4.4 Article

A mechanism study of reflectance spectroscopy for investigating heavy metals in soils

期刊

SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL
卷 71, 期 3, 页码 918-926

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2006.0285

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conventional methods for investigating he metal contamination in soil are time consuming and expensive. In this study, we (i) explored reflectance spectroscopy as an alternative method for assessing heavy metals, and (ii) further explored the physicochemical mechanism that allows estimation of heavy metals with the reflectance spectroscopy method. We first investigated the spectral response of changing concentrations of heavy metals in soils. The results indicated that only at very high concentration can transition elements exhibit their inherent absorption features. In spite of this observation, we successfully predicted low levels of heavy metals in agricultural soils. The best prediction accuracies were obtained for the siderophile elements Ni, Cr, and Co. The poorest prediction was for Cd. The order of prediction accuracy for metals was approximately the same as the order of their correlation coefficients with Fe. Complementary to some previous studies that found that the intercorrelation between heavy metals and active sod components (such as Fe oxides, organic matter, and clay) is the major predictive mechanism, in the present study we concluded that the correlation with total Fe (including active and residual Fe) is the major mechanism. This conclusion was further supported by both correlation analysis and chemical sequential extraction. Correlation analysis showed that all metals are negatively correlated with reflectance while positively correlated with the absorption depth at about 500 nm, a feature resulting from goethite. The chemical forms of heavy metals, which showed that besides the crystalline Fe oxide and organic matter fractions, heavy metals have significant amounts in the residual fraction, also strengthened the conclusion.

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

4.4
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