4.7 Article

AhR-mediated potency of sediments and soils in estuarine and coastal areas of the Yellow Sea region: A comparison between Korea and China

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 171, 期 -, 页码 216-225

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2012.08.001

关键词

H4IIE-luc; In vitro bioassay; Mass balance; West Sea; Bohai Sea; Asia

资金

  1. project entitled Development of Technology for CO2 Marine Geological Storage
  2. project entitled Development of Integrated Estuarine Management System
  3. Korean Ministry of Land, Transport, and Maritime Affairs [PM56951]
  4. National Science Foundation of China [41171394]
  5. Canada Research Chair program
  6. large Chair Professorship at the Department of Biology and Chemistry and Research Centre for Coastal Pollution and Conservation, City University of Hong Kong
  7. Einstein Professor Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extracts of sediments (n = 45) and soils (n = 37) collected from the coast of the Yellow Sea, in Korea and China, were screened for their ability to induce dioxin-like gene expression in vitro using the H4IIE-luc, transactivation bioassay. Significant dioxin-like potency was observed except for a few soils from Korea. Concentrations of TCDD-EQ (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin equivalents) in sediments were comparable between Korea and China, but concentrations of TCDD-EQ in soil were 2-fold greater from Korea. Mass balance analysis indicated that concentrations of TCDD-EQ were to some degree chemical- and/or matrix-dependent, but were much more site-specific. For example, the proportion of the TCDD-EQ that could be identified varied among locations, which suggests different sources. Unidentified AhR-active compounds represented a greater proportion of the TCDD-EQ in samples from Korea, which suggests that sources in Korea were more complex than those in China. Potential sources of TCDD-EQ were investigated by considering land-uses and local activities. (C) 2012 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