4.7 Article

Spatial and temporal distribution of toxic compounds in sediments and potential ecological effects on macrobenthic faunal species in Hangzhou Bay from 2003 to 2015

期刊

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN
卷 172, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112816

关键词

Heavy metals; Organic contaminants; Macrobenthos; Sediment

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFC1700800]
  2. Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province [2017A020217009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the development of toxic compounds in sediment and macrobenthos species in Hangzhou bay, finding that some metal elements exceeded Chinese sediment quality guidelines, posing ecological and seafood risks. The number of benthic species showed a decreasing trend, with fewer species sensitive to contamination, while crustacea species were more tolerant to pollution.
The development of toxic compounds in sediment and macrobenthos species in Hangzhou bay (2003-2015) was evaluated. Concentrations were compared to Chinese sediment quality guidelines (CN-SQG) and risk assessed by the ecological risk index (ERI) and t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbour Embedding (t-SNE). To study seafood contamination, sediment and swimming crabs were collected. Chromium, copper, and arsenic exceeded CN-SQG. Organic contaminants did not exceed CN-SQG; however, tSNE revealed a negative relationship with benthic species numbers. Since 2003, half of the benthic species have disappeared. Species sensitive to contamination were not observed after 2003-2007, while crustacea species are more tolerant: cadmium levels in crabs were 5-17 times those in the sediment, demonstrating strong bioaccumulation. These results suggest that metals and organic pollutants pose ecological and seafood risks. For good environmental management in HZB, it is important to analyze sediment, benthic biota, and seafood species for compounds known to pose toxic risks.

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