4.5 Article

Concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in New York City community garden soils: Potential sources and influential factors

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 357-367

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/etc.3215

关键词

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Soil; Urban community gardens; Black carbon; Atmospheric deposition

资金

  1. US National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Partnerships for Environmental Public Health Program [1R21ES017921]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A total of 69 soil samples from 20 community gardens in New York City (New York, USA) were collected and analyzed for 23 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and black carbon. For each garden, samples were collected from nongrowing areas (non-bed) and from vegetable-growing beds, including beds with and without visible sources of PAHs. The sum of the US Environmental Protection Agency's 16 priority PAHs ranged up to 150mg/kg, and the median (5.4mg/kg) and mean (14.2mg/kg) were similar to those previously reported for urban areas in the northeast United States. Isomer ratios indicated that the main sources of PAHs were petroleum, coal, and wood combustion. The PAH concentrations were significantly and positively associated with black carbon and with modeled air PAH concentrations, suggesting a consistent relationship between historical deposition of atmospheric carbon-adsorbed PAHs and current PAH soil concentrations. Median PAH soil concentration from non-bed areas was higher (7.4mg/kg) than median concentration from beds in the same garden (4.0mg/kg), and significantly higher than the median from beds without visible sources of PAHs (3.5mg/kg). Median PAH concentration in beds from gardens with records of soil amendments was 58% lower compared with beds from gardens without those records. These results suggest that gardening practices in garden beds without visible sources of PAHs contribute to reduce PAH soil concentrations. Environ Toxicol Chem 2016;35:357-367. (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