Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
In this study, concentrations of Aluminum (Al), Iron (Fe), Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), Nickel (Ni), Vanadium (V), Zinc (Zn), Arsenic (As), Cobalt (Co) and lead (Pb) in the surface sediments from Chabahar Bay were studied to assess the degree of heavy metal pollution as a consequence of natural and anthropogenic sources. Metal contents in the sediments were observed in the order of: Al>Fe>Cr>V>Ni>Zn>Cu>>As>Pb>Co. According to enrichment factor (EF), Arsenic was higher than 1.5 at some sites, indicating anthropogenic inputs. Contents of Ni, As and Cr in the some sampling sites were higher than sediment quality guideline implying adverse impacts of these metals. Based on potential ecological risk (PER), the Chabahar Bay had low ecological risk.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.03.042 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!