4.6 Article

Heavy Metals Contamination in Century-Old Manmade Technosols of Hope Bay, Antarctic Peninsula

期刊

WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION
卷 222, 期 1-4, 页码 91-102

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11270-011-0811-z

关键词

Antarctic; X-ray fluorescence; Principal component analysis; Enrichment factors; Bioavailability; Soil pollution

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo [07/04515-4, 09/09481-6, 08/08260-3]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico and Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [08/08260-3, 09/09481-6] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Technosols are anthropogenic soils that may be strongly impacted by heavy metal deposition, which have not yet been described in Antarctica. In this paper, we present a chemical study of what is supposedly the oldest manmade soil from Antarctic Peninsula, developed in the vicinity of Trinity House and Nordenskjold Hut at Hope Bay. Chemical and morphological soil attributes indicate that a former ornithogenic site (penguin rookery) was further subjected to human disturbance, following local exploration since 1903. We detected very high amounts of heavy metals such as Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn. For the most impacted site, pseudototal concentrations of these elements reach 47, 2,082, 19,381, and 5,225 mg kg(-1), respectively. Enrichment factors were calculated using Zr as reference element, and high values were found for these contaminated sites, qualifying some of them as extremely polluted. Also, both the mobilizable and mobile fraction of Cd and Pb indicate the need of intervention in the affected area. These findings are all consistent with the human impacts and strong contamination. Strong positive correlation between the pseudototal concentrations of Cd, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb, and Zn indicates a similar source of pollution. These soils may represent the oldest Technosols in Antarctic Continent.

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

4.6
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