4.5 Article

Contamination, source identification, and risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in agricultural soils around a typical coking plant in Shandong, China

期刊

HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 225-241

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2017.1377595

关键词

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; coking plant; agricultural soil; contamination; risk assessment

资金

  1. Special Fund for Agroscientific Research in the Public Interest [201503107]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21307065]
  3. Foundation for Outstanding Young Scientist in Shandong Province [BS2012HZ005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coking is one of the most important emission sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in China. Investigation of the contamination, distribution, and sources of PAHs in agricultural soils around Rong Xin coking plant, China, was conducted, and the potential human health risks were addressed. The total concentration of the 16 PAHs (Sigma(16)PAHs) on the United States Environmental Protection Agency priority list had a range from 1774 to 4621 mu g/kg (mean 3016 mu g/kg). Meanwhile, seven carcinogenic PAHs (Sigma PAH(7c)) owned the total concentrations of 684-2105 mu g/kg, and they had the benzo[a]pyrene equivalent (BaPeq) concentrations at 139.616-1672.850 mu g/kg. All soil samples were dominated by PAHs with two to four rings. Data analyses for the potential sources of PAHs showed that the PAHs in soils were principally from pyrogenic sources. Ecological risk assessment of soil PAHs showed that the BaPeq concentrations of Sigma PAH(7c) accounted for 99% of the total Sigma(16)PAHs, being a major carcinogenic contributors of Sigma(16)PAHs. Higher levels of PAHs and higher total BaPeq concentrations in this study indicate a potential carcinogenic risk for humans. Therefore, long-term exposure to coking plants may increase the PAH concentrations in the environment and further raise a potential risk to human health.

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

4.5
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