4.8 Article

High Anthropogenic Organic Matter Inputs during a Festival Increase River Heterotrophy and Refractory Carbon Load

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 54, 期 16, 页码 10039-10048

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c02259

关键词

-

资金

  1. State Government of Lower Austria [K3-F-799/001-2018]
  2. International Post-Doc Fellowship Program from the WasserCluster Lunz
  3. VVI CENAKVA Research Infrastructure, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [LM2018099]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Streams and rivers metabolize dissolved organic matter (DOM). Although most DOM compounds originate from natural sources, recreational use of rivers increasingly introduces chemically distinct anthropogenic DOM. So far, the ecological impact of this DOM source is not well understood. Her; we show that a large music festival held adjacent to the Traisen River in Austria increased the river's dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentration from 1.6 to 2.1 mg L-1 and stream ecosystem respiration from -3.2 to -4.5 mg L-1. The DOC increase was not detected by sensors continuously logging absorbance spectra, thereby challenging their applicability for monitoring. However, the fluorescence intensity doubled during the festival. Using parallel factor analysis, we were able to assign the increase in fluorescence intensity to the chemically stable UV-B filter phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid, indicating organic compounds in sunscreen and other personal care products as sources of elevated DOC. This observation was confirmed by liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. The elevated respiration is probably fueled by anthropogenic DOM contained in beer and/or urine. We conclude that intense recreational use of running waters transiently increases the anthropogenic DOM load into stream ecosystems and alters the fluvial metabolism. We further propose that chemically distinct, manmade DOM extends the natural range of DOM decomposition rates in fluvial ecosystems.

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