title: Induction of fish biomarkers by synthetic-based drilling muds.
abstract: The study investigated the effects of chronic exposure of pink snapper (Pagrus auratus Forster), to synthetic based drilling muds (SBMs). Fish were exposed to three mud systems comprised of three different types of synthetic based fluids (SBFs): an ester (E), an isomerized olefin (IO) and linear alpha olefin (LAO). Condition factor (CF), liver somatic index (LSI), hepatic detoxification (EROD activity), biliary metabolites, DNA damage and stress proteins (HSP-70) were determined. Exposure to E caused biologically significant effects by increasing CF and LSI, and triggered biliary metabolite accumulation. While ester-based SBFs have a rapid biodegradation rate in the environment, they caused the most pronounced effects on fish health. IO induced EROD activity and biliary metabolites and LAO induced EROD activity and stress protein levels. The results demonstrate that while acute toxicity of SBMs is generally low, chronic exposure to weathering cutting piles has the potential to affect fish health. The study illustrates the advantages of the Western Australian government case-by-case approach to drilling fluid management, and highlights the importance of considering the receiving environment in the selection of SBMs.
authors.affiliation: Department of Environment and Agriculture, Curtin University, Perth, Australia. m.gagnon@curtin.edu.au
authors.forename: Marthe Monique
authors.initials: MM
authors.lastname: Gagnon
authors.forename: Sajida
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Bakhtyar
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D015415:Biomarkers / Q000378:metabolism; D004738:Engineering; D004785:Environmental Pollutants / Q000633:toxicity*; D010473:Perciformes / Q000378:metabolism*
chemical_list: D015415:Biomarkers; D004785:Environmental Pollutants
references.citation: Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2005 Apr;1(2):109-13
references.pmid: 16639892
references.citation: Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 1991 May;20(4):462-73
references.pmid: 2069420
references.citation: Environ Toxicol. 2002 Feb;17(1):87-92
references.pmid: 11847979
references.citation: Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2003 Feb;13(2):57-149
references.pmid: 21782649
references.citation: Mar Pollut Bull. 2002 Mar;44(3):230-7
references.pmid: 11954740
references.citation: Toxicol Lett. 2000 Mar 15;112-113:283-8
references.pmid: 10720743
references.citation: Environ Toxicol. 2009 Jun;24(3):287-95
references.pmid: 18767137
references.citation: Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 1996 Oct;35(1):16-23
references.pmid: 8930501
references.citation: Ecotoxicology. 2006 Nov;15(8):665-72
references.pmid: 17080314
references.citation: J Biol Chem. 1951 Nov;193(1):265-75
references.pmid: 14907713
references.citation: Environ Monit Assess. 2012 Sep;184(9):5311-25
references.pmid: 21928151
references.citation: Mar Environ Res. 2002 Feb;53(1):95-116
references.pmid: 11767256