4.5 Article

Measuring metaldehyde in surface waters in the UK using two monitoring approaches

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE-PROCESSES & IMPACTS
卷 20, 期 8, 页码 1180-1190

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c8em00180d

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) [NE/L009145/1]
  2. Affinity Water Ltd.
  3. Thames Water

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metaldehyde is a molluscicide and the active ingredient in formulated slug pellets used for the protection of crops. Due to its mobility in the environment it is frequently found in river catchments, often at concentrations exceeding the EU Drinking Water Directive limit of 100 ng L-1 for a single pesticide. This presents a major problem for water companies in the UK where such waters are abstracted for production of potable drinking water supplies. Therefore, it is important to understand the sources, transport and fate of this emerging pollutant of concern in the aquatic environment. We monitored metaldehyde in two contrasting river catchments (River Dee (8 sites) and River Thames (6 sites)) over a twelve month period that coincided with the agricultural application period of the molluscicide. Spot samples of water were collected typically weekly or fortnightly. Chemcatcher (R) passive samplers were deployed consecutively every two weeks. At the River Dee, there was little variability in the concentrations of metaldehyde (<10-110 ng L-1) measured in the spot samples of water. The Chemcatcher (R) gave similar time-weighted average concentrations which were higher following increased rain fall events. At the River Thames, concentrations of metaldehyde varied more widely (<9-4200 ng L-1) with several samples exceeding 100 ng L-1. Generally these concentrations were reflected in the time-weighted average concentrations obtained using the Chemcatcher (R). Both monitoring techniques gave complementary data for identifying input sources, and in the development of catchment management plans and environmental remediation strategies.

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