Textile dyes induce toxicity on zebrafish early life stages. (17th December 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: de Oliveira, Gisele Augusto Rodrigues; de Lapuente, Joaquín; Teixidó, Elisabet; Porredón, Constança; Borràs, Miquel; de Oliveira, Danielle Palma
• Is Part Of: Environmental toxicology and chemistry. Volume 35:Number 2(2016:Feb.)
• Page Start: 429
• Page End: 434
• Publication Date: 2015-12-17
• Subjects: Aquatic toxicity -- Textile dye -- Embryo‐larval toxicity test -- Malformation -- Alternative to animal testing; Pollution -- Environmental aspects -- Periodicals; Environmental chemistry -- Periodicals; 615.902
• DOI: 10.1002/etc.3202
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0730-7268

Abstract

Abstract: Textile manufacturing is one of the most polluting industrial sectors because of the release of potentially toxic compounds, such as synthetic dyes, into the environment. Depending on the class of the dyes, their loss in wastewaters can range from 2% to 50% of the original dye concentration. Consequently, uncontrolled use of such dyes can negatively affect human health and the ecological balance. The present study assessed the toxicity of the textile dyes Direct Black 38 (DB38), Reactive Blue 15 (RB15), Reactive Orange 16 (RO16), and Vat Green 3 (VG3) using zebrafish ( Danio rerio ) embryos for 144 h postfertilization (hpf). At the tested conditions, none of the dyes caused significant mortality. The highest RO16 dose significantly delayed or inhibited the ability of zebrafish embryos to hatch from the chorion after 96 hpf. From 120 hpf to 144 hpf, all the dyes impaired the gas bladder inflation of zebrafish larvae, DB38 also induced curved tail, and VG3 led to yolk sac edema in zebrafish larvae. Based on these data, DB38, RB15, RO16, and VG3 can induce malformations during embryonic and larval development of zebrafish. Therefore, it is essential to remove these compounds from wastewater or reduce their concentrations to safe levels before discharging textile industry effluents into the aquatic environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 2016;35:429–434. © 2015 SETAC