4.7 Article

Health risk assessment of heavy metals in fish and accumulation patterns in food web in the upper Yangtze River, China

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 145, 期 -, 页码 295-302

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.07.022

关键词

Heavy metals; Ecological network; Health risk; Fish; Yangtze River

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51439001]
  2. National Key Research and Development Plan [2016YFC0502209]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to concern the distribution of As, Cr, Cd, Hg, Cu, Zn, Pb and Fe in surface sediment, zoobenthos and fishes, and quantify the accumulative ecological risk and human health risk of metals in river ecological system based on the field investigation in the upper Yangtze River. The results revealed high ecological risk of As, Cd, Cu, Hg, Zn and Pb in sediment. As and Cd in fish presented potential human health risk of metals by assessing integrated target hazard quotient results based on average and maximum concentrations, respectively. No detrimental health effects of heavy metals on humans were found by daily fish consumption. While, the total target hazard quotient (1.659) exceeding 1, it meant that the exposed population might experience non carcinogenic health risks from the accumulative effect of metals. Ecological network analysis model was established to identify the transfer routes and quantify accumulative effects of metals on river ecosystem. Control analysis between compartments showed large predator fish firstly depended on the omnivorous fish. Accumulative ecological risk of metals indicated that zoobenthos had the largest metal propagation risk and compartments located at higher trophic levels were not easier affected by the external environment pollution. Capsule: A potential accumulative ecological risk of heavy metal in the food web was quantified, and the noncarcinogenic health risk of fish consumption was revealed for the upper reach of the Yangtze River.

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

4.7
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