Phthalates and Nonylphenols in Roskilde Fjord

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The longitudinal salinity gradient is only constant in the narrow part ofthe Fjord and therefore the dispersion coefficient is only representative ofthis section. In the inner Fjord the salinity is approximately constant andthe horizontal transport is based on other criteria, such as turbulence andconvective mixing.In the inner Fjord, i.e. Roskilde Vig and Bredning, where the dischargefrom Bjergmarken WWTP is situated, the horizontal velocity will be minordue to the larger surface areas. Hydraulic effects from wind andfreshwater sources will govern the mixing. Strong western winds are ableto create water level fluctuations up to 170 cm above mean sea level inthe inner Fjord compared to only ± 10 cm resulting from tidal variations.Therefore, it is not relevant to consider the transport in the Vig andBredning in relation to dispersion, but rather to consider them as mixedbasins.6.2 SourcesDifferent sources contribute to the DEHP concentrations in the Fjord (cf.Figure 2).• The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent is discharged as apoint source to the surface water at the shore in the inner part of RoskildeFjord (Vig). The flow is 492 ± 356 m 3 ⋅ day -1 with a mean concentrationof 0.7 µg DEHP ⋅ m -3 (Fauser et al., 2000).• The point sources to the Bredning and narrow passage of the Fjord,i.e. WWTP discharges from four smaller cities, are estimated to accountfor the same concentration (C WWTP ) and flow rate (Q WWTP ) as theWWTP in the Vig. The total load from the point sources is distributeduniformly along the horizontal axis (cf. Table 24 and Figure 34).• For Roskilde Bredning and the narrow passage contributions fromfreshwater sources from streams and lakes must be included. Thefreshwater runoff is higher per length unit in the Bredning than in thenarrow passage.• Atmospheric deposition is considered to be uniformly distributed withrespect to time and surface area. The dry deposition rate is 230 µgDEHP ⋅ (m 2 ⋅ year) -1 (cf. Table 21).• For a period of 25 years, ending in 1991, all of the sludge produced inearlier WWTP’s in Roskilde was used for amendment on an agriculturalfield adjacent to the WWTP discharge in the shore. Since 1991the produced sludge has been stored in an intermediary deposit closeto the sludge amended area and shore. Leaching from the sludgeamended soil as well as wash out from the sludge deposit, in case ofheavy rainfall, will contribute to the load in to the Fjord (Vikelsøe etal., 1999).64
• In 1969 in connection with work on the Roskilde harbour, the sedimentwas dumped on the site marked ∇ on the map in Figure 2. Thishas since then been a source of leaching to the Fjord water. The loadhas decreased with time and is today estimated to be negligible comparedto the WWTP discharge.• The flux of saline water from the sea to the Fjord is 3 to 4 times largerthan the freshwater flux to the Fjord (Hedal et al, 1999). In Table 24the three water exchange rates are stated.6.3 Model parametersThe following model parameters are required in the models.Calculated and measured state variablesC w : Concentration of dissolved substance in water phase [mg ⋅ litre -1 ].C s : Concentration of dissolved substance in sediment phase [ng ⋅ g -1 ].Measured model inputsX w : Concentration of suspended particulate matter in water phase= 10 ⋅ 10 -6 kg DM ⋅ (litre total) -1X s : Concentration of dry matter in sediment= 1.06 kg DM ⋅ (litre total) -1θ s : Water fraction in sediment= 0.55 litre water ⋅ (litre total) -1Q WWTP :Discharge flow from WWTP= 492 ± 356 m 3 ⋅ hour -1C WWTP : Concentration of dissolved DEHP in WWTP discharge= 0.7 µg DEHP ⋅ litre -1R WWTP : Retention factor for WWTP discharge= 1.05C tot,dep : Atmospheric bulk deposition= 7.29 ⋅ 10 -15 kg DEHP ⋅ (m 2 ⋅ sec) -1C tot,f : Concentration of mean total substance in freshwater from streams= 0.2 µg DEHP ⋅ litre -1Calibration parametersK d :Distribution coefficient between water and organic matter in wateror sediment [litre water ⋅ (kg DM) -1 ].k 1N : Aerobic pseudo 1 st order removal rate [sec -1 ].k 1D : Anaerobic pseudo 1 st order removal rate [sec -1 ].S: Annual sediment accumulation rate [mm ⋅ year -1 ].Estimated model inputsParameters in Table 24.D wx : Horizontal dispersion coefficient in narrow part of Fjord= 54 m 2 ⋅ sec -1D sz : Molecular diffusion coefficient in sediment= 2 ⋅ 10 -10 m 2 ⋅ sec -1The hydraulic and geographical key data for Roskilde Fjord are shown inTable 24.65
Page 2 and 3:
[Blank page]
Page 4 and 5:
Data sheetTitle:Phthalates and Nony
Page 6 and 7:
6.2 Sources 646.3 Model parameters
Page 8 and 9:
The physico-chemical processes in t
Page 10 and 11:
De fysisk-kemiske processer i fjord
Page 13:
2 PurposeThe aim of the study has b
Page 16 and 17: In Table 3 the flow in the streams
Page 18 and 19: 3.3 Samples of fjord sedimentFinall
Page 21 and 22: 4 AnalyticalThe following substance
Page 23 and 24: 4.5 Standards and spikesThe labelle
Page 25 and 26: In Table 9 the results of the test
Page 27: The analysis was carried out as des
Page 30 and 31: 100Concentration ng/l90807060504030
Page 32 and 33: 400300DBP ng/l2001000JunJunSepDecMe
Page 34 and 35: 5.1.3 Monthly samples in Roskilde V
Page 36 and 37: 5.1.4 Analysis of varianceTo evalua
Page 38 and 39: Table 15 Correlations at Stations 2
Page 40 and 41: 500r = 0.86 (p=0.01)400DEHP ng/l al
Page 42 and 43: Table 16 Concentrations in fjord se
Page 44: tion levels off, ultimately approac
Page 47 and 48: 200NPNPDEConcentration, ng/g d.m.15
Page 49 and 50: was observed in the flow direction
Page 51 and 52: 1000800meanConcentration, ng/g dw60
Page 53 and 54: NPDE and DEHP in the Hove Å system
Page 55 and 56: µg/m²/y000800600400200013-Nov27-N
Page 57 and 58: 6 Mathematical data interpretationI
Page 59 and 60: 6.1.2 Sorption and solvationIn the
Page 61 and 62: Different standard methods can be u
Page 63 and 64: Introducing the concentration of se
Page 65: substances migrate more rapidly tha
Page 69 and 70: SeaDispersion modelBox-modelsIsefjo
Page 71 and 72: AtmosphericdepositionxdxN wx + ∂
Page 73 and 74: tWater gridxo• • •i+1 i i-1x
Page 75 and 76: 6.4.3 Dynamic solution to the diffu
Page 77 and 78: The two diffusion curves and the tw
Page 79 and 80: Fluxsedimentation /Fluxtotal1,00,90
Page 81 and 82: µg DEHP / sec10008006004002000-200
Page 83 and 84: 7 ConclusionsDEHP was the most abun
Page 85 and 86: 8 ReferencesBerger, W.H. & Heath, G
Page 87: Smith, R. (1986): Mixing and Disper
Page 90 and 91: NPNPDENPEPAEPFKPhthalatesdSIMSpikeS
Page 92 and 93: dzD benzeneD DEHPVertical step in s
Page 94 and 95: Ptt sedzαθ sProduct from bio-degr
Page 97 and 98: 12 Appendix A.Analytical performanc
Page 99 and 100: 4000NPDE3000Mean + - sdRegression l
Page 101 and 102: 300250DEHPMean + - sdRegression lin
Page 103 and 104: and mass-spectrometrical characeris
Page 105 and 106: 1000800BBPMean + - sdRegression lin
Page 107 and 108: National Environmental Research Ins
Page 109: The aim of the study has been to in
show all

Phthalates and Nonylphenols in Roskilde Fjord

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?