4.8 Article

PCB and PAH speciation among particle types in contaminated harbor sediments and effects on PAH bioavailability

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 37, 期 10, 页码 2209-2217

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es020833k

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research provides particle-scale understanding of PCB and PAH distribution in sediments obtained from three urban locations in the United States: Hunters Point, CA; Milwaukee Harbor, WI; and Harbor Point, NY. The sediments comprised mineral grains (primarily sand, silt, and clays) and carbonaceous particles (primarily coal, coke, charcoal, pitch, cenospheres, and wood). The carbonaceous sediment fractions were separated from the mineral fractions based on their lower density and were identified by petrographic analysis. In all three sediments, carbonaceous particles contributed 5-7% of the total mass and 60-90% of the PCBs and PAHs. The production of carbonaceous particles is not known to be associated with PCB contamination, and it is very unlikely that these particles can be the source of PCBs in the environment. Thus, it appears that carbonaceous particles preferentially accumulate PCBs acting as sorbents in the aqueous environment if PCBs are released directly to the sediment or if deposited as airborne soot particles. Aerobic bioslurry treatment resulted in negligible PAH loss from the carbonaceous coal-derived material in Milwaukee Harbor sediment but resulted in 80% of the PAHs being removed from carbonaceous particles in Harbor Point sediment. Microscale PAH extraction and analysis revealed that PAHs in Harbor Point sediment were associated mainly with coal tar pitch residue. PAHs present in semisolid coal tar pitch are more bioavailable than PAHs sorbed on carbonaceous particles such as coal, coke, charcoal, and cenosphere. Results of this study illustrate the importance of understanding particle-scale association of hydrophobic organic contaminants for explaining bioavailability differences among sediments.

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