4.7 Article

Oxalic acid activated phosphate rock and bone meal to immobilize Cu and Pb in mine soils

Journal

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
Volume 174, Issue -, Pages 401-407

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.02.076

Keywords

Heavy metals; Phosphate rock; Bone meal; Immobilization; Mine soil

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41371470]
  2. National Sci-Tech Support Plan [2015BAD05B02]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The contamination of soil by copper (Cu) and lead (Pb) is a serious concern because of its high health risk via the food chain. Oxalic acid-activated phosphate rock (APR) and bone meal (BM) were applied to Cu and Pb co-contaminated soil to investigate their efficacy in the immobilization of Cu and Pb. APR and BM were applied into the contaminated soil (158.8 mg/kg total Pb and 573.2 mg/kg Cu) at four levels of dosages (0.1%, 0.5%, 2%, and 4%) and incubated for one year. The results demonstrated that the acid exchangeable Pb fraction in the soil treated with APR and BM decreased compared to the control, while there was no noticeable change in the acid exchangeable Cu fraction in the soil treated with either APR or BM. Meanwhile, the application of BM and APR increased the fraction of residual Cu and Pb in the polluted soils. Moreover, the addition of either APR or BM at the dose of 4% decreased the concentrations of CaCl2-extractable Cu and Pb in the amended soil, and the percentages of that reduction in the APR amended soils were 56% and 91% and in BM amended soils were 67% and 64%, respectively. The immobilization of Cu and Pb by APR and BM might be induced by the increased soil pH and soluble P contents in the amended soils. In general, BM is more effective than APR on the immobilization of Cu in polluted soil, while APR had greater efficiency than BM on the immobilization of Pb when the levels of amendments were above 2%.

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