Cited by 4Environmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactAmphibian and Reptile Biology

Water pollution by grassland ash induces water alkalinization, causes liver damage, and threatens the survival of bullfrog tadpoles

Kirsch, Gustavo, Araujo, Ronnilda M.G., Melo, Madson S., Nazari, Evelise M., Figueiredo, Bruno R.S.·2025·Chemosphere

Abstract

Fire severity and the extent of burned areas have increased in recent years, intensifying ash runoff into freshwater systems and threatening aquatic biodiversity due to the toxic components present in ash. Despite this growing concern, the specific impacts of fire-derived ash on freshwater fauna remain poorly understood. Here, we used Aquarana catesbeiana tadpoles as a model to evaluate the effects of water contamination from ash produced by burning grassland vegetation on abiotic parameters and biological endpoints. The water pH increased immediately after ash contamination and remained more alkaline than the negative control for 16 days. Furthermore, acute (96 h) ash toxicity significantly decreased tadpole survival, with a lethal concentration (LC 50) of 6.9 g/L. A 16-day exposure to ash did not affect the developmental rate but resulted in lower body mass and length. Tadpoles exposed to 1.38 g/L of ash exhibited an increase in liver melanomacrophages and apoptotic cells and an elevation in the area of vacuolated hepatocytes at all ash concentrations compared to the control. These findings highlight that grassland ash concentrations pose a significant risk to amphibian survival in regions affected by wildfires, while sublethal exposure can impact growth, liver health, and cellular events in the liver, ultimately compromising the tadpole's persistence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2025.144756

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kirsch, G., Araujo, R. M. G., Melo, M. S., Nazari, E. M., & Figueiredo, B. R. S.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (BR)
  • Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso (BR)
Corresponding author
Kirsch, Gustavo
Venue
Chemosphere
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-12
Volume
392
Pages
144756
ISSN
0045-6535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4416017660
Cited by
4
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
1.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Chemosphere (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Estado de Santa Catarina
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (313818/2023\u20131)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Amphibian and Reptile Biology
Keywords
water pollution, bullfrog tadpoles, bullfrog, liver injury, hepatocyte vacuolation, melanomacrophages, apoptosis, tadpole survival, sublethal toxicity, amphibian growth, freshwater ecotoxicity
MeSH terms
Animals, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Larva, Liver, Rana catesbeiana, Water, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Water Pollution, Coal Ash, Grassland

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review