4.5 Article

Effects of benthos, temperature, and dose on the fate of hexabromocyclododecane in experimental coastal ecosystems

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 34, 期 6, 页码 1246-1257

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/etc.2947

关键词

Environmental fate; Flame retardants; Benthic ecology; Model ecosystems; Bioaccumulation

资金

  1. Baltic Sea Foundation
  2. King Carl XVI Gustaf's Foundation for Research and Education
  3. Stockholm University's Baltic Ecosystem Adaptive Management (BEAM) program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The authors studied the fate of the brominated flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) added in a particulate suspension to experimental ecosystems assembled from brackish (Baltic Sea) coastal bays. Two experiments examined how benthic macrofauna (over 21 d) and increased temperature (14 d) affected HBCDD concentrations and fractionation of , , and diastereomers in the water, sediment, and biota. A third experiment run over 3 seasons (231 d), studied the effect of HBCDD dose on the same endpoints. In all treatments of the 3 experiments, HBCDD partitioned mainly to the sediment, and this proportion increased with time. Presence of macrofauna tended to increase the HBCDD concentration in the sediment and decreased its concentration in the water. Increased temperature (+5 degrees C) decreased the amount of HBCDD in sediment and water but not in the filter- and deposit-feeding infaunal bivalves (Macoma balthica). The partitioning between water, sediment, and biota was not concentration dependent. In all treatments, sediment became enriched in -HBCDD, M. balthica in -HBCDD, and water in - and -HBCDD. Bioaccumulation of HBCDD in M. balthica was high in all experiments (log biota-sediment accumulation factor [BSAF] > 1.25), the diastereomer contributing the most (log BSAF 2.1-5.2). There is a risk of trophic transfer of HBCDD from benthic to pelagic food webs, as well as secondary poisoning of marine consumers. Environ Toxicol Chem 2015;34:1246-1257. (c) 2015 SETAC

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