I'd possibly be looking at compounds of fluorine - studies were done at
Fort William that showed high levels of fluorine compounds in the topsoil
when samples were taken within a radius of 10km of an Al smelter (Agate et
al, 1949, Industrial Fluorosis: A study of the Hazard to Man and animals
near fort William, Scotland. Medical Research Council Memorandum No. 22,
HMSO, London). Exposure to fluorine compounds would be a bigger concern
than Al compounds, even though industrial fluoride is dumped in our
drinking water anyway!
A farmer 1km south of the Al smelter had serious problems of livestock
being afflicted with fluorosis causing abnormal tooth formation, and
brittleness. Also there were symptoms of extremely low abrasive resistance
of the teeth. Other farmers reported similar problems. An inquiry concluded
that everything should be done to minimise the fluoride emissions.
Both the FW and the Kinloch smelter continued to operate (FW still
operating - owned, I think by Rio Tinto Alcan - but Kinloch closed in 2000
for economic reasons).
So look at fluorine compounds, especially if there is any nearby farmland
with grazing livestock.
Pete Millis
Centre for Environmental Research
School of Life Sciences
University of Sussex
Falmer
Brighton BN1 9QJ
And
Rottingdean Garden and Landscape Services Ltd
Old School House
Telscombe Village
Nr Lewes BN7 3HY
--On 25 June 2009 12:13 +0100 Russell Corbyn <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> If you are looking for evidence of a smelting process that you expect to
> see contamination from then rather than looking at Al I would be looking
> for a more obvious marker compound if at all possible, e.g. cleaning
> compounds, related slag/ashes (PAH) or degreasers (say TCE) maybe. If it
> were a smaller scale and a long time ago then this might not be an option
> but might be worth a thought.
>
> In any case, GOOD LUCK!
>
>
> Bueno estente.
>
> Russell Corbyn MRSC FGS
> Senior Environmental Chemist
> CMT (Testing) Limited
> Unit 5 Prime Parkway
> Prime Enterprise Park
> Derby
> DE1 3QB
>
> T: 01332 383333
> F: 01332 602607
> W: www.cmt-ltd.co.uk
> E: [log in to unmask]
>
> ? Save a tree...please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
> This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is
> addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
> immediately. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you
> should not copy it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other
> person.
>
> Whilst this e-mail and the information it contains are supplied on good
> faith, no member of CMT (Testing) Limited shall be held under any
> liability in respect of its contents or for any reliance the recipient
> may place on it. Yeah.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Clive
> Williams Sent: 25 June 2009 11:55
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Aluminium in soils?
>
> Gareth Rees wrote:
>
> Chris brings up a good point
>
> You may need to test for mineral content and attempt to attribute the
> aluminium to natural soil or works related.
>
> This also brings up a new issue as clay minerals are hydrous aluminium
> silicates so if there is a high clay content in the soil you will always
> get a high aluminium content
>
> Thanks
> Gareth Rees Mgeol (HONS) FGS
> Contaminated Land Officer
>
>
> Unfortunately the aluminium ore is also hydrous aluminum silicates so
> determining the local from the imported will be difficult (probably a
> different colour). Given the high cost of aluminium I would not expect
> to find much elemental material lying around. Any stack emissions
> would also likely to be some distance away - that's why the stacks are
> so high after all (dilution being the solution to pollution).
>
> I wonder if the aluminium content of the concrete covering the site is
> higher still?
|