4.7 Article

Ecological impact and recovery of a Mediterranean river after receiving the effluent from a textile dyeing industry

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 132, 期 -, 页码 295-303

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2016.06.017

关键词

Bioindicators; Ecosystem health; River self-depuration; Community structure; Multiple stressors; Seasonal effects

资金

  1. National Commission of Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT) [72100771]
  2. Severe Ochoa Program for Centres of Excellence in R+D+I [SEV-2012-0262]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The textile industry is one of the largest sectors globally, representing up to 20% of industrial water pollution. However, there is limited insight into how fluvial ecosystems respond and recover from this impact. From summer 2012 to spring 2013, we examined water quality and ecological status upstream and 1.5 km downstream the input of a textile industry wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in Ripoll River, NE Spain. The ecological status was determined via diversity measures and 10 biotic indices based on diatoms, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish. Our results showed that the WWTP severely deteriorated water quality and biological communities at the discharge site, but that they improved at 15 km downstream. Severity also varied across taxa and seasons, being fish the most affected taxa and spring the season with the best ecological status. The strong correlation amongst water quality variables and many biotic indices across taxa indicated that this is a chronic pollution event affecting multiple trophic levels. Thus, this study suggests that there is an urgent need to invest in wastewater treatment in this industry to preserve the ecological integrity of Ripoll River and especially its fish fauna. Likewise, it illustrates the diagnostic power of biotic indices based on diatoms, macroinvertebrates and fish, as driven by the European Water Framework Directive. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. 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