4.8 Article

Temporal Changes and Stereoisomeric Compositions of 1,2,5,6,9,10-Hexabromocyclododecane and 1,2-Dibromo-4-(1,2-dibromoethyl)cyclohexane in Marine Mammals from the South China Sea

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 52, 期 5, 页码 2517-2526

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05387

关键词

-

资金

  1. General Research Fund from the Hong Kong Research Grants Council [CityU 11100614, 11338216]
  2. Early Career Scheme from the Hong Kong Research Grants Council [EdUHK 28300317]
  3. Dean's Research Fund of The Education University of Hong of Kong

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stereoisomeric compositions of 1,2,5,6,9,10-hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and 1,2-dibromo-4-(1,2-dibromoethyl)cyclohexane (TBECH) were investigated in the blubber of two species of marine mammals, finless porpoises (Neophocaena phocaenoides) and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis), from the South China Sea between 2005 and 2015. The concentrations of Sigma HBCD in samples of porpoise (n = 59) and dolphin (n = 32) ranged from 97.2 to 6,260 ng/g lipid weight (1w) and from 447 to 45,800 ng/g lw, respectively, while those of Sigma TBECH were both roughly 2 orders of magnitude lower. A significant increasing trend of Sigma HBCD was found in dolphin blubber over the past decade. The diastereomeric profiles exhibited an absolute predominance of alpha-HBCD (mostly >90%), while the proportions of four TBECH diastereomers in the samples appeared similar. A preferential enrichment of the (-)-enantiomers of alpha-, beta-, and gamma-HBCD was found in most blubber samples. Interestingly, the body lengths of porpoises showed a significant negative correlation with the enantiomer fractions of alpha-HBCD. Significant racemic deviations were also observed for alpha-, gamma-, and delta-TBECH enantiomeric pairs. This is the first report of the presence of TBECH enantiomers in the environment. The estimated hazard quotient indicates that there is a potential risk to dolphins due to HBCD exposure.

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

4.8
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