4.7 Article

Comparison of different sequential extraction procedures for mercury fractionation in polluted soils

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
Volume 26, Issue 10, Pages 9955-9965

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-04433-6

Keywords

Mercury fraction; Mercury bioavailability; Sequential extraction procedure; Soil pollution; Modified Tessier; Modified BCR; CIEMAT

Funding

  1. Ministry of Land and Resources of P.R. China [201411089]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Three sequential extraction procedures (SEPs), modified Tessier, modified BCR, and CIEMAT, were compared for mercury fractionation in polluted soils. With satisfactory total mercury recovery, the modified Tessier and modified BCR SEPs were comparable with each other in terms of extraction efficiency in equivalent mercury fractions, whereas both SEPs were not as efficient as the CIEMAT SEP. However, the CIEMAT SEP might underestimate the oxidizable mercury fractions due to the humic and fulvic complexes instead of the organic matter of the other two SEPs. For mercury bioavailability identification, based on Pearson correlation analysis, all fractions in each SEP were significantly correlated with mercury uptake in Ipomoea aquatica, causing difficulty in comparison. Partial correlation analysis indicated that the mobile mercury fractions extracted by the first step in all three SEPs had a positive correlation with mercury uptake by plant, while mercury bound to organic matter extracted by both modified Tessier and modified BCR SEPs presented negative correlation with mercury uptake by plant which was in contrast to CIEMAT SEP. Meanwhile, clearly positive correlations between mercury fractions extracted by the former three steps of CIEMAT SEP and mercury uptake in Ipomoea aquatica were observed, demonstrating that CIEMAT SEP provided more accurate results related to Hg bioavailability than did the other two SEPs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available