4.7 Article

Assessment of the distribution and risks of organochlorine pesticides in core sediments from areas of different human activity on Lake Baiyangdian, China

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00477-013-0799-6

关键词

OCPs; Sediment; Vertical profiles; Ecosystem risk; The Lake Baiyangdian

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41201509]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province [B2011502017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Burial characteristics and risks associated with 13 organochlorine pesticides (OCPs; alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, gamma-HCH, delta-HCH, p,p'-DDE, p,p'-DDD, p,p'-DDT, heptachlor, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, alpha-endosulfan and beta-endosulfan) in core sediments of Lake Baiyangdian were investigated. The core sediments were taken from areas of different anthropogenic activity along the lake. Concentrations of hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), heptachlor, aldrin, and endosulfan ranged from 0.64 to 2.72, nd (undetectable levels) to 2.79, 0.29 to 1.37, nd to 2.62, and nd to 1.76 ng g(-1), respectively. Concentrations of OCPs in the core sediments exhibited the following spatial trend: Dongtianzhuang > Shaochedian > Zaolinzhuang. Concentrations in the surficial layer were also found to be greater than those in the bottom layer. OCPs were dominated by HCH. beta-HCH was found in the greatest concentrations, indicating that the majority of HCH came from older inputs to the area. The ratio of DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) also suggested a lack of recent inputs to the lake environment. The residues of heptachlor, aldrin, and endosulfan in core sediments indicated that cyclodienes were historically applied in the area. The OCP risk assessment, which was based on effect range low and threshold effect level values, suggested that the top layer of sediment in Dongtianzhuang cores had a relatively high toxicity to human health and the environment.

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