4.7 Article

Identifying the source of Zn in soils around a Zn smelter using Pb isotope ratios and mineralogical analysis

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 601, 期 -, 页码 66-72

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.181

关键词

Source identification; Zinc contamination; Zinc smelter; Lead isotope; Environmental forensics

资金

  1. Geo-Advanced Innovative Action (GAIA) Project of the Ministry of Environment, Korea [2015000540001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The contribution by anthropogenic sources to abnormally high Zn concentrations in soils with naturally abundant Zn was investigated at a contaminated site surrounding a Zn smelter in eastern Korea. Nineteen soil samples were collected within a 2 km radius of the smelter, and analyzed for metal concentrations and Pb isotope ratios using an inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometer and -mass spectrometer, respectively. Higher Zn concentrations in locations closer to the smelter implied that the smelter was the source of the Zn pollution. Lead isotope ratios (Pb-206/207) from soil samples assumed to be unaffected by the smelter were higher than those found in the contaminated area, suggesting that the raw materials of Zn concentrates (ZnS, sphalerites) and smelting by-products from the smelter with low Pb-206/207 ratios were the anthropogenic Zn source impacting the area. To verify this finding, the mineralogical forms of Zn found in the different soil fractions were investigated by X-ray diffraction analysis, scanning-electron-microscope energy-dispersive spectrometer analysis, and sulfur element analysis. Since approximately 50% of Zn concentrates have particle sizes less than 0.044 mm, the observation of sphalerites and elevated sulfur concentrations in the finer soil fraction (<0.044 mm) provide substantial support to the hypothesis that the deposition of airborne Zn-containing dust from the smelter is responsible for the high Zn concentration in the area. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. 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