4.7 Article

The effect of particle size on sorption of estrogens, androgens and progestagens in aquatic sediment

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 299, Issue -, Pages 112-121

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.05.046

Keywords

Steroid hormones; Aquatic sediment; Estrogens; Androgens; Progestagens; Sorption

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [CBET-0966850]
  2. Directorate For Engineering
  3. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [0966850] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is growing concern about the biologic effects of steroid hormones in impacted waterways. There is increasing evidence of enhanced transport and biological effects stemming from steroid hormones associated with soils or sediments; however, there are limited studies evaluating how steroid hormone distribution between various particle sizes within whole sediments affects steroid fate. In this study, sorption of 17 beta-estradiol, estrone, progesterone, and testosterone was evaluated to different size fractions of two natural sediments, a silty loam and a sandy sediment, to determine the steroid sorption capacity to each fraction and distribution within the whole sediment. Sorption isotherms for all steroid hormones fit linear sorption models. Sorption capacity was influenced more by organic carbon content than particle size. Interactions between size fractions were found to affect the distribution of steroids within the whole sediments. All four steroids preferentially sorbed to the clay and colloids in the silty loam sediment at the lowest aqueous concentration (1 ng/L) and as aqueous concentration increased, the distribution of sorbed steroid was similar to the distribution by weight of each size fraction within the whole sediment. In the sandy sediment, preferential sorption to fine particles was observed. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available