1999
DOI: 10.1016/s0045-6535(99)00208-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Distribution of selected heavy metals and rare earth elements in surficial sediments from the polish sector of the Vistula Lagoon

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
17
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
1
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…EF is used to estimate anomalous enrichments of a given element, caused either by an anthropogenic input to the environment or by natural processes (Hakanson 1980;Szefer et al 1999;Queralt et al 1999Audry et al 2004Grosbois et al 2006). To this respect, it must be remarked that the equation was established to evaluate "pollution" in the sense of the introduction of a given element into the environment, which causes harm to the system and/or the organisms therein.…”
Section: Enrichment Factormentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…EF is used to estimate anomalous enrichments of a given element, caused either by an anthropogenic input to the environment or by natural processes (Hakanson 1980;Szefer et al 1999;Queralt et al 1999Audry et al 2004Grosbois et al 2006). To this respect, it must be remarked that the equation was established to evaluate "pollution" in the sense of the introduction of a given element into the environment, which causes harm to the system and/or the organisms therein.…”
Section: Enrichment Factormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, this equation has been extensively used to evaluate "contamination", in the sense of a given element in the environment above the expected thresholds (Abu-Rukah and Ghrefat 2001; Wang et al 2008). According to Szefer et al (1999), EF values around 1.0 suggest that the element comes from geogenic sources, whereas an EF much higher than 1.0 suggests anthropogenic sources. Tuncel et al (2007) proposed a higher threshold considering that, in order to distinguish anthropogenic inputs from natural sources for a given element, EF values should be at least 10 or greater, when using the crustal abundances.…”
Section: Enrichment Factormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The EF supposes a double normalization, where the reference element acts as a normalizer with respect to the lithology, as it must correlates with the clay content and sediment texture in the absence of contamination and, on the other hand, the background values act as normalizers with respect to the baseline concentrations. According to Szefer et al (1999), EF values around 1.0 suggest that the element comes from geogenic sources, whereas an EF much higher than 1.0 suggests anthropogenic sources. Tuncel et al (2007) proposed a higher threshold considering that, in order to distinguish anthropogenic inputs from natural sources for a given element, EF values should be at least 10 or greater, when using the crustal abundances.…”
Section: Enrichment Factor (Ef)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fe has very strong correlation with other oxides which have a higher affinity with most elements, especially for trace elements, and that the organic matter contents are important for controlling factors in the abundance of trace metals [74,75]. The results of correlation matrix of each core sample indicate that a significant fraction of the trace metal is found co-precipitated with or adsorbed on to Fe and Mn geochemical phases controlling the trace metals in sediments which may be attributed to their large surface area, extensive cation exchange capacity and widespread availability [76]. This is supported by strong significant positive correlation between Cr and Mn (r = 0.99, p < 0.05) in both the cores.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%