4.7 Article

Baseline monitoring of contaminant concentrations in American lobster (Homarus americanus) tissues from coastal Northumberland Strait, Nova Scotia, Canada

期刊

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN
卷 189, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.114794

关键词

American lobster ( Homarus americanus ); Nova Scotia; Baseline monitoring; Remediation; Effluent contaminants; Bioaccumulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A baseline survey was conducted in 2018 to assess the contamination levels in American lobsters in the Northumberland Strait, Canada. The study found that most contaminants were below the set guidelines, except for elevated levels of arsenic in all age classes. Mercury and methylmercury exceeded guidelines in some cases, but there was no consistent pattern of contaminant accumulation. This study will serve as a reference point for future monitoring after the remediation of Boat Harbour.
A baseline survey was conducted in 2018 to characterize contaminants in American lobsters, Homarus americanus in the Northumberland Strait, Canada. Sampling included three age classes of lobsters at sites 4, 20, and 70 km from the Boat Harbour estuary, a historically contaminated site set to undergo remediation. Lobster tissues were measured for metal(loids), methylmercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-furans. Contaminant concentrations were generally below the guide-lines set by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, except for arsenic which was elevated in all age classes from all sites (4.8-12.68 mg kg(-1)). Mercury and methylmercury (both similar to 0.04 mg kg(-1)) minimally exceeded one guideline in some age-classes and sites. There was also no consistent pattern of contaminant accumulation across either age classes or at particular sites. This study serves as a baseline for future monitoring following remediation of Boat Harbour.

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