-
Something wrong with this record ?
Fractionation Analysis of Mercury in Soils: A Comparison of Three Techniques for Bioavailable Mercury Fraction Determination
P. Pelcová, A. Ridošková, J. Hrachovinová, J. Grmela
Language English Country United States
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Grant support
19-11528S
Grantová Agentura Ceské Republiky - International
PubMed
32516439
DOI
10.1002/etc.4797
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Biological Availability MeSH
- Chemical Fractionation MeSH
- Diffusion MeSH
- Soil Pollutants analysis MeSH
- Environmental Monitoring methods MeSH
- Soil chemistry MeSH
- Solutions MeSH
- Mercury analysis MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
Knowledge of the fractionation of mercury in soils in the vicinity of abandoned cinnabar mines is essential for assessing the usability of soils for the cultivation of agriculturally important crops. Two different sequential extraction methods and the technique of diffusive gradients in thin films (DGT) were applied and compared for fractionation of mercury in soils from mercury-contaminated sites intended for farming purposes. The mercury found in these soils was primarily in the form of mercury sulfide (58.6-83.9%), followed by 6.7 to 15.4% of organically bound mercury and 2.9 to 23.2% of elemental mercury. Up to 10.3% of labile mercury species were determined by both sequential extraction methods in these soils. However, only 0.01 to 0.13% of mercury was determined as a bioavailable fraction using the DGT technique. Both sequential extraction methods tested for the fractionation analysis of mercury in contaminated soils were in excellent agreement. The content of the mobile (labile) mercury determined by the sequential extraction methods was statistically significantly higher (p < 0.0001) than the content of bioavailable mercury determined by the DGT technique. Environ Toxicol Chem 2020;39:1670-1677. © 2020 SETAC.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc21012186
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20210507102109.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 210420s2020 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1002/etc.4797 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)32516439
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Pelcová, Pavlína $u Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
- 245 10
- $a Fractionation Analysis of Mercury in Soils: A Comparison of Three Techniques for Bioavailable Mercury Fraction Determination / $c P. Pelcová, A. Ridošková, J. Hrachovinová, J. Grmela
- 520 9_
- $a Knowledge of the fractionation of mercury in soils in the vicinity of abandoned cinnabar mines is essential for assessing the usability of soils for the cultivation of agriculturally important crops. Two different sequential extraction methods and the technique of diffusive gradients in thin films (DGT) were applied and compared for fractionation of mercury in soils from mercury-contaminated sites intended for farming purposes. The mercury found in these soils was primarily in the form of mercury sulfide (58.6-83.9%), followed by 6.7 to 15.4% of organically bound mercury and 2.9 to 23.2% of elemental mercury. Up to 10.3% of labile mercury species were determined by both sequential extraction methods in these soils. However, only 0.01 to 0.13% of mercury was determined as a bioavailable fraction using the DGT technique. Both sequential extraction methods tested for the fractionation analysis of mercury in contaminated soils were in excellent agreement. The content of the mobile (labile) mercury determined by the sequential extraction methods was statistically significantly higher (p < 0.0001) than the content of bioavailable mercury determined by the DGT technique. Environ Toxicol Chem 2020;39:1670-1677. © 2020 SETAC.
- 650 _2
- $a biologická dostupnost $7 D001682
- 650 _2
- $a chemická frakcionace $7 D005591
- 650 _2
- $a difuze $7 D004058
- 650 _2
- $a monitorování životního prostředí $x metody $7 D004784
- 650 _2
- $a rtuť $x analýza $7 D008628
- 650 _2
- $a půda $x chemie $7 D012987
- 650 _2
- $a látky znečišťující půdu $x analýza $7 D012989
- 650 _2
- $a roztoky $7 D012996
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Ridošková, Andrea $u Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Hrachovinová, Jana $u Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Grmela, Jan $u Department of Zoology, Fisheries, Hydrobiology and Apiculture, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
- 773 0_
- $w MED00001560 $t Environmental toxicology and chemistry $x 1552-8618 $g Roč. 39, č. 9 (2020), s. 1670-1677
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32516439 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20210420 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20210507102109 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1650540 $s 1132565
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2020 $b 39 $c 9 $d 1670-1677 $e 20200728 $i 1552-8618 $m Environmental toxicology and chemistry $n Environ Toxicol Chem $x MED00001560
- GRA __
- $a 19-11528S $p Grantová Agentura Ceské Republiky $2 International
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20210420