4.8 Article

Particle-Scale Measurement of PAH Aqueous Equilibrium Partitioning in Impacted Sediments

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 44, 期 4, 页码 1204-1210

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es902215p

关键词

-

资金

  1. Gas Technology Institute
  2. Northeast Gas Association
  3. National Grid
  4. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-FC26-98FT40321]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research investigated the particle-scale processes that control aqueous equilibrium partitioning of PAHs in manufactured gas plant (MGP) site sediments. Dominant particle types in impacted sediments (sand, wood, coal/coke, and pitch) were physically separated under a microscope for equilibrium assessments. Solid-phase microextraction (SPME) combined with selected ion monitoring GC/MS and perdeuterated PAH internal standards were used to determine freely dissolved PAH concentrations in small (0.1-1 mL} water samples at concentrations as low as mu g/L (for lower molecular weight PAHs) to ng/L (for higher molecular weight PAHs). For every particle class the initial release of PAHs into the aqueous phase was rapid, and an apparent equilibrium was reached in a matter of days. The average ratio of aqueous total PAH concentration for pitch vs coal/coke particles for eight sediment samples was 20. Thus, sediments that had aged in the field for many decades were not at equilibrium and were still going through a slow process of contaminant mass transfer between the different particle types. A possible consequence of this slow aging process is further lowering of the activity of the chemical as mass transfer is achieved to new sorption sites with time. This study also found that the presence of black carbon even at the level of 1/3 of sediment organic carbon does not necessarily imply a BC-dominated sorption behavior, rather source pitch particles if present may dominate PAH partitioning. To our knowledge this is the first report of equilibrium partitioning assessment conducted at the sediment particle scale.

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

4.8
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