Nitrates in Turkish waters: sources, mechanisms, impacts, and mitigation

Intensive technological developments, rapid population growth and urbanization, and excessive use of nitrogen fertilizers have caused water resources to be contaminated substantially by nitrates in Turkey. The accumulated information should be evaluated to draw a nationwide attention to the problem. The aim of this review article was to highlight the importance of nitrate (NO3) contamination and to discuss the measures to be taken to mitigate the contamination across the nation. Agriculture, especially chemical fertilizers used in irrigated agriculture, was the most important source of NO3 in groundwater. Also, the industrial and domestic discharges substantially contributed to NO3 in both groundwater and surface waters in many cases. The most severe and widespread groundwater (e.g., 344 mg NO3 L-1 in İzmir, 476 mg L-1 in Afyon, 477 mg L-1 in Antalya, and 948.0 mg L-1 in Konya) and surface water contaminations (e.g., 293.8 mg NO3 L-1 in İzmir, 63.3 mg L-1 in Eskişehir, 89.8 mg L-1 in Edirne, and 90.6 mg L-1 in Sakarya) occurred in the regions where intensive agriculture, industrial development, and rapid urbanization were clustered. Well-established irrigation and fertilizer management plans are critical for reducing fertilizer-related NO3 contaminations in the irrigated agriculture. Special attention should be given to the regions where industrially and domestically contaminated running water bodies are in contact with groundwater. Discharge of wastewaters to the streams, creeks, rivers, and lakes should be prevented. Well-designed studies are needed to evaluate potential health effects, including the risk of cancer, of NO3 in drinking water.

Exposure Routes and Health Risks Associated with Pesticide Application

Pesticides play an important role in agricultural development. However, pesticide application can result in both acute and chronic human toxicities, and the adverse effects of pesticides on the environment and human health remain a serious problem. There is therefore a need to discuss the application methods for pesticides, the routes of pesticide exposure, and the health risks posed by pesticide application. The health problems related to pesticide application and exposure in developing countries are of particular concern. The purpose of this paper is to provide scientific information for policymakers in order to allow the development of proper pesticide application technics and methods to minimize pesticide exposure and the adverse health effects on both applicators and communities. Studies indicate that there are four main pesticide application methods, including hydraulic spraying, backpack spraying, basal trunk spraying, and aerial spraying. Pesticide application methods are mainly selected by considering the habits of target pests, the characteristics of target sites, and the properties of pesticides. Humans are directly exposed to pesticides in occupational, agricultural, and household activities and are indirectly exposed to pesticides via environmental media, including air, water, soil, and food. Human exposure to pesticides occurs mainly through dermal, oral, and respiratory routes. People who are directly and/or indirectly exposed to pesticides may contract acute toxicity effects and chronic diseases. Although no segment of the general population is completely protected against exposure to pesticides and their potentially serious health effects, a disproportionate burden is shouldered by people in developing countries. Both deterministic and probabilistic human health risk assessments have their advantages and disadvantages and both types of methods should be comprehensively implemented in research on exposure and human health risk assessment. Equipment for appropriate pesticide application is important for application efficiency to minimize the loss of spray solution as well as reduce pesticide residuals in the environment and adverse human health effects due to over-spraying and residues. Policymakers should implement various useful measures, such as integrated pest management (IPM) laws that prohibit the use of pesticides with high risks and the development of a national implementation plan (NIP) to reduce the adverse effects of pesticides on the environment and on human health.

Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in drinking water of Samsun and it's surrounding areas, Turkey

BACKGROUND

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are considered to be one of the major contaminants of drinking water and natural water bodies. Some of the well documented polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that are water pollutants and were considered for analysis in this study included benzo[b]fluoranthene (BbF), benzo[k]fluoranthene (BkF), benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), benzo[g,h,i]perylene (BgP), and indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene (InD). This study aimed at determining the levels of concentrations of basically five polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in 57 drinking water bodies located around Samsun, Ordu, Giresun, Çorum, Amasya, Kastamonu and Sinop provinces.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

In this study, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) method 550.1 for the determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in drinking by Liquid-Solid Extraction (LSE) and High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) with Coupled Ultraviolet (CD) and Fluorescence Detection (FD) was used. Sampling procedures were done according to the validated method specified by the Turkish Ministry of Enivironment and Forestry. Prior to the determination of concentrations by HPLC, PAHs contained in the samples were separated from the solid phase by Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE). All data analyses were conducted using SPSS and Excel.

RESULTS

Obtained results from the investigation revealed that the average total PAH and benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) concentration levels in drinking water samples taken from the central districts of Samsun were 2.73 ± 1.51 and 0.35 ± 0.24 ng/L respectively. In drinking water samples taken from Ordu, Giresun, Çorum, Amasya, Kastamonu and Sinop, the average total PAH concentrations were found to be 5.85 ± 3.82 ng/L, 3.79 ± 1.27 ng/L, 1.08 ± 0.62 ng/L, 2.42 ± 1.04 ng/L; 1.92 ± 0.35 ng/L and 4.07 ± 2.33 ng/L respectively. The average (BaP) concentrations for the same named locations were determined as 0.97 ± 0.75 ng/L; 0.55 ± 0.29 ng/L; 0.11 ± 0.08 ng/L; 0.35 ± 0.10 ng/L; 0.14 ± 0.04 ng/L; 0.39 ± 0.23 ng/L, respectively. It is therefore evident that the values ​​of PAH and BaP in drinking water were below the limits of 100 and 10 ng/L ​​specified in the Regulation on Water Intended for Human Consumption. These values are below the set limits proposed by Turkish legislation and WHO.

CONCLUSION

All the results for drinking water, usable water and natural spring water were below the values ​​specified in the Regulation on Water Intended for Human Consumption and WHO. The PAH content of the studied river waters as well were below the limits proposed by Turkish legislation and WHO.