Back to all available

Bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of the PAH anthracene between a host plant and Cornops aquaticum in the Amazon Region

ecotoxicology
environmental-impacts
green-chemistry

Abstract

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are persistent organic pollutants of high environmental concern due to their mutagenic, teratogenic, and carcinogenic properties. Among them, anthracene a tricyclic compound of moderate hydrophobicity exhibits significant phototoxic and oxidative effects on aquatic organisms. This study investigated the bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of anthracene between the aquatic macrophyte Eichhornia crassipes and its associated semi-aquatic grasshopper Cornops aquaticum in the Amazon region. Controlled laboratory simulations were conducted with five anthracene exposure levels (0, 1, 3, 5, and 10 g·L⁻¹). Anthracene quantification was performed using validated high-performance liquid chromatography with diode-array detection (HPLC-DAD). Results revealed higher anthracene retention in the roots of E. crassipes, with concentrations up to 839.94 µg·g⁻¹, while the grasshoppers accumulated up to 115.42 µg·g⁻¹ in females and 53.81 µg·g⁻¹ in males. Strong positive correlations (r > 0.85, p < 0.001) were observed between the anthracene content of plant tissues and insects, confirming trophic transfer. The findings highlight the dual ecological role of E. crassipes as both a phytoremediator and a temporary reservoir of persistent organic contaminants. This study provides pioneering insights into the chemical-ecological interactions of anthracene in tropical aquatic systems and establishes C. aquaticum as a potential bioindicator for PAH pollution in Amazonian wetlands.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].