4.8 Article

Identification of New Oxidation Products of Bezafibrate for Better Understanding of Its Toxicity Evolution and Oxidation Mechanisms during Ozonation

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 51, 期 4, 页码 2262-2270

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b03548

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21577033, 51208199, 51408425]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [22A201514057]
  3. Beijing Key Laboratory for Emerging Organic Contaminants Control
  4. Foundation of The State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, China [PCRRY 11017]
  5. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20130072120033]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bezafibrate (BF), a frequently detected pharmaceutical in the aquatic environment, could be effectively removed by ozonation. However, the toxicity of treated water increased, suggesting the generation of toxic oxidation products (OPs). In this study, eight OPs of BF ozonation were identified using a LTQ Orbitrap hybrid mass spectrometer coupled with HPLC, and six of them have not been previously reported during BF ozonation. Based on the abundant fragments and high assurance of accurate molar mass, structure elucidation was comprehensively performed and discussed. Hydroxylation, loss of methyl propionic acid group, and Crigee mechanism were observed as the oxidation mechanisms of BF ozonation. The toxicity of identified OPs calculated by quantitative structure activity relationship indicated that three OPs were probably more toxic than the precursor compound BF. This result together with the evolution of identified OPs in the treated solutions, indicated that two OPs, namely N-(3,4-dihydroxyphenethyl)-4-chlorobenzamide and N-(2,4-dihydroxyphenethyl)-4-chlorobenzamide, were the potential toxicity-causing OPs during BF ozonation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to identify toxicity-causing OPs during the BF ozonation.

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

4.8
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