Assessment of status of three water bodies in Serbia based on tissue metal and metalloid concentration (ICP-OES) and genotoxicity (comet assay)

- There is no correlation between the elements in sediment, water and fish tissues.
- Gills and liver accumulate more metals and metalloids than muscle and gonads.
- Differences in DNA damage were noticed between the tissues as well as between examined sites.
- Levels of elements in liver and gills does not correlate to the DNA damage in liver and gills.
- Similar element levels in fish tissues do not cause the same DNA damage from sites with a different geological background.

Metals and metalloids are natural components of the biosphere, which are not produced per se by human beings, but whose form and distribution can be affected by human activities. Like all substances, they are a contaminant if present in excess compared to background levels and/or in a form that would not normally occur in the environment. Samples of liver, gills, gonads and muscle from European chub, Squalius cephalus, were analyzed for Al, As, B, Ba, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Mn, Mo, Sr and Zn using inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) to highlight the importance of tissue selection in monitoring research. The comet assay or single cell gel electrophoresis (SCGE) was selected as an in vivo genotoxicity assay, a rapid and sensitive method for measuring genotoxic effects in blood, liver and gills of the European chub. Microscopic images of comets were scored using Comet IV Computer Software (Perceptive Instruments, UK).The objective of our study was to investigate two reservoirs, Zlatar and Garasi, and one river, Pestan by: (i) determining and comparing metal and metalloid concentrations in sediment, water and tissues of European chub: liver, gills, muscle and gonads (ii) comparing these findings with genotoxicity of water expressed through DNA damage of fish tissues.A clear link between the level of metals in water, sediment and tissues and between metal and genotoxicity levels at examined sites was not found. This suggests that other xenobiotics (possibly the organic compounds), contribute to DNA damage.

332