A mechanistic explanation for the In(LC50) vs In(hardness) adjustment equation for metals
- Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie, WY (United States). Dept. of Zoology and Physiology
The author demonstrates that a combination of (a) competitive binding of transition-metal cations, hardness cations, and protons to transition-metal-binding sites on fish gills and (b) aqueous complexation of transition-metal cations by HCO{sub 3}{sup {minus}} and CO{sub 3}{sup 2{minus}} explains why the regression slopes of In(LC50) vs In(hardness) for five divalent transition metals (Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn) are {approximately}1, where LC50 is the median lethal concentration. For these calculations, the author assumed the amount of the transition metal bound to the fish gill at 50% mortality is constant (i.e., independent of water quality). Although the slopes theoretically should vary between 0 and 2, a slope of {approximately}1 is expected at midrange hardness if alkalinity covaries with hardness--a common condition in most laboratory toxicity tests. But if alkalinity is held constant while hardness is varied, a slope of {approximately}0.5 is expected at midrange hardness. Although predictions of LC50s using regressions of In(LC50) vs In(hardness) might be acceptable for regulating discharges of transition metals to waters in the midrange of hardness, extrapolations beyond this range might drastically overpredict metal toxicity.
- OSTI ID:
- 335347
- Journal Information:
- Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 33, Issue 6; Other Information: PBD: 15 Mar 1999
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Age-specific toxicity of copper to larval topsmelt Atherinops affinis
Modeling silver binding to gills of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)