4.0 Review

The influence of climate change on the global distribution and fate processes of anthropogenic persistent organic pollutants

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
卷 14, 期 11, 页码 2854-2869

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c2em30519d

关键词

-

资金

  1. Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM)
  2. Norwegian NorACIA programme
  3. FP7 EU project ArcRisk Arctic Health Risks: Impacts on health in the Arctic and Europe owing to climate-induced changes in contaminant cycling''
  4. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) project Combined effects of pollutants and Climate change in the Arctic''
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [ceh010010] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of climate change on the global distribution and fate of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) is of growing interest to both scientists and policy makers alike. The impact of warmer temperatures and the resulting changes to earth system processes on chemical fate are, however, unclear, although there are a growing number of studies that are beginning to examine these impacts and changes in a quantitative way. In this review, we examine broad areas where changes are occurring or are likely to occur with regard to the environmental cycling and fate of chemical contaminants. For this purpose we are examining scientific information from long-term monitoring data with particular emphasis on the Arctic, to show apparent changes in chemical patterns and behaviour. In addition, we examine evidence of changing chemical processes for a number of environmental compartments and indirect effects of climate change on contaminant emissions and behaviour. We also recommend areas of research to address knowledge gaps. In general, our findings indicate that the indirect consequences of climate change (i.e. shifts in agriculture, resource exploitation opportunities, etc.) will have a more marked impact on contaminants distribution and fate than direct climate change.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据