有机磷杀虫剂在入太湖流域沿线的污染状况和生态风险评价研究

doi:10.19586/j.2095-2341.2025.0022

生物技术进展 ›› 2025, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (4): 683-692.DOI: 10.19586/j.2095-2341.2025.0022

• 研究论文 • 上一篇

有机磷杀虫剂在入太湖流域沿线的污染状况和生态风险评价研究

耿鑫(), 冯伟伟, 茆广华, 陈瑶, 吴向阳()

江苏大学环境与安全工程学院，江苏镇江 212013

收稿日期:2025-02-21 接受日期:2025-03-21 出版日期:2025-07-25 发布日期:2025-09-08
通讯作者: 吴向阳
作者简介:耿鑫 E-mail: 1216345231@qq.com；
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金面上项目(22276079);江苏大学应急管理学院专项科研项目(KY-B-03)

Pollution Status and Ecological Risk Assessment of Organophosphate Insecticides Along the Inflow Routes to the Taihu Lake Basin

Xin GENG(), Weiwei FENG, Guanghua MAO, Yao CHEN, Xiangyang WU()

School of the Environment and Safety Engineering，Jiangsu University，Jiangsu Zhenjiang 212013，China

Received:2025-02-21 Accepted:2025-03-21 Online:2025-07-25 Published:2025-09-08
Contact: Xiangyang WU

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

探究了有机磷杀虫剂(organophosphate insecticides，OPs)在入太湖流域沿线的污染状况和生态安全问题。在丰水期和枯水期收集该水域水、悬浮颗粒(suspended particulate matter，SPM)和沉积物样品，采用GC法检测OPs的种类及含量，分析季节分布规律、分配系数和潜在污染源，然后评估OPs的生态风险。结果发现，水、SPM和沉积物样品中均能检测到辛硫磷(phoxim，PHO)、敌敌畏(dichlorvos，DDVP)、乐果(dimethoate，DMT)和杀螟硫磷(fenitrothion，MEP)。在水样中，PHO、DMT和DDVP的含量较高且占比多，MEP的含量相对较少。在丰水期，Σ₄OPs的K_d1为0.44~1.32 L·g^-1，K_d2为2.97~6.88 L·g^-1；在枯水期，Σ₄OPs的K_d1为0.34~1. 40 L·g^-1，K_d2为2.85~7.43 L·g^-1，表明OPs在水样、SPM样和沉积物中的分布较为稳定。综上，入太湖流域沿线水体已存在有机磷杀虫剂污染，工业、农业废水的排放可能是入太湖流域沿线OPs的主要来源，DMT和MEP 2种OPs污染物对镇江市通济河沿线主要河流具有潜在生态风险。

关键词: 太湖流域, 农药, 有机磷杀虫剂, 生态风险

Abstract:

To study the pollution status and ecological safety of organophosphate insecticides （OPs） along the inflow routes to Taihu Lake Basin， water， suspended particulates （SPM） and sediment samples were collected from the watershed during the abundant and dry seasons， and the GC method was used to detect the types and contents of OPs， analyze the seasonal distribution patterns， partition coefficients， and potential sources of contamination， and then assess the ecological risks. Phoxim （PHO）， dichlorvos （DDVP）， dimethoate （DMT） and fenitrothion （MEP） were detected in water， SPM and sediment samples. In the water samples， the concentrations of PHO， DMT and DDVP were relatively high and they accounted for a larger proportion， while MEP was relatively less. The K_d1 and K_d2 of Σ₄OPs were 0.44~1.32 L·g^-1 and 2.97~6.88 L·g^-1 respectively during the abundant water period， and 0.34~1.40 L·g^-1 and 2.85~7.43 L·g^-1 respectively during the depleted water period， which indicated that the distributions of the OPs were relatively stable in the water samples， SPM samples and the sediments. To sum up， the water along the the Taihu Lake basin has been polluted by organophosphorus pesticides. The discharge of industrial and agricultural wastewater may be the main source of OPs along the Taihu Lake basin， and the two OPs pollutants DMT and MEP have potential ecological risks to the main rivers along the Tongji River in Zhenjiang City.

Key words: Taihu Lake Basin, pesticides, organophosphorus insecticides, ecological risk

中图分类号:

Q958.116

耿鑫, 冯伟伟, 茆广华, 陈瑶, 吴向阳. 有机磷杀虫剂在入太湖流域沿线的污染状况和生态风险评价研究[J]. 生物技术进展, 2025, 15(4): 683-692.

Xin GENG, Weiwei FENG, Guanghua MAO, Yao CHEN, Xiangyang WU. Pollution Status and Ecological Risk Assessment of Organophosphate Insecticides Along the Inflow Routes to the Taihu Lake Basin[J]. Current Biotechnology, 2025, 15(4): 683-692.

图/表 11

参考文献 24

[1]	蔡文婷, 刘克强, 李琛, 等. 太湖流域城市群水源地规划布局研究[J]. 中国水利, 2017(19): 53-56.
	CAI W T, LIU K Q, LI C, et al.. Studies on planning and layout of water sources for urban agglomeration in the Taihu Basin[J]. China Water Resour., 2017(19): 53-56.
[2]	PAN H, LEI H, HE X, et al.. Spatial distribution of organochlorine and organophosphorus pesticides in soil-groundwater systems and their associated risks in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River Basin[J]. Environ. Geochem. Health, 2019, 41(4): 1833-1845.
[3]	林璇. 成人尿液中拟除虫菊酯与有机磷杀虫剂代谢产物的时间变异性研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学,2021.
[4]	ERBAN T, STEHLIK M, SOPKO B, et al.. The different behaviors of glyphosate and AMPA in compost-amended soil[J]. Chemosphere, 2018, 207: 78-83.
[5]	SAHIN C, KARPUZCU M E. Mitigation of organophosphate pesticide pollution in agricultural watersheds[J/OL]. Sci. Total Environ., 2020, 710: 136261[2025-03-21]. .
[6]	SUMON K A, RASHID H, PEETERS E, et al.. Environmental monitoring and risk assessment of organophosphate pesticides in aquatic ecosystems of north-west Bangladesh[J]. Chemosphere, 2018, 206: 92-100.
[7]	MANSOUR S A, BELAL M H, ABOU-ARAB A A K, et al.. Monitoring of pesticides and heavy metals in cucumber fruits produced from different farming systems[J]. Chemosphere, 2009, 75(5): 601-609.
[8]	ROCA M, MIRALLES-MARCO A, FERRÉ J, et al.. Biomonitoring exposure assessment to contemporary pesticides in a school children population of Spain[J]. Environ. Res., 2014, 131: 77-85.
[9]	CROES K, DEN HOND E, BRUCKERS L, et al.. Endocrine actions of pesticides measured in the Flemish environment and health studies (FLEHS Ⅰ and Ⅱ)[J]. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int., 2015, 22(19): 14589-14599.
[10]	束放, 熊延坤, 韩梅. 2015年我国农药生产与使用概况[J]. 农药科学与管理, 2016, 37(7): 1-6.
	SHU F, XIONG Y K, HAN M. General situation of pesticide production and use in China in 2015[J]. Pestic. Sci. Adm., 2016, 37(7): 1-6.
[11]	VAN SCOY A, PENNELL A, ZHANG X. Environmental fate and toxicology of dimethoate[J]. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 2016, 237: 53-70.
[12]	张远浩. 乐果暴露致小鼠骨骼肌氧化损伤及N-乙酰半胱氨酸保护作用的研究[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2021.
[13]	XU L C, LIU L, REN X M, et al.. Evaluation of androgen receptor transcriptional activities of some pesticides in vitro [J]. Toxicology, 2008, 243(1-2): 59-65.
[14]	刘学忠, 薛彬, 袁燕, 等. 乐果亚长期暴露对大鼠肝脏氧化应激的影响[J]. 中国兽医学报, 2009, 29(10): 1329-1333.
	LIU X Z, XUE B, YUAN Y, et al.. Effects of sub-chronic exposure to dimethoate on oxidative stress in the liver of rats[J]. Chin. J. Vet. Sci., 2009, 29(10): 1329-1333.
[15]	陈慧. 环境水体中典型邻苯二甲酸酯的污染水平及其复合暴露对斑马鱼的生殖毒性[D]. 镇江: 江苏大学, 2020.
[16]	郭强, 田慧, 毛潇萱, 等. 珠江河口水域有机磷农药水生生态系统风险评价[J]. 环境科学, 2014, 35(3): 1029-1034.
	GUO Q, TIAN H, MAO X X, et al.. Ecological risk assessment of organophosphorus pesticides in aquatic ecosystems of Pearl River Estuary[J]. Environ. Sci., 2014, 35(3): 1029-1034.
[17]	钱显, 冯伟伟, 茆广华, 等. 邻苯二甲酸二(2-乙基己基)酯暴露对斑马鱼胚胎的发育毒性及作用机制[J]. 江苏大学学报(医学版), 2024, 34(6): 507-513.
	QIAN X, FENG W W, MAO G H, et al.. Developmental toxicity and molecular mechanism of di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate exposure on zebrafish embryos[J]. J. Jiangsu Univ. Med. Ed., 2024, 34(6): 507-513.
[18]	尹晓静, 李星豪, 朱道旭, 等. 太湖西北流域水体有机氯及有机磷农药的残留特征、时空分布及生态风险评价[J]. 环境科学学报, 2024, 44(1): 283-298.
	YIN X J, LI X H, ZHU D X, et al.. Residue characteristics, spatiotemporal distribution and ecotoxicological risk assessment of organochlorine pesticides and organophosphorus pesticides in surface water in northwest Tai Lake Basin[J]. Acta Sci. Circumstantiae, 2024, 44(1): 283-298.
[19]	周慜, 石雷, 李取生, 等. 珠江河口水体有机磷农药的含量与季节变化[J]. 中国环境科学, 2013, 33(2): 312-318.
	ZHOU M, SHI L, LI Q S, et al.. The concentration and seasonal variation of organophosphorus pesticide residues in the Pearl River estuary[J]. China Environ. Sci., 2013, 33(2): 312-318.
[20]	韩玉成. 稻虾共作水域沉积物有机磷农药残留特征及其对磷循环的驱动机制[D]. 武汉: 武汉轻工大学, 2023.
[21]	杨宏伟, 庄晓娟. 颗粒物对乐果的吸附特征[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2011, 30(1): 171-175.
	YANG H W, ZHUANG X J. Adsorption characteristics of rogor on the particulates[J]. J. Agro-Environ. Sci., 2011, 30(1): 171-175.
[22]	汝少国, 李永祺, 敬永畅. 十种有机磷农药对扁藻的毒性[J]. 环境科学学报, 1996, 16(3): 337-341.
	RU S G, LI Y Q, JING Y C. Comparison study on the toxicity of ten organophosphorus pesticides to Platymonas sp[J]. Acta Sci. Circumstantiae, 1996, 16(3): 337-341.
[23]	环境保护部. 国家污染物环境健康风险名录[M]. 北京: 中国环境科学出版社, 2009.
[24]	王凌. 海洋环境中典型有机磷污染物分析及其生态效应研究[D]. 青岛: 中国海洋大学, 2006.

采样点	经度	纬度	位置
S1	119°21'25.258"E	31°56'0.781"N	通济河
S2	119°21'32.029"E	31°54'41.071"N	通济河
S3	119°22'34.143"E	31°54'47.738"N	通济河
S4	119°23'48.648"E	31°54'41.471"N	通济河
S5	119°24'14.064"E	31°53'52.525"N	通济河
S6	119°24'46.411"E	31°52'52.301"N	通济河
S7	119°25'11.358"E	31°52'3.028"N	通济河
S8	119°24'54.701"E	31°51'13.254"N	通济河
S9	119°26'5.149"E	31°51'2.437"N	通济河
S10	119°21'16.062"E	31°55'1.163"N	通济河
S11	119°21'18.475"E	31°54'52.796"N	通济河
S12	119°21'8.674"E	31°54'54.203"N	袁相河
S13	119°20'23.321"E	31°54'7.292"N	袁相河
S14	119°19'33.056"E	31°53'30.288"N	袁相河
S15	119°24'21.068"E	31°53'7.041"N	通济河
S16	119°24'33.384"E	31°53'4.691"N	通济河
S17	119°24'27.602"E	31°53'13.792"N	老幸福河
S18	119°23'25.592"E	31°52'56.274"N	老幸福河
S19	119°22'16.378"E	31°52'26.807"N	老幸福河
S20	119°24'59.539"E	31°52'29.627"N	通济河
S21	119°25'4.894"E	31°52'22.040"N	通济河
S22	119°25'7.207"E	31°52'27.492"N	香草河
S23	119°25'53.635"E	31°53'3.748"N	香草河
S24	119°26'37.217"E	31°53'39.690"N	香草河

采样点	经度	纬度	位置
S1	119°21'25.258"E	31°56'0.781"N	通济河
S2	119°21'32.029"E	31°54'41.071"N	通济河
S3	119°22'34.143"E	31°54'47.738"N	通济河
S4	119°23'48.648"E	31°54'41.471"N	通济河
S5	119°24'14.064"E	31°53'52.525"N	通济河
S6	119°24'46.411"E	31°52'52.301"N	通济河
S7	119°25'11.358"E	31°52'3.028"N	通济河
S8	119°24'54.701"E	31°51'13.254"N	通济河
S9	119°26'5.149"E	31°51'2.437"N	通济河
S10	119°21'16.062"E	31°55'1.163"N	通济河
S11	119°21'18.475"E	31°54'52.796"N	通济河
S12	119°21'8.674"E	31°54'54.203"N	袁相河
S13	119°20'23.321"E	31°54'7.292"N	袁相河
S14	119°19'33.056"E	31°53'30.288"N	袁相河
S15	119°24'21.068"E	31°53'7.041"N	通济河
S16	119°24'33.384"E	31°53'4.691"N	通济河
S17	119°24'27.602"E	31°53'13.792"N	老幸福河
S18	119°23'25.592"E	31°52'56.274"N	老幸福河
S19	119°22'16.378"E	31°52'26.807"N	老幸福河
S20	119°24'59.539"E	31°52'29.627"N	通济河
S21	119°25'4.894"E	31°52'22.040"N	通济河
S22	119°25'7.207"E	31°52'27.492"N	香草河
S23	119°25'53.635"E	31°53'3.748"N	香草河
S24	119°26'37.217"E	31°53'39.690"N	香草河

OPs	物种	C_P/(ng·L^-1)
	藻类	1 820
DMT	甲壳类	15 000
	鱼类	5 700
DDVP	鱼类	3 700
MEP	藻类	10
	鱼类	3 750

OPs	物种	C_P/(ng·L^-1)
	藻类	1 820
DMT	甲壳类	15 000
	鱼类	5 700
DDVP	鱼类	3 700
MEP	藻类	10
	鱼类	3 750

季节	采样点	pH	电导率/(µs·cm^-1)	溶解氧/(mg·L^-1)	温度/℃	浊度/FNU
丰水期	S1	7.46	577	5.8	23.4	28.9
	S2	8.21	488	6.5	22.5	13.7
	S3	7.86	505	5.0	22.5	12.9
	S4	7.53	498	6.1	21.9	22.8
	S5	7.56	520	6.1	22.7	46.2
	S6	7.47	522	6.3	22.9	11.6
	S7	7.40	477	6.3	22.9	13.7
	S8	7.46	494	6.9	22.4	4.2
	S9	7.70	501	8.7	22.2	12.5
	S10	7.67	602	4.4	22.3	49.2
	S11	7.88	496	5.9	22.0	10.9
	S12	7.19	487	6.7	22.3	16.9
	S13	7.22	485	5.5	22.4	52.1
	S14	7.25	258	4.8	22.7	12.0
	S15	7.68	533	7.0	22.7	23.9
	S16	7.50	541	7.5	22.9	4.1
	S17	7.38	532	3.9	22.6	4.7
	S18	8.11	471	6.7	22.7	13.0
	S19	8.50	485	7.7	23.4	4.7
	S20	7.61	529	7.0	23.4	5.6
	S21	7.64	503	7.0	23.3	4.8
	S22	7.56	476	6.7	23.3	9.2
	S23	7.25	444	7.1	23.2	12.1
	S24	7.71	411	7.2	23.2	7.8
枯水期	S1	7.88	570	6.8	9.1	15.8
	S2	7.02	414	7.6	9.7	14.8
	S3	7.06	475	6.9	9.2	14.8
	S4	7.99	428	8.3	9.6	14.8
	S5	7.17	480	6.4	9.5	14.7
	S6	7.95	496	5.9	8.6	14.5
	S7	7.98	481	6.1	8.6	14.7
	S8	7.63	482	7.7	9.0	14.8
	S9	7.03	471	8.4	8.3	14.8
	S10	7.53	656	4.2	9.7	14.2
	S11	7.85	441	6.2	9.9	14.2
	S12	7.51	499	6.0	8.6	14.3
	S13	7.60	402	4.9	8.6	14.3
	S14	7.76	357	4.2	8.8	14.4
	S15	7.72	480	7.2	10.0	14.2
	S16	7.82	509	6.2	9.0	15.1
	S17	7.83	533	4.0	9.1	14.8
	S18	7.93	448	4.9	9.0	14.7
	S19	7.89	434	19.2	8.7	15.0
	S20	7.98	485	21.9	9.6	14.9
	S21	7.09	472	4.9	9.8	14.8
	S22	7.19	454	34.7	10.5	15.1
	S23	7.19	451	4.8	10.9	14.2
	S24	7.77	445	66.3	9.6	15.1

有机磷杀虫剂在入太湖流域沿线的污染状况和生态风险评价研究

Pollution Status and Ecological Risk Assessment of Organophosphate Insecticides Along the Inflow Routes to the Taihu Lake Basin

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 11

参考文献 24

相关文章 2

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

OPs	水样			SPM样			沉积物样
OPs	MDL/(ng·L^-1)	回收率/%	RSD/%	MDL/(ng·g^-1)	回收率/%	RSD/%	MDL/(ng·g^-1)	回收率/%	RSD/%
PHO	5.07	19.32±2.52	13.0	9.62	32.90±5.72	17.38	1.94	10.38±1.15	11.10
DDVP	2.55	21.84±1.26	5.79	1.13	11.07±2.08	18.79	1.19	7.81±2.19	28.01
DMT	3.89	16.11±1.94	9.02	10.88	31.47±6.47	20.55	2.15	16.20±3.19	19.70
MEP	4.78	17.21±1.12	13.20	0.21	9.03±0.61	6.77	0.24	6.39±0.73	11.36

介质	物质	PHO	DDVP	DMT	MEP
水相	PHO	1
	DDVP	0.111	1
	DMT	0.436^**	0.491^**	1
	MEP	0.313	0.281	0.338^*	1
SPM相	PHO	1
	DDVP	0.08	1
	DMT	0.756^**	-0.109	1
	MEP	-0.189	-0.413	0.188	1
沉积物相	PHO	1
	DDVP	0.099	1
	DMT	-0.536	-0.143	1
	MEP	-0.328	-0.418^*	0.344	1

元素	水相		SPM相		沉积物相
元素	因子1	因子2	因子1	因子2	因子1	因子2
PHO	0.200	0.702	0.854	-0.176	0.026	-0.794
DDVP	0.738	0.127	-0.036	0. 748	0.916	0.074
DMT	0.751	-0.086	0.882	0.064	-0.142	0.766
MEP	-0.156	0.765	-0.051	0.744	-0.743	0.428
特征值	1.174	1.102	1.512	1.147	1.581	1.281
贡献率/%	29.357	27.545	37.798	28.685	39.532	32.037
累加/%	29.357	56.902	37.798	66.483	39.532	71.568

采样点	水相中∑OPs/(μg·L^-1)	SPM相中∑OPs/(μg·g^-1dw)	沉积物相中∑OPs/(μg·g^-1dw)
S1	4.562	6.508	1.356
S2	7.266	7.453	0.685
S3	2.036	5.074	0.849
S4	7.395	5.684	0.175
S5	6.795	6.861	0.436
S6	3.402	4.625	0.642
S7	6.242	7.119	1.223
S8	6.031	3.216	0.542
S9	3.859	7.757	0.759
S10	5.123	10.192	1.189
S11	5.610	5.498	0.702
S12	3.928	7.167	1.769
S13	5.116	1.741	0.803
S14	3.668	6.857	1.111
S15	4.368	6.998	2.887
S16	5.956	5.932	0.713
S17	6.836	5.836	0.786
S18	3.356	6.313	2.069
S19	5.451	6.972	1.561
S20	5.721	7.816	1.036
S21	8.058	7.476	0.857
S22	4.872	9.394	1.497
S23	8.146	8.018	2.139
S24	6.931	8.031	0.349

[1]	雷豆豆, 马润然, 王伽伯, 孔维军. 食品中农药残留的新型生物检测技术研究进展[J]. 生物技术进展, 2023, 13(1): 1-10.
[2]	乔岩,董杰,王品舒,岳瑾,张保常,张金良,袁志强,杨建国 . 三种生物源农药对桃树蚜虫的防治效果研究[J]. 生物技术进展, 2015, 5(6): 468-470.