4.7 Article

The distribution and sea-air transfer of volatile mercury in waste post-desulfurization seawater discharged from a coal-fired power plant

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 20, 期 9, 页码 6191-6200

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-013-1662-5

关键词

Mercury; Coal-fired power plant; Seawater; Transfer; Distribution; Marine environment

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [20777063, 40976070]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The waste seawater discharged in coastal areas from coal-fired power plants equipped with a seawater desulfurization system might carry pollutants such as mercury from the flue gas into the adjacent seas. However, only very limited impact studies have been carried out. Taking a typical plant in Xiamen as an example, the present study targeted the distribution and sea-air transfer flux of volatile mercury in seawater, in order to trace the fate of the discharged mercury other than into the sediments. Samples from 28 sampling sites were collected in the sea area around two discharge outlets of the plant, daily and seasonally. Total mercury, dissolved gaseous mercury and dissolved total mercury in the seawater, as well as gaseous elemental mercury above the sea surface, were investigated. Mean concentrations of dissolved gaseous mercury and gaseous elemental mercury in the area were 183 and 4.48 ng m(-3) in summer and 116 and 3.92 ng m(-3) in winter, which were significantly higher than those at a reference site. Based on the flux calculation, the transfer of volatile mercury was from the sea surface into the atmosphere, and more than 4.4 kg mercury, accounting for at least 2.2 % of the total discharge amount of the coal-fired power plant in the sampling area (1 km(2)), was emitted to the air annually. This study strongly suggested that besides being deposited into the sediment and diluted with seawater, emission into the atmosphere was an important fate for the mercury from the waste seawater from coal-fired power plants.

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