4.7 Article

Atmospheric polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) in India and Pakistan

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 466, 期 -, 页码 1030-1036

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.07.078

关键词

PCNs; India; Pakistan; Passive air sampler; PUF

资金

  1. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KZCX2-YW-GJ02]
  2. Ministry of Environmental Protection [201209018]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [41125014, 40821003]
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [ceh010010] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) are now under review by the Stockholm Convention as candidates for persistent organic pollutants (POPs) due to their persistence, toxicity, bioaccumulation, and long-range atmospheric transport. Data on PCN levels are sparse in South Asia. Atmospheric PCNs in India and Pakistan were monitored during the winter by polyurethane foam disk passive air samplers (PUF-PAS). The average concentrations were 29 pg/m(3) and 7.7 pg/m(3) in the Indian and Pakistani samples, respectively. Those concentration levels were relatively lower than the previously reported values in other Asian countries, but still considerably higher than in other sites in the world. Tri-CNs and tetra-CNs were the dominant homologues in the air, especially in India. Spatially, the PCNs were ubiquitous in the target areas, and local distribution was generally impacted by the proximity to potential sources. Major sources of PCNs in this study were the re-emission of Halowax and industrial thermal processes. Biomass burning influenced some sites in Pakistan. However, the enrichment of tri-CNs in Indian cities cannot be ascribed to either the signature of a specific source or the preferential volatilization and/or photodegradation in tropical areas. Despite this unclear issue in South Asia, the present study indicates that the potential health impact was generally comparable to that in non-urban sites worldwide. (C) 2013 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