4.8 Article

Chemical and microbiological parameters in New Orleans floodwater following Hurricane Katrina

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 39, 期 22, 页码 8591-8599

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es0518631

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hurricane Katrina, rated as a Category 4 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale, made landfall on the U. S. Gulf Coast near New Orleans, Louisiana on Monday, August 29, 2005. The storm brought heavy winds and rain to the city, and several levees intended to protect New Orleans from the water of Lake Pontchartrain were breached. Consequently, up to 80% of the city was flooded with water reaching depths in excess of three meters in some locations. Research described in this paper was conducted to provide an initial assessment of contaminants present in floodwaters shortly after the storm and to characterize water pumped out of the city into Lake Pontchartrain once dewatering operations began several days after the storm. Data are presented which demonstrate that during the weeks following the storm, floodwater was brackish and well-buffered with very low concentrations of volatile and semivolatile organic pollutants. Dissolved oxygen was depleted in surface floodwater, averaging 1.6 mg/L in the Lakeview district and 4.8 mg/L in the Mid City district. Dissolved oxygen was absent (<0.02 mg/L) at the bottom of the floodwater column in the Mid-City district 9 days after the storm. Chemical oxygen demand (Mid City average 79.9 mg/L) and fecal coliform bacteria (Mid City average 1.4 x 10(5) MPN/100 mL) were elevated in surface floodwater but typical of stormwater runoff in the region. Lead, arsenic, and in some cases, chromium, exceeded drinking water standards but with the exception of some elevated Pb concentrations generally were typical of stormwater. Data suggest that what distinguishes Hurricane Katrina floodwater is the large volume and the human exposure to these pollutants that accompanied the flood, rather than very elevated concentrations of toxic pollutants.

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