Cumulative impact assessment of hazardous ionic liquids towards aquatic species using risk assessment methods

Muhammad Ishaq Khan, Muhammad Mubashir, Dzulkarnain Zaini, Mater H. Mahnashi, Bandar A. Alyami, Ali O. Alqarni, Pau Loke Show

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

16 Scopus citations

Abstract

In the present research work, a comprehensive tool for cumulative ecotoxicological impact assessment of ionic liquids (ILs) to aquatic life has been constructed. Using the probabilistic tool, impact of individual ILs to a group of aquatic species is assessed by chemical toxicity distributions (CTDs). The impact of group of ILs to individual aquatic species is assessed by species sensitivity distributions (SSDs). Acute toxicity data of imidazolium ILs with chloride (Cl), bromide (Br), tetrafluoroborate (BF4), and hexafluorophosphate (PF6) anions are used in CTD and SSD. Allowable concentrations for a group of Imidazolium ILs with the same mode of action (SMOA) to five aquatic species; Daphnia magna, Vibrio fischeri, Algae, Zebrafish, and Escherichia coli are estimated by CTDs. It has been concluded that 1-Butyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride (BMIMCl) possess the lowest risk at an acceptable risk value of 750 × 10−5 mmol/L which is 12% less than that of OMIMCl. Furthermore, the sensitivities towards the aquatic species reveal that from the studied ILs, BMIMBF4 with an acceptable risk value of 3200 × 10−5 mmol/L is the most suitable IL towards the selected aquatic species. Hence, current work provides cumulative allowable concentrations and acceptable risk values for ILs which release to aquatic compartment of ecosystem.

Original languageBritish English
Article number125364
JournalJournal of Hazardous Materials
Volume415
DOIs
StatePublished - 5 Aug 2021

Keywords

  • Aquatic life safety
  • Ecotoxicology
  • Hazardous ionic liquids
  • Ionic liquids
  • Risk assessment

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Cumulative impact assessment of hazardous ionic liquids towards aquatic species using risk assessment methods'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this