Influence of acetaldehyde, dietary protein, carbon tetrachloride and butylatedhydroxytoluene on the toxicity of methylmercury in rats

  • Marvin A. Friedman
  • L. Richard Eaton
  • William Bailey
Article

Abstract

The influence of environmental or dietary factors on the toxicity of methylmercury (MeHg) was investigated due to possibilities that humans exposed to methylmercury may have been sensitized. Groups of 8 rats were exposed to 0, 20 or 40 ppm MeHg in a semisynthetic diet and fed 0.5% BHT, 5% protein (instead of 15%), or injected with 250 mg/kg CCl4, or acetaldehyde. In control rats neurotoxicity occurred at 4 weeks and 9 weeks with 40 and 20 ppm MeHg, respectively. Mortality was observed at 6 weeks with 40 ppm and 1 rat died in week 9 with 20 ppm MeHg. Acetaldehyde injected rats died at week 4 and 6 when fed 40 or 20 ppm MeHg. Neurotoxicity was observed in week 3 and 5 in these groups, respectively. Treating rats with the low protein or BHT accelerated neurotoxicity and mortality by 1 week with 40 ppm MeHg. These agents had killed all test animals within 7 weeks at 20 ppm MeHg. Neither acetaldehyde nor BHT influenced 0 ppm MeHg controls while 5% protein induced precipitous weight loss. In the case of CCl4, the rats lived longer in combination experiments than one would have expected from the individual treatments.

Keywords

Acetaldehyde Toxicity Waste Water Water Pollution CCl4 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ALVARES, A.P., LEIGH, S., COHN, J., and KAPPAS, A., Journ. Exp. Med.135, 1406 (1972).Google Scholar
  2. FRIEDMAN, M.A. and EATON, L.R., Bull. Env. Cont. and Toxicol. (in press).Google Scholar
  3. FRIEDMAN, M.A., EATON, L.R., and CARTER, W.H., Bull. Env. Cont. and Toxicol. (in press).Google Scholar
  4. GANTHER, H.E., GOUDI, C., SUNDE, M.L., WAGNER, P., OH, S.W., and HOEKSTRA, W.C., Science175, 1122 (1972).Google Scholar
  5. GOLDSMITH, R.H. and SOARES, J.H., Bull. Env. Cont. and Toxicol.13, 737 (1975).Google Scholar
  6. IWATA, H., OKAMOTO, H., and OHSAWA, Y., Res. Comm. in Chem. Path. and Pharmacol.5, 673 (1973).Google Scholar
  7. OHI, G., NISHIGAKI, S., SEKI, H., TAMURA, Y., MAKI, T., KONNO, H., OCHIAI, S., and YAGYU, H., Env. Res.12, 49 (1976).Google Scholar
  8. POTTER, S. and MATRONE, G., J. Nutr.104, 638 (1974).Google Scholar
  9. STILLINGS, B.R., LAGALLY, H., BAUERSHILD, P., and SOARES, J., Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.30, 243 (1974).Google Scholar
  10. STOEWSAND, G.S., BACHE, C.A., and LISKE, D.J., Bull. Env. Cont. and Toxicol.11, 152 (1974).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marvin A. Friedman
    • 1
    • 2
  • L. Richard Eaton
    • 1
    • 2
  • William Bailey
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacology, Medical College of Virginia, Health Sciences DivisionVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmond
  2. 2.MCV/VCU Cancer CenterRichmond

Personalised recommendations