4.8 Article

Fate of pentabrominated diphenyl ethers in soil: Abiotic sorption, plant uptake, and the impact of interspecific plant interactions

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 40, 期 21, 页码 6662-6667

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es060776l

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIEHS NIH HHS [P42 ES004908-130014, ES04908, P42 ES004908, P42 ES004908-120014] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are potentially harmful and persistent environmental pollutants. Despite evidence that soils are a major sink for PBDEs, little is known regarding their behavior in this medium. An environmentally relevant level of a commercial penta-BDE mixture (75 mu g kg(-1)) was added to topsoil, and the extractability of three congeners (BDE-47, -99, and -100) was monitored over 10 weeks in planted and unplanted treatments. The extractability of each congener decreased rapidly in the experimental soil due largely to abiotic sorption to soil particles, which was demonstrated by low PBDE recovery from sterilized and dry soils. Monoculture plantings of zucchini and radish did not affect the recovery of PBDEs from soil. However, PBDE recovery from mixed species plantings was nearly 8 times higher than that of unplanted and monoculture treatments, indicating that interspecific plant interactions may enhance PBDE bioavailablity in soil. Evidence for competitive interactions between the two species was revealed by reduced shoot biomass of zucchini plants in mixed treatments relative to pots containing only zucchini. Both plant species accumulated PBDEs in root and shoot tissue (< 5 mu g kg(-1) plant tissue). PBDE uptake was higher in zucchini, and translocation of PBDEs to zucchini shoots was congener-specific. Our results suggest that although abiotic sorption may limit the potential for human exposure to PBDEs in soil, plants may increase the exposure risk by taking up and translocating PBDEs into above ground tissues and by enhancing bioavailability in soil.

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