Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:23:36.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The modes of action of toxic agents: II. Factors influencing the toxicities of mercury compounds to certain Crustacea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

E. D. S. Corner  and
B. W. Sparrow
E. D. S. Corner
Affiliation:
International Paints Research Fellow, The Laboratory, Plymouth
B. W. Sparrow
Affiliation:
Assistant Biologist, International Paints Reasearch Laboratory, Newton Ferrers, Devon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A study has been made of the toxicities of mercuric chloride, mercuric iodide and methyl-, ethyl-, n-propyl-, n-butyl-, n-amyl-, iso-propyl-, iso-amyl- and phenylmercuric chlorides to larvae of the crustaceans Artemia salina and Elminins modestus. With both species it has been found that all the mercury compounds are more toxic than mercuric chloride, that primary alkylmercuric chlorides are more toxic than the corresponding secondary compounds, and that as the homologous series of primary compounds is ascended, toxicities increase. In addition, it has been found that Elminius is much more readily poisoned than Artemia by each mercury compound, and that differences between the toxicities of the poisons to Elminius are much smaller than corresponding differences observed in experiments with Artemia.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , November 1957 , pp. 459 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barron, E. S. & Kalnitsky, G., 1947. The inhibition of succinoxidase by heavy metals and its reactivation by dithiols. Biochem.J., Vol. 41, pp. 346–51.Google ScholarPubMed
Bond, H. W. & Nolan, N. O., 1954. Results of laboratory screening tests of chemical compounds for molluscicidal activity. II. Compounds of mercury. Amer. J. trop. Med. & Hyg., Vol. 3, pp. 187–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calvery, H. O., Draize, J. H. & Laug, E. P., 1946. The metabolism and permeability of normal skin. Physiol. Rev., Vol. 26, pp. 495–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corner, E. D. S. & Rigler, F. H., 1957. The loss of mercury from stored sea-water solutions of mercuric chloride. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 36, pp. 449–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corner, E. D. S. & Sparrow, B. W., 1956. The modes of action of toxic agents. I. Observations on the poisoning of certain crustaceans by copper and mercury. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 35, pp. 531–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evert, H. E., 1952. Reversibility of mercuric chloride inhibitions of urease. Fed. Proc, Vol. 11, p. 209.Google Scholar
Ewart, M. H., Siminovitch, D. & Briggs, D. R., 1953. Studies on the chemistry of the living bark of the black locust tree in relation to frost hardiness. VI. Amylase and phosphorylase systems of the bark tissues. Plant Physiol., Vol. 28, pp. 629–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, J., 1939. The use of chemical potentials as indices of toxicity. Proc. Roy. Soc. Land. B, Vol. 127, pp. 387–404.Google Scholar
Gemmill, C. L. & Bowman, E. M., 1950. Effects of mercurial compounds on invertase. J. Pharmacol., Vol. 100, pp. 244–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Hellerman, L., Chinard, P. C. & Deitz, V. R., 1943. Protein sulphydryl groups and the reversible inactivation of the enzyme urease. J. biol. Chem., Vol. 107, pp. 443–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellerman, L. & Perkins, M. E., 1934. Papain activity as influenced by oxidation-reduction and by the action of metal compounds. J. biol. Chem., Vol. 107, pp. 241–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, C., 1950. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Wirkung von Giften auf marine Organismen. Kieler Meeresforsch., Bd. 7, pp. 443–62.Google Scholar
Holm-Jensen, I., 1948. Osmotic regulation in Daphnia magna under physiological conditions and in the presence of heavy metals. Biol. Medd. Kbh., Bd. 20, No. 11, 64 pp.Google Scholar
Jude, A., Nordmann, J., Glrard, P., Nordmann, R., Servant, P. & Gauchery, O., 1952. Action of certain inhibitors on bacterial enzymic activity. III. Bacterial study of mercurial inhibitors. Rev. Immunol., Vol. 16, pp. 286–99.Google Scholar
Okamoto, G. & Nagayama, M., 1952. Physiochemical properties of aqueous solutions of mercury compounds. Jap. J. Pharm. & Chem., Vol. 24, pp. 358–62.Google Scholar
Rothman, S., 1943. The principles of percutaneous absorption. J. Lab. din. Med., Vol. 28, pp. 1305–21.Google Scholar
Stoppani, A. O. M., Actis, A. S., Deferrari, J. O. & Gonzalez, E. L., 1953. The role of sulphydryl groups of yeast carboxylase. Biochem. J., Vol. 54, pp. 378–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sumner, J. B., 1926. The isolation and crystallisation of the enzyme urease. J. biol. Chem., Vol. 69, pp. 435–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treherne, J. E., 1956. The permeability of skin to some non-electrolytes. J. Physiol., Vol. 133, pp. 171–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Slyke, D. D. & Archibald, R. M., 1944. Manometric, titrimetric and colori-metric methods for measurement of urease activity. J. biol. Chem., Vol. 154, pp. 623–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. T., 1949. Detoxication Mechanisms, 288 pp. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Yoshiyuki, I. & Shintani, G., 1942. Seed disinfectants. II. Lethal effect of alkylmercuric halides on micro-organisms. J. agric. Chem. Soc. Japan, Vol. 18, pp. 1145–48.Google Scholar
Young, L., 1939. The detoxication of carbocyclic compounds. Physiol. Rev., Vol. 19, PP. 323–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar