2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2005.10.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Monitoring organic microcontaminants in the marine environment: principles, programmes and progress

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 93 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Marine ecosystems are the final receptors of an immense set of pollutants, and several biomonitoring programs have already been developed and implemented in the Atlantic area (Stagg, 1998;Roose and Brinkman, 2005). The use of biomarker data for detecting pollutant exposure is an old idea (Peakall, 1992;Heath, 1995), but the recognition of natural variability (seasonal and spatial, for example) is the first step toward the need of setting up baseline values for biomonitoring programs.…”
Section: Wwwfrontiersinorgmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Marine ecosystems are the final receptors of an immense set of pollutants, and several biomonitoring programs have already been developed and implemented in the Atlantic area (Stagg, 1998;Roose and Brinkman, 2005). The use of biomarker data for detecting pollutant exposure is an old idea (Peakall, 1992;Heath, 1995), but the recognition of natural variability (seasonal and spatial, for example) is the first step toward the need of setting up baseline values for biomonitoring programs.…”
Section: Wwwfrontiersinorgmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The majority of studies to date have focused mainly on single tests, for example assessing lysosomal membrane stability (LMS) to test for the activation of catabolic processes or measuring glutathione peroxidase levels to test for oxidative stress (Tsangaris et al 2007). These types of approaches have previously been used in international marine biomonitoring programmes such as MEDPOL phase III, RAMOGE and OSPAR (Roose & Brinkman 2005). However, they have proven to be of limited success due to the small number of responses assessed and the variability inherent in all biological/ecological studies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The determination and quantification of PAHs in sediment samples can be performed using extraction with acetone/n-hexane [41] and applying GC-MS [42]; extraction by a Soxhlet apparatus [43] and analysis GC-MS [44] with a capillary column; an extraction and fractionation technique based on the SW-846 test methods while quantification and qualification of PAHs are performed by the modified method of USEPA 8270 [45] by a capillary gas chromatograph [19]; an extraction procedure by using pressurized solvent [46] while PAHs fractionation and analysis is performed by activated silica gel column and a GC-MS [47,48]; extraction and purification by gel permeation chromatography and analysis by HR GC-MS [49]; following the EPA Method 8310 and using for analysis HPLC with ultraviolet and fluorescence detectors� PCBs are environmental contaminants regulated by the Stockholm Convention of POPs) [50], and are included on the OSPAR List of Chemicals for Priority Action due to their persistence, potential to bioaccumulation, and toxicity. The determination of PCBs in sediment generally involves extraction with organic solvents [51,52], clean-up and gas chromatographic separation with electron capture detection or mass spectrometry [53]. There is also the EPA-Method 8080 [54] providing gas chromatographic conditions for the detection of certain organochlorine pesticides and PCBs at mass fraction of μg·kg .…”
Section: Sea Sediment Indicatorsmentioning
confidence: 99%