I am carrying out a research to assess the ecological risk associated with the speciation of trace and toxic metals in floodplain suspension. Bearing in mind that the reducible, oxidizable and residual fractions are only released to biota over a long period of time. Will the risk assessment based on the amount immediately available (exchangeable + carbonate) or based on total fractions (exchangeable +carbonate + reducible + oxidizable + residual)?
Thanks
I would like to see both, one for short term, the other long term effects. Like the classic question I was sometimes asked by the coroner, about a high arsenic level in a deceased victim? I would say you need to fractionate it for me, it may just be the organic arsenic in the lobster dinner, or if it is high inorganic, then it is acute poisoning. Thank you and good luck with your study.
Dear Lawrence,
The loosely bond containing (exchangeable + carbonate) fractions are prevalent fractions to assess ecological risk. However, there are some other techniques to assess metals risk assessment. Please see the below links:
1) Article Heavy metal pollution and human health risk assessment for e...
2) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1470160X15003076
3) Article A risk assessment index for bioavailability of metals in sed...
4) Article Metal pollution assessment and multivariate analysis in sedi...
5) Article Sorbed metals fractionation and risk assessment of release i...
6) Article Multivariate analysis and geochemical approach for assessmen...
Kind Regards
Ahmad
Many studies use sequential fractionation techniques most of which are discredited (in terms of their attribution to particular fraction), i.e. they are 'operationally defined' fractions.
What is in solution and the buffering kinetics and capacity are better targets in understanding biotic impacts.
Thank you @ Gary.
Do you suggest that I carry out both short and long term pollution assessment?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Biota