4.7 Article

Distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in different size fractions of soil from a coke oven plant and its relationship to organic carbon content

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 176, 期 1-3, 页码 729-734

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.11.095

关键词

PAHs; Distribution; Soil size fractions; TOC; BC

资金

  1. Beijing key Science and technology Project: Development Of Integrated Ex-situ Soil Remediation Technology [SF2008-02]
  2. Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The concentrations of 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in US EPA priority list were analyzed in the bulk and six particle size fractions of soil samples from a coke oven plant. The relationships of PAHs concentrations with total organic carbon (TOC), black carbon (BC) and other forms of organic carbon (OC) contents have been investigated. Total PAH concentrations ranged from 6.27 to 40.18 mg kg(-1) dry weight. The highest total PAH concentration occurred in the 250-500 mu m size fraction. The maximum individual PAH concentration was in the 250-500 mu m or 500-2000 mu m size fraction. The size fractions of 125-500 mu m and <50 mu m have higher percentages and contributed 24.62% and 23.33% of the total PAH mass, respectively. The relative abundance of individual PAH compounds and PAH molecular indices present typical characteristic pyrogenic origin. The maximal TOC and BC contents were found in the 125-250 mu m size fraction. Strong positive linear relationship between total PAH concentration and TOC or BC has been demonstrated, with a linear regression coefficient value of 0.7277 and 0.9245, respectively. The linear relationship between total PAH concentration versus OC (OC = TOC-BC) is weaker than that versus TOC or BC, with a correlation coefficient of 0.4117. It indicates that partitioned in organic matter, especially in black carbon is the dominant form of PAHs in the soil. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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