4.5 Article

Heavy metal contamination and its indexing approach for sediment in Smolnik creek (Slovakia)

期刊

CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 305-313

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10098-015-0991-0

关键词

Acid mine drainage; Metals; Pollution indexes; Sediments

资金

  1. European Union Structural Funds [NFP 26220120037]
  2. Slovak Grant Agency for Science [1/0563/15]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research was realized in order to determine and analyze selected heavy metals present in sediment samples from Smolnik creek (Slovakia). The creek is permanently contaminated by acid mine drainage (AMD) from the Pech shaft with average annual flow rates of 6.5 L/s and pH a parts per thousand 4, which acidifies and contaminates surface water and sediment with heavy metals. The pH decreases due to the mixture of AMD with surface water and is followed by metal precipitation and sedimentation in the (aquatic) environment. Potential ecological risk indexes were used to study the pollution status of heavy metals, Cu, Zn, As, and Pb, in sediment and assess their potential ecological risk to the environment. The heavy metals under investigation in the sediment reflected a low ecological risk for both sediment samples (S1 = 68.43; S2 = 53.47). The degree of sediment contamination in the Smolnik creek (Slovakia), for Fe, Mn, Al, Cu, Zn, As, and Pb, has been evaluated using an Enrichment factor, Pollution load index, Geo-accumulation index, single-factor index analysis, Neremo index comprehensive evaluation method, and metal pollution index to compare the total content of metals at the different sampling stations. The high PLI values 1.61 (S1) and 1.54 (S2) indicate strong signs of pollution deterioration. The results from Neremo index comprehensive evaluation method indicate that the S1 location is heavily polluted (3.12) and S2 is moderately polluted (2.95). These results confirmed the fact that the quality of sediment improves with the distance from source of contamination.

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