4.7 Article

Organochlorine pesticides in the lower reaches of Yangtze River: Occurrence, ecological risk and temporal trends

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 87, 期 -, 页码 89-97

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2012.10.001

关键词

Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs); Distribution; Risk; Temporal trends

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41001329]
  2. special fund for the Public Service Sector of the State Environment Protection Agency of China [201009026]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province [B2011502017]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [12MS01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Residues of 24 organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) including DDT metabolites were investigated in the water and surface sediments from the lower reaches of the Yangtze River to evaluate their pollution and potential risks. Concentrations of OCP residues (Sigma OCP2 ranged from 3.07 to 23.70 ng/L in water and 0.67 to 58.80 ng/g dw in sediments) were generally within safe levels, while adverse biological effects are likely from DDT pollution in the lower reaches. HCH and DDT residues dominated the OCPs. High detection rates but low concentrations of some other OCPs, such as chlordane and endosulfan, were detected in both water and sediments. The HCH and DDT residues in the lower reaches primarily originated from historical use of technical HCH and DDT, although additional sources of lindane and dicofol existed in the region. Temporal trends of pesticide contamination levels indicated that HCH concentrations have decreased over the past decades. However, there was no obvious trend of declining DDT concentrations in the sediments from the Yangtze River. The DDT metabolites, DDMU (bis (chlorophenyl)-1-chloroethylene), DBP (dichlorobenzophenone) and DDM (bis (chlorophenyl) methane), were also investigated for the first time in water and sediments from the Yangtze River. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. 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