Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 17, pp 16652–16663 | Cite as

Soil surface Hg emission flux in coalfield in Wuda, Inner Mongolia, China

  • Chunhui Li
  • Handong Liang
  • Ming Liang
  • Yang Chen
  • Yi Zhou
Research Article

Abstract

Hg emission flux from various land covers, such as forests, wetlands, and urban areas, have been investigated. China has the largest area of coalfield in the world, but data of Hg flux of coalfields, especially, those with coal fires, are seriously limited. In this study, Hg fluxes of a coalfield were measured using the dynamic flux chamber (DFC) method, coupled with a Lumex multifunctional Hg analyzer RA-915+ (Lumex Ltd., Russia). The results show that the Hg flux in Wuda coalfield ranged from 4 to 318 ng m−2 h−1, and the average value for different areas varied, e.g., coal-fire area 99 and 177 ng m−2 h−1; no coal-fire area 19 and 32 ng m−2 h−1; and backfilling area 53 ng m−2 h−1. Hg continued to be emitted from an underground coal seam, even if there were no phenomena, such as vents, cracks, and smog, of coal fire on the soil surface. This phenomenon occurred in all area types, i.e., coal-fire area, no coal-fire area, and backfilling area, which is universal in Wuda coalfield. Considering that many coalfields in northern China are similar to Wuda coalfield, they may be large sources of atmospheric Hg. The correlations of Hg emission flux with influence factors, such as sunlight intensity, soil surface temperature, and atmospheric Hg content, were also investigated for Wuda coalfield.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Wuda Coalfire Hg emission flux Soil Hg Dust Hg 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Qingyi Cao, Xiuping Hong, and Zhe Wang, with College of Geoscience and Surveying Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology.

Funding

This study was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41371449).

References

  1. Carpi A, Lindberg SE (1998) Application of a teflon (TM) dynamic flux chamber for quantifying soil mercury flux: tests and results over background soil. Atmos Environ 32(5):873–882.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02827589950152836 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carras JN, Day SJ, Saghafi A, Williams DJ (2009) Greenhouse gas emissions from low-temperature oxidation and spontaneous combustion at open-cut coal mines in Australia. Int J Coal Geol 78:161–168.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2008.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. China National Environment Monitoring Centre (1990) Background values of soil elements concentration in China. China Environmental Science Press, Beijing (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  4. Choi HD, Holsen TM (2009) Gaseous mercury fluxes from the forest floor of the Adirondacks. Environ Pollut 157:592–600.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2008.08.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Converse AD, Riscassi AL, Scanlon TM (2010) Seasonal variability in gaseous mercury fluxes measured in a high-elevation meadow. Atmos Environ 44:2176–2185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.03.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. During A, Rinklebe J, Böhme F, Wennrich R, Stärk HJ, Mothes S, Du Laing G, Schulz E, Neue HU (2009) Mercury volatilization from three floodplain soils at the Central Elbe River, Germany. Soil Sediment Contam 18:429–444.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15320380902962395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eckley CS, Branfireun B (2008) Gaseous mercury emissions from urban surfaces: controls and spatiotemporal trends. Appl Geochem 23:369–383.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2007.12.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eckley Chris S, Blanchard P, Mclennan D, Mintz R, Sekela M (2015) Soil-Air mercury flux near a large industrial emission source before and after closure(Flin Flon, Manitoba, Canada). Environ Sci Technol 49:9750–9757.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-017-3311-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eckley CS, Gustin M, Lin CJ, Li X, Miller MB (2010) The influence of dynamic chamber design and operating parameters on calculated surface-to-air mercury fluxes. Atmos Environ 44(2): 194–203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv. 2009.10.013
  10. Eckley CS, Gustin M, Marsik F, Miller MB (2011) Measurement of surface mercury fluxes at active industrial gold mines in Nevada(USA). Sci Total Environ 409:514–522.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.10.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engle MA, Gustin MS, Zhang H (2001) Quantifying natural source mercury emissions from the Ivanhoe Mining District, north-central Nevada, USA. Atmos Environ 35(23):3987–3997.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00184-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engle MA, Gustin MS, Goff F, Counce DA, Janik CJ, Bergfeld D, Rytuba JJ (2006) Atmospheric mercury emissions from substrates and fumaroles associated with three hydrothermal systems in the western United States. J Geophys Res 111:D17304.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006563 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ericksen JA, Gustin MS, Xin M, Weisberg PJ, Femandez GCJ (2006) Air–soil exchange of mercury from background soils in the United States. Sci Total Environ 366:851–863.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.08.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fang FM, Wang QC, Li JF (2004) Urban environmental mercury in Changchun, a metropolitan city in Northeastern China: source, cycle, and fate. Sci Total Environ 330:159–170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feng XB, Qiu GL (2008) Mercury pollution in Guizhou, Southwestern China—an overview. Sci Total Environ 400:227–237.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.05.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feng XB, Wang SF, Qiu GL, Hou YM, Tang SL (2005) Total gaseous mercury emissions from soil in Guiyang, Guizhou, China. J Geophys Res 110:D14306.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005643 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fu XW, Feng XB, Zhu WZ, Wang SF, Lu J (2008) Total gaseous mercury concentrations in ambient air in the eastern slope of Mt. Gongga, South Eastern fringe of the Tibetan plateau, China. Atmos Environ 42: 970–979. 10.1016/Google Scholar
  18. Gabriel MC, Williamson DG, Zhang H, Brooks S, Lindberg S (2006) Diurnal and seasonal trends in total gaseous mercury flux from three urban ground surfaces. Atmos Environ 40:4269–4288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. García sánchez A, Contreras F, Adams M, Santos F (2006) Atmospheric mercury emissions from polluted gold mining areas (Venezuela). Environ Geochem Health 28:529–540.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-006-9049-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gillis AA, Miller DR (2000) Some local environmental effects on mercury emission and absorption at a soil surface. Sci Total Environ 260:191–200.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(00)00563-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guan HY, Vangandren JL, Tan YJ et al (1998) Environmental investigation and research in spontaneous combustion of coal field in Northern China. China coal industy publishing house, Beijing (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  22. Gustin MS, Rasmussen P, Edwards G, Schroeder W, Kemp J (1999) Application of a laboratory gas exchange chamber for assessment of in situ mercury emissions. J Geophys Res-Atmos 104(D17):21873–21878.  https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jiang WG, Wu JJ, Gu L, XC L, Li XX (2010) Change monitoring in Wuda coalfield fire area based on remote sensing. J China Coal Soc 35(6):964–968 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  24. Johnson DW, Benesch JA, Gustin MS, Schorran DS, Lindberg S, Coleman J (2003) Experimental evidence against duffusion control of Hg evasion from soils. Sci Total Environ 304:175–184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(02)00567-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim KH, Lindberg SE, Meyers TP (1995) Micrometeorological measurements of mercury vapor fluxes over background forest soils in eastern Tennessee. Atmos Environ 29(2):267–282.  https://doi.org/10.1016/1352-2310(94)00198-T CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim KH, Yoon HO, Jung MC, Oh JM, Brown RJC (2012) A simple approach for measuring emission patterns of vapor phase mercury under temperature-controlled condition from soil. The scientific world journal ID940413,8.  https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/940413
  27. Kuenzer C, Stracher GB (2012) Geomorphology of coal seam fires. Geomorphology 138:209–222.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuenzer C, Zhang J, Sun Y, Jia Y, Dech S (2012) Coal fires revisited: the Wuda coal field in the aftermath of extensive coal fire research and accelerating extinguishing activities. Int J Coal Geol 102:75–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2012.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kuiken T, Zhang H, Gustin M, Lindberg S (2008) Mercury emission from terrestrial background surfaces in the eastern USA. Part I: air/surface exchange of mercury within a southeast deciduous forest (Tennessee) over one year. Appl Geochem 23:345–355.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2007.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kyllönen K, Hakola H (2012) Atmospheric mercury fluxes in a southern boreal forest and wetland. Water Air Soil Pollut 223:1171–1182.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-011-0935-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li Y, Wang Wuyi, Yang Linsheng, Li H (2005) Environmental quality of soil polluted by mercury and lead in polymetallic deposit areas of western Hunan province. Environmental science 26(5): 187–191 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  32. Li F, Liang HD, Zhao XP, Chen Y, Wang Z (2016) Remote sensing monitoring research on coal fire in Wuda mine by ASTER images. Saf Coal Mines 47(11):15–18 in Chinese with English abstractGoogle Scholar
  33. Liang Y, Liang H, Zhu S (2014) Mercury emission from coal seam fire at Wuda, Inner Mongolia, China. Atmos Environ 83:176–184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liang Y, Liang H, Zhu S (2016) Mercury emission from spontaneously ignited coal gangue hill in Wuda coalfield, Inner Mongolia, China. Fuel 182:525–530.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.05.092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lin CJ, Gustin MS, Singhasuk P, Eckley C, Miller M (2010) Empirical models for estimating mercury flux from soils. Environ Sci Technol 44(22):8522–8528.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es1021735 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindberg SE, Zhang H, Gustin MS (1999) Increases in mercury emissions from desert soils in response to rainfall and irrigation. J Geophys Res 104:21879–21888.  https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindberg SE, Zhang H, Vette AE, Gustin MS, Barnett MO, Kuiken T (2002) Dynamic flux chamber measurement of gaseous mercury emission fluxes over soils: part 2-effect of flushing flow rate and verification of a two-resistance exchange interface simulation model. Atmos Environ 36:847–859.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00502-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liu F, Cheng H, Yang K, Zhao C, Liu Y, Peng M, Li H (2014) Characteristics and influencing factors of mercury exchang flux between soil and air in Guangzhou City. J Geochem Explor 139:115–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2013.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Malmqvist L, Isaksson M, Kristainsson K (1989) Radon migration through soil and bedrock. Geoexploration 26(4):135–144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7142(89)90058-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mazur M, Mitchell CPJ, Eckley CS, Eggert SL, Kolka RK, Sebestyen SD, Swain EB (2014) Gaseous mercury fluxes from forest soils in response to forest harvesting intensity: a field manipulation experiment. Sci Total Environ 496:678–687.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.06.058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mehmet Ozkaymak, Mehmet Ali Ceylan, Hasancan Okutan, Hüsnü Atakul, Engin Berrin, Tuba Coşkun, Özgür Inanç (2017) CO emission during the combustion of Orhaneli lignite coal. World J Eng 14(1):27–34.  https://doi.org/10.1108/WJE-11-2016-0126
  42. Moore C, Carpi A (2005) Mechanisms of the emission of mercury from soil: role of UV radiation. J Geophys Res 110:D24302.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005567 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moore CW, Castro MS (2012) Investigation of factors affecting gaseous mercury concentrations in soils. Sci Total Environ 419:136–143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.12.068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nacht DM, Gustin MS, Engle MA, Zehner RE, Giglini AD (2004) Atmospheric mercury emissions and speciation at the sulphur bank mercurymine superfund site, Northern California. Environ Sci Technol 38:1977–1983.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es0304244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Obrist D, Gustin MS, Arnone Ill JA, Johnson DW, Schorran DE, Verburg PSJ (2005) Measurements of gaseous elemental mercury fluxes over intact tallgrass prairie monoliths during one full year. Atmos Environ 39:957–965.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.09.081 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Poissant L, Casimir A (1998) Water-air and soil-air exchange rate of total gaseous mercury measured at background sites. Atmos Environ 32:883–893.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14767050500275911 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Poissant L, Pilote M, Constant P, Beauvais C, Zhang HH, Xu XH (2004) Mercury gas exchanges over selected bare soil and flooded sites in the bay St. Francois wetlands (Quebec, Canada). Atmos Environ 38:4205–4214.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.03.068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rinklebe J, During A, Overesch M, Wennrich R, Stark HJ, Mothes S, Neue HU (2009) Optimization of a simple field method to determine mercury volatilization from soils-examples of 13 sites in floodplain ecosystems at the Elbe River (Germany). Ecol Eng 35:319–328.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2008.04.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rinklebe J, During A, Overesch M, Du LG, Wennrich R, Stark HJ, Mothes S (2010) Dynamics of mercury fluxes and their controlling factors in large Hg polluted floodplain areas. Environ Pollut 158:308–318.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2009.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schlüter K (2000) Review: evaporation of mercury from soils. An integration and synthesis of current knowledge. Environ Geol 39:249–271.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002540050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schroeder WH, Munthe J (1998) Atmospheric mercury—an overview. Atmos Environ 32(5):809–822.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(97)00293-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schroeder WH, Beauchamp S, Edwards G, Poissant L, Rasmussen P, Tordon R, Dias G, Kemp J, BVan H, Banic CM (2005) Gaseous mercury emissions from natural sources in Canadian landscapes. J Geophys Res 110:D18302.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005699 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schuster E (1991) The behavior of mercury in the soil with special emphasis on complexation and adsorption processes—a review of the literature. Water Air Soil Pollut 56:667–680.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00342308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stamenkovic J, Gustin MS (2007) Evaluation of use of EcoCELL technology for quantifying total gaseous mercury fluxes over background substrates. Atmos Environ 41:3702–3712.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.12.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. UNEP (2013) Global mercury assessment 2013: sources, emissions, releases and environmental transport. United Nationals Environment Programme, Chemicals Branch, Geneve, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  56. Valente RJ, Shea C, Humes KL, Tanner RL (2007) Atmospheric mercury in the Great Smoky Mountains compared to regional and global levels. Atmos Environ 41:1861–1873.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.10.054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wallschläger D, Kock HH, Schroeder WH (2000) Mechanism and significance of mercury volatilization from contaminated floodplains of the German river Elbe. Atmos Environ 34(22):3745–3755.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00083-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wang SF, Feng XB, Gl Q, Xiao TF (2004) Mercury exchange between soil and air in Lanmuchang Hg mine, Guizhou Province. Geochimica 33(4):406–413 (in Chinese with English abstract) Google Scholar
  59. Wang SF, Feng XB, Qiu GL, Wei ZQ, Xiao TF (2005) Mercury emission to atmosphere from Lanmuchang Hg-Tl mining area, Southwestern Guizhou, China. Atmos Environ 39:7459–7473.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.06.062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wang DY, He L, Shi XJ, Wei SQ, Feng XB (2006a) Release flux of mercury from different environmental surfaces in Chongqing, China. Chemosphere 64: 1845–1854 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  61. Wang Shaofeng, Feng Xinbin, Qiu Guangle, Fu Xuewu (2006b) Mercury exchange fluxes between air-soil interface over different type of in Wanshan Hg mine area. Environ Sci 27(8): 1487–1494 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  62. Wang SF, Feng XB, Qiu GL, Fu XW, Wei ZQ (2007) Characteristics of mercury exchange flux between soil and air in the heavily air-polluted area, eastern Guizhou, China. Atmos Environ 41:5584–5594.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2007)133:11(1015) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang Zhangwei, Zhang Xiaohan , Xiao Jingsong, Ci Zhijia, Yu Pingzhong (2009) Mercury fluxes and pools in three subtropical forested catchments, southwest China. Environ Pollut 157: 801–808.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2008.11.018
  64. Wu JJ, Jiang WG, Liu XC et al (2009) Innovative technologies for exploration monitoring and extinction of underground coal fires. J China Coal Soc 34(12):1669–1674 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  65. Wuda Municipal Government, 2012. Wuda Climate. Wuda Municipal Government. www.wuda.gov.cn
  66. Xu X, Yang X, Miller DR, Helble JJ, Carley RJ (1999) Formulation of bi-directional atmosphere-surface exchanges of elemental mercury. Atmos Environ 33:4345–4355.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00245-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Xue S, B. Dickson Wu J (2008) Apllication of 222 Rn technique to locate suburface coal heatings in Australian coal mines. Int J Coal Geol 74(2): 139–144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2007.11.005
  68. Yang J, Wang N (2013) Assessment of potential ecological risk of heavy metals in soils from Jia-Pi-Gou mine area, China. J Agro-emvironment Sci 32(3):595–600 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  69. Young PS, MHolsen T, Rea KP, Young H (2014) Laboratory investigation of factors affecting mercury emissions from soils. Environ Earth Sci 72:2711–2721.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3177-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zhang H, Lindberg SE, Marsik FJ, Keeler GJ (2001) Mercury air/surface exchange kinetics of background soils of the Tahquamenon River watershed in the Michigan Upper Peninsula. Water Air Soil Pollut 126:151–169.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005227802306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhang H, Lindberg SE, Barnett MO, Vette AF, Gustin MS (2002) Dynamic flux chamber measurement of gaseous mercury emission fluxes over soils. Part 1: simulation of gaseous mercury emissions from soils using a two-resistance exchange interface model. Atmos Environ 36:835–846.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00501-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zhang JM, Guan HY, Cao DY et al (2008) Underground coal fires in China: origin, detection, fire-fighting, and prevention. Coal Industry Press, Beijing (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  73. Zhang CY, Guan YN, Guo S, Li JH, Wu JJ, Jia YR, Cai DL, Duan HW, Zhang X., Zhao TJ, An XD, Kang LH (2011) Land-cover change of the wuda coal fire area. In: Remote Sensing of the Environment: the 17th China Conference on Remote Sensing. Spie-Int Soc Optical Engineering, Bellingham.  https://doi.org/10.1117/12.910411
  74. Zhao YC, Zhang JY, Chou CL, Li Y, Wang ZH, Ge YT, Zheng CG (2008) Trace element emissions from spontaneous combustion of gob piles in coal mines, Shanxi, China. Int J Coal Geol 73:52–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2007.07.007

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chunhui Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • Handong Liang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ming Liang
    • 1
  • Yang Chen
    • 1
  • Yi Zhou
    • 1
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Coal Resoures and Safe MiningChina University of Mining and TechnologyBeijingChina
  2. 2.College of Geoscience and Surveying EngineeringChina University of Mining and Technology(Beijing)BeijingChina

Personalised recommendations