scholarly journals When are metal complexes bioavailable?

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chun-Mei Zhao ◽  
Peter G.C. Campbell ◽  
Kevin J. Wilkinson

Environmental contextThe concentration of a free metal cation has proved to be a useful predictor of metal bioaccumulation and toxicity, as represented by the free ion activity and biotic ligand models. However, under certain circumstances, metal complexes have been shown to contribute to metal bioavailability. In the current mini-review, we summarise the studies where the classic models fail and organise them into categories based on the different uptake pathways and kinetic processes. Our goal is to define the limits within which currently used models such as the biotic ligand model (BLM) can be applied with confidence, and to identify how these models might be expanded. AbstractNumerous data from studies over the past 30 years have shown that metal uptake and toxicity are often best predicted by the concentrations of free metal cations, which has led to the development of the largely successful free-ion activity model (FIAM) and biotic ligand model (BLM). Nonetheless, some exceptions to these classical models, showing enhanced metal bioavailability in the presence of metal complexes, have also been documented, although it is not yet fully understood to what extent these exceptions can or should be generalised. Only a few studies have specifically measured the bioaccumulation or toxicity of metal complexes while carefully measuring or controlling metal speciation. Fewer still have verified the fundamental assumptions of the classical models, especially when dealing with metal complexes. In the current paper, we have summarised the exceptions to classical models and categorised them into five groups based on the fundamental uptake pathways and kinetic processes. Our aim is to summarise the mechanisms involved in the interaction of metal complexes with organisms and to improve the predictive capability of the classic models when dealing with complexes.

Author(s):  
Peter G.C Campbell ◽  
Olivier Errécalde ◽  
Claude Fortin ◽  
Véronique P Hiriart-Baer ◽  
Bernard Vigneault

2005 ◽  
Vol 39 (7) ◽  
pp. 2067-2072 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karel A. C. De Schamphelaere ◽  
Jennifer L. Stauber ◽  
Karyn L. Wilde ◽  
Scott J. Markich ◽  
Paul L. Brown ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera I. Slaveykova ◽  
Kevin J. Wilkinson

Environmental Context. The chemical speciation of trace metals greatly influences their biological effects. Nonetheless, no clear consensus currently exists as to when metal complexes are bioavailable, especially for field conditions. Recently, the USA EPA has incorporated the biotic ligand model (BLM) into their regulatory framework and many other countries are now examining the implications of following suit. This review examines the fundamental basis of the BLM in order to provide the reader with an understanding of its potential uses and limitations. Abstract. The biotic ligand model is a useful construct both for predicting the effects of metals to aquatic biota and for increasing our mechanistic understanding of their interactions with biological surfaces. Since biological effects due to metals are always initiated by metal bioaccumulation, the fundamental processes underlying bio-uptake are examined in this review. The model assumes that the metal of interest, its complexes, and metal bound to sensitive sites on the biological surface are in chemical equilibrium. Therefore, many of the equilibrium constants required for the model have been compiled and their methods of determination evaluated. The underlying equilibrium assumption of the BLM is also examined critically. In an attempt to identify which conditions are appropriate for its application, several documented examples of failures of the BLM are discussed. Finally, the review is concluded by identifying some important future research directions.


2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (0) ◽  
pp. 9781780403656-9781780403656
Author(s):  
P. Paquin ◽  
D. M. Di Toro

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 (10) ◽  
pp. 1877-1894 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.W Gensemer ◽  
John Gondek ◽  
Steven P Canton ◽  
Amanda Kovach ◽  
Carrie A Claytor

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 (5) ◽  
pp. 3489-3505
Author(s):  
Robert Martin ◽  
Carrie Claytor ◽  
Chris Bieker

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (12) ◽  
pp. 2117-2127
Author(s):  
Ariel M Mosbrucker ◽  
Jeffrey A Nason ◽  
Kenneth J Williamson ◽  
Bob Baumgartner

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document