4.7 Article

Lichens on asbestos-cement roofs: Bioweathering and biocovering effects

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 162, 期 2-3, 页码 1300-1308

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.06.060

关键词

Asbestos-cement; Biocovering; Bioweathering; Image analysis; Lichen

资金

  1. Regione Piemonte Direzione regionale 22: Tutela e Risanamento Ambientale, Programmazione, Gestione Rifiuti
  2. CEBIOVEM (The Centre of Excellence for Plant and Microbial Biosensing)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Asbestos-cement roofs, the most widespread sources of airborne, toxic and carcinogenic asbestos fibres, are often colonized by lichens. Since these latter are physical and chemical weathering agents, they have been often considered as significant responsible of disaggregation processes increasing fibre dispersion. Consequently, official guidelines for the management of asbestos often suggest their removal. Weathering and/or covering effects of lichens on asbestos-cement, however, have never been deeply investigated and available procedures to evaluate asbestos-cement aging do not take the biological colonization into account. In this study we show that a 25% lichen cover modifies physical and chemical properties of asbestos-cement sheets containing chrysotile and crocidolite fibres. By innovatively coupling pull up tests and image analysis of linear structures, we show that fibre loss is significantly lower (similar to 30%) where lichens develop and offer a physical barrier to the fibre detachment. Below the most covering lichens (Acarospora cervina, Candelariella ssp.), chrysotile and crocidolite undergo a partial incongruent dissolution, which in laboratory assays generally determined a reduction of their surface reactivity. Because of their biocovering and bioweathering effects, lichens on asbestos-cement play a role which differs from the current public opinion and the assumptions of some official regulations, acting as effective spontaneous bioattenuation agents. (C) 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据