4.8 Article

Including mixtures in the determination of water quality criteria for herbicides in surface water

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 40, 期 2, 页码 426-435

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es050239l

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Monitoring programs throughout America and Europe have demonstrated the common occurrence of herbicides in surface water. Nevertheless, mixtures are rarely taken into account in water quality regulation. Taking mixtures into account is only feasible if the water quality criteria (WGC) of the single compounds are derived by a common and consistent methodology, which overcomes differences in data quality without settling on the lowest common denominator but making best use of all available data. In this paper, we present a method of defining a risk quotient for mixtures of herbicides with a similar mode of action (RQ(m)). Consistent and comparable WGC are defined for single herbicides as a basis for the calculation of the RQ(m) Derived from the concentration addition model, the RQ(m) can be expressed as the sum of the ratios of the measured environmental concentration and the WQC for each herbicide. The RQ(m) should be less than one to ensure an acceptable risk to aquatic life. This approach has the advantage of being easy to calculate and communicate, and is proposed as a replacement for the current limit of 0.1 mu g/L for herbicides in Switzerland. We illustrate the proposed approach on the example of five commonly applied herbicides (atrazine, simazine, terbuthylazine, isoproturon, and diuron). Their risk profile, i.e., the RQ(m) as a function of time for one exemplary river, clearly shows that the single compounds rarely exceeded their individual WGC. However,the contribution of peaks of different seasonally applied herbicides, whose application periods partially overlap, together with the continuously emitted herbicides from nonagricultural use, results in the exceedance of the RG(m) threshold value of one upon several occasions.

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