4.6 Article

Bulk metal concentrations versus total suspended solids in rivers: Time-invariant & catchment-specific relationships

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191314

关键词

-

资金

  1. EU FP7 Collaborative Project GLOBAQUA [603629]
  2. Collaborative Research Center CAMPOS (Project P1: Rivers) - German Research Foundation (DFG) [1253, SFB 1253/1 2017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Suspended particles in rivers can act as carriers of potentially bioavailable metal species and are thus an emerging area of interest in river system monitoring. The delineation of bulk metals concentrations in river water into dissolved and particulate components is also important for risk assessment. Linear relationships between bulk metal concentrations in water (C-w,C-tot) and total suspended solids (TSS) in water can be used to easily evaluate dissolved (C-w, intercept) and particle-bound metal fluxes (C-SUS, slope) in streams (C-w,C-tot = C-w(+) CSUSTSS). In this study, we apply this principle to catchments in Iran (Haraz) and Germany (Ammer, Goldersbach, and Steinlach) that show differences in geology, geochemistry, land use and hydrological characteristics. For each catchment, particle-bound and dissolved concentrations for a suite of metals in water were calculated based on linear regressions of total suspended solids and total metal concentrations. Results were replicable across sampling campaigns in different years and seasons (between 2013 and 2016) and could be reproduced in a laboratory sedimentation experiment. C(SUS)values generally showed little variability in different catchments and agree well with soil background values for some metals (e.g. lead and nickel) while other metals (e.g. copper) indicate anthropogenic influences. C(w)was elevated in the Haraz (Iran) catchment, indicating higher bioavailability and potential human and ecological health concerns (where higher values of C-SUS/C(w)are considered as a risk indicator).

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

4.6
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