4.7 Article

Effects assessment: Boron compounds in the aquatic environment

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 82, 期 3, 页码 483-487

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.10.031

关键词

Effects assessment; Boric acid; PNEC derivation; Boron; SSD

资金

  1. Environment Agency Austria
  2. University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien
  3. Osterreichische Forschungsgemeinschaft

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In previous studies, boron compounds were considered to be of comparatively low toxicity in the aquatic environment, with predicted no effect concentration (PNEC) values ranging around 1 mg B/L (expressed as boron equivalent). In the present study, we describe an evaluation of toxicity data for boron available for the aquatic environment by different methods. For substances with rich datasets, it is often possible to perform a species sensitivity distribution (SSD). The typical outcome of an SSD is the Hazardous Concentration 5% (HC5), the concentration at which 95% of all species are protected with a probability of 95%. The data set currently available on the toxic effects of boron compounds to aquatic organisms is comprehensive, but a careful evaluation of these data revealed that chronic data for aquatic insects and plants are missing. In the present study both the standard assessment factor approach as well as the SSD approach were applied. The standard approach led to a PNEC of 0.18 mg B/L (equivalent to 1.03 mg boric acid/L), while the SSD approach resulted in a PNEC of 0.34 mg B/L (equivalent to 1.94 mg boric acid/L). These evaluations indicate that boron compounds could be hazardous to aquatic organisms at concentrations close to the natural environmental background in some European regions. This suggests a possible high sensitivity of some ecosystems for anthropogenic input of boron compounds. Another concern is that the anthropogenic input of boron could lead to toxic effects in organisms adapted to low boron concentration. (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