CVB304 Chemistry Research Project

Student Name: Jake Longworth

Student #: n8891541
Contact Email: jake.longworth@connect.qut.edu.au

Brisbane Land Use - Heavy Metal Contamination of Soils

Project Supervisor: James Bradya
Acknowledgements: Godfred Duodua, Godwin Ayokoa, Shane Russellb, Karine Moromizatob
Max Whiting
a
Research Academic, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Gardens Point, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 4055.
b
Research Technician, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Gardens Point, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 4055.

PROJECT INFO ABSTRACT

Project History:
42 Soil samples were collected in triplicate from 2 Brisbane suburbs
Start Date 28 September 2017
Upper Kedron and Narangba. Samples were prepared for ICP-MS
End Date 27 October 2017
analysis using a weak acid extraction via the WE-M protocol[1], and
Submitted 1 November 2017
prepared for XRF analysis via standard fusion procedure[2]. Data sets
Keywords: Reagents: detailing the total metal composition of each sample and the % bio-
Heavy Metals HCl availability of each element were obtained. No element exceeded the
Soil Contamination HNO3 safe levels reported by the National Geochemical Survey of
Acid Digestion LiBr Australia[3]. The report concludes that both suburbs are fit for
XRF analysis LiI residential use. Future replications of this study could be beneficial
ICP-MS analysis Milli-Q Water when applied to active sites like mines and industry sites.

1.0 Introduction
Heavy metal contamination of soil in urban,
suburban and rural areas can have significant impact
on environment and biodiversity, along with risks to
human wellbeing. The problems associated with the
presence of heavy metal elements at or above
accepted background concentrations have been well
documented and studied[4].Heavy metals such as Al,
Fe, Ti, Mn, Zn, V, Cr, Ni and Cu (along with others) are
pollutants of great environmental concern due to their
toxic, non degradable and persistent nature. This
report aims to determine and compare the heavy
metal concentrations of soil from 2 separated Brisbane
suburbs.
Home to more than 2 million people, the greater
Brisbane region has seen rapid growth with the
Brisbane City Council increasing the allocation of area
to high density living. This increase in high density
living means that land which has been previously
used for hobby farms is being redeveloped into
townhouses and apartments, which leads to increase
in potential risks for residents.
This project aim was to analyse the soil contents of 2
Brisbane City suburbs Upper Kedron and Narangba
for trace metals and to provide a brief assessment of
their suitability for their intended use as residential
areas.
This was achieved by testing all samples across both
suburbs with both XRF and ICP spectroscopy. The
comparison of the datasets provided by these 2
popular analysis methods facilitates strong
conclusions to be drawn with reinforced accuracy and
reliability.
2.0 Experimental Method
2.1 Sample Collection and Preparation
41 samples were collected in triplicate from
Brisbane suburbs Narangba and Upper Kedron.
Samples were collected from the upper 10cm of each
soil site and stored in 50mL falcon tubes overnight.
The samples were taken to lab and stored in a fridge
at 4oC for 24 hours. Samples were placed on a
vacuum freeze drier for a further 24 hours. Samples
were filtered through a 0.31mm (300 micron) sieve
and milled for 10 seconds to obtain a fine
homogenous powder, stored in plastic sample bags.
Figure 1) Vacuum Freeze Drier
2.2 X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Disk Preparation
0.6g of each sample was placed into a pre-
weighed plastic vial. The vial + sample weight was
recorded and tared before 9.4g of 50:50 Lithium
Iodide flux was added and the mixture thoroughly
shaken. Each sample was transferred into a Platinum
crucible and spiked with 85mL of Lithium Bromide
solution. Each crucible was placed into a Fusion
Furnace and heated to 1050oC for 20 minutes,
poured onto a Platinum plate and cooled for 10
minutes to form transparent glass disks suitable for
XRF analysis.
Figure 2) Fused Disks for XRF
2.3 Loss on Ignition (LOI)
LOI was determined for each sample as
a % value by pre-weighing a ceramic crucible,
and adding 1g of sample before placing each
into an oven for 24 hours and re-weighing each
sample + crucible, allowing a weight difference
calculation to determine the mass lost.
2.4 Tube Cleaning for Weak Acid Digestion
A number of plastic falcon tubes were
washed and oven dried according to WE-M
procedure[1]. ~100 x 50mL and ~100 x 10mL
tubes were placed into a 5L plastic container
tub and rinsed 3x with Milli-Q water before
being filled with 3% HCl solution and placed
onto a hotplate at 100oC for 24 hours. Next,
the HCl solution was discarded and the tubes
were again rinsed 3x with Milli-Q water before
being filled with 5% HNO3 solution and placed
onto a hotplate at 100oC for 24 hours. Next,
the HNO3 solution was discarded, the tubes
rinsed 3x with Milli-Q water before being filled
with Milli-Q water and left on a hotplate at
1000C for 24 hours. Finally, the Milli-Q water
was discarded and the tubes were oven dried
for a further 24 hours.
2.5 Weak Acid Digestion via WE-M Protocol
0.05g of each sample was weighed into a
washed, dried, pre-weighed 50mL falcon tube.
~20mL of Milli-Q water was added, followed by
3.7mL double distilled HNO3, and diluted to the
50mL mark with Milli-Q water. The samples
were tumbled for 6 hours at 100rpm. Finally,
the samples were centrifuged at 3500rpm for
10 minutes.
Figure 3) 50mL falcon tubes with HNO3 solution
3.0 Data + Results
3.1 Sample sites
The 19 tested samples were collected from around the Upper Kedron, Brisbane suburb.
Figure 4 shows aerial map with marker pins detailing each sample location.
Figure 4) Sample locations

Table 1 shows a shorthand descriptor of the area each sample was taken from:
Table 1) Sample location descriptors

Sample # Location Description

1 Residence 1
2 Upper Kedron park
3 Pathway near park
4 Bushland near park
5 Kedron brook (Creek filtration system)
6 Dog park (Hill base)
7 Open field
8 Bushland near small road
9 Open field 2 (base)
10 Open field 3 (hill)
11 Empty lot - home development site
12 Field near main road
13 Pathway near main road
14 Children's park
15 Bus stop
16 Field next to electricity generator
17 Small woodland
18 Residence 2
19 Residence 3
 3.2 XRF Data

Table 2 shows raw XRF data obtained, and Figure 5 shows a pie chart visualisation of the mean average %
composition determined by XRF analysis.
Table 2) Raw XRF Data
Raw XRF data showing element concentrations in ppm
Sample
Al Fe Ti Mn Zn V Cr Ni Cu
#
1 40260.1 17211.78 3608.44 417.07 64.25 33.61 41.05 15.72 0
2 58868.5 23763.6 4267.79 606.65 200.78 39.21 123.16 0 23.97
3 61821.7 24542.73 4447.61 707.76 96.37 67.22 34.21 15.72 23.97
4 55285.5 20944.55 4129.92 562.42 72.28 56.02 47.89 0 7.99
5 56862.7 22708.22 4435.62 612.97 80.31 50.42 20.53 7.86 0
6 46066 19775.84 6143.93 423.39 72.28 61.62 102.63 0 0
7 43859 12685.72 2427.6 297.01 112.44 39.21 20.53 0 0
8 71925.1 31710.77 5082.98 549.78 128.5 84.03 61.58 23.57 7.99
9 72644.9 28374.65 5748.32 745.68 96.37 89.63 95.79 15.72 31.95
10 64616.2 24712.72 3596.45 770.95 112.44 78.42 47.89 15.72 15.98
11 68305.1 25881.42 5154.91 1327.05 96.37 61.62 41.05 31.43 15.98
12 57301.9 23409.44 4099.95 417.07 88.34 56.02 61.58 23.57 7.99
13 45642.6 19138.37 4279.77 480.27 72.28 44.81 20.53 15.72 0
14 61160.2 23756.51 4315.74 524.5 104.4 56.02 0 7.86 7.99
15 61128.4 26943.88 3560.48 549.78 168.65 56.02 54.74 15.72 31.95
16 56878.5 15533.1 2967.07 278.05 128.5 33.61 27.37 23.57 0
17 64923.1 25994.75 4585.47 486.59 184.72 84.03 41.05 15.72 7.99
18 38682.9 14357.32 3176.86 385.48 72.28 33.61 0 0 0
19 43890.7 15412.69 2973.06 398.12 40.16 39.21 47.89 7.86 15.98
Descriptive statistics
Mean 56322.26 21939.90 4158.00 554.77 104.83 56.02 46.81 12.41 10.51
Std Dev 10489.04 5166.11 956.72 232.34 42.19 18.11 32.44 9.56 10.99

Figure 5) Average % Composition of All Samples (XRF)

Mn Zn V Cr Ni Cu
0.66% 0.12% 0.07% 0.05% 0.01% 0.01%

Ti
4.94%

Fe
26.06%

Al
68.07%
Figures 6 - 14 show the concentration of each element determined at each site. Elements are ordered
based on total % composition shown by Figure 5.
Site 20 marked in red is the median value disclosed by the National GeoChemical Survey of Australia[3].

Figure 6) mean concentration of Al (XRF)

mean average [Al]

80000
[Al]
Concentration (ppm)

70000
60000 Mean 56322.26 mg / kg
50000 Median 57301.93 mg / kg
40000
GeoChem 42831 mg / kg
30000
20000
10000 The average [Al] values determined are
0 above that of the GeoChem reported
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920 data
Sample #

Figure 7) mean concentration of Fe (XRF)

mean average [Fe]

35000
[Fe]
Concentration (ppm)

30000
25000 Mean 21939.9 mg / kg
20000 Median 23409.44 mg / kg
15000 GeoChem 22556 mg / kg
10000
5000 The average [Fe] values determined are
0 generally in line with the GeoChem
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920 reported data
Sample #

Figure 8) mean concentration of Ti (XRF)

mean average [Ti]

7000
[Ti]
Concentration (ppm)

6000
5000
Mean 4158 mg / kg
4000 Median 4267.79 mg / kg
3000 GeoChem 3410 mg / kg
2000
1000 The average [Ti] values determined are
0
slightly above the GeoChem reported
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920
data.
Sample #
 Figure 9) mean concentration of Mn (XRF)

mean average [Mn]

1400
[Mn]
Concentration (ppm)

1200
1000 Mean 554.77 mg / kg
800 Median 524.5 mg / kg
600 GeoChem 465 mg / kg
400
200 The average [Mn] values determined
0 are slightly above the GeoChem
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 1516 17 18 1920 reported data
Sample #

Figure 10) mean concentration of Zn (XRF)

mean average [Zn]

250
[Zn]
Concentration (ppm)

200 Mean 104.83 mg / kg

150 Median 96.37 mg / kg
GeoChem 49.3 mg / kg
100

50
The average [Zn] values determined are
0 mostly above that of the GeoChem
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 reported data
Sample #

Figure 11) mean concentration of V (XRF)

mean average [V]

100
Concentration (ppm)

[V]
80
Mean 56.02 mg / kg
60 Median 56.02 mg / kg
40 GeoChem 61.5 mg / kg
20

0
The average [V] values determined are
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
mostly below that of the GeoChem
reported data
Sample #
 Figure 12) mean concentration of Cr (XRF)

mean average [Cr]

140
[Cr]
Concentration (ppm)

120
100
Mean 46.09 mg / kg
80 Median 41.05 mg / kg
60 GeoChem 47.9 mg / kg
40
20 The average [Cr] values determined
0 closely resemble the GeoChem reported
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 data
Sample #

Figure 13) mean concentration of Ni (XRF)

mean average [Ni]

35
[Ni]
Concentration (ppm)

30
25
Mean 11.99 mg / kg
20
Median 15.72 mg / kg
15
GeoChem 15.3 mg / kg
10
5 The average [Ni] values determined
0 closely resemble the GeoChem reported
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 data
Sample #

Figure 14) mean concentration of Cu (XRF)

mean average [Cu]

35
Concentration (ppm)

30 [Cu]
25 Mean 8.83 mg / kg
20 Median 7.99 mg / kg
15 GeoChem 13.7 mg / kg
10
5 The average [Cu] values determined are
0 slightly below the GeoChem reported
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 data
Sample #
 Figure 15) Comparison of % composition between Narangba, Upper Kedron and reported GeoChem Data

Comparison of total % composition (XRF)

100%
Narangba U. Kedron GeoChem
90%
ppm % ppm % ppm %
80%
636997 85.01 286761 77.51 362399 83.9
70% 79990 10.68 56322 15.22 42831 9.92
60% 25935 3.46 21939.9 5.93 22556 5.22
50% 5727.33 0.76 104.83 1.12 3410 0.79
40% 320.67 0.04 554.77 0.15 465 0.11

30% 112.00 0.01 104.83 0.03 49.3 0.01

20% 89.00 0.01 56.02 0.02 61.5 0.01

10% 78.67 0.01 46.09 0.01 47.9 0.01

0% 16.67 0 11.99 0 15.3 0

Narangba Upper Kedron GeoChem 18.33 0 8.83 0 13.7 0

3.3 XRF Results Discussion

The elemental concentrations of the above 10
elements were determined from XRF analysis and
compared to the reported value of the National
Geochemical Survey of Australia[3].
Figures 6 - 14 detail the variance of elemental
composition at each specific Upper Kedron
sample site. Si, Al, Ti, Mn, Zn and Cr were
determined to be present on average at
concentrations above the median values provided
by GeoChem. Whilst these elements exceed the
median concentrations reported by GeoChem,
None of the elements are close to approaching
the literature safe limits as reported by US
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and
the NY Department of Environmental
[5]
Conservation (NYS DEC) .
seen from Figure 15 that the Narangba area has a
lower ratio of Aluminium to Silicon (1:8.5) when
compared to Upper Kedron (1.5:7.75). This
indicates that Narangba soil is characterised as
more sandy in makeup than Upper Kedron soil,
which is closer to and characterised more like
clay, however the difference is quite minor.
This data shows that all sites across both
Narangba and Upper Kedron are clear of any
heavy metal contamination. None of the tested
sites show any metal concentrations that are even
close to the safe residential limit.
Table 3 lists the safe values of certain metals as
published by US EPA and NY DEC[5].
Table 3) Limits of metal concentration

Figure 15 shows that all 3 locations have very

similar elemental composition, with Si being the
most abundant element, followed by Al second
and Fe third. This similarity between the literature
values reported by GeoChem and the
experimentally determined values obtained
provide evidence that the elemental composition
was correctly determined via XRF analysis.

The ratio of Al to Si is used as a standard measure

to determine the overall type of soil[6]. It can be
3.4ICP-MSData

Table 2 shows raw ICP-MS data obtained, representing extractable metals, and Figure 5 shows a pie chart
visualisation of the mean average % composition determined by ICP-MS analysis.
Table 4) Raw ICP-MS Data
Raw ICP-MS data showing element concentrations in ppm
Sample
Al Fe Ti Mn Zn V Cr Ni Cu
#
1 618.53 311.59 2.95 132.96 30.09 1.32 0.27 1.39 2.81
2 1886.07 992.79 13.24 324.24 68.47 4.62 1.61 3.79 18.98
3 938.47 643.64 1.40 376.86 18.17 3.25 0.47 2.34 7.12
4 1019.42 860.30 1.98 329.35 16.10 3.71 0.54 2.50 6.85
5 964.81 705.21 1.41 340.93 18.22 3.05 0.50 2.80 7.62
6 793.62 602.40 1.64 213.50 21.58 3.48 0.48 1.95 4.13
7 807.62 707.78 2.59 271.96 86.23 1.86 0.75 3.86 4.71
8 1336.37 560.00 2.13 176.71 38.27 1.91 0.64 2.70 5.84
9 1692.43 594.36 1.92 310.33 17.74 2.49 0.55 3.11 7.69
10 1385.44 627.36 2.07 454.32 39.03 3.73 0.56 1.83 6.37
11 1345.16 198.43 0.82 475.39 19.74 1.45 0.38 2.12 5.49
12 1146.06 1243.67 1.80 180.74 23.24 6.34 0.92 1.99 5.89
13 1781.26 1149.36 4.18 231.20 24.49 3.25 0.77 1.88 6.91
14 1541.86 766.75 1.90 255.02 28.67 2.98 0.74 2.38 9.83
15 1533.92 1651.84 8.60 305.76 102.32 6.36 1.44 4.10 16.22
16 695.77 921.39 2.19 160.82 94.07 3.36 0.37 2.28 6.86
17 953.15 623.31 3.95 286.83 113.35 3.46 0.67 2.49 7.48
18 937.55 400.19 4.25 266.14 23.29 1.56 0.37 1.73 2.52
19 1121.37 413.43 2.33 179.58 57.80 1.59 0.92 3.84 2.60
Descriptive statistics
Mean 1184.15 735.46 3.23 277.51 44.26 3.15 0.68 2.58 7.15
Std Dev 376.78 347.50 2.97 94.77 32.41 1.46 0.35 0.81 4.17

Figure 16) Average % Composition of All Samples (ICP-MS)

Mn Zn Ti Cu Ni V Cr
12.07% 2.73% 0.27% 0.26% 0.13% 0.12% 0.02%

Fe
28.28%
Al
56.13%
Table 5 shows the mean average data collected from XRF and ICP-MS analysis, along with the calculated
%bioavailability for each element.
Table 5) Mean average concentration data from XRF and ICP-MS
Al Fe
XRF 56322.3 21939.9 4158
ICP-MS 1184.15 735.46 3.23
% 2.10 3.35 0.08
3.5 ICP-MS Results Discussion
ICP-MS is capable of accurately detecting 80+
elements and has a lower limit of detection
compared to XRF[7][8], and as such is the preferred
method of elemental analysis for many purposes.
XRF data was used to determine total metal
concentration and ICP-MS was used with a weak
acid digestion in order to detect the
bioavailability of each of the metals. This data is
crucial as any metals that are sufficiently bio-
available are likely to leech out from the soil and
contaminate the surrounding environment (such
as water sources, rivers etc.)
The ICP-MS data obtained represents the amount
of each metal that was extracted according to the
WE-M weak acid digestion protocol[1]. This data
can be used in conjunction with the total metal
concentration data as determined by XRF and can
be used to calculate the approximate
bioavailability of each element according to
equation 1[9]:
Equation 1: bioavailability of metals
[9]
% Bioavailability = ([ICP]/[XRF])*100
Table 5 shows the results of this calculation
applied to each element, and it can be seen that
Cu, Mn, Zn and Ni are the most readily bio-
available at 68%, 50%, 42% and 20% respectively,
whereas the other metals are of relatively
negligible bioavailability.
Ti Mn Zn V Cr Ni Cu
554.77 104.83 56.02 46.81 12.41 10.51
277.51 44.26 3.15 0.68 2.58 7.15
50.02 42.22 5.62 1.45 20.79 68.03
Bioavailability in the context of heavy metal soil
contamination refers to the ability of a metal to
interact with other environmental matrices and
undergo various fate and transport processes.
Environmentally available metal is not
sequestered in an environmental matrix, and it
represents the total pool of metal in a system that
is potentially available at a particular time and
under a particular set of environmental
[10]
conditions . This definition of bioavailability is
specific to the existing environmental conditions
and is a dynamic property, changing with
environmental conditions.
The % data in Table 5 represents The bio-
accessible fraction of environmentally available
metal that actually interacts at an organism’s
contact surface and is potentially available for
absorption or adsorption (if bioactive upon
contact) by the organism.
This bio-available % is compared to the total
metal concentration data provided by XRF in
order to provide a estimate of how much of each
element in mg / kg can undergo this absorption or
adsorption.
Even though Cu, Mn, Zn and Ni were determined
to be significantly bio-available (>20%), XRF
determined results show that these elements are
not present in sufficient concentrations for the
calculated bio-availability percentages to be of
any concern, even if 100% of these elements
leeched into the environment, the total
concentrations would still not be close to the US
EPA and NYS DEC safe levels[5].
4.0 Factor Analysis

As ICP-MS data only provided information about the bioavailability of each element and not the total metal
concentration, the following factor analysis is applied to XRF data only.

Table 5) Total Variance of XRF data

Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
Initial Eigenvalues Loadings Loadings
% of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Component Total Variance % Total Variance % Total Variance %
1 4.598 51.092 51.092 4.598 51.092 51.092 3.029 33.651 33.651
2 1.332 14.800 65.893 1.332 14.800 65.893 2.103 23.362 57.013
3 1.121 12.456 78.348 1.121 12.456 78.348 1.920 21.336 78.348
4 .734 8.151 86.499
5 .505 5.613 92.113
6 .399 4.432 96.545
7 .147 1.633 98.178
8 .094 1.040 99.218
9 .070 .782 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 6) Rotated Component Matrix of XRF data Figure 17) Scree plot of XRF data

Component
1 2 3
Al .770 .280 .496
Fe .709 .462 .429
Ti .415 .843 -.105
Mn .730 .279 .037
Zn .072 -.022 .907
V .652 .517 .223
Cr -.136 .778 .426
Ni .827 -.220 .048
Cu .310 .318 .649
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.
Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

Table 6 shows the Total variance of the XRF data, this table along with the Scree plot (Figure 17) identify
that 78.348% of the dataset is explained by 3 significant components.

For a component to be considered significant, it must have a value above 0.5 on the rotated component
matrix (Table 7). The following figures 18 - 20 provide a visualisation of which of these elements satisfy the
significance criteria with respect to each of these 3 components.
5.0 Risk Assessment
Based on all of the data collected, Cu, Mn, Zn and
Ni were found to be significantly bio-available and
as such could potentially leech out from the soil
and contaminate the surrounding environment.
XRF data concluded that these 4 metals were
detected in concentrations well below that of the
accepted safe levels provided by US EPA and NYS
DEC. As such, there is minimum risk to
environmental integrity. The findings of this
report conclude that both Narangba and Upper
Kedron are suitable for their intended use as
residential areas.
6.0 Conclusions
In conclusion, this project analysed a total of 42
soil samples, taken in triplicate from 2 Brisbane
suburbs; Narangba and Upper Kedron. The
samples were prepared for both XRF and ICP-MS
analysis. XRF provided accurate total metal
concentration data, and ICP-MS provided
concentration data of metals that were extracted
by a weak acid digestion. Factor analysis was
applied to these datasets and from this, the
bioavailability of each detected element was
calculated and a brief risk assessment was
produced.
Cu, Mn, Zn and Ni were found to be significantly
bioavailable, however none of the detected
elements that were significantly bio-available
were found to exceed safe limit data provided by
GeoChem, US EPA and NYS DEC.
This report provides evidence that both Upper
Kedron and Narangba suburbs are not in danger
of metal contamination and are appropriate for
use as residential land.
The findings of this report are a good exercise in
soil sample handling and analysis and could
provide future value by repeating the methods
involved for more at-risk areas such as farm land,
industry sites and lakes/rivers.
6.0 References
7.0 References
[1] Wu, S., Feng, X., & Wittmeier, A. (1997). Microwave Digestion of
Plant and Grain Reference Materials in Nitric Acid or a Mixture
of Nitric Acid for the Determination of Multi-elements by ICP-
MS. Journal Of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/a607217h
[2] OMetz, J. (2004). The role of standards Australia in achieving
and maintaining accuracy and precision in lithium fusion—XRF
spectrometric analysis. Powder Diffraction, 19(2), 196.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1154/1.1779779
[3] Caritat, P., & Cooper, M. (2011). National Geochemical Survey of
Australia. Canberra: Geoscience Australia.
[4] Park, B., Lee, J., Ro, H., & Kim, Y. (2016). Short-Term Effects of
Low-Level Heavy Metal Contamination on Soil Health. The
Plant Pathology Journal, 32(4), 329-339.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5423/ppj.oa.12.2015.02722
[5] Petroleum-Contaminated Soil Guidance Policy - NYS Dept. of
Environmental Conservation. (2017). Dec.ny.gov.,from
http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/30902.html
https://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/factsheets/interpreting_
heavy_metals_soil_tests.pdf
[6] Makabe, S., Kakuda, K., Sasaki, Y., Ando, T., Fujii, H., & Ando, H.
(2009). Relationship between mineral composition and
available silicon in alluvial soils on the Shounai Plain, Japan. Soil
Science And Plant Nutrition, 55(2), 300-308.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0765.2008.00352.x
[7] Poteshin, S., Sysoev, A., & Torbotryas, R. (2015). The Approach
to Reducing the Detection Limit for LA-ICP-MS. Physics
Procedia, 72, 218-221.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2015.09.065
[8] Kadachi, A., & Al-Eshaikh, M. (2012). Limits of detection in XRF
spectroscopy. X-Ray Spectrometry, 41(5), 350-354.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/xrs.2412
[9] Marklevitz, S., Almeida, E., Flemming, J., & Hellou, J. (2008).
Determining the bioavailability of contaminants and assessing
the quality of sediments. Journal Of Soils And Sediments, 8(2),
92-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/jss2008.02.275.2
[10] Reiley, M. (2007). Science, policy, and trends of metals risk
assessment at EPA: How understanding metals bioavailability
has changed metals risk assessment at US EPA. Aquatic
Toxicology, 84(2), 292-298.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2007.05.014
[11] Xu, Y., Iwashita, A., Nakajima, T., Yamashita, H., takanashi, H., &
Ohki, A. (2005). Effect of HF addition on the microwave-
assisted acid-digestion for the determination of metals in soil by
inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry.
Talanta, 66(1), 58-64.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2004.09.018
[12] Bisone, S., Blais, J., Drogui, P., & Mercier, G. (2012). Toxic Metal
Removal from Polluted Soil by Acid Extraction. Water, Air, &
Soil Pollution, 223(7), 3739-3755.