4.7 Article

Potential health risk assessment of HFRs, PCBs, and OCPs in the Yellow River basin

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 275, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116648

关键词

PBDEs; OCPs; PCBs; Health risk; Yellow river basin

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [42041005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The concentrations of PBDEs, NBFRs, DP, PCBs, and OCPs were analyzed in water, soil, and maize samples from the Yellow River Basin to understand the status of POPs and associated health risks. The results showed considerable organic pollution, with PCBs and OCPs posing potential health risks, indicating the need for implementation of national emission standards for POPs.
The concentrations of PBDEs, NBFRs, DP, PCBs, and OCPs were analyzed in water samples of the Yellow River Basin (YRB) and in soil and maize samples collected from basin irrigation areas to understand the status of POPs and associated health risks. The results showed: (1) the congeners of eight PBDEs and seven NBFRs were detected in 10 tributaries, with average concentrations of 1575 and 4288 pg. L-1. Thirty-three congeners of PCBs were detected, and the average concentration of PCB was 232 pg. L-1. Five HCHs were the primary congeners among twenty-three congeners of OCPs in the ten tributaries, accounting for 79% of the total. The average concentration of OCPs was 8287 pg. L-1. (2) Similar congeners of HFRs, PCBs, and OCPs were found in the trunk water. The ranking based on the HFR concentration was upstream > downstream > midstream, and that of the PCB and OCP concentration was downstream > upstream > midstream. (3) PCBs and OCPs in the trunk water of the YRB and in the soil and maize irrigated with river water pose potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks. The results indicate considerable organic pollution in the YRB, suggesting that national emission standards for POPs should be implemented soon. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. 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