4.7 Article

Levels of regulated POPs in fish samples from the Sava River Basin. Comparison to legislated quality standard values

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 647, Issue -, Pages 20-28

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.371

Keywords

PCDD/F; PCB; PBDE; PFAS; Environmental quality standard

Funding

  1. European Communities 7th Framework Programme [603437-ENV-2013-SOLUTIONS]
  2. Generalitat de Catalunya (Consolidated Research Groups - Water and Soil Quality Unit) [2017 SGR 1404]
  3. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [JdC-2014-21736, FJCI-2015-26722]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fish samples of different species (i.e. rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss), barbel (Barbus barbus) and European chub (Squalius cephalus)) were collected from the Sava River Basin for a preliminary investigation of the levels of PCDD/Fs, PCBs, PBDEs and PFAS as a whole. Concentrations of PCDD/Fs, in terms of pg WHO-TEQ/gww, were below the maximum limit established at the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1259/2011. On the contrary, when DL-PCBs were also included, levels increase up to 11.7 pgWHO-TEQ(PCDD/Fs+) (DL-PCBs)/g wwin a particular case, with two samples out of a total of ten exceeding the maximum set at this EU Regulation and the EQS established at the European Directive regarding priority substances in the field of water policy (0.0065 ng WHO-TEQ(PCDD/Fs+ DL-PCBs)/g ww). A similar trend was also observed for NDL-PCBs, whit the same two samples, from the lower stretch of the river basin, exceeding the maximum limit allowed at the EU Regulation (125 ng/g ww). For PBDEs, levels found in all the samples exceeded the EQS (0.0085 ng/g ww) up to more than a thousand times and 40% of the samples presented PFOS values above the EQS. Data from this study were compared to values reported at the literature for fish from other geographical areas. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available