4.8 Article

Oxidation of dithiocarbamates to yield N-nitrosamines by water disinfection oxidants

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 47, 期 2, 页码 725-736

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.10.043

关键词

NDMA; NDEA; Dithiocarbamates; Monochloramination; Ozonation; Disinfection byproducts

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [BES-0610358]
  2. Georgia Tech

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two most commonly used dithiocarbamate (DTC) pesticides, dimethyldithiocarbamate (DMDTC) and diethyldithiocarbamate (DEDTC), were examined in this study to evaluate their potential to form nitrosamines when in contact with various water disinfection oxidants. Results show that DTCs can serve as nitrosamine precursors, by release of secondary amines through hydrolysis or through reactions with oxidants. The reactions of DTCs with monochloramine and ozone were found to be particularly problematic in the risk of generating nitrosamines, though all four tested oxidants, including free chlorine and chlorine dioxide, formed nitrosamines. NDEA yield from DEDTC was lower, by different degrees, than NDMA yield from DMDTC for all four oxidants, which was attributed to the steric hindrance associated with bulkier reaction intermediate that are more difficult to be further oxidized to form nitrosamine. The yield of nitrosamines increased with the oxidant dosage for both monochloramination and zonation of DTCs. Results for nitrosamine formation from DTCs at varying pH were found to be consistent with the pH trend of nitrosamine formation from ozonation and monochloramination of secondary amines. Kinetic study results and identification and quantification of reaction products suggest that the DTCs were not significant direct precursors of nitrosamines during monochloramination or ozonation, but rather nitrosamines formed were primarily from reaction of oxidants with the amine which may be generated either through hydrolysis or through oxidation of DTCs. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
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