4.7 Article

Relevance of urban glyphosate use for surface water quality

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 81, 期 3, 页码 422-429

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.06.067

关键词

Herbicide load; Urban drainage system; Agriculture; Catchment; Loss rate

资金

  1. Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, FOEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Relative contributions of agricultural and urban uses to the glyphosate contamination of surface waters were studied in a small catchment (25 km(2)) in Switzerland Monitoring in four sub-catchments with differing land use allowed comparing load and input dynamics from different sources. Agricultural as well as urban use was surveyed in all sub-catchments allowing for a detailed interpretation of the monitoring results. Water samples from the river system and from the urban drainage system (combined sewer overflow, storm sewer and outflow of wastewater treatment plant) were investigated. The concentrations at peak discharge during storm events were elevated throughout the year with maximum concentrations of 4.15 mu g L-1. Glyphosate concentrations mostly exceeded those of other commonly used herbicides such as atrazine or mecoprop Fast runoff from hard surfaces led to a fast increase of the glyphosate concentration shortly after the beginning of rainfall not coinciding with the concentration peak normally observed from agricultural fields. The comparison of the agricultural application and the seasonal concentration and load pattern in the main creek from March to November revealed that the occurrence of glyphosate cannot be explained by agricultural use only. Extrapolations from agricultural loss rates and from concentrations found in the urban drainage system showed that more than half of the load during selected rain events originates from urban areas The inputs from the effluent of the wastewater treatment plant, the overflow of the combined sewer system and of the separate sewer system summed up to 60% of the total load. (C) 2010 Elsevier 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

4.7
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