4.7 Article

Assessment of metal pollution in the Lambro Creek (Italy)

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 148, 期 -, 页码 754-762

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.11.041

关键词

Metals; Sediment; Water; Biota; Toxicity; Remobilisation

资金

  1. project CIGA of Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague [42220/1313/423107]
  2. IGA of Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague [42220/1312/423132]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed the effect of metal pollution in the Lambro Creek (Southern Italy). Water, sediment and biota were collected at six sampling sites (June) for metal concentration assessment (Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn). Sequential extraction was performed to determine the distribution of metals in different geochemical sediment fractions. The influence of pH and leaching time on the release of metals from sediment to the water column was investigated via remobilization tests. A battery of toxicity tests (Vibrio fischeri, Raphidocelis subcapitata, Phaeodactylum tricomutum, and Daphnia magna) with multi-endpoints (bioluminescence, growth inhibition, and immobilization) was used to determine the overall toxicity in sediment water extracts. The results showed that metals did not exceed the probable effect concentration levels, with Cr concentration exceeding the threshold effect concentration level at all sampling points except for the one closer to the source of the creek, suggesting potential negative effect on the biota. Considering the cumulative criterion unit, sediment contamination was moderate at all sampling sites, except for L3 and L5 where biota was exposed to a very high risk. With respect to sequential analysis, the most readily available fraction of metal can be generalised as Ni > Cr > Cu > Zn > Pb. For better understanding the fate of metals in the water-sediment environment, their biogeochemical cycles should also be investigated in small creeks including both fresh (watercourse) and saltwater (river mouth) sediments.

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