4.7 Article

Soot-water distribution coefficients for polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans and polybrominated diphenylethers determined with the soot cosolvency-column method

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 49, 期 6, 页码 515-523

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0045-6535(02)00389-2

关键词

sorption; black carbon; organic contaminants; sediments; soils

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For many types of hydrophobic compounds, sorption non-linearity and solid-water distributions in the field well above expectations from organic matter partitioning models have lead to the proposition that strong adsorption to soot surfaces may not be limited to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons but may extend as a significant process for many aromatic compound classes. Here, the soot-water distribution coefficients (K(sc)) were determined with the soot cosolvency-column method for homolog series of five polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), five polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and for two polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs). All compounds exhibited significantly stronger association with soot carbon than expected from estimates of their bulk organic-carbon normalized partition coefficients (K(oc)) The K(sc)/K(oc) ratios (at aqueous concentrations of around 0.1-1 mug/1) were for PCDDs (up to tetrachlorination) 19-130 (median 25), for PCDFs (also up to tetrachlorination) 150-490 (median 300), and for both the tetra- and pentabrominated PBDEs a factor of 60. The particularly strong soot sorption for the PCDFs is of similar enhancement factors as previously elucidated for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Compound-class specific correlations between logK(sc) and octanol-water partition coefficients (logK(ow)) were significant for both PCDDs and PCDFs (and with R(2) > 98%). These may prove useful for anticipating variable fractions of dissolved exposures between different environmental regimes and putative remediation objects. (C) 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

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