Shooting range contamination: mobility and transport of lead (Pb), copper (Cu) and antimony (Sb) in contaminated peatland
Small arm shooting ranges located in peatland areas are gathering increased attention due to severe metal and antimony (Sb) contamination and challenging conditions for remediation. The goal of the present study was to gain further understanding of the distribution, binding and transport of lead (Pb), copper (Cu) and Sb in peatland contaminated by small arm shooting range activities.
Materials and methods
A field experiment was carried out at a recently closed shooting range facility in Norway, including (i) peat soil sampling for various selective extractions (water, chemical extractions, extractions by diffusive gradients in thin films, DGT), (ii) establishing groundwater wells for groundwater sampling and monitoring of groundwater level and (iii) sampling of water and sediments in surface water. The results from groundwater monitoring were used to carry out hydrogeological numerical simulations using Seep/W and CTran/W. These models were used to evaluate the residence time of the contaminants in the peatland.
Results and discussion
Increased metal concentrations were observed in the top layer of the peatland, indicating low vertical transport. Groundwater revealed high concentrations of Pb (22 ± 5 μg/L), Cu (16 ± 6 μg/L) and Sb (11 ± 2 μg/L), the dominating contaminant source to the downstream surface water. Hydrogeological modelling indicated that transport mainly happened in the upper peat layer, as a result of a higher hydraulic conductivity close to the surface and a high groundwater table. Pb (6.9 ± 0.1 μg/L), Cu (24.0 ± 0.0 μg/L) and Sb (7.4 ± 0.1 μg/L) concentrations in the stream samples confirmed the spreading of contaminants at levels toxic to aquatic organisms. Pb and Cu were most likely associated with dissolved organic carbon (DOC), whereas Sb showed no correlation with DOC.
The elements contaminating the peatland may leak to the nearby water course over a long-term period. Copper showed the highest concentration in the stream water despite considerably higher levels of Pb in the peat soil. Strong complexation of Cu to dissolved organic matter might explain this observation. Only a little fraction of the contaminants is transported in a particulate form, and therefore are increased sedimentation measures not considered as viable remediation option.
KeywordsAntimony Copper Lead Mobility Peatland Shooting range soil
Financial support was provided by the Norwegian Defence Estate Agency and NGI. The authors thank Karl Andreas Jensen, Irene Eriksen Dahl and Solfid Lohne for all the valuable help with the laboratory work at NMBU. Jan Birger Voldmo is thanked for all field assistance in connection with field work at Terningmoen. We would also like to thank Professor Jan Mulder at the University of Life Sciences in Ås and Professor Rolf David Vogt at the University of Oslo for fruitful and insightful discussions.
- Bartles JM, Bigham JM (1996) Methods of soil analysis part 3. Chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America, Inc., WisconsinGoogle Scholar
- Bolstad M (2015) Kunnskapsstatus og kunnskapsbehov knytt til grunnforureining ved skytebaner. Utgreiing om problemomfang og kunnskapsgrunnlag (in Norwegian). Forsvarsbygg Futura rapport 2013/508, OsloGoogle Scholar
- DGT Research (2017): DGT—for measurements in water, soils and sediments, www.dgtresearch.com
- Egner H, Riehm H, Domingo WR (1960) Untersuchungen über die chemische Boden-Analyse als Grundlage für die Beurteilung des Nährstoffzustandes der Boden. Annals of the Royal Swedish Agricultural College 26:199–215Google Scholar
- Gustafsson JP (2012) Visual MINTEQ ver. 3.0. KTH, StockholmGoogle Scholar
- Heier LS, Lien IB, Stromseng AE, Ljones M, Rosseland BO, Tollefsen KE, Salbu B (2009) Speciation of lead, copper, zinc and antimony in water draining a shooting range-time dependant metal accumulation and biomarker responses in brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) Sci Total Environ 407:4047–4055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Heikkilä R, Lindholm T, Tahvanainen T (2006) Mires of Finland—daughters of the Baltic Sea, The Finnish EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
- Ingram HAP (1983) Hydrology. In: Gore AJP (ed) Ecosystems of the world 4A mires: swamp, bog, fen and moor. Elsevier, Amstemdam, pp 67–158Google Scholar
- Johnson CA, Moench H, Wersin P, Kugler P, Wenger C (2005) Solubility of antimony and other elements in samples taken from shooting ranges. J Environ Qual 34:248–254Google Scholar
- Kellner E (2003) Wetlands-different types, their properties and functions. SKB TR-04-08, Svensk Kärnbränslehantering ABGoogle Scholar
- Klima og miljødepartementet (2004) Forskrift om begrensning av forurensning (Pollution Regulation), FOR 2004-06-01 nr 931. Ministry of Climate and Environment, OsloGoogle Scholar
- Miljødirektoratet (2016) Grenseverdier for klassifisering av vann, sediment og biota (in Norwegian). Report M-608/2016. Norwegian Environment Agency, OsloGoogle Scholar
- Mohr CW, Vogt RD, Royset O, Andersen T, Parekh NA (2015) An in-depth assessment into simultaneous monitoring of dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) and low-molecular-weight organic phosphorus (LMWOP) in aquatic environments using diffusive gradients in thin films (DGT). Environ Sci-Process Impacts 17:711–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Njåstad O, Steinnes E, Bølviken B, Økdegård M (1994) Landsomfattende kartlegging av elementsammensetning i naturlig jord: Resultater fra prøver innsamlet i 1977 og 1985 oppnådd ved ICP emisjonsspektrometri. Norges Geologiske Undersøkelse rapport nr. 94.027 (in Norwegian)Google Scholar
- Okkenhaug G, Amstatter K, Bue HL, Cornelissen G, Breedveld GD, Henriksen T, Mulder J (2013) Antimony (Sb) contaminated shooting range soil: Sb mobility and immobilization by soil amendments. Environ Sci Technol 47:6431–6439Google Scholar
- Okkenhaug G, Gebhardt KAG, Amstaetter K, Bue HL, Herzel H, Mariussen E, Almas AR, Cornelissen G, Breedveld GD, Rasmussen G, Mulder J (2016) Antimony (Sb) and lead (Pb) in contaminated shooting range soils: Sb and Pb mobility and immobilization by iron based sorbents, a field study. J Hazard Mater 307:336–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ottesen RT, Alexander J, Joranger T, Anderson M (2007) Proposed soil guidelines. NGU report 2007-019. Norges Geologiske Undersøkelser, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
- Päivänen J (1973) Hydraulic conductivity and water retention in peat soils. Acta For Fenn 129:1–70Google Scholar
- van Reeuwijk LP (1995) Procedures for soil analysis. 5th edition. Chap. 12–2. Acid oxalate extraction. Technical paper 9. International Soil Reference and Information Centre, FAO, WageningenGoogle Scholar
- Strømseng AE, Ljønes M, Mariussen E (2014) Implementation of various initiatives at former shooting ranges established in peatlands polluted by heavy metals. Report: 2014/00604. Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, KjellerGoogle Scholar
- Xifra Olivé I (2006) Mobility of lead and antimony in shooting range soils. Doctoral thesis. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ZurichGoogle Scholar