4.5 Article

FATE OF FLAME RETARDANTS AND THE ANTIMICROBIAL AGENT TRICLOSAN IN PLANTED AND UNPLANTED BIOSOLID-AMENDED SOILS

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 34, 期 5, 页码 968-976

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/etc.2854

关键词

Flame retardant; Personal care product; Biosolid; Environmental fate; Land application

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CBET-0854167]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comprehensive understanding of the fate of contaminant-laden biosolids is needed to fully evaluate the environmental impacts of biosolid land application. The present study examined the fate of several flame retardants and triclosan in biosolid-amended soil in a 90-d greenhouse experiment. Objectives included evaluating the persistence of these compounds in soil, their phytoaccumulation potential by alfalfa (Medicago sativa), and potential degradation reactions. Concentrations of the polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) congeners BDE-47 and BDE-209 and the antimicrobial triclosan declined significantly over time in biosolid-amended soil planted with alfalfa and then reached a steady state by day 28. In contrast, no significant losses of those analytes were observed from soil in nonvegetated pots. The amount of an analyte lost from vegetated soil ranged from 43% for the flame retardant di(2-ethylhexyl)-2,3,4,5-tetrabromophthalate to 61% for triclosan and was significantly and negatively related to the log octanol-water partition coefficient. Alfalfa roots and shoots were monitored for the compounds, but no clear evidence of phytoaccumulation was observed. Methyl triclosan formation was observed in the biosolid-amended soils during the study period, indicating in situ biotransformation of triclosan. The present study demonstrates that, although they are highly recalcitrant, PBDEs, selected alternate brominated flame retardants, and triclosan are capable of undergoing dissipation from biosolid-amended soils in the presence of plants. Environ Toxicol Chem 2015;34:968-976. (c) 2014 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