4.5 Article

Characterization and fingerprinting of soil and groundwater contamination sources around a fuel distribution station in Galicia (NW Spain)

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-016-5288-1

关键词

Fingerprinting; Fuel distribution station; Soil and groundwater contamination; Volatile fuel compounds; DRO

资金

  1. Galician Government (Conselleria de Innovacion e Industria of Xunta de Galicia) [INCITE08PXIB200136PR]
  2. Spanish Government (Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad)
  3. FEDER [CTM2009-14576-C02-02, BES-2010-030923]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soil and groundwater contamination around a fuel distribution station in Tomino (NW Spain) was evaluated. For this purpose, top and subsoil (up to 6.4 m) and groundwater were sampled around the station, approximately in a 60-m radius. Samples were analysed by HS-SPME-GC-MS to identify and quantify volatile fuel organic compounds (VFOC) (MTBE, ETBE and BTEX) and diesel range organics (DRO). Analysis and fingerprinting data suggested that the contamination of soil and groundwater was provoked by a fuel leak from underground storage tanks. This was reflected by hydrocarbon indices and principal component analysis, which discriminated a direct source of contamination of the subsoil samples around the station. The contaminants probably migrated from tank nearby soils to surrounding soils and leached to groundwater, following a SW direction. Irrigation with contaminated groundwater provoked a severe contamination of topsoils, which were enriched with the lightest components of gasoline and diesel. Fingerprinting also revealed the continuity of the leak, reflected by the presence of volatiles in some samples, which principally appeared in fresh leaks. MTBE was detected in a very high concentration in groundwater samples (up to 690 mu g L-1), but it was not detected in fresh gasoline. This also evidenced an old source of contamination, probably starting in the mid-1990s, when the use of MTBE in gasoline was regulated.

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

4.5
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