4.7 Review

Redox chemistry of nickel in soils and sediments: A review

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 179, 期 -, 页码 265-278

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.02.153

关键词

Trace elements; Redox potential (E-H); Mobilization; Governing factors; Wetlands

资金

  1. German Alexander von Humboldt Foundation [3.4 - EGY - 1185373 - GF-E]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Knowledge on the redox geochemistry of Ni is behind in comparison to other heavy metals. Hence, this article reviews the direct and indirect impact of redox potential (E-H) on mobilization and release dynamics of Ni in soils and sediments across the world. Nickel can show a different behavior in response to E-H. Mobilization of Ni increased at low E-H in various soils; however, oxic conditions can lead to an increased mobilization of Ni in other soils. Those differences occur because the mobilization of Ni is often indirectly affected by E-H, e.g. through E-H-dependent pH changes, co-precipitation with iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) (hydr)oxides, complexation with soil organic carbon, similar position of Ni and magnesium (Mg) in the soil solid phase, and/or precipitation as sulphides. Dissolved concentrations of Ni showed a similar pattern like Fe and increased at low E-H in many soils, which might be explained by the reductive dissolution of Fe (hydr)oxides and the release of the co-precipitated/sorbed Ni. Few other studies indicated that Ni might be associated with Mn oxides rather than with Fe oxides. Additionally, the formation of soluble complexes with dissolved organic carbon may contribute to a mobilization of Ni at low E-H. Nickel and Mg are similarly affected by redox changes especially in serpentine soils. This review summarizes the recent knowledge about the redox chemistry of Ni and contributes thus to a better understanding of the potential mobilization, hazard, and eco-toxicity of Ni in frequently flooded soils and sediments as agricultural ecosystems. (C) 2017 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