4.7 Review

Abiotic factors controlling bioavailability and bioaccessibility of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soil: Putting together a bigger picture

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 613, 期 -, 页码 1140-1153

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.025

关键词

-PAHs; Source material; Bioavailability; Bioaccessibility; Risk assessment; Soil organic matter

资金

  1. University of Newcastle, Australia [G1700897]
  2. CRC CARE Pty Ltd. [3.1.04-16/17]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The bioavailability and bioaccessibility of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soil underpin the risk assessment of contaminated land with these contaminants. Despite a significant volume of research conducted in the past few decades, comprehensive understanding of the factors controlling the behaviour of soil PAHs and a set of descriptive soil parameters to explain variations in PAH bioavailability and bioaccessibility are still lacking. This review focuses on the role of source materials on bioavailability and bioaccessibility of soil PAHs, which is often overlooked, along with other abiotic factors including contaminant concentration and mixture, soil composition and properties, aswell as environmental factors. It also takes into consideration the implications of different types of risk assessment (ecological and human health) on bioavailability and bioaccessibility of PAHs in soil. We recommend that future research should (1) account for the effects of sourcematerials on bioavailability and bioaccessibility of soil PAHs; (2) adopt non-disruptive methods to analyse soil components controlling PAH sequestration; (3) integrate both natural organic matter (NOM) and xenobiotic organic matter (XOM) while evaluating the influences of soil organicmatter (SOM) on the behaviour of PAHs; and (4) consider the dissimilar desorption scenarios in ecological risk assessment and human health risk assessmentwhile assessing PAH bioavailability and bioaccessibility. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. 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