Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T00:36:30.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preliminary observations on the release of arsenic to groundwater in the presence of hydrocarbon contaminants in UK aquifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2018

W. G. Burgess  and
L. Pinto
W. G. Burgess*
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
L. Pinto
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
*
*E-mail: william.burgess@ucl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Degradation of contaminant hydrocarbons in groundwater by microbially mediated oxidation, linked to the reduction of electron acceptors, is fundamental to the strategy of ‘monitored natural attenuation’ (MNA) for oxidizable hydrocarbons, which is increasingly being adopted at polluted aquifer sites throughout Europe and North America. Commonly, oxygen is depleted and following the reduction of nitrate, solid-phase Fe oxides become the dominant electron acceptors. Arsenic, associated with Fe and Mn oxides in soils and sediments, may therefore be mobilized to groundwater and pose an additional threat to environmental receptors. In a pilot study of three aquifers in England, we have examined the extent to which arsenic is released to groundwater under Fe(III)-reducing conditions imposed by contaminant hydrocarbons. Results show that arsenic is locally mobilized in the Chalk to <10 μg/1, in Quaternary gravels to 70 μg/1 and in the Triassic sandstones to 160 μg/1. At the Chalk and Quaternary gravels sites arsenic mobilization is demonstrably linked to reduction of Fe- and Mn-oxides. This is not so at the Triassic sandstone site, where release of arsenic is related to elevated bicarbonate alkalinity. Redox-driven arsenic mobilization at other Triassic sandstone locations is possible. Further work is required on the solid-phase sources of arsenic in the aquifers, and to relate the hydrochemical observations to groundwater hydraulic conditions.

Keywords

hydrocarbonsChalkQuaternaryarsenicgroundwateraquifermicrobes
Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 69 , Issue 5 , October 2005 , pp. 887 - 896
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Present address: Department of Geology, Aveiro University, Portugal

References

Akai, J., Izumi, K., Fukuhara, H., Masuda, H., Nakano, S., Yoshimura, T., Ohfuji, H., Anawar, H.M. and Akai, K. (2004) Mineralogical and geomicrobiological investigations on groundwater arsenic enrichment in Bangladesh. Applied Geochemistry, 19, 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appelo, C.A.J., van der Weiden, M.J.J., Tournassat, C. and Charlet, L. (2002) Surface complexation of ferrous iron and carbonate on ferrihydrite and the mobilization of arsenic. Environmental Science and Technology, 36, 3096–3103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhumbla, D.K. and Keefer, R.F. (1994) Arsenic mobilization and bioavailability in soils. Pp. 51–83 in: Arsenic in the Environment, Part 1: Cycling and Characterization (Nriagu, J.O., editor). John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Burgess, W.G. and Pinto, L. (2005) Mobilisation of naturally-occurring arsenic through processes linked to natural attenuation of organic contaminants in groundwater: A pilot study. Report to the Environment Agency of England and Wales.Google Scholar
Carey, M.A., Finnamore, M.J., Morey, M.J. and Marsland, P.A. (2000) Guidance on the assessment and monitoring of natural attenuation of contaminants in groundwater. Environment Agency Research & Development Publication No. 95, UK.Google Scholar
Chapelle, F.H (1993) Ground Water Microbiology and Geochemistry. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Edmunds, W.M., Darling, W.G., Kinniburgh, D.G., Dever, L. and Vachier, P. (1992) Chalk groundwater in England and France: hydrochemistry and water quality. British Geological Survey Research Report SD/92/2.Google Scholar
Harvey, C.F., Swartz, C.H., Badruzzaman, A.B.M., Keon-Blute, N., Yu, W., Ali, M.A., Jay, J., Beckie, R., Niedan, V., Brabander, D., Oates, P.M., Ashfaque, K.N., Islam, S., Hemond, H.F. and Ahmed, M.F. (2002) Arsenic mobility and ground-water extraction in Bangladesh. Science, 298, 1602–1606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, Y.C. (1994) Arsenic distribution in soils. Pp. 17–49 in: Arsenic in the Environment, Part 1: Cycling and Characterization (Nriagu, J.O., editor). John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Islam, F.S., Gault, A.G., Boothman, C., Polya, D.A., Charnock, J.M., Chaterjee, D. and Lloyd, J.R. (2004) Role of metal-reducing bacteria in arsenic release from Bengal delta sediments. Nature, 430, 68—71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, H.K. and Robins, N.S. (editors) (1999) The Chalk aquifer of the South Downs. Hydrogeological Report Series of the British Geological Survey, 111 pp.Google Scholar
Kinniburgh, D.G. and Smedley, P.L. (editors) (2001) Arsenic contamination of groundwater in Bangladesh (four volumes). British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Lackovic, J.A., Nikolaidis, N.P. and Dobbs, G.M. (1999) Redox-sensitive mobility of arsenic in proximity to a municipal landfill. Conference Proceedings, 31stMid-Atlantic Industrial and Hazardous Waste Conference, Storrs, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Lovley, D.R., Baedecker, M.J., Lonergan, D.J., Cozzarelli, I.M., Phillips, E.J.P. and Siegel, D.I. (1989) Oxidation of aromatic contaminants coupled to microbial iron reduction. Nature, 339, 297–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacNaughton, S., Swannell, R., Lethbridge, G., Scott, P., Norris, G. and Smith, J.W.N. (2004) SIReN: Site for innovative research on monitored natural attenuation. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference, Groundwater Quality 2004. July 2004, Waterloo, Canada.Google Scholar
Manning, B.A. and Goldberg, S. (1997) Arsenic(m) and Arsenic(V) adsorption on three California soils. Soil Science, 162, 886–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagorski, S.A. and Moore, J.N. (1999) Arsenic mobilization in the hyporheic zone of a contaminated stream. Water Resources Research, 35, 3441–3450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Academy of Sciences (1997) Arsenic: Medical and Biological effects of Environmental Pollutants. http:/www.nap.edu/openbook/0309026040/htmlGoogle Scholar
Nickson, R.T., McArthur, J.M., Ravenscroft, P., Burgess, W.G. and Ahmed, K.M. (2000) Mechanism of arsenic release to groundwater, Bangladesh and West Bengal. Applied Geochemistry, 15, 403–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravenscroft, P., Burgess, W.G., Ahmed, K.M., Burren, M. and Perrin, J. (2004) Arsenic in groundwater of the Bengal Basin: distribution, field relations, and hydrogeological setting. Hydrogeology Journal, online publication 10.1007/sl0040-003-0314-0.Google Scholar
Rawlins, B., Lister, R. and Cave, M. (2002) Arsenic in UK soils: reassessing the risk. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 150, 187–190.Google Scholar
Smedley, P.L. and Edmunds, W.M. (2002) Redox patterns and trace element behavior in the East Midlands Triassic Sandstone aquifer, UK. Ground Water 40, 44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smedley, P.L. and Kinniburgh, D.G. (2002) A review of the source, behaviour and distribution of arsenic in natural waters. Applied Geochemistry, 17, 517—568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, M., Thornton, S.F., Bottrell, S.H. and Spence, K.H. (2003) Natural attenuation in the Chalk aquifer. CL:AIRE Annual Conference, March 2003. Paper 9.Google Scholar
Welch, A.H. and Lico, M.S. (1998) Factors controlling As and U in shallow groundwater, southern Carson Desert, Nevada. Applied Geochemistry, 13, 521–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, A.H., Westjohn, D.B., Helsel, D.R. and Wanty, R.B. (2000) Arsenic in groundwater in the United States: occurrence and geochemistry. Ground Water, 38, 589–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar