Environmental Geology

, Volume 57, Issue 1, pp 91–98 | Cite as

Controlling factors and environmental implications of mercury contamination in urban and agricultural soils under a long-term influence of a chlor-alkali plant in the North–West Portugal

  • A. Cachada
  • S. M. Rodrigues
  • C. Mieiro
  • E. Ferreira da Silva
  • E. Pereira
  • A. C. Duarte
Original Article

Abstract

This study aims at assessing the extent of total mercury (Hg) contamination in urban and agricultural soils under long-term influence of a chlor-alkali plant, located at about 1 km away from a town centre. Moreover, it aims at identifying the main factors controlling Hg contents’ distribution and associated potential hazards to environment and human health. The median value of total Hg for soil surface layer (0–10 cm) was 0.20 mg/kg (data ranging from 0.050 to 4.5 mg/kg) and for subsurface layer (10–20 cm) 0.18 mg/kg (data ranging from 0.046 to 3.0 mg/kg). The agricultural area showed higher Hg concentrations (ranging from 0.86 to 4.5 mg/kg) than urban area (ranging from 0.05 to 0.61 mg/kg), with some results exceeding target values set by the Dutch guidelines. Mercury concentrations observed in the studied area are more likely to be associated with the influence of the chlor-alkali plant and with the use of historically contaminated sludges and water from a nearby lagoon in agriculture, than to the impacts of urban development. The statistical correlations between Hg concentrations and soil properties suggest that anthropogenic metal sources should influence the spatial distribution more than the geological properties. Although the Hg emissions were drastically reduced 10 years ago, the area under influence of the chlor-alkali plant is still facing potential health and environmental threats arising from soil contamination.

Keywords

Mercury Urban soils Agricultural soils Chlor-alkali plant 

References

  1. Abrahams PW (2002) Soils: their implications to human health. Sci Total Environ 291:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biester H, Müller G, Schöler HF (2002) Binding and mobility of mercury in soils contaminated by emissions from chlor-alkali plants. Sci Total Environ 84:191–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birke M, Rauch U (2000) Urban geochemistry: investigations in the Berlin metropolitan area. Environ Geochem Health 22:233–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloom NS, Moretto LM, Scopece P, Ugo P (2004) Seasonal cycling of mercury and monomethyl mercury in the Venice Lagoon (Italy). Mar Chem 91:85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boszke L, Kowalski A (2006) Spatial distribution of mercury in bottom sediments and soils from Poznań, Poland. Pol J Environ Stud 15(2):211–218Google Scholar
  6. CCME (Canadian Council of the Ministers of Environment) (2002) Summary of existing Canadian environmental quality guidelines. In: Canadian environmental quality guidelines. Canadian Council of the Ministers of Environment, WinnipegGoogle Scholar
  7. Coelho JP, Rosa M, Pereira ME, Duarte A, Pardal MA (2006) Pattern and annual rates of Scrobicularia plana mercury bioaccumulation in human induced mercury gradient (Ria de Aveiro, Portugal). Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 69:629–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food, Rural Affairs) (2002) Soil guideline values for inorganic mercury contamination. Environment Agency, BristolGoogle Scholar
  9. EC (European Commission) (2005) Extended impact assessment. Annex to the Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on Community Strategy Concerning Mercury. Brussels, SEC 101Google Scholar
  10. Ferreira, MMSI (2004) Atlas Geoquímico dos solos de Portugal Continental (Geochemical Atlas of Continental Portugal Soils) PhD, Geosciences Department, University of Aveiro, Portugal (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  11. Guvenç N, Alagha O, Tuncel G (2003) Investigation of soil multi-element composition in Antalya, Turkey. Environ Int 29:631–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Inácio MM, Pereira V, Pinto MS (1998) Mercury contamination in sandy soils surrounding an industrial emission source Estarreja, Portugal. Geoderma 85:325–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ISO (1994a) ISO method 11464:1994. Soil quality—pretreatment of samples for physico-chemical analysesGoogle Scholar
  14. ISO (1994b) ISO method 10390:1994 Soil quality—determination of pHGoogle Scholar
  15. ISO (1995) ISO method 13536:1995. Soil quality—determination of the potential cation exchange capacity and exchangeable cations using barium chloride solution buffered at pH = 8.1Google Scholar
  16. Ljung K, Otabbong E, Selinus O (2006) Natural and anthropogenic metal inputs to soils in urban Uppsala, Sweden. Environ Geochem Health 28:353–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Manta DS, Angelone M, Bellanca A, Neri R, Sprovieri M (2002) Heavy metals in urban soils: a case study from the city of Palermo (Sicily), Italy. Sci Total Environ 164:125–133Google Scholar
  18. Peltola P, Åström M (2003) Urban geochemistry: a multimedia and multielement survey of a small town in northern Europe. Environ Geochem Health 25:397–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pereira ME, Duarte AC, Millward GE, Abreu SN, Reis MC (1997) Distribution of mercury and other heavy metals in the Ria the Aveiro. Quim Anal 16(1):S31–S35Google Scholar
  20. Pereira E, Vale C, Tavares CF, Válega M, Duarte AC (2005) Mercury in plants from fields surrounding a contaminated channel of Ria de Aveiro, Portugal. Soil Sediment Contam 14:571–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Remy S, Prudent P, Probst J (2006) Mercury in soils of the industrialized Thur river catchment (Alsace, France). Appl Geochem 21:1855–1867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rodrigues S, Pereira E, Sarabando L, Lopes L, Cachada A, Duarte A (2006) Spatial distribution of total Hg in urban soils from an Atlantic coastal city (Aveiro, Portugal). Sci Total Environ 368(1):40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Salminen R (Chief-editor) (2005) Geochemical atlas of Europe. Part 1: background information, methodology and maps. Geological Survey of Finland. Electronic version: http://www.gtk.fi/publ/foregsatlas/index.php
  24. Shroeder WH, Munthe J (1998) Atmospheric mercury—an overview. Atmos Environ 32(5):809–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stein ED, Cohen Y, Winer AM (1996) Environmental distribution and transformation of mercury compounds. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 26:1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steinnes E. Mercury (1995) Heavy metals in soils. In: Alloway BJ (ed) 2nd edn. Blackie Academic and Professional, UKGoogle Scholar
  27. Tijhuis L, Brattli B, Sǽther O (2002) A geochemical survey of topsoil in the city of Oslo, Norway. Environ Geochem Health 24:67–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) (2002) Global mercury assessment. United Nations Environment Programme Chemicals, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  29. VROM (2000) Circular on target values and intervention values for soil remediation: DBO/1999226863, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment Directorates—General for environment protection, Department Of Soil Protection, Netherlands Government Gazette, No. 39Google Scholar
  30. Zagar D, Knap A, Warwick JJ, Rajar R, Horvat M, Cetina M (2006) Modelling of mercury transport and transformation processes in the Idrijca and Soca river system. Sci Total Environ 368:149–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Cachada
    • 1
  • S. M. Rodrigues
    • 1
  • C. Mieiro
    • 1
  • E. Ferreira da Silva
    • 2
  • E. Pereira
    • 1
  • A. C. Duarte
    • 1
  1. 1.CESAM and Department of ChemistryUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.ELMAS, Department of GeosciencesUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations