4.7 Article

Occurrence, distribution and possible sources of organochlorine pesticides in agricultural soil of Shanghai, China

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 170, 期 2-3, 页码 989-997

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.05.082

关键词

Agricultural soil; Organochlorine pesticides; Factor analysis; Pollution assessment; Shanghai

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40830744]
  2. National Key Technology RD Program [2008BAC32B03]
  3. Shanghai Leading Academic Disciplines [S30109]
  4. Innovation Fund of Shanghai University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Surface soil samples from agricultural soil of Shanghai were collected and analyzed for 24 organochlorine pesticides (OCPs). The concentrations were in the ranges of nd-10.38 ng g(-1) for HCHs (sum of alpha-, beta-, gamma- and delta-HCH), 0.77-247.45 ng g(-1) for DDTs (sum of p,p'-DDT, p,p'-DDD, p,p'-DDE, and o,p'-DDT), 0.84-10.08 ng g(-1) for CHLs (sum of heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, and trans-nonachlor), nd-3.68 ng g(-1) for endosulfan (sum of alpha- and beta-endosulfan), 0.10-3.62 ng g(-1) for HCB and nd-5.69 ng g(-1) for other OCPs (sum of aldrin, dieldrin and endrin). The total OCPs concentrations ranged from 3.16 to 265.24 ng g(-1) and the main contaminated areas were distributed in the south regions of Shanghai (including Fengxian, Nanhui and Jinshan districts). According to the measured concentrations and detection frequencies, HCHs, DDTs, HCB and heptachlor epoxide were the most dominant compounds among the 24 OCPs. The different compositions of DDT, HCH, chlordane and endosulfan indicated that the residues of these compounds in most soil samples originated from historical application, besides slight recent introduction at some sampling locations. The correlation analysis showed no significant relationship between TOC and OCPs. The quality of Shanghai agricultural soil was classified as low pollution by OCPs. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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