4.7 Article

A comprehensive assessment framework for the risk and source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) using two weight of evidence (WOE) approaches in bays of Shandong Province, China

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 429, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139572

关键词

PAHs; Risk assessments; Source analysis; Socio-economic parameter; Weight of evidence; Framework

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PAHs are widely distributed pollutants in the global environment. This study assessed the ecological risk, bioeffects, and health risks of PAHs in Shandong Province, China. The main sources were identified and a comprehensive assessment framework was established.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are one of the most widely distributed typical persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the global environment, and the high PAHs pollution level worldwide calls for the estab-lishment of environmental risk assessment and source analysis techniques for effective control. Here, we selected four bays of Shandong Province, one of the areas in China with the severest emissions of PAHs, as the research area, and chose clam Ruditapes philippinarum as the sentinel species, to systematically assess the ecological risk, bioeffects, and health risks of PAHs, identify their sources, and establish a comprehensive assessment framework for marine POPs using weight of evidence (WOE) approach. Taken together, ecological, bioeffect, and health risk assessments for marine POPs were integrated using Sediqualsoft model of WOE in seawater and sediment, and the overall risk level of PAHs in Shandong coastal area was 'Moderate'. Meanwhile, the primary source of PAH was analyzed based on socio-economic parameters using a WOE framework, which was mainly derived from traffic and coal in seawater and sediment, respectively. Collectively, a comprehensive framework for assessing risk and source of marine POPs was built for the first time, and it may be applicable to other environments and pollutants.

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