4.7 Article

Effect of aging on arsenic and lead fractionation and availability in soils: Coupling sequential extractions with diffusive gradients in thin-films technique

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 273, 期 -, 页码 272-279

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.03.024

关键词

Arsenic; Lead; Aging; Diffusive gradients in thin films; Sequential extraction

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21207062, 21277070]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK2012311]
  3. Special Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education
  4. Ministry of Education of China [20120091120016]
  5. Program for Postgraduates Research and Innovation in Jiangsu Province [CXZZ13_0058]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We coupled the diffusive gradients in thin-films (DGT) technique with two sequential extraction methods to investigate the influence of aging on As and Pb fractionation and availability in three soils spiked with As (40 or 400 mg kg(-1)), Pb (150 or 1500 mg kg(-1)) or As + Pb (40 mg kg(-1) As and 150 mg kg(-1) Pb). During aging, As moved from the more available (non-specifically and specifically sorbed) to less available (amorphous and crystallized Fe/Al) fractions while Pb moved from the first three fractions (exchangeable, carbonate and Fe/Mn hydroxide) to organic fraction. However, even after 33-week aging, much more As and Pb were in the least available residual fraction in spiked soils than native soils (11-59% vs. 1.2-12%). Relatively, As in spiked soils was much more available than Pb with 11-14% As and 46-59% Pb in the residual fraction. Correlation analysis indicated that As in the non-specifically and specifically sorbed fractions and Pb in the exchangeable fraction were likely sources of DGT-measured labile As and Pb. The fact that As and Pb distribution and availability in spiked soils were significantly different from native soils suggests caution needs to be exercised when using spiked soils for research. 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