4.5 Article

Trace element concentration and speciation in selected urban soils in New York City

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
卷 186, 期 1, 页码 195-215

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-013-3366-1

关键词

Geochemistry; New York City; Trace elements

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A long history of urbanization and industrialization has affected trace elements in New York City (NYC) soils. Selected NYC pedons were analyzed by aqua regia microwave digestion and sequential chemical extraction as follows: water soluble (WS); exchangeable (EX); specifically sorbed/carbonate bound (SS/CAR); oxide-bound (OX); organic/sulfide bound (OM/S). Soils showed a range in properties (e.g., pH 3.9 to 7.4). Sum of total extractable (SUMTE) trace elements was higher in NYC parks compared to Bronx River watershed sites. NYC surface horizons showed higher total extractable (TE) levels compared to US non-anthropogenic soils. TE levels increased over 10 year in some of the relatively undisturbed and mostly wooded park sites. Surface horizons of park sites with long-term anthropogenic inputs showed elevated TE levels vs. subsurface horizons. Conversely, some Bronx River watershed soils showed increased concentrations with depth, reflective of their formation in a thick mantle of construction debris increasing with depth and intermingled with anthrotransported soil materials. Short-range variability was evident in primary pedons and satellite samples (e.g., Pb 253 +/- 143 mg/kg). Long-range variability was indicated by Pb-TE (348 versus 156 mg/kg) and Hg-TE (1 versus 0.3 mg/kg) concentrations varying several-fold in the same soil but in different geographic locations. Relative predominance of fractions: RES (37 %) > SS/CAR (22 %) > OX (20 %) > OM/S (10 %) > EX (7 %) > WS (4 %). WS and EX fractions were greatest for Hg (7 %) and Cd (14 %), respectively. RES was predominant fraction for Co, Cr, Ni, and Zn (41 to 51 %); SS/CAR for Cd and Pb (40 and 63 %); OM/S for Cu and Hg (36 and 37 %); and OX for As (59 %).

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