4.7 Article

Assessment of organochlorine pesticides in the Himalayan riverine ecosystems from Pakistan using passive sampling techniques

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 6023-6037

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-018-3987-6

关键词

Organochlorine pesticides; Passive sampling; Air-water exchange; Ecological risk; Azad Jammu and Kashmir

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) pose a considerable threat to human and environmental health. Despite most OCPs have been banned, they are still reported to be used in developing countries, including Pakistan. We aimed to identify the distribution, origin, mobility, and potential risks from OCPs in three major environmental compartments, i.e., air, water, and soil, across Azad Jammu and Kashmir valley, Pakistan. The sums of OCPs ranged between 66 and 530pg/g in soil, 5 and 13pg/L in surface water, and 14 and 191pg/m3 in air, respectively. The highest sum of OCPs was observed in the downstream zone of a river that was predominantly influenced by peri-urban and urban areas. The OCP isomers ratios (-HCH/-HCH and o,p-DDT/p,p-DDT) indicate use of lindane and technical DDTs mixture as a source of HCH and DDT in the riverine environment. Similarly, the ratios of DDE and DDD/the sum of DDTs, -endosulfan/-endosulfan, and cis-chlordane/trans-chlordane indicate recent use of DDTs, endosulfan, and chlordane in the region. The air-water exchange fugacity ratios indicate net volatilization (fw/fa >1) of -endosulfan and trans-chlordane, and net deposition (fw/fa <1) of -endosulfan, -HCH, -HCH p,p-DDD, p,p-DDE, and p,p-DDT. Based on the risk quotient (RQ) method, we consider the acute ecological risks for fish associated with the levels of OCPs as negligible. However, more studies are recommended to evaluate the chronic ecological risks to other riverine-associated aquatic and terrestrial species as well as human health risks to the POPs exposure through food chain transfer in forthcoming years.

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