4.5 Article

Environmental assessment concerning trace metals and ecological risks at Guanabara Bay, RJ, Brazil

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
Volume 190, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-018-6833-x

Keywords

Trace metals; Sequential extraction; Trophic state; Sediments; Guanabara Bay; Ecological index

Funding

  1. CAPES (Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior) [2939/2011]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Three-stage sequential extraction BCR was applied to surface sediments from the west part of Guanabara Bay to assess the mobility of Zn, Cu, Pb, Ni, Cr, and Mn. Results were satisfactory for the analysis of certificate standard material (BCR 701), with recoveries between 71 (Cu) and 123% (Cr). Evaluation of organic matter composition classified the area as eutrophic (CHO:PRT > 1), with aged organic detritus at some stations. Zn exhibited by far the greatest bioavailability, with 43.49% of its concentrations associated with the exchangeable fraction. Cu and Cr showed stronger affinity for organic matter, with 51.18 and 48.73% of their concentrations, respectively, bounded to the oxidizable fraction. Pb presented higher concentrations in the reducible fraction (45.41%). The strongest lithogenic contribution was shown by Ni (31.91%) and Mn (35.44%). PCA clearly showed the determinant role of organic matter and fine sediments in the distribution of metals in the study area and also a common source for these elements, with the exception of Cu. Risk Assessment Code (RAC) established Zn as the most concerning element in the study area. The decreasing mobility order, based on the sum of the three extractable fractions of BCR, was Pb > Cu > Cr > Zn > Ni > Mn. The comparison of the results with sediments quality guidelines (SQG) proved fractionation to be mandatory in the evaluation of effective ecological risk concerning trace elements in 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available