4.7 Article

Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in river and ground/drinking water of the Ganges River basin: Emissions and implications for human exposure

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 208, 期 -, 页码 704-713

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.10.050

关键词

Perfluoroalkyl substances; Ganges River; Emissions; Groundwater; Human exposure

资金

  1. People Program (Marie Curie action) of the Seventh Framework Program of EU [291782]
  2. South-Moravian Region
  3. Norwegian Research Council's NORKLIMA program through the project Climate Induced Mobilization of Persistent OrganicPollutants (POPs) in Rivers in India (INDNOPOP) [215975/E10]
  4. FORMAS Forest POPs project
  5. project Assessing health, livelihoods, ecosystem services and poverty alleviation in populous deltas [NE/J003085/1]
  6. Department for International Development (DFID)
  7. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
  8. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) as part of the Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) Programme
  9. NERC [NE/J003085/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  10. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/J003085/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are ubiquitous environmental contaminants. They have been widely used in production processes and daily-use products or may result from degradation of precursor compounds in products or the environment. India, with its developing industrialization and population moving from traditional to contemporary lifestyles, represents an interesting case study to investigate PFAS emission and exposure along steep environmental and socioeconomic gradients. This study assesses PFAS concentrations in river and groundwater (used in this region as drinking water) from several locations along the Ganges River and estimates direct emissions, specifically for PFOS and PFOA. 15 PFAS were frequently detected in the river with the highest concentrations observed for PFHxA (0.4 -4.7 ng L-1) and PFBS (

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