4.7 Article

Biodegradation of chlordane and hexachlorobenzenes in river sediment

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 67, 期 3, 页码 428-434

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.09.087

关键词

persistent organic pollutants; chlordane; hexachlorobenzene; anaerobic biodegradation; sediment; Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Contamination of river sediments by persistent organic pollutants (POPs) is a worldwide concern, and microbial degradation is regarded as an important process for removal of POPs from river sediments. To date, there is still a lack of systematic study on chlordane biodegradation in river sediments, and the information on hexachlorobenzene (HCB) biodegradation in river sediments is very limited in Japan. We investigated the anaerobic biodegradation potential of trans-chlordane (TC), cis-chlordane (CC), and HCB in sediment samples collected at three sites along the Kamogawa River in Saitama Prefecture, Japan. Lag period and biodegradation rates of TC and CC in the three sediments varied greatly with their properties and contamination by TC and CC. In contrast, biodegradation of HCB in all three sediments started immediately with the start of the experiment without lag period, and major differences in biodegradation rates among the sediments were not observed. At the end of 20-week anaerobic incubation in the dark at 30 degrees C temperature, degradation rates ranged from 0.0% to 33.0% for TC, 0.0% to 12.0% for CC, and 47.6% to 59.4% for HCB. Results showed that the high-to-low order of biodegradation in the river sediments was HCB > TC > CC. Although the sediments were collected in the same river, their biodegradation potential varied with properties. Sediment with rich organic content and contamination by TC and CC or HCB was observed to have high biodegradation rates for these pollutants. In addition, biodegradation of TC, CC and HCB was companied by obvious methane generation and drop of oxidation-reduction potential (ORP). (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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