4.1 Article

The application of steroidal biomarkers to track the abandonment of a Roman wastewater course at the Agora (Athens, Greece)

期刊

ARCHAEOMETRY
卷 45, 期 -, 页码 149-161

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1475-4754.00101

关键词

5 beta-stanols; Agora; bile acids; biomarker; GC; GC/MS; faecal; lipid; sediment; sewage; steroid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A subterranean, stone-built, sediment filled culvert discovered during excavations at the Agora (Athens, Greece) was dated to the Roman period on the basis of its characteristic construction and associated finds, including coins. The location of the culvert relative to other adjacent watercourses and an ancient river bed suggested that the structure was a sewer. This was confirmed through a multi-molecular biomarker approach based on analysis of the bile acids associated with sediment filling the sewer, using gas chromatography (GC) and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GCIMS). The acid fraction contained predominantly deoxycholic and lithocholic acids, while the neutral steroid fraction comprised a complex mixture of Delta(5) sterol and 5beta- and 5alpha-stanols, dominated by coprostanol, suggesting the presence of faecal matter of predominantly human origin. The concentrations of neutral and acidic faecal biomarkers were observed to vary in tandem, with the highest concentrations being found in the sediment at the base of the fill in the culvert. A reduction in concentration occurred with decreasing depth of the fill, with concentrations in the uppermost samples being little different from control samples of sediment taken beyond the confines of the culvert. The enhanced concentration of bile acids relative to 5beta-stanols compared with fresh human faeces must reflect the enhanced diagenetic stability of the former, thereby making bile acids the possibly preferred biomarker for this type of study. The quantitative data obtained suggest that the culvert fell rapidly out of use, possibly coinciding with the Slavic incursion in AD 582-3.

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

4.1
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