Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 11, pp 10867–10874 | Cite as

Identification of mercury species in minerals with different matrices and impurities by thermal desorption technique

  • David Melero
  • Belén Lobato
  • Maria Antonia López-AntónEmail author
  • Maria Rosa Martínez-Tarazona
Research Article
  • 48 Downloads

Abstract

Because of its low concentration, its unique physico-chemical properties and the analytical difficulties associated with its measurement, the determination of mercury species in solids is not an easy task. Thermal desorption (HgTPD) is an attractive option for the identification of mercury species in solids due to its simplicity and accessibility. However, there are still issues that need to be solved for it to reach its full potential. One such issue is the availability of reference materials that will reproduce real mercury associations. The novelty of this study is the use of six uncommon mercury minerals, taken from around the world, and a sphalerite sample to expand the data base of reference materials for mercury speciation by thermal desorption at programmed temperature. In addition, by using such materials, a number of matrix effects can be ascertained. Different mercury associations were identified depending on the temperature of desorption, thereby validating the thermal desorption as a reliable technique for mercury speciation in solid samples and as a consequence improving the knowledge of the geochemistry of mercury in the environment.

Keywords

Mercury Minerals Thermal desorption Speciation Geochemistry 

Notes

Funding information

The authors acknowledge the financial assistance received under project GRUPIN14-031 and thank the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness for awarding a “Ramón y Cajal” postdoctoral contract (RYC-2013-12596) to M.A. López-Antón.

References

  1. Angel RJ, Gressey G, Criddle A (1990) Edgarbaileyite, Hg6Si2O7: the crystal structure of the first mercury silicate. Am Mineral 75:1192–1196Google Scholar
  2. Biester H, Scholz C (1996) Determination of mercury binding forms in contaminated soils: mercury pyrolysis versus sequential extractions. Environ Sci Technol 31:233–239.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es960369h CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biester H, Müller G, Schöler HF (2002) Binding and mobility of mercury in soils contaminated by emissions from chlor-alkali plants. Sci Total Environ 284:191–203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(01)00885-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloom NS, Vondergeest V, Preus E (2002) Intercomparison of four methods for the determination of total mercury in recalcitrant solids. Annual meeting of SETAC Europe, 347–348, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloom NS, Preus E, Katon J, Hiltner M (2003) Selective extractions to assess the biogeochemically relevant fractionation of inorganic mercury in sediments and soils. Anal Chim Acta 479:233–248.  https://doi.org/10.1016/10.1016/S0003-2670(02)01550-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cotte M, Susini J, Metrich N, Moscato A, Gratziu C, Bertagnini A, Pagon M (2006) Blackening of Pompeian cinnabar paintings: x-ray microspectroscopy analysis. Anal Chem 78:7484–7492.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ac0612224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fadda S, Fiori M, Grillo SM (2005) Chemical variations in tetrahedrite - tennantite minerals from the Furtei epithermal Au deposit, Sardinia, Italy: mineral zoning and ore fluids evolution. Geochemistry, Mineralogy and Petrology Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 43:79–84Google Scholar
  8. Foord EE, Berendsen P, Storey LO (1974) Corderoite, first natural occurrence of Hg3S2Cl2, from the Cordero mercury deposit, Humboldt County, Nevada. Am Mineral 59:652–655Google Scholar
  9. Grammatikopoulos TA, Valeyev O, Roth T (2006) Compositional variation in hg-bearing sphalerite from the polymetallic Eskay Creek deposit, British Columbia, Canada. Chem Erde-Geochem 66:307–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemer.2005.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Han Y, Kingston HM, Boylan HM, Rahman GMM, Shah S, Richter RC, Link DD, Bhandari S (2003) Speciation of mercury in soil and sediment by selective solvent and acid extraction. Anal Bioanal Chem 375:428–436.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-002-1701-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hillebrand WF, Schaller WT (1907) The mercury minerals from Terlingua, Texas: kleinite, terlinguaite, eglestonite, montroydite, calomel, mercury. J Am Chem Soc 29:1180–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huggins FE, Yap N, Huffman GP, Senior CL (2003) XAFS characterization of mercury captured from combustion gases on sorbents at low temperatures. Fuel Process Technol 82:167–196.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3820(03)00068-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Issaro N, Abi-Ghanem C, Bermond A (2009) Frationation studies of mercury in soils and sediments: a review of the chemical reagents used for mercury extraction. Anal Chim Acta 631:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2008.10.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jiménez-Moreno M, Barre JPG, Perrot V, Bérail S, Rodríguez Martín-Doimeadios RC, Amouroux D (2016) Sources and fate of mercury pollution in almadén mining district (Spain): evidences from mercury isotopic compositions in sediments and lichens. Chemosphere 147:430–438.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.12.094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim CS, Bloom NS, Rytuba JJ, Brown GE (2003) Mercury speciation by x-ray absorption fine structure spectroscopy and sequential chemical extractions: a comparison of speciation methods. Environ Sci Technol 37:5102–5108.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es0341485 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim CS, Rytuba JJ, Brown GE (2004) EXAFS study of mercury (II) sorption to Fe- and Al-(hydr) oxides II Effects of chloride and sulfate. J Colloid Interface Sci 270:9–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2003.07.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kobal AB, Snoj Tratnik J, Mazej D, Fajon V, Gibičar D, Miklavčič A, Kocman D, Kotnik J, Sešek Briški A, Osredkar J, Krsnik M, Prezelj M, Knap Č, Križaj B, Liang L, Horvat M (2017) Exposure to mercury in susceptible population groups living in the former mercury mining town of Idrija, Slovenia. Environ Res 152:434–445.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.06.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kozin LF, Hansen SC, Zakharchenko NF, Gray J (2013) CHAPTER 12 environmental aspects of the industrial application of mercury, in: Mercury handbook: chemistry, applications and environmental impact. The Royal Society of Chemistry, pp. 209–227.  https://doi.org/10.1039/9781849735155-00209
  19. Lopez-Anton MA, Yuan Y, Perry R, Maroto-Valer MM (2010) Analysis of mercury species present during coal combustion by thermal desorption. Fuel 89:629–634.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2009.08.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Matanzas N, Sierra MJ, Afif E, Díaz TE, Gallego JR, Millán R (2017) Geochemical study of a mining-metallurgy site polluted with as and hg and the transfer of these contaminants to equisetum sp. J Geochem Explor 182:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2017.08.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ozerova NA (1996) Mercury in geological systems, in: Global and regional mercury cycles: sources, fluxes and mass balances. Edited by Willy Baeyens, Ralf Ebinghaus and Oleg Vasiliev. Published by Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 463–474. ISBN-13: 978-94-010-7295-3; D0I:  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1780-4; e-ISBN-13: 978-94-009-1780-4
  22. Rallo M, López-Antón MA, Contreras ML, Maroto-Valer MM (2012) Mercury policy and regulations for coal-fired power plants. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 19:1084–1096.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-011-0658-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Raposo C, Windmöller CC, Junior WAD (2003) Mercury speciation in fluorescent lamps by thermal release analysis. Waste Manag 23:879–886.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-053X(03)00089-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reis AT, Coelho JP, Rodrigues SM, Rocha R, Davidson CM, Duarte AC, Pereira E (2012) Development and validation of a simple thermo-desorption technique for mercury speciation in soils and sediments. Talanta 99:363–638.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2012.05.065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rumayor M, Díaz-Somoano M, López-Antón MA, Martínez-Tarazona MR (2013) Mercury compounds characterization by thermal desorption. Talanta 114:318–322.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2013.05.059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rumayor M, Lopez-Anton MA, Díaz-Somoano M, Martínez-Tarazona MR (2015a) A new approach to mercury speciation in solids using a thermal desorption technique. Fuel 160:525–530.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.08.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rumayor M, López-Antón MA, Díaz-Somoano M, Martínez-Tarazona MR (2015b) Device for identification of mercury species in solids. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC). Patent ES1641.1031 Application number: P201530310Google Scholar
  28. Rumayor M, López-Antón MA, Díaz-Somoano M, Maroto-Valer MM, Richard J-H, Biester H, Martínez-Tarazona MR (2016) A comparison of devices using thermal desorption for mercury speciation in solids. Talanta 150:272–277.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2015.12.058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Staun C, Vaughan J, Lopez-Anton MA, Rumayor M, Martínez-Tarazona MR (2018) Geochemical speciation of mercury in bauxite. Appl Geochem 93:30–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2018.03.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yin R, Zhang W, Sun G, Feng Z, Hurley JP, Yang L, Shang L, Feng X (2017) Mercury risk in poultry in the Wanshan mercury mine, China. Environ Pollut 230:810–816.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto Nacional del Carbón (CSIC)OviedoSpain

Personalised recommendations