Estimation of potential arsenic leaching from its phases in excavated sedimentary and metamorphic rocks
It is important that hazardous excavated sedimentary and metamorphic rocks are treated appropriately and reused without posing an environmental risk. Up-flow column leaching tests were conducted to examine whether arsenic leaching behavior varied among five hazardous excavated sedimentary and metamorphic rocks (two mudstones, clay sediment of marine origin, slate, and black schist) and to determine whether the potential amount of arsenic leaching could be estimated based on the arsenic-bearing mineral phases in the rock. Changes in arsenic concentration with pore volume (PV) showed the same pattern across all rock types, except for one that contained an extremely low amount of water-soluble arsenic, exhibiting an initial increase to reach a peak, followed by a decrease. The arsenic amounts leached before and after the PV at which the arsenic concentration peaked, corresponded to 88% ± 20% of the amount of arsenic fraction 1 obtained by sequential extraction and 76% ± 10% of the amount of arsenic fraction 2, respectively, while the potential amount of arsenic leaching corresponded to 65–89% of the summed total of arsenic fractions 1 + 2. These findings indicate that arsenic exhibits the same leaching behavior among different types of hazardous excavated sedimentary and metamorphic rocks except where extremely low amounts of water-soluble arsenic are present and that the potential amount of arsenic leaching can be approximated by calculating the summed total of arsenic fractions 1 + 2, which allows us to estimate the minimum amount of material required for treatments such as immobilization conducted to prevent arsenic leaching.
KeywordsArsenic leaching Arsenic phases Column leaching test Excavated metamorphic rock Excavated sedimentary rock
The authors are grateful to Mrs. T. Miura and T. Higasayama for rock sample collection.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
- Bacon, J. R., & Davidson, C. M. (2008). Is there a future for sequential chemical extraction? The Royal Society of Chemistry, 133, 25–46.Google Scholar
- Kanematsu, M., Young, T. M., Fukushi, K., Green, P. G., & Darby, J. L. (2013). Arsenic (III, V)adsorption on a goethite-based adsorbent in the presence of major co-existing ions: Modeling competitive adsorption consistent with spectroscopic and molecular evidence. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 106, 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Katoh, M., Masaki, S., & Sato, T. (2012). Single-step extraction to determine soluble lead levels in soil. International Journal of GEOMATE, 3, 375–380.Google Scholar
- Parkhurst, D. L., & Appelo, C. A. J. (2013). Description of input and examples for PHREEQC version 3—A computer program for speciation, batch-reaction, one-dimensional transport, and inverse geochemical calculations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6, 43. Available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/06/a43/.
- Tabelin, C. B., Igarashi, T., Villacorte-Tabelin, M., Park, I., Opiso, E. M., Ito, M., et al. (2018). Arsenic, selenium, boron, lead, cadmium, copper, and zinc in naturally contaminated rocks: A review of their sources, modes of enrichment, mechanisms of release, and mitigation strategies. Science of the Total Environment, 645, 1522–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar