4.7 Article

Spatiotemporal characteristics and pollution level of brominated flame retardants in bivalves from Fujian southern coastal areas

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 25, 页码 33623-33631

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-13141-z

关键词

Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD); Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA); Bivalves; Spatial distribution; Temporal distribution

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province [2018J01056]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The concentration and spatial distribution of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in bivalves from Fujian southern coastal areas show variations influenced by bay geographical location, seasonal patterns, and proximity to local industries. Higher levels of BFRs contamination were found in Xiamen and Quanzhou marine environments compared to Zhangzhou and Putian, suggesting an association with industrial activities.
The concentration and spatiotemporal distribution of brominated flame retardants (BFRs), including hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), were analyzed in bivalves fromFujian southern coastal areas. The concentrations of HBCD and TBBPA ranged from ND (not detected) to 5.540 ng.g(-1) (ww) (median of 0.111 ng.g(-1)) and ND to 0.962 ng.g(-1) (ww) (median of ND), respectively. In addition, alpha-HBCD was found as the predominant diastereoisomer in all the studied samples, followed by beta-HBCD and gamma-HBCD. The spatial distribution of BFRs showed a peak distribution, with the content being higher in the marine environment of Xiamen and Quanzhou, in South Fujian, and lower toward the marine environment of Zhangzhou, and Putian. BFRs contamination level was correlated to the bay geographical location and proximity to local industries. Furthermore, the results of the study showed a seasonal variation pattern: summer > autumn > spring > winter. This study provides base information on the contamination status of these BFRs in the marine environment of southern Fujian.

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