4.7 Article

Investigating landfill leachate as a source of trace organic pollutants

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 127, 期 -, 页码 269-275

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.02.030

关键词

Landfill leachate; Contaminants of emerging concern; DEET; Sucralose; Primidone

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Landfill leachate samples (n = 11) were collected from five USA municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills and analyzed for ten trace organic pollutants that are commonly detected in surface and municipal wastewater effluents (viz., carbamazepine, DEET, fluoxetine, gemfibrozil, PFOA, PFOS, primidone, sucralose, sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim). Carbamazepine, DEET, PFOA and primidone were detected in all leachate samples analyzed and gemfibrozil was detected in samples from four of the five-landfill sites. The contaminants found in the highest concentrations were DEET (6900-143 000 ng L-1) and sucralose (<10-621 000 ng L-1). Several compounds were not detected (fluoxetine) or detected infrequently (sulfamethoxazole, trimethoprim and PFOS). Using the average mass of DEET in leachate amongst the five landfills and scaling the mass release from the five test landfills to the USA population of landfills, an order of magnitude estimate is that over 10 000 kg DEET yr(-1) may be released in leachate. Some pharmaceuticals have similar annual mean discharges to one another, with the estimated annual discharge of carbamazepine, gemfibrozil, primidone equating to 53, 151 and 128 kg year(-1). To the authors knowledge, this is the first time that primidone has been included in a landfill leachate study. While the estimates developed in this study are order of magnitude, the values do suggest the need for further research to better quantify the amount of chemicals sent to wastewater treatment facilities with landfill leachate, potential impacts on treatment processes and the significance of landfill leachate as a source of surface water contamination. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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