4.7 Article

Fate of hazardous elements in agricultural soils surrounding a coal power plant complex from Santa Catarina (Brazil)

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 508, 期 -, 页码 374-382

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.015

关键词

Agricultural soil; Element contamination; Coal power plant; Hotspot identification; Spatial interpolation; Principal Component Analysis

资金

  1. SUDOE Interreg IV B Programme through the ORQUE SUDOE Project [SOE3/P2/F591/5]
  2. Basque Government through Consolidated Research Group Project [IT-742-13]
  3. UPV/EHU

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hazard element contamination coming from coal power plants is something obvious, but when this contamination is accompanied by other contamination sources, such as, urban, coal mining and farming activities the study gets complicated. This is the case of an area comprised in the southern part of Santa Catarina state (Brazil) with the largest private power plant generator. After the elemental analysis of 41 agricultural soils collected in an extensive area around the thermoelectric (from 0 to 47 km), the high presence of As, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Pb, Sb, Sn, Tl, V and Zn was found in some specific areas around the power plant Nevertheless, as the NWAC (Normalized-and-Weighted Average Concentration) confirmed, only soils from one site were classified as of very high concern due to the presence of potential toxic elements. This site was located within the sedimentation basin of the power plant. The spatial distribution obtained by kriging in combination with the analysis of the data by Principal Component Analysis (PCA) revealed three important hotspots in the area according to soil uses and geographic localization: the thermoelectric, its area of influence due to volatile compound deposition, and the area comprised between two urban areas. Farming practice turn out to be an important factor too for the quantity of hazard element stored in soils. (C) 2014 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