4.7 Article

Leaching behaviour of pharmaceuticals in soil-testing-systems:: a part of an environmental risk assessment for groundwater protection

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 328, 期 1-3, 页码 265-273

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.02.004

关键词

environmental fisk assessment; pharmaceuticals; leaching; groundwater contamination

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The leaching behaviour of six selected pharmaceuticals was tested in different soils. Leaching experiments are a part of environmental risk assessment to estimate the distribution and fate of these pharmaceuticals in the environment. Based on the results of this assessment their mobility in soil and their potential to contaminate groundwater was evaluated. When assessing the leaching behaviour of these compounds, the influence of the properties (e.g. grain size distribution, pH, C-org) of different soils has to be taken into account. The test results indicated that the leaching potential found could be rated as low for diazepam, ibuprofen, ivermectin and carbamazepine. Therefore, contamination of the groundwater with these substances seems to be unlikely if the groundwater level is covered with sufficient layers of the soils investigated. Clofibric acid and iopromide were very mobile under the experimental conditions and thus, groundwater contamination would be possible if the soil is exposed to these pharmaceuticals, i.e. wastewater irrigation. These results are more or less in agreement with groundwater monitoring data found in the literature for ibuprofen and diazepam which were in general not present in groundwater, while clofibric acid and iopromide were frequently detected. However, a discrepancy was found for carbamazepine, since it occurs very often in groundwater. This discrepancy might be explained by the fact that the leaching tests were performed with soil, whereas in reality the groundwater contamination. occurs mainly over river sediments and sub soil from receiving waters. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. 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