2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2019.03.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The osmotic effect of hyper-saline hydraulic fracturing fluid on rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the U.S. and Canada, laboratory data show that exposure to FPW inhibits the survival, growth, and reproduction of aquatic animals (see the Supporting Information for detailed results of these toxicity studies), , causing functional and morphological impairment in exposed animals (Supporting Information, Figure S4) and changing the expression of a battery of genes, including those responsible for biotransformation (cytochrome p450 families), detoxification ( udpgt and gst ), oxidative stress ( sod , gpx , cat ), and embryonic development ( atp2a2a , tnnt2a , and nkx2.5 ). ,, Many of these changes in gene expression are believed to be associated with impaired performance and metabolism (e.g., organic toxicant metabolism), along with sublethal toxicity levels. , Endocrine-disruptive properties are among the most extensively studied adverse impacts regarding the toxicity of chemicals used in HF activities, contaminated water associated with HF, and field-collected FPW samples from the U.S. and Canada . On the basis of a quantitative overview relying on voluntary disclosures to FracFocus, more than 1,000 chemicals used throughout the HF process are of concern, including many known or suspected endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). , The current evidence from the study of HF chemical additives, contaminated water associated with HF activities, and FPW samples suggests that accidental spills and/or inappropriate disposal of FPW may cause significant endocrine-mediated health impacts on animals (see the Supporting Information for a detailed discussion of findings regarding EDCs). , …”
Section: Environmental Contaminationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the U.S. and Canada, laboratory data show that exposure to FPW inhibits the survival, growth, and reproduction of aquatic animals (see the Supporting Information for detailed results of these toxicity studies), , causing functional and morphological impairment in exposed animals (Supporting Information, Figure S4) and changing the expression of a battery of genes, including those responsible for biotransformation (cytochrome p450 families), detoxification ( udpgt and gst ), oxidative stress ( sod , gpx , cat ), and embryonic development ( atp2a2a , tnnt2a , and nkx2.5 ). ,, Many of these changes in gene expression are believed to be associated with impaired performance and metabolism (e.g., organic toxicant metabolism), along with sublethal toxicity levels. , Endocrine-disruptive properties are among the most extensively studied adverse impacts regarding the toxicity of chemicals used in HF activities, contaminated water associated with HF, and field-collected FPW samples from the U.S. and Canada . On the basis of a quantitative overview relying on voluntary disclosures to FracFocus, more than 1,000 chemicals used throughout the HF process are of concern, including many known or suspected endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). , The current evidence from the study of HF chemical additives, contaminated water associated with HF activities, and FPW samples suggests that accidental spills and/or inappropriate disposal of FPW may cause significant endocrine-mediated health impacts on animals (see the Supporting Information for a detailed discussion of findings regarding EDCs). , …”
Section: Environmental Contaminationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, salinity rather than organics in produced water controlled the mortality (and immobility) of the crustacean, Daphnia , introduced to freshwaters mixed with small percentages of raw and synthetic produced waters. Evaluations of zebra fish 12 , 24 , 30 , 31 and rainbow trout 26 , 32 also confirm toxicity and mortality with exposure to low concentrations of produced water. While many of these organisms listed above demonstrate acute and chronic toxicity after exposure to produced waters, the organisms’ mobility in aquatic ecosystems limits their ability to track pollution events or to be indicators of local changes in water quality.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…If this mesocosm study involved pulse(s) of raw/untreated produced water, it would better simulate the environmentally realistic release of a discharge, spill, or leak of these waters and how they might impact a complex freshwater surface water ecosystem. Compared with testing produced waters with a single species at a time in a laboratory (Blewett, Delompré, et al, 2017 ; Blewett, Weinrauch, et al, 2017 ; Delompré et al, 2019 ; Folkerts et al, 2017a , 2017b , 2019 ; Golding et al, 2022 ; He et al, 2017).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There has been a recent increase in literature that has assessed the toxicity of raw or untreated samples of whole‐effluent water samples of flowback water or produced waters from unconventional gas (Blewett, Delompré, et al, 2017 ; Blewett, Weinrauch, et al, 2017 ; Delompré et al, 2019 ; Folkerts et al, 2017a , 2017b , 2019 ; Golding et al, 2022 ; He et al, 2017). Folkerts et al ( 2019 ) investigated the acute toxicity of flowback produced water collected at three different time points (1.33, 72, and 228 h) from the same well and a salinity control in the organisms D. magna , Lumbriculus variegatus , Danio rerio embryos, and Oncorhynchus mykiss (embryos and juveniles).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%