3.8 Article

Evaluation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) pollution in Buyuk Menderes River

出版社

PAMUKKALE UNIV
DOI: 10.5505/pajes.2019.83357

关键词

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; PAHs; Water framework directive; Buyuk Menderes River

资金

  1. Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) [112G083]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) tend to accumulate in the environment, causing environmental pollution through which they significantly affect the biological equilibrium in nature. Due to their adverse effect on nature, aquatic life and human, PAHs are considered as one of the significant pollutants that should be monitored in surface water bodies. Therefore, they have been listed in the national specific pollutant list of Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and in the priority substances list specified in EU Water Frame Directive (WFD) of 2000/60/EC and 2013/39/EU. Anthracene, Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo[b]fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo[k]fluoranthene, Fluoranthene, Indeno [1,2,3-cd] pyrene, Naphthalene are the PAHs in the priority substances list of WFD. Additionally, 1-Methylnaphthalene, Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene, Chrysene, Fluorene, Perylene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene are other PAHs with environmental quality standards specified in the national list of the Ministry. The mentioned PAHs were monitored for 12 months in 15 lakes, 2 transition water, 4 coastal and 26 river water stations in Buyuk Menderes River Basin. The results were evaluated for the detected PAHs in the river basin with regard to Maximum Allowable Concentration Environmental Quality Standards (MAC-EQS) and the Annual Average Concentration Environmental Quality Standards (AA-EQS) given either in Water Framework Directive or in National Regulation of the Ministry. As a result of the evaluation, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[ghi]perylene, pyrene and fluoranthene substances were found to be important substances to be monitored throughout the basin.

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

3.8
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