4.2 Article

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in benthos of the northern Bering Sea Shelf and Chukchi Sea Shelf

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
卷 97, 期 -, 页码 194-199

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.jes.2020.04.021

关键词

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Arctic shelf; Benthos; Toxic potency; Bioaccumulation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41506215, 41976211]
  2. Shanghai Pujiang Talent Program [19PJ1404200]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Eighteen polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected in benthos collected on-board the 'Snow Dragon' in the Northern Bering Sea Shelf and Chukchi Sea Shelf during the 6th Chinese National Arctic Research Expedition (CHINARE 2014). Sigma(18)PAHs for all biota samples ranged from 34.2 to 128.1 ng/g dry weight (dw), with the highest concentration observed in fish muscle (Boreogadus saida) samples close to St. Lawrence Island. The PAH composition pattern was dominated by the presence of lighter 3 ring (57%) and 2 ring (28%) PAHs, indicating oil-related or petrogenic sources as important origins of PAH contamination. Concentrations of alkyl-PAHs (1-methylnaphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene) were lower than their parent PAH (naphthalene) in all biological tissue, and their percentage also decreased significantly (p < 0.05) compared with those in the corresponding sediment. There were no significant relationships between PAH concentrations and trophic levels, which is possibly due to the combined results of the complex benthic foodweb in the subarctic/Arctic shelf region, as well as a low assimilation/effective metabolism for PAHs. According to toxic potency evaluation results from TCDD toxic equivalents (TEQs) and BaP-equivalent (BaPE) values, whelk (Neptunea heros) and starfish (Ctenodiscus crispatus) are two macroinvertebrate species showing relatively higher dioxin-like toxicity and carcinogenic risk. (C) 2020 The Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.2
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