2. ENVIRONMENTAL ChEMISTRy & TEChNOLOGy 2.1. Lectures

Chem. Listy, 102, s265–s1311 (2008) Environmental Chemistry & Technology
are presented in Fig. 1. PCB congeners 138, 153 and 180,
and the p,p’-DDE were the most abundant compounds. As
can be read in this graph, there are significant differences in
the levels of organochlorines in samples of different specimens.
Due to its higher content of lipids, compared with the
other tissues, skin was by far “the most contaminated” tissue
(approx. five times higher levels of PCBs and OCPs).
Extreme values exceeded 5,000 ng g –1 w.w. for the sum of
7 PCB congeners, and DDT and its metabolites reached even
higher levels. Interspecies differences in the concentrations
of POPs are shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. PCBs in muscle tissue of species from the Záhlinice
area. horizontal lines represent median, rectangles delimit the
1 st and 3 rd quartiles, and error bars represent min/max values.
Outlying values are marked as “+” (2003).
s318
Comparison of fish and raptors’ tissues from the Záhlinice
area showed an increase in the concentrations of POPs
towards higher levels of the food chain and the process of
accumulation of POPs was clearly illustrated.
Conclusions
Investigated raptor species including cormorant, grey
heron and buzzard lived up to their reputation of being the
most contaminated members of food chains. Cormorants and
grey heron top the aquatic food chain and hence the levels of
organochlorines found in their tissues were significantly higher
than those in their fish prey. The results can be well compared
with other findings not only within the Czech Republic
a prove fish and birds of prey to be suitable bioaccumulation
markers.
Financial support from the Ministry of Education,
Youth and Physical Training of the Czech Republic under the
research project MSM 6215712402 is greatly appreciated.
REFEREnCES
1. Borgå K., Fisk A.T., Hoekstra P.F., Muir D.C.G.:
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23, 2367 (2004).
2. Hoffman D.J., Melancon M.J., Klein P.n., Eisemann
J.D., Spann J.W.: Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17, 747
(1998).
3. Ryckman D.P., Weseloh D.V., Hamp P. et al: Environ.
Monitor. Assess. 53, 169 (1998).
4. Dauwe T., Jaspers V., Covaci A., Schepens P., Eens.:
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 24, 442 (2005).
5. Kubištová I.: Dissertation. University of Veterinary and
Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno, Brno, Czech Republic,
2002.
6. Houserova P., Kubáň V., Kráčmar S., Sitko J.: Environ
Pollution 145, 185 (2007).