A comparison of sequential extraction procedures for fractionation of arsenic, cadmium, lead, and zinc in soil

23Citations
Citations of this article
40Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Twelve soil samples differing in physicochemical properties and total element contents were extracted by three sequential extraction procedures to determine As, Cd, Pb, and Zn bound to individual soil fractions and are defined by individual operational procedures. In the case of arsenic, two additional sequential extraction schemes were designed entirely for fractionation of soil containing arsenic were tested. The results confirmed that determination of element proportions bound to individual soil fractions is strongly dependent on the extracting agent and/or procedure applied within individual extracting schemes. As expected, absolute values of the elements released among the individual extracting procedures are weakly comparable. More reliable results were determined for the more mobile soil elements i.e. cadmium and zinc, in the fractions characterizing the most mobile proportions of investigated elements where significant correlations with basic soil characteristics were observed. In contrast, ambiguous results were observed for As and Pb, for both the individual extraction procedures and the effect of the soil characteristics. Regardless of the studied element, the poorest results were determined for reducible and oxidizable soil fractions. The application of at least two independent procedures or modification of the extraction scheme according to element investigated and/or particular soil characteristics can also be helpful in definition of element pattern in soils in further research. © Central European Science Journals. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tlustoš, P., Száková, J., Stárková, A., & Pavlíková, D. (2005). A comparison of sequential extraction procedures for fractionation of arsenic, cadmium, lead, and zinc in soil. Central European Journal of Chemistry, 3(4), 830–851. https://doi.org/10.2478/BF02475207

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free