Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Review of Technologies for Characterization of Heavy Metal Contaminants

  • State of the Art/Practice Paper
  • Published:
Indian Geotechnical Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Heavy metals from both natural and anthropogenic sources present a significant risk to human and environmental health. A number of methods have been developed for the detection and quantification of heavy metals. These methods include laboratory analysis, onsite testing of samples, and in situ techniques. This paper will review current and emerging technologies for site characterization with a specific focus on in situ detection of heavy metal contamination in geoenvironmental remediation projects. In addition, on-going research performed for the development of an in situ voltammetric sensor system will be presented. A number of devices exist for the efficient sampling of contaminated groundwater including the Hydropunch, BAT system, and Cone Sipper. Samples may either be sent to a laboratory for analysis with techniques such as atomic absorption spectroscopy, inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry, atomic emission spectroscopy, and X-ray fluorescence, or analyzed onsite using methods such as colorimetry, voltammetry, or biological based chemical sensors. For in situ analysis of heavy metals in soil, X-ray fluorescence and laser induced breakdown spectroscopy technologies have been integrated with the cone penetrometer probe. This paper further explores the feasibility of integrating electrochemical techniques based on voltammetry for the in situ detection of aqueous metal ions. The development of bismuth, gold nanoparticle, and polymer modified electrodes allow for the detection of heavy metal contaminants, including lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic, at low part per billion levels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ESTCP Cost and Performance Report (2003) Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System (SCAPS) Heavy Metal Sensors. U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC

  2. Tchounwou PB et al (2012) Heavy metals toxicity and the environment. EXS 101:133–164

    Google Scholar 

  3. McCarthy KM et al (2011) Arsenic geochemistry and human health in South East Asia. Rev Environ Health 26:71–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rakhunde R et al (2012) Health effects and significance of arsenic speciation in water. Int J Environ Sci Res 1:92–96

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ahmed FE (1991) Occurrence of chemical contaminants in seafood and variability of contaminant levels. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boszke L et al (2002) Some aspects of speciation of mercury in a water environment. Pol J Environ Stud 11:285–298

    Google Scholar 

  7. John D, Leventhal JS (1995) Bioavailability of metal. United States Geological Survey, Reston, VA

    Google Scholar 

  8. World Health Organization (2010) Action is needed on chemicals of major public health concern. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  9. Aldstadt JH, Martin AF (1997) Analytical chemistry and the cone penetrometer: in situ chemical characterization of the subsurface. Mikrochim Acta 127:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Benson CH (1999) Environmental geotechnics in the New Millenium. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth Regional Conference for Africa on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Eng., Durban, South Africa. pp 9–27

  11. Edge RW, Cordry K (1989) The hyrdopunch™: an in situ sampling tool for collecting ground water from unconsolidated sediments. Groundw Monit Remediat 9(3):177–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Torstensson BA (1984) A new system ground water monitoring. Groundw Monit Remediat 4(4):131–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zemo DA, Delfino TA et al (1995) Field comparison of analytical results from discrete-depth groundwater samplers: BAT enviroprobe and QED hydropunch. Groundw Monit Remediat 15(1):133–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Solid Waste and Emergency reponse (5204G) (2005) Groundwater sampling and monitoring with direct push technologies. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kurup PU (2009) Novel technologies for sniffing soil and ground water contaminants. Curr Sci 97(8):1212–1219

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jignesh S et al (2012) Analytical methods for estimation of metals. Int J Res Pharm Chem 2:146–163

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sad N (2008) AS techniques for the analysis of environmental samples. PerkinElmer, Waltham, MA

    Google Scholar 

  18. Voica C et al (2011) ICP-MS determination of heavy metals in surface waters from Transylvania. Rom J Phys 57:1184–1193

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kodomn K et al (2012) X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis of solid heavy metal pollution from an industrial area in Kumasi, Ghana. Soil Sedim Contam 21:1006–1021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Aragay G, Pons J, Merkoci A (2011) Recent trends in macro-, micro-, and nanomaterial-based tools and strategies for heavy-metal detection. Chem Rev 111:3433–3458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ruiz NL, Ariza M et al (2011) Handheld colorimeter for determination of heavy metal concentrations. J Phys Conf Ser 307:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. ASTM D1687–12 (2007) Standard test methods for chromium in water. ASTM Standards, ASTM International, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  23. ASTM D2972–15 (2015) Standard test methods for arsenic in water. ASTM Standards, ASTM International, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sarker DC, Sathasivan AT, Rittmann BE (2015) Modelling combined effect of chloramine and copper on ammoniaoxidizing microbial activity using a biostability approach. Water Res 84:190–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Klein R, Clifford H (1977) Standard addition uses and limitations in spectrophotometric analysis. In: Proceedings of the 8th IMR Symposium, National Bureau of Standards Special Publication, pp 61–66

  26. Biney C, Amuzu AT et al (1994) Review of heavy metals in the African aquatic environment. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 28:134–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kounaves SP, Feeney R (2000) On-site analysis of arsenic in groundwater using a microfabricated gold ultramicroelectrode array. Anal Chem 72:2222–2228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. ASTM D3557–12 (2012) Standard test methods for cadmium in water. ASTM Standards, ASTM International, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  29. Herdan J, Feeney R et al (1998) Field evaluation of an electrochemical probe for in situ screening of heavy metals in groundwater. Environ Sci Technol 32:131–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. ASTM D3559–15 (2015) Standard test methods for lead in water. ASTM Standards, ASTM International, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  31. Williams G, D’Silva C et al (1994) Field-based heavy metal analyser for the simultaneous determination of multiple cations on-site. Proc Int Symp Electroanal 119:2337–2341

    Google Scholar 

  32. Li J, Lu Y (2000) A highly sensitive and selective catalytic DNA biosensor for lead ions. J Am Chem Soc 122:10466–10467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Juewen L, Lu Y (2003) A colorimetric lead biosensor using DNAzyme-directed assembly of gold nanoparticles. J Am Chem Soc 125:6642–6643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Juewen L, Lu Y (2003) Improving fluorescent DNAzyme biosensors by combining inter- and intramolecular quenchers. Anal Chem 75(23):6666–6672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Chang IH, Tulock JJ et al (2005) Miniaturized lead sensor based on lead-specific DNAzyme in a nanocapillary interconnected microfluidic device. Environ Sci Technol 29(10):3756–3761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Juewen L, Lu Y (2007) Colorimetric Cu2+ detection with a ligation DNAzyme and nanoparticles. Chem Commun 46:4872–4874

    Google Scholar 

  37. Liu G, Lin Y et al (2005) Ultrasensitive voltammetric detection of trace heavy metal ions using carbon nanotube nanoelectrode array. Analyst 130:1098–1101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Long F, Zhu A et al (2013) Rapid on-site/in situ detection of heavy metal ions in environmental water using a structure-switching DNA optical biosensor. Sci Rep 3:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kubari P, Nguyen HT et al (2007) New fully portable instrument for the versatile determination of cations and anions by capillary electrophoresis with contactless conductivity detection. Electroanlysis 19(19–20):2059–2065

    Google Scholar 

  40. Elam WT, Whitlock RR, Gilfrich JV (1994) Use of X-ray fluorescence for in situ detection of metals. Opt Sens Environ Chem Process Monit 2367:59–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. ESTCP Cost and Performance Report (2003) Site characterization and analysis penetrometer system (SCAPS) heavy metal sensors. Department of Defense, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  42. Capitelli F, Colao F et al (2002) Determination of heavy metals in soils by laser induced breakdown spectroscopy. Geoderma 106:45–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hilbk-Kortenbruck F, Noll R et al (2001) Analysis of heavy metals in soils using laser-induced breakdown spectrometry combined with laser-induced fluorescence. Spectrochim Acta 56:933–945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Miles B, Cortes J et al (1998) Subsurface heavy-metal detection with the use of a laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) penetrometer system. Field Anal Chem Technol 2(2):75–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Theriault GA, Lieberman SH (1995) Remote insitu detection of heavy metal contamination in soils using a Fiber Optic Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (FOLIBS) System. In: Proceedings of Environmental Monitoring and Hazardous Waste Site Remediation. vol 2504, pp 75–83

  46. Theriault GA, Bodensteiner S et al (1998) A real-time fiber-optic LIBS probe for the in situ delineation of metals in soils. Field Anal Chem Technol 2(2):117–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Campos I, Alcañiz M et al (2012) A voltammetric electronic tongue as tool for water quality monitoring in wastewater treatment plants. Water Res 46(8):2605–2614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Vera L, Aceña L et al (2010) Application of an electronic tongue based on FT-MIR to emulate the gustative mouth feel tannin amount in red wines. Anal Bioanal Chem 397(7):3043–3049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Winquist F, Olsson J, Eriksson M (2011) Multicomponent analysis of drinking water by a voltammetric electronic tongue. Anal Chim Acta 683(2):192–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Wang J, Lu J et al (2000) Bismuth-coated carbon electrodes for anodic stripping voltammetry. Anal Chem 72(14):3218–3222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kefala G, Economou A et al (2003) A study of bismuth-film electrodes for the detection of trace metals by anodic stripping voltammetry and their application to the determination of Pb and Zn in tapwater and human hair. Talanta 61:603–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wang J (2005) Stripping analysis at Bismuth electrodes: a review. Electroanalysis 17(15–16):1341–1346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Krolicka A, Rasa P et al (2002) Bismuth-film-plated carbon paste electrodes. Electrochem Commun 4:193–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Zaib M et al (2015) Electrochemical determination of inorganic mercury and arsenic: a review. Biosens Bioelectron 74:895–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Khairy M et al (2010) Gold nanoparticle modified screen printed electrodes for the trace sensing of Arsenic(III) in the presence of Copper(II). Electroanalysis 22:2496–2501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. MacDiarmid AG (2001) Synthetic metals: a novel role for organic polymers (Nobel lecture). Angew Chem Int Ed 40(14):2581–2590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Shirakawa H, Louis EJ et al (1977) Synthesis of electrically conducting organic polymers: halogen derivatives of polyacetylene,(CH) x. J Chem Soc 16:578–580

    Google Scholar 

  58. Silva TAR, Ferreira LF et al (2008) Poly(4-hydroxyphenylacetic acid): a new material for immobilization of biomolecules. Polym Eng Sci 48(10):1963–1970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Quinlan JR (1986) Induction of decision trees. Mach Learn 1:81–106

    Google Scholar 

  60. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  61. Turkevich J et al (1951) A study of the nucleation and growth processes in the synthesis of colloidal gold. Discuss Faraday Soc 11:55–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Frans G (1973) Controlled nucleation for the regulation of the particle size in monodisperse gold suspensions. Nat Phys Sci 241:20–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Cinti S et al (2014) Stripping analysis of As(III) by means of screen-printed electrodes modified with gold nanoparticles and carbon black nanocomposite. Electroanalysis 26:931–939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Stanić AR et al (2009) The use of l-ascorbic acid in speciation of arsenic compounds in drinking water. Acta Periodica Technol 40:165–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate the financial support of the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. IIP 1543042, IIP 1464153, and CMMI 1031505. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, 01854, USA

    Pradeep Kurup, Connor Sullivan, Hesameddin Azimi, Seth Robertson & Gary Howe

  2. Department of Chemistry, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, 01854, USA

    Ryan Hannagan & David Ryan

  3. Department of Plastics Engineering, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, 01854, USA

    Shiran Yu, Ramaswamy Nagarajan & Timothy Ponrathnam

Authors
  1. Pradeep Kurup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Connor Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ryan Hannagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shiran Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hesameddin Azimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Seth Robertson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ramaswamy Nagarajan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Timothy Ponrathnam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Gary Howe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pradeep Kurup.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kurup, P., Sullivan, C., Hannagan, R. et al. A Review of Technologies for Characterization of Heavy Metal Contaminants. Indian Geotech J 47, 421–436 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-016-0214-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-016-0214-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation