Organochlorine bioaccumulation and biomarkers levels in culture and wild white seabream (Diplodus sargus)

Organochlorine bioaccumulation and biomarkers levels in culture and wild white seabream (Diplodus sargus)

Chemosphere 73 (2008) 1669–1674 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Chemosphere j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r. c o m...

286KB Sizes 27 Downloads 48 Views

Chemosphere 73 (2008) 1669–1674

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemosphere j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / ch e m o s p h e r e

Organochlorine bioaccumulation and biomarkers levels in culture and wild white seabream (Diplodus sargus) Marta Ferreira a,*, Paulo Antunes b,d, Joana Costa a, Joana Amado b, Odete Gil b, Pedro Pousão-Ferreira c, Carlos Vale b, Maria Armanda Reis-Henriques a,d a CI­MAR/CII­MAR – Cen­tro In­ter­dis­ci­pli­nar de In­ves­ti­gação Mar­in­ha e Am­bi­en­tal, Uni­ver­sid­ade do Porto, Lab­o­rató­rio de Tox­ic­o­lo­gia Am­bi­en­tal, Rua dos Bra­gas, 289, 4050-123 Porto, Por­tu­gal b INRB/I­PI­MAR – In­sti­tu­to Nac­ion­al dos Re­cur­sos Bi­ol­óg­i­cos, I­PI­MAR, Av. Brasí­lia, 1449-006 Lis­boa, Por­tu­gal c INRB/I­PI­MAR SUL – In­sti­tu­to Nac­ion­al dos Re­cur­sos Bi­ol­óg­i­cos, Av. 5 de Outu­bro, 8700-305 Olhão, Por­tu­gal d IC­BAS/UP – In­sti­tu­to de Ci­ên­cias Bio­méd­i­cas Abel Sal­az­ ar, Uni­ver­sid­ade do Porto, Largo Pro­fes­sor Abel Sal­a­zar, 2, 4099-003 Porto, Por­tu­gal

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 24 March 2008 Received in revised form 13 June 2008 Accepted 24 July 2008 Available online 11 September 2008  Key­words: PCB DDT Fish farm­ing EROD GST Mi­cro­nucl­eous test

a b s t r a c t Per­sis­tent organic pol­lu­tants (POPs), which can accu­mu­late in the adi­pose fish tis­sues, can enter the human food chain through the con­sump­tion of fish, and cause risk to health. The use of chem­i­cal anal­y­sis, and bio­chem­i­cal and cel­lu­lar responses is a way to detect the impact of pol­lu­tants in aquatic sys­tems. The pur­pose of this study was to inves­ti­gate the lev­els of orga­no­chlo­rine com­pounds (poly­chlo­ri­nated biphe­ nyls – PCB and p,p9-dichlo­ro­di­phen­yl­tri­chlo­ro­eth­ane and its metab­ol­ ites – tDDT) in, wild and cul­ti­vated, white sea­bream (Dipl­o­dus sar­gus), and also its bio­log­i­cal effects that were eval­ua ­ ted by assess­ing the activ­ ity of bio­trans­for­ma­tion enzymes and geno­toxic effects. To achieve that we have sam­pled five dif­fer­ent size clas­ses (I – 13 g, II – 64 g, III – 143 g, IV – 315 g and V – 441 g) of white sea­bream from a local aqua­cul­ ture, and also a group of wild fish (375 g) in order to com­pare accu­mu­la­tion and responses between cul­ tured and wild fish. White sea­bream, cul­tured and wild, pre­sented low lev­els of orga­no­chlo­rine con­tent, both in liver and in muscle. Wild white sea­bream, in com­par­i­son to cul­tured ones at the mar­ket­able size, showed lower orga­no­chlo­rine accu­mu­la­tion. Bio­trans­for­ma­tion enzymes showed neg­a­tive cor­re­la­tions with orga­no­chlo­rine lev­els in liver. Mi­cro­nucl­eous num­bers revealed that wild white sea­bream are not so exposed to geno­toxic com­pounds as cul­tured ones. © 2008 Else­vier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Intro­duc­tion In recent years, there has been an increas­ing aware­ness of the need to assess the adverse effects of con­tam­i­nants in aquatic organ­isms, and also the risk of fish con­sump­tion for human health, mainly regard­ing farmed fish. Per­sis­tent organic pol­lu­tants (POPs), such as or­ga­nochl­o­rines, are lipo­philic com­pounds that bio­ac­cu­ mu­late and bio­mag­ni­fy through the food chain (Singh and Singh, 2008a,b). The most wide­spread or­ga­nochl­or­ ines in the envi­ron­ ment and in ani­mal tis­sues are poly­chlo­ri­nated biphe­nyls (PCB), dichlo­ro­di­phen­yl­tri­chlo­ro­eth­ane (DDT), and spe­cially the DDT deg­ ra­da­tion prod­uct, dic­hlorodiphenyldi­chlo­ro­eth­yl­ene (DDE) (Toft et al., 2003), and their lev­els found in some marine organ­isms gave rise to some con­cern. In the marine envi­ron­ment, these hydro­pho­ bic com­pounds accu­mu­late in the adi­pose tis­sues of fish thus enter­ ing the food chain. More recently, some con­cern has arise on hal­o­ge­nated com­ pounds in aqua­cul­ture sys­tems namely the potential haz­ards * Cor­re­spond­ing author. Tel.: +351 22 340 18 00; fax: +351 22 339 06 08. E-mail address: mferre­ira@cii­mar.up.pt (M. Ferreira). 0045-6535/$ - see front matter © 2008 Else­vier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.07.070

asso­ci­ated with the ingre­di­ents used in aqua­cul­ture feeds (Eas­ton et al., 2002; Jacobs et al., 2002; An­tunes and Gil, 2004; Ma­ule et al., 2007). More­over, sev­eral stud­ies have reported higher orga­ no­chlo­rine lev­els in cul­ti­vated spe­cies in com­par­i­son with wild spe­cies, like salmon (Eas­ton et al., 2002) and sea­bass (An­tunes and Gil, 2004). Among the avail­able tech­niques, the inte­grated use of chem­i­cal anal­y­sis and bio­chem­i­cal and cel­lu­lar responses is a way to detect the impact of anthro­po­genic con­tam­i­nants in aquatic sys­tems, both wild and cul­ti­vated fish (Ferre­ira et al., 2004; Fer­nan­des et al., 2007). Xeno­bi­otic com­pounds may be bio­trans­formed in liver by enzymes from phase I and phase II. Phase I is a non-syn­thetic alter­ ation (oxi­da­tion, reduc­tion or hydro­ly­sis) of the original for­eign mol­e­cule, which can then be con­ju­gated in phase II ­(Com­man­deur et al., 1995). Bio­trans­for­ma­tion of lipo­philic com­pounds is a require­ment for detox­i­fi­ca­tion and excre­tion (Ferre­ira et al., 2006). How­ever, cer­tain bio­trans­for­ma­tion steps are ­respon­si­ble for the acti­va­tion of for­eign chem­i­cals to reac­tive inter­me­di­ates that ­ulti­mately result in tox­ic­ity, geno­tox­i­city, or car­cin­o­ge­nic­ity (Van der Oost et al., 2003). Orga­no­chlo­rine com­pounds are poten­tially geno­toxic, imply­ing that they can dam­age DNA directly and/or

1670

M. Ferre­ira et al. / Chemosphere 73 (2008) 1669–1674

­ en­er­ate ­reac­tive spe­cies which can in turn dam­age DNA (Ca­chot g et al., 2006). The mi­cro­nucl­eous (MN) test in fish has been shown to be a use­ful in vivo tech­nique for geno­tox­i­city test­ing and to have potential for in situ mon­i­tor­ing of water qual­ity; the MN test detects micro­nu­clei result­ing from either chro­mo­somal break­age dur­ing cell divi­sion or chro­mo­some loss events in ana­phase dam­ ages (Kim and Hyun, 2006). The marine aqua­cul­ture in the South-Euro­pean coun­tries is based on gilt­head sea­bream (Spa­rus au­ra­ta) and sea­bass (Di­cen­tra­ chus lab­rax) (Sa­ave­dra et al., 2006). How­ever, the intro­duc­tion of new spe­cies in aqua­cul­ture is an issue in devel­op­ment, and the white sea­bream (Dipl­od ­ us sar­gus) is con­sid­ered to be a ­prom­is­ing new spe­cies with high mar­ket val­ues and demand (Sa et al., 2006, 2007). The white sea­bream is an omniv­o­rous spe­cies of the ­Spari­dae fam­ily, found in the Med­i­ter­ra­nean as well as in the ­east­ern ­Atlan­tic Ocean, includ­ing the archi­pel­a­gos of Madeira, Cape Verde and the Canary Islands (reviewed in Perez et al. (2007)). The pur­pose of this study was to inves­ti­gate the lev­els of orga­ no­chlo­rine com­pounds (tPCB and tDDT) in cul­ti­vated white sea­ bream (in dif­fer­ent growth stages) and in the cor­re­spond­ing food pel­lets, and also the bio­log­i­cal effects. The white sea­bream was cho­sen because of its high potential for aqua­cul­ture. This spe­cies is found in the Med­i­ter­ra­nean, as well as in the Atlan­tic Ocean, and is mainly caught by self-employed fish­er­man and con­sti­tutes a valu­ able fish­ery resource con­sid­er­ing its high price (Perez et al., 2007). The bio­log­i­cal effects were eval­u­ated by assess­ing the phase I and II bio­trans­for­ma­tion enzymes (EROD and GST, respec­tively) and geno­toxic effects through the MN test. Iden­ti­cal study was also con­ ducted with the wild spec­im ­ ens of white sea­bream. More­over, to our knowl­edge the eval­u­a­tion of the bio­trans­for­ma­tion enzymes activ­it­ ies, EROD and GST, widely used as bio­mark­ers of expo­sure to pol­lu­tants, and the MN test to assess geno­toxic effects, has never been reported in this par­tic­u­lar spe­cies. 2. Mate­ri­als and meth­ods

weighted and the con­di­tion fac­tor (CF) cal­cu­lated (body weight (g) £ 100/length3 (cm)). Blood was col­lected from the cau­dal vein to the MN test. Liver and muscle were sam­pled for bio­chem­i­cal anal­y­sis and mea­sure­ment of orga­no­chlo­rine com­pounds lev­els. The sam­ples were trans­ported to the lab­o­ra­tory in dry ice; sam­ples for bio­chem­i­cal anal­y­sis were stored at ¡80 °C and for orga­no­chlo­ rine deter­mi­na­tions at ¡20 °C. Water from the land tanks was fil­tered through pre-washed (hex­ane) and pre-com­busted (350 °C, 17 h) Gel­man A/E fil­ters and par­tic­u­late frac­tion col­lected. Fil­ters were stored fro­zen and then dried at 40 °C for anal­y­sis. 2.2. PCB and DDT anal­y­sis 18 PCB cong­en­ers (IU­PAC Nos. 18, 28, 52, 49, 44, 101, 151, 149, 118, 153, 105, 138, 187, 183, 128, 180, 170, 194), p,p9-DDT and metab­ o­lites (p,p9-DDD and p,p9-DDE) were quan­ti­fied. Anal­y­ses were per­ formed accord­ing to An­tunes and Gil (2004). Val­ues are pre­sented as the sum of the 18 cong­en­ers – tPCB, the sum of 7 indi­ca­tor PCB namely PCB28, 52, 101, 118, 138, 153 and 180 – PCB7 (UNEP, 2007), and the sum of p,p9-DDT and its metab­o­lites – tDDT. About 200 g of diet pel­lets was col­lected and homog­e­nized. Subs­am­ples of 2.00 g of diet pel­lets and muscle and 0.5000 g of liver were Soxh­let extracted with n-hex­ane for 6 h, and sus­pended par­tic­u­late mat­ter (SPM) sam­ples were also Soxh­let extracted for 16 h. Lipid con­tent was deter­mined gravi­met­ri­cally from ali­quots of tis­sue extracts. The remain­ing extract was puri­fied with a ­Flor­i­sil col­umn and fur­ther with sul­phu­ric acid before the anal­y­sis in an Ag­i­lent 6890N gas chro­mato­graph, equipped with a micro elec­ tron cap­ture detec­tor and a DB-5 (J&W Sci­en­tific) cap­il­lary col­umn (60 m £ 0.25 mm i.d. £ 0.25 lm film thick­ness). tPCB and tDDT were quan­ti­fied using a six point cal­i­bra­tion curve and CBs 65 and 204 as inter­nal stan­dards. Pro­ce­dural blanks were ana­lysed each 10–16 sam­ples to mon­i­tor pos­si­ble lab­o­ra­tory con­tam­i­na­tion. Detec­tion lim­its cal­cu­lated from three times the peak height in blank sam­ ples, ranged from 0.01 to 0.04 ng g ¡1 dw.

2.1. Sam­pling 2.3. Bio­chem­i­cal anal­y­sis White sea­bream sam­ples were col­lected from a fish farm located in Ria For­mosa, Olhão, in the South of Por­tu­gal, and wild spec­i­mens were cap­tured in the coastal zone. The wild spec­i­mens sam­pled were cor­re­spon­dent to the higher weight clas­ses, the mar­ket­able size, in order to com­pare the fish qual­ity (wild and cul­ tured) for human con­sump­tion. Five dif­fer­ent size clas­ses (Table 1) accord­ing to their weight and a sub-sam­ple of the food pellet cor­re­spon­dent to each size class were sam­pled. The two smaller clas­ses were sam­pled from glass fib­ber tanks, with con­stant fil­tered water cir­cu­la­tion, and the larger spec­i­mens from the land tanks with water cir­cu­la­tion con­ trolled by the tidal cycle. The fish were killed by asphyxia in ice, and the tis­sues sam­pled at the fish farm lab­o­ra­tory. Wild ani­mals were cap­tured by anglers. The ani­mals were imme­di­ately killed by asphyxia in ice and sam­pled in place. Ani­mals were mea­sured and

Table 1 Weight (g), length (cm) and con­di­tion fac­tor (CF) for the dif­fer­ent size clas­ses of white sea­bream Class

N

Weight (g)

Length (cm)

CF

I II III IV V Wild

24 24 10 6 8 7

12.8 ± 0.3 63.7 ± 3.2 142.7 ± 5.8 315.5 ± 8.3 441.4 ± 11.9 375.3 ± 41.9

8.6 ± 0.1 14.8 ± 0.2 20.6 ± 0.4 25.2 ± 0.3 28.8 ± 0.3 27.6 ± 1.2

1.97 ± 0.03a 1.95 ± 0.03a,b 1.65 ± 0.05c 1.97 ± 0.10a,d 1.85 ± 0.03b,d,e 1.75 ± 0.05c,e

Val­ues pre­sented as mean ± SE. Dif­fer­ent let­ters denote sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ences among the dif­fer­ent groups, p < 0.05.

Liv­ers were homog­e­nized in ice-cold sodium phos­phate buffer 50 mM, Na2EDTA 0.1 mM, pH 7.8 and cen­tri­fuged at 15000g for 20 min, at 4 °C. Glu­ta­thi­one S-trans­fer­ase (GST) in the liver was deter­mined accord­ing to the method of Ha­big et al. (1974) adapted to micro­plate as described in Ferre­ira et al. (2006) using glu­ta­thi­ one (GSH) 10 mM in phos­phate buffer 0.1 M, pH 6.5, and 1-chloro2,4-dini­tro­ben­zene (CDNB) 60 mM in eth­a­nol prepared just before the assay. The reac­tion mix­ture con­sisted of phos­phate buffer, GSH solu­tion and CDNB solu­tion in a pro­por­tion of 4.95 mL (phos­phate buffer): 0.9 mL (GSH): 0.15 mL (CDNB). In the micro­plate, 0.2 mL of the reac­tion mix­ture was added to 0.1 mL of the sam­ple, with final con­cen­tra­tion 1 mM GSH and 1 mM CDNB in the assay. The GST activ­ity was mea­sured imme­di­ately every 20 s, at 340 nm, dur­ ing the first 5 min, and cal­cu­lated in the period of lin­ear change in absor­bance. Liver GSH activ­ity is expressed in nmol/min/mg pro­tein. Liver eth­oxy­res­oru­fin O-de­eth­y­lase (EROD) activ­ity was mea­ sured accord­ing to Ferre­ira et al. (2004). Briefly, liver was homog­ e­nized in ice-cold buffer (50 mM Tris–HCl, pH 7.4, 0.15 M KCl). Micro­somes were obtained by cen­tri­fu­ga­tion of the 9000g super­ na­tant at 36000g for 90 min in a SIGMA 3K30 cen­tri­fuge. The pellet was then resus­pended in buffer (50 mM Tris–HCl, 1 mM NaED­TA, pH 7.4, 1 mM dithi­o­thre­i­tol, 20% v/v glyc­erol) and spun down at 36000g for 120 min (Fent and Buc­he­li, 1994). Micro­somes were sus­pended in EDTA-free resus­pen­sion buffer and stored at ¡80 °C until use. Micro­somal sus­pen­sion (50 lL) was incu­bated with eth­ oxy­res­oru­fin 0.5 lM for 1 min, and the enzy­matic reac­tion was



M. Ferre­ira et al. / Chemosphere 73 (2008) 1669–1674

ini­ti­ated by the addi­tion of 45 lM NADPH. EROD activ­ity was mea­ sured for 5 min at kex 530 nm and kem 585 nm, and deter­mined by com­par­i­son to a res­oru­fin stan­dard curve. Hepatic EROD activ­ity is expressed in pmol/min/mg pro­tein. 2.4. Micro­nu­clei test Two blood smear slides were prepared for each fish, fix­ated in meth­a­nol for 10 min and stained with Giemsa 5% in 3 mM phos­ phate buffer for 30 min. Two slides per fish were observed under a light micro­scope and micro­nu­clei were recorded in a total of 1000 eryth­ro­cytes per slide. 2.5. Sta­tis­ti­cal anal­y­sis Dif­fer­ences between groups were tested using a One-Way ANOVA with a multiple com­par­i­son test (LSD) at a 5% sig­nif­i­cance level. Some data had to be log trans­formed in order to fit ANOVA assump­tions. All tests were per­formed using the soft­ware Stat­is­ ti­ca 6.0 (Stat­soft, Inc., 2001). 3. Results The con­cen­tra­tions of orga­no­chlo­rine com­pounds in the food pel­lets and in sus­pended par­tic­u­late mat­ter (SPM) from the ­cor­re­spon­dent pounds are shown in Table 2. Val­ues of the seven indi­ca­tor PCB (PCB7) are also pre­sented in Tables 2 and 3 to allow com­par­i­sons with other stud­ies, the PCB7 rep­re­sent about 65% of tPCB with­out sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ences to tPCB, there­fore results will be dis­cussed as tPCB. SPM showed low lev­els of tPCB and tDDT. The food pel­lets to feed ani­mals from class III had the high­est ­con­cen­tra­tions of these two types of orga­no­chlo­rine com­pounds. Table 2 Lipid con­tent (%), sum of all ana­lyzed PCB cong­en­ers – tPCB, sum of 7 indi­ca­tor PCB cong­en­ers – PCB7, and sum of p,p9-DDT and its metab­o­lites – tDDT, in the food pel­lets (ng g¡1 lip­ids) from each class of white sea­bream, and in the sus­pended par­ tic­u­late mat­ter (SPM) (ng g¡1) Food pellet Clas­ses I + II Class III Clas­ses IV + V

Lip­ids (%) 19.4 16.9 8.9

tPCB ng g¡1 lip­ids 45 150 108

PCB7 ng g¡1 lip­ids 23 83 57

tDDT ng g¡1 lip­ids 26 45 21

SPM Class III Class IV

– –

ng g¡1 11 8

ng g¡1 5.4 3.7

ng g¡1 1.1 0.6

1671

The pel­lets of clas­ses I + II pre­sented the low­est lev­els of tPCB, how­ ever, the con­cen­tra­tions of tDDT were not dif­fer­ent to the pel­lets sup­plied to fish from clas­ses IV + V. Lev­els of lipid con­tent, tPCB and tDDT in muscle and liver of cul­ti­vated and wild white sea­bream are dis­played in Table 3. Ani­ mals from class I pre­sented higher lev­els of lipid con­tent in liver in com­par­i­son to the other clas­ses although dif­fer­ence to class II and V were not sig­nif­i­cant. Lipid con­tent in liver was not higher than in muscle, with the excep­tion of indi­vid­u­als of class I. Regard­ing the orga­no­chlo­rine com­pounds, tPCB lev­els were always higher than tDDT. In white sea­bream from class II and wild ani­mals tPCB lev­els were sig­nif­i­cantly higher in liver, in con­trast with tDDT that were sim­i­lar in both tis­sues. Muscle of indi­vid­u­als of class III showed higher lev­els of or­ga­nochl­o­rines than liver, and in the other size clas­ses the two tis­sues showed no sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ences. Fish’s muscle from class III showed the higher con­tent of tPCB and tDDT in com­par­i­son with the other ana­lysed clas­ses. Com­par­ing wild ani­mals with cul­ti­vated ones, of sim­i­lar sizes (class IV and V), we can observe that wild sea­bream showed, in muscle and in liver, lower val­ues of lip­ids, tPCB and tDDT than cul­ ti­vated ani­mals (Table 3). In both tis­sues p,p9-DDT rep­re­sented less than 27% of tDDT in farmed white sea­bream, and less than 35% in wild fish. Bio­mark­ers eval­u­ated in this study, hepatic EROD and GST activ­ ity, and MN in eryth­ro­cytes are pre­sented in Table 4. White sea­ bream from class III showed sig­nif­i­cant higher lev­els of hepatic EROD activ­ity, in com­par­i­son to the other clas­ses ana­lysed. This result is in agree­ment with the higher lev­els of orga­no­chlo­rine con­ tam­i­nants in the muscle. The fact that these fish had recently been trans­ferred to the land tanks and been in the estu­ary waters could have influ­enced this bio­marker. The low­est value for EROD activ­ ity was reg­is­tered in ani­mals from class V, which also showed the higher accu­mu­la­tion of tPCB and tDDT in liver. The wild spec­i­mens, that pre­sented con­sid­er­able lower lev­els of orga­no­chlo­rine accu­ mu­la­tion, showed EROD activ­ity val­ues sim­i­lar to the ones from class II and IV. Over­all, a sig­nif­i­cant neg­a­tive cor­re­la­tion was found between tPCB and tDDT lev­els in liver with hepatic EROD activ­ity. The accu­mu­la­tion of con­tam­i­nants in liver and in muscle reflects dif­fer­ent inputs; in muscle chronic accu­mu­la­tion is reflected while liver rep­re­sents recent inputs. With this in mind we have cor­re­lated phase I enzyme with tPCB accu­mu­la­tion in muscle (Fig. 1). Inter­ est­ingly, a positive cor­re­la­tion was found for this enzyme activ­ity and the tPCB accu­mu­la­tion in muscle; ani­mals with lower weight showed higher lev­els of hepatic EROD activ­ity and lower lev­els of tPCB in muscle; on the con­trary, ani­mals with higher weight reflected more tPCB accu­mu­la­tion and lower EROD activ­ity.

Table 3 Lipid con­tent (%), sum of all ana­lyzed PCB cong­en­ers – tPCB, sum of 7 indi­ca­tor PCB cong­en­ers – PCB7, and sum of p,p9-DDT and its metab­o­lites – tDDT, in liver and muscle of white sea­bream in ng g¡1 lip­ids Class

n

I

6

II

6

III

10

IV

6

V

8

Wild

7

Lip­ids (%)

tPCB (ng g¡1 lip­ids)

PCB7 (ng g¡1 lip­ids)

tDDT (ng g¡1 lip­ids)

Liver

Muscle

Liver

Muscle

Liver

Muscle

Liver

Muscle

37.7 ± 6.7a (8.2–57.7) 27.1 ± 3.0a,b (18.3–38.8) 16.7 ± 1.9b,c (7.2–25.3) 14.3 ± 1.1c,d (9.7–17.4) 29.2 ± 3.3a (15.3–39.5) 9.7 ± 0.6d (8.1–12.2)

12.3 ± 0.9a,c (7.9–14.0) 20.5 ± 0.7b,d (18.4–20.9) 11.4 ± 1.6a,c (5.2–18.6) 19.3 ± 2.6a,b (7.6–25.8) 27.1 ± 2.3d (16.4–35.3) 8.5 ± 1.6c (2.9–13.9)

117.3 ± 4 4.5a (62.8–339.2) 212.6 ± 7.9a,b (185.5–242.2) 325.7 ± 56.6b (118.2–729.0) 297.1 ± 28.5b (191.4–380.8) 529.0 ± 42.5c (408.0–675.1) 156.8 ± 13.8a (116.7–215.6)

101.5 ± 4.8a (87.0–117.8) 167.2 ± 4.7b (153.2–183.1) 736.4 ± 66.4c (504.5–1016.3) 430.3 ± 70.3d (261.2–760.5) 471.4 ± 30.0d (358.5–649.0) 111.3 ± 12.6a (73.3–163.3)

78.3 ± 30.1a (40.3–228.0) 124.2 ± 3.6a,b (116.0–137.3) 222.9 ± 47.9c (81.5–482.5) 202.4 ± 20.1b,c (265.3–435.5) 338.3 ± 25.4d (265.3–435.5) 89.9 ± 7.9a (68.8–125.8)

57.9 ± 2.6a (51.3–66.9) 105.9 ± 3.4b (94.5–117.2) 500.0 ± 47.8c (315.9–698.7) 301.4 ± 49.8d (189.7–536.7) 323.8 ± 20.9d (243.0–443.7) 70.6 ± 9.1a (45.5–111.6)

59.3 ± 21.1a,b (30.4–164.1) 45.5 ± 2.8a,c (34.3–54.3) 42.2 ± 8.3a,c (7.7–86.0) 38.7 ± 6.3a,c (24.1–65.7) 77.8 ± 10.9b (44.4–134.7) 24.4 ± 2.0c (17.3–34.6)

34.0 ± 1.6a.b (28.1–39.1) 52.9 ± 2.0a,c (44.8–58.8) 103.2 ± 15.4d (52.8–66.4) 59.8 ± 9.9a,c (28.3–96.9) 71.7 ± 9.8c (45.6–124.5) 19.8 ± 9.8b (14.5–29.1)

Val­ues pre­sented as mean ± SE (min­i­mum–max­i­mum). Dif­fer­ent let­ters denote sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ences among the dif­fer­ent groups, p < 0.05.

1672

M. Ferre­ira et al. / Chemosphere 73 (2008) 1669–1674

Table 4 Hepatic EROD and GST activ­i­ties, and eryth­ro­cyte micro­nu­cleus (MN) in white sea­ bream Class

n

EROD (pmol/min/ mg pro­tein)

GST (nmol/min/ mg pro­tein)

MN (per 1000 eryth­ro­cytes)

I II III IV V Wild

6 6 10 6 8 7

80.0 ± 10.6a,c 48.3 ± 14.5a,b,d 125.1 ± 23.8c 44.0 ± 14.9b,d 21.6 ± 3.0d 55.1 ± 7.4a,b

104.2 ± 4.3a 108.4 ± 10.1a,b 118.8 ± 5.4a,b 127.2 ± 7.3b,c 76.8 ± 3.2d 148.8 ± 8.7c

2.1 ± 0.4a 2.0 ± 0.5a 2.5 ± 0.4a 1.0 ± 0.5b,c 1.9 ± 0.5a,b 0.3 ± 0.1c

Dif­fer­ent let­ters denote sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ences among the dif­fer­ent groups, p < 0.05.

Fig. 1. Cor­re­la­tion between hepatic EROD activ­ity (pmol/min/mg pro­tein) and tPCB (ng g¡1 lip­ids) in muscle in the lower clas­ses (r) and in the higher weight clas­ses (I).

Regard­ing hepatic GST activ­ity the val­ues are pre­sented in Table 4, an increase in activ­ity was observed from class I to IV. On the con­ trary, and in agree­ment with EROD activ­ity, class V has also showed sig­nif­i­cant lower lev­els for this enzyme. The wild spec­i­mens pre­ sented sig­nif­i­cant higher lev­els for this bio­marker. As for EROD activ­ity a neg­a­tive sig­nif­i­cant cor­re­la­tion was found between GST and tPCB in liver (r = 0.67; p < 0.05), and also with tDDT (r = 0.63; p < 0.05). The geno­tox­i­city bio­marker, eval­u­ated as MN num­bers, did not show sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ences between the eval­u­ated clas­ses, with the excep­tion of class IV that showed lower val­ues than the smaller clas­ses of white sea­bream; nev­er­the­less, class III has also pre­sented a slightly higher value, as for EROD activ­ity. Inter­est­ingly, and con­ trary to the other bio­mark­ers assessed, wild spec­i­mens of white sea­bream pre­sented sig­nif­i­cant lower num­bers of MN, show­ing that wild ani­mals are not so exposed to con­tam­i­nants with geno­ toxic prop­er­ties as ani­mals from aqua­cul­ture. 4. Dis­cus­sion The aim of the pres­ent study was to eval­u­ate the lev­els of orga­ no­chlo­rine con­tam­i­nants (tPCB and tDDT) in a cul­tured spe­cies, the white sea­bream (D. sar­gus); and to detect and assess the pos­si­ble adverse effects of these con­tam­i­nants at a bio­chem­i­cal and cel­lu­lar level, in dif­fer­ent life stages of the spe­cies. In addi­tion, to com­pare cul­tured spec­i­mens with wild spec­i­mens cap­tured off­shore. The observed dif­fer­ences between wild and cul­ti­vated fish may be explained by the dif­fer­ent envi­ron­ments that result in dif­fer­ent con­di­tion fac­tors (Table 1). Cul­ti­vated fish have higher con­di­tion fac­tor, as a result of the abun­dant food sup­ply and closed envi­ron­ ment. If we com­pare wild sea­bream only with the clas­ses IV and V, both with a mar­ket­able size, the wild fish pre­sented a lower

CF, the same has been observed for sea­bass wild and cul­tured, with wild sea­bass pre­sent­ing sig­nif­i­cant lower CF (Fer­nan­des et al., 2007). The fish farm is also located in a coastal lagoon, which con­tains higher lev­els of organic mat­ter and con­tam­i­nants than coastal waters (Quen­tal et al., 2003). The higher lev­els found in farmed fish do not rep­re­sent any risk to human con­sump­tion and are in the same order of other farmed and estu­a­rine fish (An­tunes and Gil, 2004). Exclud­ing muscle of class III fish, tPCB lev­els pre­sented an increase with fish size/age in both ana­lysed tis­sues, and tDDT lev­els showed small vari­a­tions. The fact that fish from class III pre­sented lower lipid con­tents and higher orga­no­ chlo­rine lev­els than the other size clas­ses is an unex­plained result. One pos­si­ble expla­na­tion is the higher con­tent of orga­no­chlo­rine com­pounds in the food pel­lets sup­plied to the fish of this class (Table 2). How­ever, the fact that this increase was not observed in liver make us con­sider other pos­si­bil­i­ties: (i) these fish were recently moved from indoor fib­ber glass tanks to out­door land tanks, which could pro­duce a stress fac­tor that lead to an inter­nal redis­tri­bu­tion of con­tam­i­nants in this adap­ta­tion period, this is in agree­ment with the lower con­di­tion fac­tor found in this size class; (ii) there may be some dif­fer­ences in con­tam­i­nant expo­sure due to sed­i­ment and sus­pended par­tic­u­late mat­ter; or (iii) there may occur vari­a­tions in met­a­bolic capac­i­ties of fish at this grow­ ing stage. Sim­i­lar find­ings were obtained in another spe­cies, sea­ bass (D. lab­rax), pro­duced in a sim­i­lar fish farm (An­tunes et al., 2007), with ani­mals that still were in fib­ber glass tanks. This rein­ forces the idea of these vari­a­tions being a nor­mal bio­logic effect of fish growth. Indeed, these changes in met­a­bolic capac­i­ties could explain higher hepatic EROD activ­ity in white sea­bream class III, as described in Sec­tion 3. Bio­log­i­cal effects in white sea­bream were eval­u­ated by means of EROD and GST activ­ity, and MN fre­quency. The referred bio­mark­ ers are not spe­cific for PCB and DDT; how­ever the inte­grated use of chem­i­cal and bio­log­i­cal anal­y­sis is a way to detect the effects of expo­sure to con­tam­i­nants (van der Oost et al., 2003; Ferre­ira et al., 2006). Phase I bio­trans­for­ma­tion enzyme, eval­u­ated in this study by means of hepatic EROD activ­ity has been described to be involved in the met­a­bolic elim­i­na­tion of sev­eral con­tam­i­nants, like PAH, PCB and oth­ers (Gok­soyr and For­lin, 1992; Why­te et al., 2000; Ferre­ira et al., 2004, 2006). Liver is the organ where bio­trans­for­ma­ tion of con­tam­i­nants is pro­cessed; how­ever we have found that ani­ mals pre­sent­ing higher lev­els of OC accu­mu­la­tion, like the ones in class IV and V showed lower lev­els of EROD activ­ity. In agree­ment with this are the wild ani­mals that showed sig­nif­i­cant lower lev­ els of OC in liver and higher val­ues for this enzyme. Same results were obtained in Atlan­tic tom­cod from the Cana­dian coast, where the authors have found low hepatic EROD activ­ity in cor­re­la­tion with higher lev­els of orga­no­chlo­rine con­tam­i­nants (Couil­lard et al., 2005). Some other stud­ies per­formed with large­mouth bass, in a con­tam­i­nated site with PCB has shown a mod­er­ate induc­tion of EROD activ­ity, and that after a short period of time enzyme lev­els have declined, sug­gest­ing a cat­a­lytic inhi­bi­tion of this enzyme by cer­tain PCB cong­en­ers (reviewed in Why­te et al. (2000)). Another pos­si­ble expla­na­tion for the higher activ­ity in smaller fish is that, usu­ally smaller fish have a higher met­a­bolic activ­ity per gram (Why­te et al., 2000). Finally, we must not exclude the fact that hydrox­yl­ated PCB have been found in the envi­ron­ment and also in fish tis­sues (Buck­man et al., 2006; Kuni­sue et al., 2007), indi­cat­ ing bio­trans­for­ma­tion from CYP enzyme-med­i­ated, how­ever the sug­ges­tion is that they could be bio­trans­formed not by CYP1A but by CYP2B (Buck­man et al., 2006), not mea­sur­able by hepatic EROD activ­ity. One inter­est­ing results is the sig­nif­i­cant ele­vated EROD activ­ity in class III. This could be a direct result of the trans­fer of the fish from the fiber glass tanks, with fil­tered water, to the land tanks with estu­a­rine water that could have more EROD induc­ers pres­ent, like PAHs well doc­u­mented EROD induc­ers (Van der Oost



M. Ferre­ira et al. / Chemosphere 73 (2008) 1669–1674

et al., 2003; Ferre­ira et al., 2006). On the con­trary, EROD activ­ity showed a sig­nif­i­cant positive cor­re­la­tion with PCB accu­mu­la­tion in muscle (Fig. 1). Con­sid­er­ing the muscle con­cen­tra­tions as a bet­ter indi­ca­tor of total con­tam­i­na­tion in fish, adult white sea­bream pre­ sented a lower EROD activ­ity response than juve­nile. Tak­ing into account only adults of com­mer­cial size, we obtained a positive cor­ re­la­tion between the hepatic EROD activ­ity and PCB lev­els in the edi­ble tis­sue, show­ing that EROD activ­ity can be con­sid­ered a good bio­marker for total PCB con­tam­i­na­tion in fish. Glu­ta­thi­one S-trans­fer­ase (GST) was assessed as phase II in the met­a­bolic pro­cess of the bio­trans­for­ma­tion of con­tam­i­nants. With excep­tion of the fish from class V that pre­sented sig­nif­i­cant lower lev­els of activ­ity, the other weight clas­ses pre­sented sim­ i­lar val­ues between them. Over­all, it was observed a sig­nif­i­cant neg­a­tive cor­re­la­tion between this enzymes and the accu­mu­la­tion of OC. The decrease in this enzyme activ­ity, in the pres­ence of orga­no­chlo­rine con­tam­in ­ ants, has already been reported. A study per­formed with mullets has reported that before dep­u­ra­tion, and with higher con­tent in tPCB and tDDT, GST pre­sented lower lev­ els of activ­ity (Ferre­ira et al., 2006). Galla­gher et al. (2001) have also stated that in brown bull­head, PCB have the abil­ity to reduce GST expres­sion. In fact the sig­nif­i­cant higher lev­els of GST activ­ ity pre­sented by the wild white sea­bream than farmed sea­bass with sim­il­ ar weight (class IV and V), that showed con­sid­er­able lower lev­els of OC accu­mu­la­tion can sug­gest that GST is in a way inhib­ited by OC. The MN test has been used as a mea­sure­ment of geno­tox­i­city in dif­fer­ent ani­mal groups includ­ing fish (Carr­as­co et al., 1990; Pach­eco and San­tos, 1998). Sev­eral types of pol­lu­tants, includ­ing PCB, DDT, PAH and met­als, have shown to increase the MN fre­ quency in dif­fer­ent fish spe­cies (reviewed in Al-Sab­ti and ­Met­calfe (1995)). One inter­est­ing result in this study is the sig­nif­i­cant lower lev­els of geno­tox­i­city reg­is­tered in wild sea­bream (0.3 ± 0.1) in com­ par­i­son to the spec­i­mens from the aqua­cul­ture (from 1.0 to 2.5) show­ing that wild ani­mals are not so exposed to pol­lu­tants that have the potential to induce geno­toxic effects. Dif­fer­ent fish spe­ cies can show dif­fer­ent MN fre­quen­cies, none­the­less higher MN fre­quen­cies have been reported in more pol­luted sites (Mi­nis­si et al., 1996; Er­gene et al., 2007), and after expo­sure to dif­fer­ent types of pol­lu­tants (Bo­log­ne­si et al., 2006; Neu­parth et al., 2006). The higher lev­els obtained in class III could be a direct result of a higher EROD activ­ity. From the higher bio­trans­for­ma­tion enzyme activ­ity could arise more metab­ol­ ites with geno­toxic potential. Another hypoth­es­ is to be con­sid­ered is the pos­si­ble pres­ence of more geno­toxic chem­i­cals in the land tanks the ani­mals were trans­ferred to, how­ever the ani­mals from the next weight class showed less MN. 5. Con­clu­sions White sea­bream accu­mu­lates orga­no­chlo­rine com­pounds dur­ing the pro­cess of growth in the aqua­cul­ture pro­duc­tion. Cul­ti­vated ani­ mals showed, in muscle and liver, higher val­ues of lip­ids, tPCB and tDDT than wild ani­mals. Bio­trans­for­ma­tion enzymes showed neg­a­ tive cor­re­la­tions with orga­no­chlo­rine lev­els in liver. M ­ i­cro­nucl­eous num­bers showed that wild white sea­bream are not so exposed to geno­toxic com­pounds as cul­tured ones. In addi­tion, bio­mark­ers can be used also in terms of eval­u­at­ing cul­tured fish qual­ity ver­sus wild. Con­tam­in ­ ant lev­els were low and com­pa­ra­ble to other cul­tured spe­ cies giv­ing fur­ther indi­ca­tions that white sea­bream is a spe­cies with a high potential for aqua­cul­ture pro­duc­tion. Acknowl­edge­ments The authors would like to acknowl­edge the Portuguese Foun­ da­tion for Sci­ence and Tech­nol­ogy (FCT) for the finan­cial sup­port

1673

(POCI/MAR/59094/2004). M. Ferre­ira, P. An­tunes and J. Costa also thank the grants from the same insti­tu­tion. Ref­er­ences Al-Sab­ti, K., Met­calfe, C.D., 1995. Fish micro­nu­clei for assess­ing geno­tox­i­city in water. Mutat. Res. 343, 121–135. An­tunes, P., Gil, O., 2004. PCB and DDT con­tam­i­na­tion in cul­ti­vated and wild sea bass from Ria de Ave­iro, Por­tu­gal. Che­mo­sphere 54, 1503–1507. An­tunes, P., Gil, O., Reis-Henr­i­ques, M.A., 2007. Evi­dence of higher bio­mag­ni­fi­ca­tion fac­tors for lower chlo­ri­nated PCBs in cul­ti­vated sea­bass. Sci. Total Envi­ron. 377, 36–44. Bo­log­ne­si, C., Per­ro­ne, E., Rog­gi­eri, P., Pamp­a­nin, D.M., Sci­utto, A., 2006. Assess­ment of micro­nu­clei induc­tion in periph­e­ral eryth­ro­cytes of fish exposed to xeno­bi­ot­ ics under con­trolled con­di­tions. Aquat. Tox­i­col. 78S, S93–S98. Buck­man, A.H., Wong, C.S., Chow, E.A., Brown, S.B., Sol­o­mon, K.R., Fisk, A.T., 2006. Bio­trans­for­ma­tion of poly­chlo­ri­nated biphe­nyls (PCBs) and bio­for­ma­tion of hydrox­yl­ated PCBs in fish. Aquat. Tox­i­col. 78, 176–185. Ca­chot, J., Ge­ff­ard, O., Auga­gneur, S., Lac­roix, S., Le Men­ach, K., Pelu­het, L., Cou­teau, J., Denier, X., De­vier, M.H., Pot­tier, D., Bud­zin­ski, H., 2006. Evi­dence of geno­tox­ i­city related to high PAH con­tent of sed­i­ments in the upper part of the Seine estu­ary (Nor­mandy, France). Aquat. Tox­i­col. 79, 257–267. Carr­as­co, K.R., Til­bury, K.L., Myers, M.S., 1990. Assess­ment of the piscine micro­nu­ clei test as an in situ. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47, 2123–2136. Com­man­deur, J.N., Sti­jnt­jes, G.J., Ver­me­u­len, N.P., 1995. Enzymes and trans­port sys­ tems involved in the for­ma­tion and dis­po­si­tion of glu­ta­thi­one S-con­ju­gates. Role in bio­ac­ti­va­tion and detox­i­ca­tion mech­a­nisms of xeno­bi­ot­ics. Phar­ma­col. Rev. 47, 271–330. Couil­lard, C.M., Le­beuf, M., Ik­on­o­mou, M.G., Poi­ri­er, G.G., Cret­ney, W.J., 2005. Low hepatic eth­oxy­res­oru­fin-O-de­eth­y­lase activ­ity cor­re­lates with high orga­no­chlo­ rine con­cen­tra­tions in Atlan­tic tom­cod from the Cana­dian East Coast. Envi­ron. Tox­i­col. Chem. 24, 2459–2469. Eas­ton, M.D.L., Lusz­niak, D., Von der Ge­est, E., 2002. Preliminary exam­i­na­tion of con­tam­i­nant load­ings in farmed salmon, wild salmon and com­mer­cial salmon feed. Che­mo­sphere 46, 1053–1074. Er­gene, S., Çavao, T., Çelik, A., Kol­eli, N., Kaya, F., Ka­ra­han, A., 2007. Mon­it­ or­ing of nuclear abnor­mal­i­ties in periph­e­ral eryth­ro­cytes of three fish spe­cies from the Go­ksu Delta (Tur­key): geno­toxic dam­age in rela­tion to water pol­lu­tion. Eco­toxi­ co­logy 16, 385–391. Fent, K., Buc­he­li, T.D., 1994. Inhi­bi­tion of hepatic micro­somal mono­ox­y­gen­ase sys­ tem by or­gano­tins in vitro in fresh­wa­ter fish. Aquat. Tox­i­col. 28, 107–126. Fer­nan­des, D., Porte, C., Be­bi­an­no, M.J., 2007. Chem­i­cal res­i­dues and bio­chem­i­cal responses in wild and cul­tured Euro­pean sea bass (Dicen­trar­chus labra L.). Envi­ ron. Res. 103, 247–256. Ferre­ira, M., An­tunes, P., Gil, O., Vale, C., Reis-Henr­i­ques, M.A., 2004. Orga­no­chlo­rine con­tam­i­nants in floun­der (Pla­tich­thys fle­sus) and mullet (Mu­gil ceph­a­lus) from Do­uro estu­ary, and their use as sen­ti­nel spe­cies for envi­ron­men­tal mon­i­tor­ing. Aquat. Tox­i­col. 69, 347–357. Ferre­ira, M., Mor­a­das-Ferre­ira, P., Reis-Henr­i­ques, M.A., 2006. The effect of longterm dep­u­ra­tion on phase I and phase II bio­trans­for­ma­tion in mullets (Mu­gil ceph­a­lus) chron­i­cally exposed to pol­lu­tants in River Do­uro Estu­ary, Por­tu­gal. Mar. Envi­ron. Res. 61, 326–338. Galla­gher, E.P., Gross, T.S., Shee­hy, K.M., 2001. Decreased glu­ta­thi­one S-trans­fer­ase expres­sion and activ­ity and altered sex ste­roids in Lake Apo­pka brown bull­ heads (Ameiu­rus neb­u­lo­sus). Aquat. Tox­i­col. 55, 223–237. Gok­soyr, A., For­lin, L., 1992. The cyto­chrome P-450 sys­tem in fish, aquatic tox­i­col­ogy and envi­ron­men­tal mon­i­tor­ing. Aquat. Tox­i­col. 22, 287–311. Ha­big, W.H., Pabst, M.J., Ja­koby, W.B., 1974. Glu­ta­thi­one S-trans­fer­ases – first enzy­ matic step in mer­cap­tu­ric acid for­ma­tion. J. Biol. Chem. 249, 7130–7139. Jacobs, M.N., Co­vac­i, A., Sche­pens, P., 2002. Inves­ti­ga­tion of selected per­sis­tent organic pol­lu­tants in farmed Atlan­tic salmon (Salmo sa­lar), salmon aqua­cul­ture feed, and fish oil com­po­nents of the feed. Envi­ron. Sci. Tech­nol. 36, 2797–2805. Kim, I.-Y., Hyun, C.-K., 2006. Com­par­at­ ive eval­u­a­tion of the alka­line comet assay with the micro­nu­cleus test for geno­tox­i­city mon­i­tor­ing using aquatic organ­ isms. Eco­tox. Envi­ron. Safe. 64, 288–297. Kuni­sue, T., Sa­kiy­ama, T., Yam­ada, T.K., Ta­kah­ash­i, S., Tan­a­be, S., 2007. Occur­rence of hydrox­yl­ated poly­chlo­ri­nated biphe­nyls in the brain of ceta­ceans stranded along the Jap­a­nese coast. Mar. Pol­lut. Bull. 54, 963–973. Ma­ule, A.G., Gan­nam, A.L., Davis, J.W., 2007. Chem­i­cal con­tam­i­nants in fish feeds used in fed­eral sal­mo­nid hatch­er­ies in the USA. Che­mo­sphere 67, 1308–1315. Mi­nis­si, S., Cic­cot­ti, E., Rizz­on­i, M., 1996. Micro­nu­cleus test in eryth­ro­cytes of Bar­bus ple­be­jus (Te­le­o­stei, Pisces) from two nat­u­ral envi­ron­ments: a bio­as­say for the in situ detec­tion of mu­ta­gens in fresh­wa­ter. Mutat. Res. 367, 245–251. Neu­parth, T., Bick­ham, J.W., The­od ­ o­ra­kis, C.W., Costa, F.O., Costa, M.H., 2006. Endo­ sul­fan-induced geno­tox­i­city detected in the gilt­head sea­bream, Spa­rus au­ra­ta L., by means of flow cytom­e­try and micro­nu­clei assays. Envi­ron. Con­tam. Tox­ic­ ol. 76, 242–248. Pach­eco, M., San­tos, M.A., 1998. Induc­tion of liver EROD and eryth­ro­cytic nuclear abnor­mal­i­ties by cyclo­phos­pha­mide and PAHs in Anguilla anguilla L.. Eco­tox. Envi­ron. Safe. 40, 71–76. Perez, M.J., Rodri­guez, C., Ce­jas, J.R., Mar­tin, M.V., Jerez, S., Lore­nzo, A., 2007. Lipid and fatty acid con­tent in wild white sea­bream (Dipl­o­dus sar­gus) brood­stock at dif­fer­ent stages of the repro­duc­tive cycle. Comp. Bio­chem. Phys. B 146, 187– 196.

1674

M. Ferre­ira et al. / Chemosphere 73 (2008) 1669–1674

Quen­tal, T., Ferre­ira, A.M., Vale, C., 2003. The dis­tri­bu­tion of PCBs and DDTs in se­ston and plank­ton along the Portuguese coast. Acta Oecol. 24, S333– S339. Sa, R., Pousão-Ferre­ira, P., Oliva-Teles, A., 2006. Effect of die­tary pro­tein and lipid lev­els on growth and feed uti­li­za­tion of white sea bream (Dipl­o­dus sar­gus) juve­ niles. Aqua­cult. Nutr. 12, 310–321. Sa, R., Pousão-Ferre­ira, P., Oliva-Teles, A., 2007. Growth per­for­mance and met­a­bolic uti­li­za­tion of diets with dif­fer­ent pro­tein: car­bo­hy­drate ratios by white sea bream (Dipl­o­dus sar­gus, L.) juve­niles. Aqua­cult. Res. 38, 100–105. Sa­ave­dra, M., Con­ceição, L.E.C., Pousão-Ferre­ira, P., Di­nis, M.T., 2006. Amino acid pro­files of Dipl­o­dus sar­gus (L., 1758) lar­vae: impli­ca­tions for feed for­mu­la­tion. Aqua­cul­ture 261, 587–593. Singh, P.B., Singh, V., 2008a. Pes­ti­cide bio­ac­cu­mu­la­tion and plasma sex ste­roids in fishes dur­ing the breed­ing phase from north India. Envi­ron. Tox­i­col. Phar­ma­col. 25, 342–350.

Singh, P.B., Singh, V., 2008b. Bio­ac­cu­mu­la­tion of hex­a­chlo­ro­cy­clo­hex­ane, dichlo­ro­di­ phen­yl­tri­chlo­ro­eth­ane, and estra­diol-17b in cat­fish and carp dur­ing the pre­mon­ soon sea­son in India. Fish Phys­iol. Bio­chem. 34, 25–36. Toft, G., Edwards, T.M., Baat­rup, E., Guil­lette Jr., L.J., 2003. Dis­turbed sex­ual char­ac­ter­ is­tics in male mos­qui­to­fish (Gam­bu­sia hol­bro­oki) from a lake con­tam­i­nated with endo­crine dis­rup­tors. Envi­ron. Health Persp. 111, 695–701. UNEP – United Nations Envi­ron­ment Programme, Sec­re­tar­iat of the Stock­holm Con­ ven­tion on Per­sis­tent Organic Pol­lu­tants, 2007. Guid­ance on the Global Mon­i­tor­ ing Plan for Per­sis­tent Organic Pol­lu­tants. Van der Oost, R., Be­yer, J., Ver­me­u­len, N.P.E., 2003. Fish bio­ac­cu­mu­la­tion and bio­ mark­ers in envi­ron­men­tal risk assess­ment: a review. Envi­ron. Tox­ic­ ol. Phar­ma­ col. 13, 57–149. Why­te, J.J., Jung, R.E., Sch­mitt, C.J., Til­litt, D.E., 2000. Eth­oxy­res­oru­fin-O-de­eth­y­lase (EROD) activ­ity in fish as a bio­marker of chem­i­cal expo­sure. Crit. Rev. Tox­ic­ ol. 30, 347–570.