the beginning of the process −50 mg acid equivalent per liter of glyphosate without H2O2 and at different treatment timepoints: 2, 4, and 6 h. Three microcrustacean species were used as biological models.The Eskoba® LC50 ranged between 14.49 and 95.23 acid equivalents (a.e.) mg L−1and for Sulfosato Touchdown® between 0.31 and 1.74 a.e. mg L−1. The glyphosate-based formulations registered the following order of sensitivities: Ceriodaphnia dubia > Daphnia magna > Notodiaptomus conifer. The treatment duration and mortality (%) were negative and significantly correlated for both formulations, indicating that the remediation process diminished the glyphosate concentration. Therefore, microcrustacean mortality decreased linearly with the remediation time. C. dubia and N. conifer were more sensitive than the holarctic D. magna to the remediation process, since the first two species showed greater percentage of mortality at 6 h of processes, compared with D. magna, for both formulations evaluated. Sulfosato Touchdown® was more toxic but showed greater degradability than Eskoba®. The results provide relevant information regarding (1) the urgency to clearly identify the additives on product labels, (2) the efficiency of UV/H2O2 process for reducing adverse effects of two glyphosate-based formulations, and (3) the importance of developing studies to evaluate the effectiveness of cleaner technologies with an emphasis on microcrustacean species as biological models
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-10
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/9723
Reno, Ulises; Gutierrez, Marìa Florencia; Longo, Melisa; Vidal, Eduardo Gabriel; Regaldo, Luciana María; et al.; Microcrustaceans: biological models to evaluate a remediation process of glyphosate-based formulations; Springer; Water, Air And Soil Pollution; 226; 10-2015; 349-359
0049-6979
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/9723
identifier_str_mv Reno, Ulises; Gutierrez, Marìa Florencia; Longo, Melisa; Vidal, Eduardo Gabriel; Regaldo, Luciana María; et al.; Microcrustaceans: biological models to evaluate a remediation process of glyphosate-based formulations; Springer; Water, Air And Soil Pollution; 226; 10-2015; 349-359
0049-6979
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1007/s11270-015-2616-y
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11270-015-2616-y
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1842268689256153088
score 13.13397

Publicaciones similares