4.8 Article

Exploring the Occurrence and Temporal Variation of ToxCast Chemicals in Fine Particulate Matter Using Suspect Screening Strategy

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 53, 期 10, 页码 5687-5696

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01197

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation [91843301, 21622705, 91743101, 21577151, 21461142001]
  2. Youth Innovation Promotion Association CAS projects

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Existence of emerging contaminants in the environment is of great importance for health risk assessment. The consensus on categories and numbers of the emerging contaminants in airborne fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is still extremely deficient. In this study, an in-house data set was constructed containing 890 unique ToxCast (Phase I and Phase II) chemicals. Occurrence and temporal variation of the chemicals was investigated by a suspect screening workflow in 60 PM2.5 samples from January to December of 2016 in Beijing. Eighty-nine compounds were identified in 12 substance categories, which covered a broad range of physicochemical properties. Quantification/semiquantification results showed that phthalates, phenols, and carboxylic esters were the three most predominant categories, with mean concentrations of 7.82, 4.42, and 4.11 ng/m(3), respectively. Four diverse temporal variation patterns were discerned, which could be explained by correlations of chemical concentrations (or instrumental responses) with meteorological parameters. An extended retrospective suspect screening was also performed to reveal the presence of several analogues of the identified chemicals that were not included in the data set. Another 75 pollutants were tentatively recognized, and comparison of estimated composition profiles based on instrumental responses suggested the identified ToxCast chemicals are a notable subset of typical emerging contaminants. The results might facilitate ranking of organic pollutants with active biological effects in PM2.5 samples.

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

4.8
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