4.7 Article

Sorption of fluoroquinolones and sulfonamides in 13 Brazilian soils

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 92, 期 8, 页码 979-985

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.03.018

关键词

Veterinary antibiotics; Retention; Transport; Soil pollution; Weathered soils

资金

  1. FAPESP [2007/08425-0, 2009/01596-9]
  2. CNPq [480689/2008-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Animal production is a leading economic activity in Brazil and antibiotics are widely used. However, the occurrence, behavior, and impacts of antibiotics in Brazilian soils are still poorly known. We evaluated the sorption behavior of four fluoroquinolones (norfloxacin, ciprofloxacin, danofloxacin, and enrofloxacin) and five sulfonamides (sulfadiazine, sulfachloropyridazine, sulfamethoxazole, sulfadimidine, and sulfathiazole) in 13 Brazilian soils with contrasting physical, chemical, and mineralogical properties. Fluoroquinolone sorption was very high (K-d >= 544 L kg(-1)) whereas sulfonamide sorption ranged from low to high (K-d = 0.7-70.1 L kg(-1)), consistent with previous reports in the literature. Soil texture and cation exchange capacity were the soil attributes that most affected sorption. Cation exchange was the most important sorption mechanism for the fluoroquinolones in highly weathered tropical soils, although cation bridging and ion pairing could not be ruled out. Hydrophobic partition played an important role in the sorption of the sulfonamides, but sorption was also affected by non-hydrophobic interactions with organic and/or mineral surfaces. Sorption for both compound classes tended to be higher in soils with high Al and Fe oxihydroxide contents, but they were not correlated with K-d values. No direct effect of soil pH was seen. The fluoroquinolones are not expected to leach even in worst-case scenarios (soils rich in sand and poor in organic carbon), whereas soil attributes dictate leaching potential for the sulfonamides. (C) 2013 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