4.7 Article

Persistent thallium contamination in river sediments, source apportionment and environmental implications

Journal

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
Volume 202, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110874

Keywords

Thallium contamination; Sediment quality index; Pyrite mine; Source identi fication

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41873015, 41830753, U1612442, 41573008, 41773011]
  2. Guangzhou University's 2017 training program for young top-notch personnel [BJ201709]
  3. Scientific Research Projects in Colleges and Universities of Guangzhou Education Bureau, Guangzhou, China [201831803]
  4. 17th Challenge Cup Undergraduate Program
  5. Guangzhou University Undergraduate Training Project for Innovation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The adverse impacts of detrimental thallium (Tl) contamination are of increasing concerns to sustainable development. Herein, the contents, distributions and sources of Tl and potential toxic elements (PTEs) (Pb, As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Co, Sb, Cd and U) were investigated in sediments collected in Gaofeng River, which has been contaminated by long-term mining activities, located in Yunfu City, Southern China. Results indicated that excessive Tl levels were found in sediments (1.80-16.70 mg/kg). Sequential extraction procedure indicated that despite a large amount of Tl entrapped in residual fraction, a significant level of Tl (0.28-2.34 mg/kg) still exhibited in geochemically labile fractions, which was easy for Tl mobilization and availability. Pb isotope tracing method further confirmed that the pyrite exploitations may be the prime contaminated contributor (47-76%) to these sediments. These findings highlight that it is essential to establish more effective measures for Tl contamination control and call for engineered remediation countermeasures towards polluted river sediments.

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