4.5 Article

Occurrence, distribution and risks of antibiotics in urban surface water in Beijing, China

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE-PROCESSES & IMPACTS
卷 17, 期 9, 页码 1611-1619

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c5em00216h

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2014CB114402]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21407008 21477143, 21321004]
  3. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB14010201]
  4. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2014M550619]
  5. State Key Laboratory of Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences [KF2013-07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The occurrence and distribution of 22 antibiotics, including eight fluoroquinolones, nine sulfonamides and five macrolides, were investigated in the urban surface waters in Beijing, China. A total of 360 surface water samples were collected from the main rivers and lakes in the urban area of Beijing monthly from July 2013 to June 2014 (except the frozen period). Laboratory analyses revealed that antibiotics were widely used and extensively distributed in the surface water of Beijing, and sulfonamides and fluoroquinolones were the predominant antibiotics with the average concentrations of 136 and 132 ng L-1, respectively. A significant difference of antibiotic concentrations from different sampling sites was observed, and the southern and eastern regions of Beijing showed higher concentrations of antibiotics. Seasonal variation of the antibiotics in the urban surface water was also studied, and the highest level of antibiotics was found in November, which may be due to the low temperature and flow of the rivers during the period of cold weather. Risk assessment showed that several antibiotics might pose high ecological risks to aquatic organisms (algae and plants) in surface water, and more attention should be paid to the risk of antibiotics to the aquatic environment in Beijing.

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

4.5
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