Advertisement

Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 53, Issue 3–4, pp 327–334 | Cite as

Brain AChE activity studies in some fish species collected from a mercury contaminated estuary

  • B. P. Shaw
  • A. K. Panigrahi
Article

Abstract

In an attempt to investigate the impact of the discharge of Hg contaminated effluent from a chlor-alkali industry into the Rushikulya river estuary, brain AChE activity was measured in three fish species, S. sihama, A. nenga and S. argus, sampled from the contaminated water of the estuary. The residual Hg levels in the brain tissue of the fishes were also determined. The maximum brain residual Hg level, 0.702 ± 0.205 mg kg−1 ww, was recorded in S. sihama. The inhibition of the AChE activity observed in that species was as much as 26.48% when compared to the normal enzyme activity. The levels of inhibition. observed in the other two fish species, A. nenga and S. argus, were also more than the 10% index level suggested. A significant negative correlation observed between the brain residual Hg levels and the AChE activity levels suggested the use of fish brain AChE measurement as a regular monitoring protocol in assessment of the pollution of aquatic systems by Hg.

Keywords

Mercury Fish Species Aquatic System River Estuary Significant Negative Correlation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Begum, S. J., Reddy, M. M., Indira, K., and Swami, K. S.: 1987, Arch. Int. Physiol. Biochem. 95, 101.Google Scholar
  2. Bhagyalakshmi, A., and Ramamurthi, R.: 1980, Bull. environ. Contam. Toxicol. 24, 866.Google Scholar
  3. Bhagyalakshmi, A., Reddy, P. S. and Ramamurthi, R.: 1985, Geobios 12, 52.Google Scholar
  4. Chin, Y. N., and Sudderuddin, K. I.: 1979, Environ. Pollut. 18, 213.Google Scholar
  5. Coppage, D. L. and Duke, T. W.: 1971, in Proceedings of the 2nd Gulf Coast Conference on Mosquito Suppression and Wildlife Management, C. H. Schmidt (ed.), National Mosquito Control- Fish and Wildlife Management Coordinating Committee, Washington, D.C., pp. 24–31.Google Scholar
  6. Coppage, D. L. and Mathews, E.: 1974, Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 11, 483.Google Scholar
  7. Coppage, D. L., Mathews, E., Cook, G. H. and Knight, J.: 1975, Biochem. Physiol. 5, 536.Google Scholar
  8. Corbett, J. R., Wright, K. and Baillie, A. C.: 1984, The Biochemical Mode ofAction ofPesticides, Academic Press, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  9. ECIL (Electronic Corporation of India Limited): 1981, Analytical methods for determination of mercury by mercury analyser MA 5800A.Google Scholar
  10. Greig, R. A., Wenzloff, D. and Shelpuk, C.: 1975, Pestc. Monit. J. 9, 15.Google Scholar
  11. Hestrin, S.: 1949, J. Biol. Chem. 180, 249.Google Scholar
  12. Holland, H. T., Coppage, D. L., and Butler, P. A.: 1967, Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2, 156.Google Scholar
  13. Macek, K. J., Walsh, D. F., Hogan, J. W., and Holtz, D. D.: 1972, Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 101, 420.Google Scholar
  14. Matsunaga, K.: 1978, Bull. Fac. Fish. Hokkaido Univ. 29, 70.Google Scholar
  15. Metcalf, D. R. and Holmes, J. H.: 1969, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 160, 357.Google Scholar
  16. Mohanty, B. K. and Misra, B. N.: 1981, Exptl. Clin. Res. 7, 11.Google Scholar
  17. Murphy, S. D., Lauwerys, R. R., and Cheever, K. L.: 1968, Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 12, 22.Google Scholar
  18. Nemcsok, J., Orban, L., Dobler, L., and Szepfalussy, J.: 1985, Acta Univ. Szeged Acta Biol. 31, 9.Google Scholar
  19. Nicholson, H. D.: 1967, Science 158, 871.Google Scholar
  20. O'Biren, R. D.: 1967, Insecticides: action and metabolism, Academic Press Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  21. Olson, D. L., and Christensen, G. M.: 1980, Envir. Res. 21, 327.Google Scholar
  22. Panigrahi, A. K.: 1980, ‘Ecophysiological Effects of Mercurial Compounds on some Freshwater Fishes,’ Ph.D. thesis, Berhampur University, Orissa, India.Google Scholar
  23. Post, G. and Leasure, R. A.: 1974, Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 12, 312.Google Scholar
  24. Rainsford, K. D.: 1978, Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 8, 302.Google Scholar
  25. Rath, S. and Misra, B. N.: 1981, Toxicology 19, 239.Google Scholar
  26. Reddy, M. S. and Rao, K. V. R.: 1986, Environ. Ecol. 4, 221.Google Scholar
  27. Reddy, M. S.: 1988, Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 40, 752.Google Scholar
  28. Reiter, L., Talens, G., and Woolley, D.: 1973, Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 25, 582.Google Scholar
  29. Reiter, L. W., Talens, G. M., and Woolley, D. E.: 1975, Toxicol Appl. Pharmacol. 33, 1.Google Scholar
  30. Shaw, B. P. and Panigrahi, A. K.: 1986, Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 15, 439.Google Scholar
  31. Shaw, B. P., Sahu, A., Chowdhuri, S. B., and Panigrahi, A. K.: 1988, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 19, 233.Google Scholar
  32. Sihotang, K.: 1976, Eur. J. Biochem. 63, 519.Google Scholar
  33. Stewart, W. C.: 1952, Brit. J. Pharmacol. 7, 20.Google Scholar
  34. Sudderuddin, K. I.: 1973, Comp. Gen. Pharmacol. 4, 219.Google Scholar
  35. Weiss, C. M.: 1961, Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 90, 143.Google Scholar
  36. Wustner, D. A., and Fukuto, T. R.: 1974, Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 4, 365.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. P. Shaw
    • 1
  • A. K. Panigrahi
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Environmental Toxicology, Department of BotanyBerhampur UniversityOrissaIndia

Personalised recommendations