4.7 Article

Potential risks of the residue from Samarco's mine dam burst (Bento Rodrigues, Brazil)

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 218, 期 -, 页码 813-825

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.005

关键词

Mariana's disaster; Metals; Genotoxicity; Cytotoxicity; Single extraction procedures

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [2015/066749-0, 2014/05151-0]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [444280/2014-6]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

On November 5th, 2015, Samarco's iron mine dam - called Fundao - spilled 50-60 million m(3) of mud into Gualaxo do Norte, a river that belongs to Rio Doce Basin. Approximately 15 km(2) were flooded along the rivers Gualaxo do Norte, Carmo and Doce, reaching the Atlantic Ocean on November 22nd, 2015. Six days after, our group collected mud, soil and water samples in Bento Rodrigues (Minas Gerais, Brazil), which was the first impacted area. Overall, the results, water samples potable and surface water from river presented chemical elements concentration according to Brazilian environmental legislations, except silver concentration in surface water that ranged from 1.5 to 1087 mu g L-1. In addition, water mud containing presented Fe and Mn concentrations approximately 4-fold higher than the maximum limit for water bodies quality assessment, according to Brazilian laws. Mud particle size ranged from 1 to 200 gm. SEM-EDS spot provided us some semi quantitative data. Leaching/extraction tests suggested that Ba, Pb, As, Sr, Fe, Mn and Al have high potential mobilization from mud to water. Low microbial diversity in mud samples compared to background soil samples. Toxicological bioassays (HepG2 and Allium cepa) indicated potential risks of cytotoxicity and DNA damage in mud and soil samples used in both assays. The present study provides preliminary information aiming to collaborate to the development of future works for monitoring and risk assessment. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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