4.7 Review

Review on perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in the Chinese atmospheric environment

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 737, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139804

关键词

PFASs; China; Airborne particulate matter; Analytical method; Bioindicator; Spatial distribution

资金

  1. Science, Technology and Innovation Commission of Shenzhen Municipality [JCYJ20160608153654409, JCYJ20190812155805559]
  2. Hong Kong Branch of Guangdong Southern Marine Science and Engineering Laboratory (Guangzhou) [L20190004]
  3. Research Grants Council, University Grants Committee Theme-Based Research Scheme [T21-602/16-R]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) have been manufactured and used for over 50 years, and now are worldwide distributed in the environment. The atmospheric environment is the main compartment for PFASs to be transported and transformed, and relevant research has highlighted the global occurrence and impacts of atmospheric PFASs in ecosystems and human health. With the phasing-out and restriction of eight-carbon chain-length (C8) PFASs in developed countries, China has become the largest producer of C8 PFASs since 2004. Subsequently, a number of studies on PFASs in the Chinese atmospheric environment have been conducted in the recent decade. This review documented twenty-eight studies on PFASs in Chinese outdoor air published to date. Methods of sampling, extraction, cleanup, and instrumental analysis were summarized for both ionic and neutral PFASs. Levels, compositions, and spatial distribution of PFASs from different areas in China (i.e. source, urban, and remote regions, and north versus south China) were compared and discussed. Leaves and tree barks were proposed as effective bioindicators to reflect the contamination status of atmospheric PFASs. Special attention can be given to non-target screening for future research directions. (C) 2020 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