Application of non-destructive methods to assess biomarker responses in wildlife

N.W. van den Brink, M.B.E. Lee-de Groot, P.A.F. de Bie, A.T.C. Bosveld

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingAbstract


    The use of non-destructive biomarkers in risk-assessment of contamination is in general preferable over more destructive methods. However, not for all biomarkers are non-destructive alternatives available. In the current paper the in vivo validation for a non-destructive alternative for the AROD-biomarker will be presented. This alternative is based upon the hypothesis that hepatic cytochrome P450 enzymes, related to AROD-activity, can metabolize a certain set of PCB congeners, depending on the structure of the PCBs. In exposure experiments, using shrew (a small insectivore mammal) dose response relations have been established between exposure to CYP-inducing compounds and changes in PCB-patterns, resulting from metabolism. In a field study on shrews the relation between AROD-markers and changes in PCB-patterns could be established in free-ranging animals. Based upon this validation it can be concluded that a detailed PCB-Pattern-Analysis (PPA) can be applied in samples that can be obtained non-destructively, e.g. blood or other excrements. This will be illustrated by examples obtained in free ranging organisms. Furthermore the presentation will focus on relationships between structural properties of PCB congeners and specific AROD-biomarker responses.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationAchieving global environmental quality: integrating science & management; abstract book SETAC 23rd annual meeting in North America
    Place of PublicationPensacola FL (USA)
    Publication statusPublished - 2002
    EventSETAC 23rd annual meeting North America; Salt Lake City UT (USA) -
    Duration: 16 Nov 200220 Nov 2002


    ConferenceSETAC 23rd annual meeting North America; Salt Lake City UT (USA)

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Application of non-destructive methods to assess biomarker responses in wildlife'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this