4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Comparing two methods of sequential fractionation in the study of copper compounds in Haplic chernozem under model experimental conditions

Journal

JOURNAL OF SOILS AND SEDIMENTS
Volume 18, Issue 6, Pages 2379-2386

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11368-017-1711-7

Keywords

Compound forms; Copper; Extractant selectivity; Fractionation methods; Soils; Responsible editor: Jaume Bech

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education and Science of Russia [5.948.2017/PP]
  2. RFBR [16-35-60055, 16-34-00573]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is very important to obtain the information on the soils capacity to immobilize HMs and distribute them among soil components. The aim of this work was to study the fractional composition of Cu compounds in Haplic chernozem under model contamination conditions using different fractionation methods. The fractional composition of copper compounds in Haplic Chernozem artificially contaminated with copper acetate has been studied under model experimental conditions. General regularities and differences in the distribution of Cu forms in soils at the use of sequential fractionation by the Miller method modified by Berti and Jacobs (1996) and the Tessier method (Tessier et al. 1979) are revealed. The differences are related to the metal affinity for specific carrier phases, as well as to the selectivity and extraction capacity of the reagents used in these methods. A significant increase in the most mobile exchangeable Cu fraction is observed in contaminated soils. Aluminosilicates and soil organic matter make the largest contribution to the adsorption and retention of Cu. The Tessier method is more suitable for the separation of the total technogenic component from contaminated soils. The Miller method is more informative at the determination of loosely bound HM compounds because of the use of weaker extractants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available