4.7 Article

Seasonal change of PCDDs/PCDFs/DL-PCBs in the water of Ayase River, Japan: Pollution sources and their contributions to TEQ

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 85, 期 2, 页码 188-194

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.06.033

关键词

Source apportionment; Indicative congener; Paddy field; Dioxins; Pentachlorophenol; Chlornitrofen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Japan, Ayase River is one of the most polluted rivers by PCDDs. PCDFs and dioxin-like PCBs, which are referred to as dioxins in this paper. The water samples of the river were collected once per month for a year, and dioxins were analyzed to examine the dioxin sources and their contributions to toxic equivalent (TEQ). The WHO-2006 TEQs ranged from 0.26 to 7.0 pg-TEQ L(-1) and the average was 2.7 pg-TEQ L(-1); eight of 12 samples exceeded the environmental quality standard in Japan (1.0 pg-TEQ L(-1)). The TEQ value was high during the irrigation period from May to August. The most part of the dioxins in the river water existed in suspended solids (SS) and it seemed that the river received water with highly-dioxin-contaminated SS in the irrigation period. The homologue profiles of the water samples suggested that the dioxins were influenced by pentachlorophenol (PCP) and chlornitrofen (CNP) formulations which were widely used as herbicides for the paddy fields in Japan. According to TEQ apportionment estimated by using indicative congeners, the TEQ was mainly contributed by PCP. Moreover, it was also shown that the TEQ contributions of PCP and CNP formulations increased along with the increase of the total TEQ and the TEQ contribution was dominated by these herbicides during the irrigation period. Therefore, it was concluded that the herbicides-originated dioxins run off from the paddy fields into the river during the irrigation period and increased the dioxins level in the river water. The result from the principal component analysis was consistent with these conclusions. (C) 2011 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