| Literature DB >> 30360547 |
Xueli Wang1, Xiaoyu Yuan2, Shengke Yang3, Yaqian Zhao4.
Abstract
As one of the most widely used brominated flame retardants, hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) is found widely in the environmental media. In this study, the content and spatial distribution of HBCD and risk posed by HBCD in surface sediment in the Weihe River Basin in Northwest China were investigated. The HBCD concentration ranged nd⁻4.04 ng/g dw with the mean was 0.45 ng/g dw. The major source of HBCD in surface sediment was local point discharge. The distribution profiles of α-, β-, γ-HBCD were 24.7⁻87.9%, 0⁻42.0%, and 0⁻67.1%, respectively. Specially, α-HBCD was the dominating isomer in most sample sites. This differed significantly from that in HBCD technical product, which might be attributed to the different degradation rates and inter-transformation of the three HBCD isomers. Risk quotient method was used to assess the potential risk posed by HBCD in sediment. HBCD do not pose strong risks to aquatic algae organisms in the Weihe River Basin.Entities:
Keywords: HBCD; distributions; risk assessment; sediment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30360547 PMCID: PMC6267610 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15112340
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Sampling location of surface sediments in Weihe River basin Shaanxi section, China.
Information of the sediment samples, total organic carbon (TOC) content and the concentrations of HBCD (ng/g dw).
| Sampling Site | Longitude | LATITUDE | TOC (%) | α-HBCD (ng/g dw) | β-HBCD (ng/g dw) | γ-HBCD (ng/g dw) | ∑HBCD (ng/g dw) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 107°2′59″ | 34°22′46″ | 1.33 | 0.0740 | ND | 0.0230 | 0.0970 |
| S2 | 107°6′26″ | 34°20′45″ | 1.78 | 0.6400 | ND | 0.2639 | 0.9039 |
| S3 | 107°7′39″ | 34°21′52″ | 1.54 | 0.2334 | ND | 0.0406 | 0.2740 |
| S4 | 107°9′15″ | 34°21′51″ | 2.16 | 2.0446 | 0.7696 | 0.3972 | 3.2115 |
| S5 | 107°11′27″ | 34°21′11″ | 1.67 | 0.3651 | 0.0508 | ND | 0.4159 |
| S6 | 107°15′9″ | 34°21′6″ | 2.02 | 0.0906 | ND | 0.0433 | 0.1339 |
| S7 | 107°15′11″ | 34°21′6″ | 0.58 | 0.0189 | ND | 0.0130 | 0.0319 |
| S8 | 107°18′16″ | 34°21′56″ | 1.28 | 0.1414 | 0.0997 | 0.3306 | 0.5717 |
| S9 | 107°23′39″ | 34°20′29″ | 1.32 | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| S10 | 107°34′44″ | 34°17′46″ | 1.69 | 0.0785 | ND | 0.0460 | 0.1245 |
| S11 | 107°38′34″ | 34°16′48″ | 3.71 | 0.2716 | ND | 0.1405 | 0.4121 |
| S12 | 107°56′31″ | 34°14′33″ | 1.93 | 0.1114 | ND | 0.0582 | 0.1696 |
| S13 | 108°5′28″ | 34°14′3″ | 1.34 | 0.0593 | ND | 0.0870 | 0.1463 |
| S14 | 108°7′8″ | 34°15′3″ | 0.87 | 0.0293 | ND | 0.0277 | 0.0571 |
| S15 | 108°12′59″ | 34°12′45″ | 1.58 | 1.0083 | 0.1119 | 0.2489 | 1.3691 |
| S16 | 108°16′21″ | 34°9′31″ | 0.67 | 0.0455 | ND | 0.0388 | 0.0843 |
| S17 | 108°34′4″ | 34°13′50″ | 0.79 | 0.0430 | 0.0153 | 0.0479 | 0.1061 |
| S18 | 108°34′12″ | 34°12′17″ | 2.23 | 0.0863 | 0.0160 | 0.0450 | 0.1473 |
| S19 | 108°31′55″ | 34°17′34″ | 1.30 | 0.1957 | 0.0149 | 0.1460 | 0.3566 |
| S20 | 108°41′53″ | 34°19′27″ | 1.56 | 0.0719 | ND | 0.0538 | 0.1257 |
| S21 | 108°51′25″ | 34°23′31″ | 1.03 | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| S22 | 108°50′42″ | 34°22′15″ | 1.21 | 1.1893 | 0.2710 | 0.2939 | 1.7542 |
| S23 | 109°0′17″ | 34°24′16″ | 1.26 | 0.0973 | 0.0400 | 0.2012 | 0.3386 |
| S24 | 108°59′59″ | 34°23′4″ | 1.48 | 0.0371 | ND | 0.0442 | 0.0813 |
| S25 | 109°6″1″ | 34°28′5″ | 1.40 | 0.0680 | 0.0212 | 0.0454 | 0.1346 |
| S26 | 109°31′32″ | 34°31′26″ | 1.49 | 0.0392 | ND | 0.0170 | 0.0562 |
| S27 | 109°32′4″ | 34°30′38″ | 1.77 | 0.0609 | ND | 0.0716 | 0.1325 |
| S28 | 109°59′46″ | 34°37′44″ | 1.37 | 0.0201 | ND | 0.0410 | 0.0611 |
| S29 | 110°0′17″ | 34°37′24″ | 1.68 | 0.0999 | 0.0180 | 0.0390 | 0.1569 |
| S30 | 110°7′46″ | 34°39′48″ | 1.26 | 0.0230 | ND | 0.0418 | 0.0648 |
| S31 | 110°8′19″ | 34°41′28″ | 1.13 | 0.0586 | 0.0192 | ND | 0.0778 |
| S32 | 110°11′4″ | 34°38′23″ | 1.22 | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| S33 | 110°15′14″ | 34°36′43″ | 1.88 | 0.0557 | ND | 0.0277 | 0.0834 |
| S34 | 110°17′15″ | 34°36′43″ | 0.55 | 1.0410 | 1.6986 | 1.3024 | 4.0420 |
ND: not detected.
Comparison of HBCD concentrations in sediment samples among different regions.
| Location | ∑HBCD (ng/g dw) | References |
|---|---|---|
| Taihu Lake (China) | 0.046–2.56 | [ |
| Shanghai (China) | 0.05–6.87 | [ |
| Liaohe River (China) | nd–4.02 | [ |
| Dongjiang River (China) | 0.03–31.6 | [ |
| Xijiang River (China) | nd–1.02 | [ |
| Dayanhe River (China) | 0.03–0.61 | [ |
| Hunhe River (China) | 0.05–25.8 | [ |
| Yangtze River (China) | 0.35–206.1 | [ |
| Haihe River (China) | 1.25–26.4 | [ |
| Dagu Dainage Canal (China) | 5.59–634 | [ |
| Bohai Bay (China) | 17.4–244 | [ |
| English lake (UK) | 0.88–4.8 | [ |
| Erie Lake and Detroit River (USA) | 0.26–1.6 | [ |
| Sydney estuary (Australia) | 1.8–5.3 | [ |
| Maggiore Lake (Italy) | nd–23.7 | [ |
| Seomjin, Nam, and Nakdong Rivers (Korea) | 0.19–13 | [ |
| Tsurumi (Japan) | 5.7–22 | [ |
| Kuzuryu (Japan) | 2.7–20 | [ |
| Norwegian fjord (Norway) | 35–9000 | [ |
| Cinca River (Spain) | 2–42 | [ |
| Scheldt basin (UK) | 0.2–950 | [ |
| Western Scheldt (UK) | 0.6–99 | [ |
| Scheldt estuary (Netherlands) | 14–71 | [ |
nd: not detected.
Figure 2The spatial distribution of HBCD concentration.
Figure 3The diastereoisomer profiles of HBCD in sediments of Weihe River.
Results of Pearson correlation analysis between total organic carbon (TOC) and individual HBCD diastereoisomers, and HBCD in sediment samples.
| TOC | α-HBCD | β-HBCD | γ-HBCD | ∑HBCD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TOC | 1 | ||||
| α-HBCD | 0.137 | 1 | |||
| β-HBCD | −0.187 | 0.622 ** | 1 | ||
| γ-HBCD | −0.158 | 0.618 ** | 0.941 ** | 1 | |
| ∑HBCD | −0.039 | 0.889 ** | 0.925 ** | 0.898 ** | 1 |
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.