4.7 Article

Natural and anthropogenic hydrocarbons in sediments from the Chubut River (Patagonia, Argentina)

期刊

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN
卷 48, 期 9-10, 页码 910-918

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2003.11.015

关键词

superficial sediments; Chubut river; hydrocarbon levels; biogenic origin; anthropogenic impact; n-alkanes indices

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In march of 2001 a study was carried out to evaluate hydrocarbon levels in the lower course of the Chubut River. The study included 12 sample stations along the river from San Cristobal Bridge to the confluence with the sea, in a 25 kin straight-line extension in a urbanized area. In the first 11 stations, resolved aliphatic (RAli) hydrocarbons presented low values, between 0.07 and 0.96 mug/g dry weight (dw); the unresolved complex mixture (UCM) between 0.42 and 2.72 mug/g dw, and the total aliphatic (TAli) hydrocarbons between 0.55 and 3.07 mug/g dw. In the last station, at the mouth of Chubut river, these values increased to 460, 284, and 741 mug/g dw for RAH, UCM and TAli, respectively. The n-alkanes distribution indices and the compositional parameters suggested a predominantly biogenic origin in eleven stations, and a predominantly anthropogenic origin in the last station, with the highest hydrocarbon values. It is possible to conclude that the stations with low hydrocarbon values and biogenic origin predominance would constitute the baseline of aliphatic hydrocarbons for river sediments at this zone. The station with the highest hydrocarbon concentration and predominantly anthropic origin was related to the presence of Rawson city's port, where its activities (harbor and fishing vessels) generate hydrocarbon wastes unrelated to the river base profile in the study zone. Offshore, but within the river influence, there is an important fishing area of Argentine Red and Patagonian shrimps (Pleoticus muelleri and Artemesia longinaris, respectively). (C) 2003 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