4.7 Article

GC-MS analysis and ecotoxicological risk assessment of triclosan, carbamazepine and parabens in Indian rivers

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 186, 期 2-3, 页码 1586-1593

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.12.037

关键词

Triclosan; Carbamazepine; Parabens; Kaveri River; Tamiraparani River; Hazard quotient

资金

  1. University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi
  2. Swedish Research Council (VR)
  3. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (MISTRA)
  4. Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pharmaceutical and personal care products are used extensively worldwide and their residues are frequently reported in aquatic environments. In this study, antiepileptic, antimicrobial and preservative compounds were analyzed in surface water and sediment from the Kaveri, Vellar and Tamiraparani rivers, and in the Pichavaram mangrove in India by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The mean concentration of carbamazepine recorded in the Kaveri River water (28.3 ng/L) was higher than in the other rivers and the mangrove. Because carbamazepine is used only in human drugs, this may reflect the relative contributions of human excretions/sewage in these rivers. The mean triclosan level in the Tamiraparani River (944 ng/L) was an order of magnitude greater than in the other water systems, and the concentrations at two of the sites reported here (3800-5160 ng/L) are, to our best knowledge, among the highest detected in surface waters. Sediment levels were, however, comparable with other sites. We conclude that industrial releases are likely major contributors of triclosan into this river system. Among parabens, ethyl paraben was predominantly observed. Hazard Quotients suggest greater environmental risks for triclosan than for carbamazepine and parabens. This is the first study on antiepileptic, antimicrobial and preservatives in rivers and mangroves from India. (C) 2010 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