Ecological Risk Assessment of Three Pesticide Additives in Soil and Application to the Remediation of Contaminated Soil

被引:0
|
作者
Li, Ying [1 ]
Zhang, Jing [1 ]
Wang, Wenqiang [1 ]
Lu, Yongze [1 ]
Sun, Liwei [1 ]
Zhang, Yimin [2 ]
机构
[1] Southeast Univ, Sch Energy & Environm, Nanjing, Peoples R China
[2] Minist Ecol & Environm Peoples Republ China, Nanjing Inst Environm Sci, Nanjing, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Contaminated soil remediation; Pesticide; Pesticide additives; Risk assessment; Soil ecotoxicology; Soil immobilization; TOXICITY; TOLUENE; WATER; BIOASSAY; BENZENE; XYLENE; MAGNA;
D O I
10.1002/etc.5883
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Pesticide additives (PAs) are auxiliary ingredients added to the pesticide manufacturing and use processes, constituting 1% to 99% of the pesticide and often composed of benzene and chlorinated hydrocarbons. We selected three typical PAs, toluene, chloroform, and trichloroethylene, to evaluate their retention function toxicity and ecological risk in soil. Soil immobilization techniques and aquatic model organisms were used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the immobilized soil method to determine the ecological risk of chemicals. The 48-h median lethal concentrations of toluene, chloroform, and trichloroethylene alone in spiked soil on Daphnia magna were 10.5, 2.3, and 1.1 mg/L (medium, high, and high toxicity, respectively). The toxicity of the three-PA mixtures showed an antagonistic effect. The risk levels of toluene, chloroform, and trichloroethylene in the soil were evaluated as moderate to high, low to high, and high risk, respectively. The toxicity of two pesticide-contaminated sites in the Yangtze River Delta before and after remediation was successfully evaluated by immobilized soil technology. The toxicity of two soil sampling points was reduced from medium toxic to low toxic and no toxic, respectively, after remediation. The results of our study give a rationale for and prove the validity of the aquatic model organisms and soil immobilization techniques in assessing the soil retention functions toxicity of PAs. Environ Toxicol Chem 2024;00:1-13. (c) 2024 SETAC
引用
收藏
页码:1677 / 1689
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Ecological risk assessment of contaminated soil
    Jensen, J
    Pedersen, MB
    [J]. REVIEWS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY, VOL 186, 2006, 186 : 73 - 105
  • [2] Ecological risk assessment of contaminated soil
    Weeks, JM
    Comber, SDW
    [J]. MINERALOGICAL MAGAZINE, 2005, 69 (05) : 601 - 613
  • [4] Towards the ecological profiling of a pesticide contaminated soil site for remediation and management
    Tripathi, Vishal
    Dubey, Rama Kant
    Edrisi, Sheikh Adil
    Narain, Kamini
    Singh, H.B.
    Singh, Nandita
    Abhilash, P.C.
    [J]. Ecological Engineering, 2014, 71 : 318 - 325
  • [5] Towards the ecological profiling of a pesticide contaminated soil site for remediation and management
    Tripathi, Vishal
    Dubey, Rama Kant
    Edrisi, Sheikh Adil
    Narain, Kamini
    Singh, H. B.
    Singh, Nandita
    Abhilash, P. C.
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, 2014, 71 : 318 - 325
  • [6] Risk assessment and remediation of NAPL contaminated soil and groundwater
    Stephen Leharne
    [J]. ChemTexts, 8
  • [7] Risk assessment and remediation of NAPL contaminated soil and groundwater
    Leharne, Stephen
    [J]. CHEMTEXTS, 2021, 8 (01)
  • [8] Ecological risk assessment in legislation on contaminated soil in The Netherlands
    Boekhold, Alexandra E.
    [J]. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2008, 406 (03) : 518 - 522
  • [9] Ultrasonic application in contaminated soil remediation
    Effendi, Agus Jatnika
    Wulandari, Marita
    Setiadi, Tjandra
    [J]. CURRENT OPINION IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & HEALTH, 2019, 12 : 66 - 71
  • [10] Application of risk assessment in determination of soil remediation targets
    Xiaoying Zhang
    Jian Chen
    Bill X. Hu
    Yonghong Yu
    Juho So
    Jin Zhang
    Zhenxue Dai
    Shangxian Yin
    Mohamad Reza Soltanian
    Wanli Ren
    [J]. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 2020, 34 : 1659 - 1673