4.7 Article

Metal release from contaminated coastal sediments under changing pH conditions: Implications for metal mobilization in acidified oceans

期刊

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN
卷 101, 期 2, 页码 707-715

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.10.026

关键词

CO2-induced acidification; Contaminated sediment; Metal mobilization; Release rate; Water quality

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province [2012J01183]
  2. Key Laboratory for Ecological Environment in Coastal Areas [201210]
  3. Global Change and Marine-Atmospheric Chemistry [GCMA 1302]
  4. State Oceanic Administration (SOA)
  5. State Key Laboratory of Tropical Oceanography, South China Sea Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences [LTO1203]
  6. Xiamen Engineering Center [3502Z20110005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate the impacts and processes of CO2-induced acidification on metal mobilization, laboratory-scale experiments were performed, simulating the scenarios where carbon dioxide was injected into sediment-seawater layers inside non-pressurized chambers. Coastal sediments were sampled from two sites with different contamination levels and subjected to pre-determined pH conditions. Sediment samples and overlying water were collected for metal analysis after 10-days. The results indicated that CO2-induced ocean acidification would provoke increased metal mobilization causing adverse side-effects on water quality. The mobility of metals from sediment to the overlying seawater was correlated with the reduction in pH. Results of sequential extractions of sediments illustrated that exchangeable metal forms were the dominant source of mobile metals. Collectively, our data revealed that high metal concentrations in overlying seawater released from contaminated sediments under acidic conditions may strengthen the existing contamination gradients in Maluan Bay and represent a potential risk to ecosystem health in coastal environments. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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