4.7 Article

Uptake of carbamazepine by cucumber plants - A case study related to irrigation with reclaimed wastewater

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 82, 期 6, 页码 905-910

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.10.052

关键词

Bioaccumulation; Carbamazepine; Pharmaceutical compounds; Wastewater; Irrigation; Food-chain

资金

  1. BARD
  2. United States-Israel Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund [IS-3822-06]
  3. Israel Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reclaimed wastewater is an important source of irrigation in semiarid and arid zones. Here we report data on carbamazepine (CBZ) uptake by cucumber plants in hydroponic culture and greenhouse experiments using different soil types irrigated with fresh water or reclaimed wastewater. Data obtained from the hydroponic culture experiments suggest that CBZ is mainly translocated by water mass flow, and thus it is concentrated and accumulated to the largest extent in the mature/older leaves. Carbamazepine concentration in cucumber fruits and leaves was negatively correlated with soil organic matter content. The concentrations of CBZ in the roots and stems were relatively low, and most CBZ in the plant (76-84% of total uptake) was detected in the leaves. A greenhouse experiment using fresh water and reclaimed wastewater spiked, or not, with CBZ at 1 mu g L-1 (typical concentration in effluents) revealed that CBZ can be taken up and bioaccumulated from its background concentration in reclaimed wastewater. Bioaccumulation factor (calculated as the ratio of CBZ concentration in the plant to that in the soil solution) for the fruits (0.8-1) was significantly lower than the value calculated for the leaves (17-20). This study emphasizes the potential uptake of active pharmaceutical compounds by crops in organic-matter-poor soils irrigated with reclaimed wastewater and highlights the potential risks associated with this agricultural practice. (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