4.7 Article

Air monitoring with passive samplers for dioxin-like persistent organic pollutants in developing countries (2017-2019)

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 287, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131931

关键词

Global monitoring plan; Dioxin analysis; Air monitoring; Developing countries; United nations environment programme

资金

  1. Global Environment Facility (GEF)
  2. UNEP [GEF GMP2 GF4030]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study utilized passive air samplers to monitor persistent organic pollutants in different regions, showing higher total toxic equivalent levels in Asia and Latin America. Additionally, the contribution of PCDD/PCDF to the total toxic equivalent was higher than that of dl-PCB.
As part of the global monitoring plan on persistent organic pollutants (GMP) under the Stockholm Convention passive air samplers equipped with polyurethane foam disks (PUFs) were applied to monitor dioxin-like POPs. For sampling, toluene-pretreated PUFs were exposed for three months during two years. Chemical analysis was performed in one accredited expert laboratory using internationally accepted methods; for comparison, all results were normalized to one PUF and 3 month exposure. Total TEQs, using WHO2005-TEFs, were lowest in the Pacific Islands countries (PAC) and had similar mean values in Africa (16.8 pg TEQ/PUF), Asia (16.9 pg TEQ/PUF), and Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC, 13.3 pg TEQ/PUF). Using median values, Asia (13.4 pg TEQ/ PUF) and GRULAC (13.1 pg TEQ/PUF) had higher amounts than Africa (6.1 pg TEQ/PUF) and PAC (2.1 pg TEQ/ PUF). The contribution of PCDD/PCDF to the total TEQ was 2-3-times higher than from the dl-PCB. Mono-ortho PCB did not play a role in any of the samples. The previous 40 samples during 2010/2011 and the present 195 samples from 2017/2018 did not show a statistical difference (p value = 0.3), only for GRULAC, a downward trend was identified. It is recommended combining 4 PUFs to 'annual' samples.

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