4.7 Article

Characterization and risk assessment of polychlorinated biphenyls in soils and vegetations near an electronic waste recycling site, South China

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 85, 期 3, 页码 344-350

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.06.096

关键词

e-Waste; PCB; Soil; Vegetable

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China [NSFC-GDNSF U0933002]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40821003]
  4. Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong SAR Government [PolyU 5212/08E]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed at identifying the levels of PCBs generated from e-waste recycling, and their potential impacts on the soils and vegetations as well. The Sigma PCBs concentrations in soil and plant samples ranged from 7.4 to 4000 ng g(-1), and from 6.7 to 1500 ng g(-1), respectively. For the plant samples, Chrysanthemum coronarium L. from vegetable field and the wild plant Bidens pilosa L. from the burning site showed relatively higher PCB concentrations than other species. For the soil samples, the e-waste burning site had relatively higher PCB concentrations than the adjacent areas, and vegetable soils had higher PCB concentrations than paddy soils. The PCB concentrations showed a clear decreasing trend with the increasing distance from the e-waste recycling site. PCB 28, 99, 101, 138, 153, and 180 were the predominant congeners. Principal component analysis results showed a potential fractionation of PCB compositions from the burning site to the surroundings. The PCB congener pattern at the burning site was similar to Arochlor 1260, pointing to an input of non-domestic e-waste. Similar PCB congeners were found in soils and related vegetables, indicating they derived from the same source. The consumption of vegetables grown in soils near e-waste recycling sites should be strictly avoided due to the high PCBs in the plant tissues. (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