4.7 Article

Using epibenthic fauna as biomonitors of local marine contamination adjacent to McMurdo Station, Antarctica

期刊

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN
卷 178, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113621

关键词

Polar; Pollution; Tissues; Persistent organic pollutants; Trematomus; Bioaccumulation

资金

  1. US Army Corp of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory [W913E5-05-C-0002, W913E5-06-C-0009, W913E5-07-C-0005, W913E5-08-C-0008, W913E5-07-C-0007, W913E5-19-C-0017, W913E5-11-C-0004, W913E5-12-C-0006, W913E5-13-C-0002, W913E5-15-C-0001, W913E5-16-C-0006]
  2. Texas Sea Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Benthic fauna in a polluted marine area near McMurdo Station, Antarctica were identified as potential biomonitors due to higher levels of contaminants in their tissues compared to taxa in reference areas. However, these concentrations are generally low relative to human consumption standards.
Ten benthic fauna taxa in a polluted marine area adjacent to McMurdo Station, Antarctica were deemed to be potential biomonitors because PCBs, DDTs, PAHs, copper, lead and/or zinc in their tissues were significantly higher than in tissues of taxa living in reference areas (p < 0.05). Concentrations of PCBs and DDT were highest in Trematomus (fish). Total PAH concentrations were highest in Alcyonium antarcticum (soft coral), Isotealia antarctica (anemone) and L. elliptica. Copper and lead concentrations were highest in Laternula elliptica (bivalve) and Flabegraviera mundata (polychaete), and lowest in Trematomus and Parbolasia corrugatus (nemertean). However, copper concentrations were even higher in the asteroids Perknaster fuscus antarcticus, Odontaster validus and Psilaster charcoti. Bioaccumulation factors for different species were highest for PCBs and DDT, and lowest for lead. Bioaccumulation of some contaminants are likely prevalent in benthic taxa at McMurdo Station, but concentrations are usually low relative to human consumption standards.

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