سطح خطر زیست محیطی آرسنیک در پسماندهای معدن سرب-روی

نوع مقاله : مقاله کامل علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه بوعلی سینا

2 گروه علوم خاک، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه زنجان، زنجان، ایران.

چکیده

سابقه و هدف: پسماندهای معدن سرب-روی استان زنجان حاوی غلظت بالایی از فلزات سمی مخصوصاً آرسنیک هستند که می-توانند به‌راحتی به خاک‌های اطراف و مسیرآب‌های زیر‌زمینی آزاد شوند. این پسماندها در اثر ارتباط با آب ایجاد شیرابه می‌کنند که برای محیط‌زیست، توده جانوری و انسان‌ها بسیار خطرناک است. اما متأسفانه فرایندهای ژئوشیمیایی و کانی‌شناسی که رهاسازی آرسنیک از پسماندها را کنترل می‌کند به خوبی مطالعه نشده است. بنابراین هدف این پژوهش ارزیابی ویژگی‌های آبشویی آرسنیک تحت شرایط مختلف زیست‌محیطی است تا پارامترها و فاکتورهای کنترل کننده غلظت آن در شیرابه مشخص گردد.
مواد و روش: فرایندهای متفاوت آبشویی آرسنیک از پسماندهای معدن سرب-روی در سناریوهای مختلف زیست‌محیطی مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفت. به منظور تعیین مقدار آبشویی آرسنیک درشرایط مختلف 4 پروتکل آبشویی شامل روش ویژه سمیت (TCLP) روش آبشویی بارندگی مصنوعی (SPLP)، روش آبشویی مزرعه (FLT) و روش عصاره‌گیری شیرابه (LEP) اجرا شد. همچنین جهت بررسی تأثیر عامل‌های مختلف مانند pH، زمان تماس، نسبت آب به خاک و اندازه ذرات بر مقدار آبشویی آرسنیک از پسماندهای معدن سرب-روی آزمایش‌های آبشویی بسته مورد اجرا قرار گرفت. روش جزءبندی شیمیایی نیز به منظور بررسی نحوه توزیع آرسنیک در بین اجزاء مختلف پسماند انجام شد. کد ارزیابی خطر (RAC) بر اساس روش جزءبندی شیمیایی برای بررسی سطح تحرک آرسنیک در پسماندها تعیین شد.
یافته‌ها: نتایج نشان داد که در هر دو نمونه بیشترین مقدار آرسنیک در جزء باقیمانده بود و بدین ترتیب آرسنیک در این پسماندها تحت شرایط زیست محیطی پایدار قرار داشت. طبق شاخص RAC پسماندها از نظر آرسنیک در گروه بقایای کم خطر قرار گرفتند. در عصاره‌های به دست آمده از آزمایش‌های TCLP، LEP، FLT و LEP غلظت آرسنیک کمتر از حدود مجاز آرسنیک در شیرابه حاصل از مواد زاید بود. بیشترین غلظت آرسنیک آبشویی شده در آزمایش LEP و نمونهS1 مشاهده شد. طبق روش SPLP پسماندهای معدن سرب-روی پتانسیل بالایی برای ایجاد آلودگی در آب‌های سطحی و زیر‌زمینی داشتند. تحرک آرسنیک در پسماندها کاملاً متأثر از pH، زمان تماس، اندازه ذرات و نسبت آب به خاک بود. آبشویی آرسنیک در شرایط فوق اسیدی و قلیایی نسبت به حالت‌های دیگر بسیار بیشتر بود. در حقیقت رفتار آبشویی وابسته به پی‌اچ آرسنیک از پسماندها حالت آمفوتریک داشت. در نمونه S1 بیشترین مقدار آبشویی آرسنیک در ذراتی با اندازه 500-600 میکرومتر بود درحالیکه در نمونه S2 بیشترین مقدار رهاسازی آرسنیک مربوط به ذراتی در اندازه 250-150 میکرومتر بود.
نتیجه‌گیری: با توجه به نتایج پروتکل‌های آبشویی، جزء‌بندی آرسنیک و فاکتورهای مؤثر بر غلظت آرسنیک در شیرابه؛ کاهش دادن حجم آب منفذی و زمان تماس آب با پسماندها، کنترل pH و جلوگیری از پخش ذرات پسماند در محیط زیست، مهمترین فاکتورهای مؤثر در پیشگیری و مدیریت انتشار آلودگی به منابع زیست محیطی هستند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Environmental risk assessment of arsenic in Zn-Pb mine tailings

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ahmad Akhavan 1
  • Ahmad Golchin 2
1 BBu-Ali Sina University
2 Department of soil science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Background and objectives: Zn-Pb mine tailings of Zanjan (province of Iran) contain high concentrations of toxic metals, especially arsenic that can potentially release into the surrounding soils and water pathways. These tailings create leachate due to their connection with water, which is very dangerous to the environment and to the masses of animals and human beings. Unfortunately the geochemical and mineralogical processes that control arsenic release from tailings are not fully studded. Therefore this research aimed to assess the leaching characteristics of arsenic under different environmental conditions to recognize the parameters and factors controlling its concentration in the leachate.

Materials and methods: Leaching of arsenic from Zn-Pb mine tailing was investigated in various environmental scenarios. In order to determine the amount of leached arsenic in different conditions, four leaching protocols, including toxicity leaching procedure test (TCLP), synthetic precipitation leaching procedure test (SPLP), field leach test (FLT) and leachate extraction procedure (LEP) were used. Also, to study the effect of various factors such as pH, contact time, particle size and solid to liquid ratio on leaching of arsenic from Zn-Pb mine tailings batch leaching experiments were carried out. Risk assessment code (RAC) based on fractionation method was also applied to evaluate the environmental risk of arsenic mobility.
Results: The results indicated that in both samples of tailings ,the highest amount of arsenic was measured in the residual fraction that is relatively stable under natural environmental situations. According to RAC index, the tailings in term of arsenic placed in the low-risk tailings group. In TCLP, LEP, FLT and LEP test the concentrations of leached arsenic were low and the highest leaching concentration of arsenic occurred in the LEP test and sample S1. According to SPLP analysis, Zn-Pb tailings will have a high potential for contamination of surface and underground water. The mobility of arsenic in the tailings was entirely influenced by pH, contact time, particle size and solid to liquid ratio. The leaching of arsenic enhanced in acidic and alkaline condition and the amount of arsenic leached in acidic condition was much higher than that leached in alkaline condition. In fact, pH-dependent leaching behavior of arsenic from Zn-Pb mine tailing was amphoteric. Actually pH-dependent leaching behavior of arsenic from Zn-Pb mine tailings was amphoteric. In sample S1, the highest amount of arsenic was released from particles with the size of 500-600 µm, while in the sample S2 particles with the size of 150-250µm released the highest amount of arsenic.
Conclusion: By considering the results of leaching protocols, and arsenic fractionation and also with regards to factors affecting the concentration of arsenic in leaching water, reducing the pore water and contact time, and controlling the pH and preventing the spreading of tailings in the environment are the most important factors in preventing and managing the spread of pollution in the environment.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Tailing
  • Pollution
  • Release
  • Arsenic

مراجع

1.Alforque, M. 1996. Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure. US EPA (360).8 . 2. 871: 874.
2.Aslibekian, O., and Moles, R. 2003. Environmental risk assessment of metals contaminated soils at silvermines abandoned mine site, Co Tipperary, Ireland. Environ. Geochem. Health.25: 2. 247-266.
3.Banerjee, K., Amy, G.L., Prevost, M., Nour, S., Jekel, M., and Gallagher, PM. 2008. Kinetic and thermodynamic aspects of adsorption of arsenic onto granular ferric hydroxide (GFH). Water Res.
42: 13. 3371-3378.
4.Bastami, K.D., Neyestani, M.R., Esmaeilzadeh, M., Haghparast, S., Alavi, C., and Fathi, S. 2017. Geochemical speciation, bioavailability and source identification of selected metals in surface sediments of the Southern Caspian Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 114: 2. 1014-1023.
5.Bestgen, J.O., Cetin, B., and Tanyu, B.F. 2016. Effects of extraction methods and factors on leaching of metals from recycled concrete aggregates. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Jul. 1: 23. 13. 12983-3002.
6.Boonsrang, A., Chotpantarat, S., and Sutthirat, C. 2018. Factors controllingthe release of metals and a metalloidfrom the tailings of a gold mine in Thailand. Geochem-Explor. Environ. A. 18. 2. 109-119.
7.Cao, C., Zhang, Q., Ma, Z.B., Wang,X.M., Chen, H., and Wang, J.J. 2018. Fractionation and mobility risks ofheavy metals and metalloids in wastewater-irrigated agricultural soils from greenhouses and fields in Gansu, China. Geoderma. 328: 1-9.
8.Dong, H., Lin, Z., Wan, X., and Feng, L. 2017. Risk assessment for the mercury polluted site near a pesticide plant in Changsha, Hunan, China. Chemosphere. 169: 333-341.
9.El-Kamash, A., Zaki, A., and El Geleel, MA. 2005. Modeling batch kinetics and thermodynamics of zinc and cadmium ions removal from waste solutions using synthetic zeolite A. J. Hazard. Mater.
127: 1-3. 211-220.
10.US EPA Method 1311: Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure and Characteristic Wastes Retrieved from (1992) https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/1311. pdf
11.Fendorf, S., Nico, P.S., Kocar, B.D., Masue, Y., and Tufano, K.J. 2010. Arsenic chemistry in soils and sediments.  In developments in soil science. (34: 357-378). Elsevier.
12.Goetz, D., and Glaseker, W.1991. Effect of particle size distribution on leaching properties of building materials. Studies in Environmental Science. 48: Elsevier; 283-292.
13.Hageman, P.L. 2007. US Geological Survey field leach test for assessing water reactivity and leaching potential of mine wastes, soils, and other geologic and environmental materials. English
5-D3.
14.Hageman, P.L., and Briggs, P.H.2000. A simple field leach test forrapid screening and qualitative characterization of mine waste dump material on abandoned mine lands. US Dept. of the Interior, US Geological Survey; Report No: 2000-15.
15.Huang, G., Chen, Z., Zhang, Y., Liu, F., Wang, J., and Hou, Q. 2016. Changes of arsenic fractionation and bioaccessibility in wastewater-irrigated soils as a function of aging: Influence of redox condition and arsenic load. Geoderma. 280: 1-7.
16.Jang, M., Hwang, J.S., Choi, S.I., and Park, J.K. 2005. Remediation of arsenic-contaminated soils and washing effluents. Chemosphere. 60: 3. 344-354.
17.Jelenová, H., Majzlan, J., Amoako, F.Y., and Drahota, P. 2018. Geochemical and mineralogical characterization of the arsenic-, iron-, and sulfur-rich mining waste dumps near Kaňk, Czech Republic. J. Appl. Geochem. 97: 247-255.
18.Khan, U.A., Kujala, K., Nieminen, S.P., Räisänen, M.L., and Ronkanen, A.K. 2019. Arsenic, antimony, and nickel leaching from northern peatlands treating mining influenced water in cold climate. Sci. Total Environ. 657: 1161-1172.
19.Khoeurn, K., Sakaguchi, A., Tomiyama, S., and Igarashi, T. 2019. Long-term acid generation and heavy metal leaching from the tailings of Shimokawa mine, Hokkaido, Japan: Column study under natural condition. J. Geochem. Explor. 201: 1-12.
20.Khosravi, Y., Zamani, A.A., Parizanganeh, A.H., and Yaftian, M.R. 2018. Assessment of spatial distribution pattern of heavy metals surrounding a lead and zinc production plant in
Zanjan Province, Iran. Geoderma Reg. 12: 10-17.
21.Kim, J.Y., Kim, K.W., Ahn, J.S., Ko, I., and Lee, C.H. 2005 Investigation and risk assessment modeling of As and other heavy metals contamination around five abandoned metal mines
in Korea. Environ. Geochem. Health. 27: 2. 193-203.
22.Kim, M.J., Ahn, K.H., and Jung, Y. 2002. Distribution of inorganic arsenic species in mine tailings of abandoned mines from Korea. Chemosphere.49: 3. 307-312.
23.Ko, I., Kim, J.Y., and Kim, K.W. 2004. Arsenic speciation and sorption kinetics in the As–hematite–humic acid system. Colloids Surf. 234: 1-3. 43-50.
24.Langsch, J.E., Costa, M., Moore, L., Morais, P., Bellezza, A., and Falcão, S. 2012. New technology for arsenic removal from mining effluents. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 1: 3. 178-181.
25.Larios, R., Fernández-Martínez, R., and Rucandio, I. 2012. Comparison of three sequential extraction procedures for fractionation of arsenic from highly polluted mining sediments. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 402: 9. 2909-2921.
26.Lim, M., Han, G.C., Ahn, J.W., You, K.S., and Kim, H.S. 2009. Leachability of arsenic and heavy metals from mine tailings of abandoned metal mines.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health.6: 11. 2865-2879.
27.Liu, B., Peng, T., Sun, H., and Yue,H. 2017. Release behavior of uraniumin uranium mill tailings under environmental conditions. J. Environ. Radioact. 171: 160-168.
28.Lottermoser, B. 2010. Mine wastes: characterization, treatment and environmental impacts. (Springer Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg) 400p.
29.Ma, J., Lei, M., Weng, L., Li, Y., Chen, Y., and Islam, M.S. 2019. Fractions and colloidal distribution of arsenic associated with iron oxide minerals in lead-zinc mine-contaminated soils: Comparison of tailings and smelter pollution. Chemosphere. 227: 614-619.
30.Matong, J.M., Nyaba, L., and Nomngongo, P.N. 2016. Fractionation of trace elements in agricultural soils using ultrasound assisted sequential extraction prior to inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometric determination. Chemosphere. 154: 249-257.
31.McGregor, R., Blowes, D., Jambor, J., and Robertson, W. 1998. The solid-phase controls on the mobility of heavy metals at the Copper Cliff tailings area, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. J. Contam. Hydrol. 33: 3-4. 247-271.
32.Morin, G., and Calas, G. 2006. Arsenic in soils, mine tailings, and former industrial sites. Elements. 2: 2. 97-101.
33.Nemati, K., Bakar, N.K.A., Abas, M.R., and Sobhanzadeh, E. 2011. Speciation of heavy metals by modified BCR sequential extraction procedure in different depths of sediments from Sungai Buloh, Selangor, Malaysia. J. Hazard. Mater. 192: 1. 402-410.
34.Olajire, A., Ayodele, E., Oyedirdan, G., and Oluyemi, E. 2003. Levels and speciation of heavy metals in soils of industrial southern Nigeria. Environ. Monit. 85. 2. 135-155.
35.Olobatoke, R., and Mathuthu, M. 2016. Heavy metal concentration in soil in the tailing dam vicinity of an old gold mine in Johannesburg, South Africa. Can. J. Soil Sci. 96. : 3. 299-304.
36.Peng, C., Tang, L., Tan, X., Li, Y., Wang, X., and Ai, X. 2017. Heavy metal fractionation after application of fermented sludge to soil and its effect on sedum lineare. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 26. 1 A. 810-822.
37.Peralta, G.L. 1997. Characterization, leachability and acid mine drainage potential of geothermal solid residues (Doctoral dissertation, National Library of Canada= Bibliothèque nationale du Canada). 160p.
38.Perin, G., Craboledda, L., Lucchese, M., Cirillo, R., Dotta, L., and Zanette, M. 1985. Heavy metal speciation in the sediments of northern Adriatic Sea. A new approach for environmental toxicity determination. Heavy metals in the environment. 2: 1. 454-456.
39.Razo, I., Carrizales, L., Castro, J.,Díaz-Barriga, F., and Monroy, M. 2004. Arsenic and heavy metal pollution of soil, water and sediments in a semi-arid climate mining area in Mexico. Water Air Soil Pollut. 152: 1-4. 129-152.
40.Roussel, C., Bril, H., and Fernandez, A. 2000. Arsenic speciation: involvement in evaluation of environmental impact caused by mine wastes. J. Environ. Qual. 29: 1. 182-188.
41.Rubio-Campos, B., Cano-Aguilera, I., Aguilera-Alvarado, A., De la Rosa., G., and Soriano-Perez S. 2010. Factors controlling the release of arsenicfrom mining taillings. Environ. Toxicol. Pp: 55-66.
42.Schultz, M.K., Burnett, W.C., and Inn, K.G. 1998. Evaluation of a sequential extraction method for determining actinide fractionation in soilsand sediments. J. Environ. Radioact.40: 2. 155-174.
43.Sims, K.W., Gill, J.B., Dosseto, A., Hoffmann, D.L., Lundstrom, C.C., and Williams, R.W. 2008. An inter‐laboratory assessment of the thorium isotopic composition of synthetic and rock reference materials. Geostand. Geoanalytical Res. 32: 1. 65-91.
44.Steinbörn, M., and Breen, J., editors. 1999. Heavy metals in soil and vegetation at shallee mine, Silvermines, Co. Tipperary. Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy; JSTOR. 1: 37-42.
45.Tabelin, C.B., Hashimoto, A., Igarashi, T., and Yoneda, T. 2014. Leaching of boron, arsenic and selenium from sedimentary rocks: I. Effects of contact time, mixing speed and liquid-to-solid ratio. Sci. Total Environ. 472: 620-629.
46.Tan, D., Long, J., Li, B., Ding, D., Du, H., and Lei, M. 2018. Fraction and mobility of antimony and arsenic in three polluted soils: A comparison of single extraction and sequential extraction. Chemosphere. Dec 1. 213: 533-540.
47.Tessier, A., Campbell, P.G., and Bisson, M. 1979. Sequential extraction procedure for the speciation of particulate trace metals. Anal. Chem.51: 7. 844-851.
48.Thornton I. 1994. Sources and pathways of arsenic in south-west England: health implications. Arsenic exposure and health. 44: 61-70.
49.Thouin, H., Norini, M.P., Le Forestier, L., Gautret, P., Motelica-Heino, M., and Breeze, D. 2019. Microcosm-scale biogeochemical stabilization of Pb, As, Ba and Zn in mine tailings amended with manure and ochre. J. Appl. Geochem. 111: 104-438.
50.USEPA S. 1986. Test methods for evaluating solid waste: physical/ chemical methods. http://www epa gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/7_series htm. 646p.
51.Wan, X., Dong, H., Feng, L., Lin, Z., and Luo, Q. 2017. Comparison of three sequential extraction procedures for arsenic fractionation in highly polluted sites. Chemosphere. 178: 402-410.
52.Wang, S., and Mulligan, C.N. 2006. Occurrence of arsenic contamination in Canada: sources, behavior and distribution. Sci. Total Environ.366: 2-3. 701-721.
53.Whitaker, L.R. 2016. Feasibility of IT Industry for Large Scale Rooftop Photovoltaic Adoption: Case Western Reserve University. 98p.
54.Williams, M. 2001. Arsenic in mine waters: an international study. Environmental Geology. 40: 3. 267-278.
55.Yamamura, S., Bartram, J., Csanady, M., Gorchev, H.G., and Redekopp, A. 2003. Drinking water guidelines and standards. Arsenic, Water, and Health: the state of the art Geneva: World Health Organisation. 18p.
56.Yang, J.K., Barnett, M.O., Zhuang, J., Fendorf, S.E., and Jardine, P.M.2005. Adsorption, oxidation, and bioaccessibility of As (III) in soils. Environ. Sci. 39: 18. 7102-7110.
57.Zhang, Y., Zhang, S., Ni, W., Yan, Q., Gao, W., and Li, Y. 2019. Immobilisation of high-arsenic-containing tailings by using metallurgical slag-cementing materials. Chemosphere. 223: 117-123.
58.Zinck, J., Wilson, L., Chen, T., Griffith, W., Mikhail, S., and Turcotte, A. 1997. Characterization and stability of acid mine drainage treatment sludges. Mining and Mineral Sciences Laboratories Report. Pp: 96-079.
مجله پژوهش‌های حفاظت آب و خاک
دوره 27، شماره 6
بهمن و اسفند 1399
صفحه 1-26

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار