4.8 Article

Assessment of river Po sediment quality by micropollutant analysis

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 36, 期 10, 页码 2491-2504

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00485-7

关键词

organochlorine compounds; trace metals; sediment quality; river Po

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trace metals, PCB congeners and DDT homologues were determined in composite sediment samples collected from 10 representative sites along the river Po in two separate seasons. The aim was to identify the most anthropogenically impacted areas for future monitoring programmes and to aid development of Italian sediment quality criteria. The surface samples were collected during low flow conditions. Trace metal concentrations were assayed by electrothermal (Cd Co, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb), flame (Fe, Mn, Zn) or hydride generation (As) atomic absorption spectrometry after microwave assisted acid digestion. Hg was determined on solid samples by automated analyser. Organic microcontaminants were determined by gas-chromatography with 63 Ni electron capture detector after Soxhlet extraction. Concentrations of trace metals, total PCB and DDT homologues showed two distinct peaks at the sites immediately downstream of Turin and Milan, respectively, and in each case decreased progressively further downstream. Principal component analysis identified three major factors (from a multi-dimensional space of 35 variables) which explained 85-90% of the total observed variance. The first and second factors corresponded to anthropogenic inputs and geological factors on sediment quality; the third included seasonal processes of minor importance. Sediment quality assessment identified Cd, Cu, Hg, Pb, Zn and organic microcontaminants as posing the most serious threats to river sediment quality. A reference site within the Po basin provided Useful background values. Moderate pollution by organochlorine compounds was ascribed both to local Sources and to atmospheric deposition. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science 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

4.8
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