| Literature DB >> 27783348 |
Abstract
Thallium is released into the biosphere from both natural and anthropogenic sources. It is generally present in the environment at low levels; however, human activity has greatly increased its content. Atmospheric emission and deposition from industrial sources have resulted in increased concentrations of thallium in the vicinity of mineral smelters and coal-burning facilities. Increased levels of thallium are found in vegetables, fruit and farm animals. Thallium is toxic even at very low concentrations and tends to accumulate in the environment once it enters the food chain. Thallium and thallium-based compounds exhibit higher water solubility compared to other heavy metals. They are therefore also more mobile (e.g. in soil), generally more bioavailable and tend to bioaccumulate in living organisms. The main aim of this review was to summarize the recent data regarding the actual level of thallium content in environmental niches and to elucidate the most significant sources of thallium in the environment. The review also includes an overview of analytical methods, which are commonly applied for determination of thallium in fly ash originating from industrial combustion of coal, in surface and underground waters, in soils and sediments (including soil derived from different parent materials), in plant and animal tissues as well as in human organisms.Entities:
Keywords: Atomic absorption spectrometry (FAAS and GFAAS); Differential pulse anodic stripping voltammetry (DPASV); Electrothermal vaporization inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ETV-ICP-MS); High-resolution inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (HR-ICP-MS); Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS); Laser excited atomic fluorescence spectrometry (LEAFS); Thallium; Toxicity; Zeeman effect electrothermal absorption spectrometry (ZEETAS)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27783348 PMCID: PMC5080298 DOI: 10.1007/s10661-016-5647-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Monit Assess ISSN: 0167-6369 Impact factor: 2.513
Fig. 1Idea scheme which presents the transport of thallium in the environment (based on Savariar 2014)
Environmentally safe limits for thallium
| Thallium limits | Sources | |
|---|---|---|
| Drinking water | 2 μg L−1 | USEPA ( |
| Arable soils | 1 mg kg−1 | CCME ( |
| World land plants | 0.008–1.0 mg kg−1 | Kabata Pendias and Pendias ( |
| World edible plants | 0.03–0.3 mg kg−1 | |
| World average daily intake | 2 μg day−1 | Sabbioni et al. ( |
| Oral reference dose | 0.056 mg day−1 | RAIS ( |
Thallium concentration in bottom sediments, floodplain soil and water of the Wodna and Luszowka rivulets (Lukaszewski et al. 2010)
| Level (m) | Thallium concentration (mg g−1 or mg L−1) | SD (mg g−1 or mg L−1) |
|---|---|---|
| Wodna rivulet | ||
| Bottom sediment | 7.4 | 0.7 |
| Floodplain soil | ||
| 0–0.2 | 1.0 | 0.1 |
| 0.4–0.6 | 1.9 | 0.3 |
| 0.8–1.0 | 1.8 | 0.04 |
| Rivulet water | 0.32 | 0.04 |
| Luszowka rivulet | ||
| Bottom sediment | 1.7 | 0.3 |
| Floodplain soil | ||
| 0–0.2 | 0.11 | 0.03 |
| 0.4–0.6 | 0.20 | 0.05 |
| 0.8–1.0 | 0.08 | 0.01 |
| Rivulet water | 0.21 | 0.01 |
Fig. 2Content of total thallium (mg kg−1) in soils and sediments of the Silesian-Cracow delves of zinc–lead ores
Comparison of results of thallium content determination in various environmental samples with the use of different analytical techniques
| Sample | Sampling site | Concentration range | Analytical technique | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sediment | Arnous River (downstream), France | 1–10 nmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Casiot et al. ( |
| Arnous River (downstream), France | 0.2–26.6 nmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Casiot et al. ( | |
| Arnous River (upstream), France | 0.05–0.78 nmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Casiot et al. ( | |
| Arnous River (upstream), France | 0.05–0.83 nmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Casiot et al. ( | |
| Deule Channel (France)—contaminated sediments near a metal smelter | 1.8–1111 μmol kg−1 | LEAFS | Boughriet et al. ( | |
| Gardon River, France | 0.15–0.63 nmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Casiot et al. ( | |
| Reigous Bay, France | 20–235 nmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Casiot et al. ( | |
| Reigous Bay, France | 0.0001–2.6 μmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Casiot et al. ( | |
| Biwa Lake (Japan) | 7.4 ± 0.7 nmol g−1 | LEAFS | Cheam et al. ( | |
| Buffalo River (USA) | 5.5 ± 0.5 nmol g−1 | LEAFS | Cheam et al. ( | |
| Winter Green Lake (USA) | 0.01–0.11 mmol g−1 | AAS | Cheam ( | |
| Indiana Harbor artificial channel (USA) | 6.3 ± 0.4 nmol g−1 | LEAFS | Cheam et al. ( | |
| Erie Lake (Canada) | 0.014–0.053 nmol L−1 | GFAAS | Lin and Nriagu ( | |
| Humber River (Canada) | 2.3 ± 0.4 nmol g−1 | LEAFS | Cheam et al. ( | |
| Huron Lake (Canada) | 0.013–0.088 nmol L−1 | GFAAS | Lin and Nriagu ( | |
| Lakes near a coal mine (western Canada) | 0.001–0.02 μmol g−1 | LEAFS | Cheam ( | |
| Michigan Lake (Canada) | 0.047–0.094 nmol L−1 | GFAAS | Lin and Nriagu ( | |
| Mine water (western Canada) | 0.001–6.5 nmol L−1 | LEAFS | Cheam ( | |
| Niagara River (Canada) | 5.2 ± 0.4 nmol g−1 | LEAFS | Cheam et al. ( | |
| Ontario Lake (Canada) | 0.53–4.2 nmol g−1 | LEAFS | Borgmann et al. ( | |
| Ontario Lake (Canada) | 4.5 ± 0.4 nmol g−1 | LEAFS | Cheam et al. ( | |
| Ontario Lake (Canada) | 0.024–0.034 nmol L−1 | LEAFS | Cheam et al. ( | |
| Ontario Lake (Canada) | 0.026–0.040 nmol L−1 | LEAFS | Cheam et al. ( | |
| Port Hamilton (Canada) | 12.6 ± 1.4 nmol g−1 | LEAFS | Cheam et al. ( | |
| Port Hamilton (Canada) | 0.11–0.18 nmol L−1 | LEAFS | Cheam et al. ( | |
| Port in Toronto (Canada) | 3.0 ± 0.3 nmol g−1 | LEAFS | Cheam et al. ( | |
| Saint Clair Lake (Canada) | 3.1 ± 0.6 nmol g−1 | LEAFS | Cheam et al. ( | |
| Sudbury (Canada) | 2.4 ± 0.1 nmol g−1 | LEAFS | Cheam et al. ( | |
| Superior Lake (Canada) | 4.4–6.8 pmol L−1 | LEAFS | Cheam et al. ( | |
| Superior Lake (Canada) | 0.007 ± 0.001 nmol L−1 | HR-ICP-MS | Field and Sherrell ( | |
| Tantare Lake (Canada) | 38 ± 0.3 pmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Laforte et al. ( | |
| The Great Lakes (Canada) | 0.5–1043 pmol L−1 | LEAFS | Cheam et al. ( | |
| Vose Lake (Canada) | 0.59–1.53 nmol g−1 | ICP-MS | Laforte et al. ( | |
| Vose Lake (Canada) | 5.5 ± 0.4 pmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Laforte et al. ( | |
| Ovre Skarsion Lake (Sweden) | 36–44 pmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Grahn et al. ( | |
| Listresjon Lake (Sweden) | 59 pmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Grahn et al. ( | |
| Stensjon Lake (Sweden) | 22–39 pmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Grahn et al. ( | |
| Remmarsjon Lake (Sweden) | 32–39 pmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Grahn et al. ( | |
| Tvaringen Lake (Sweden) | 24–31 pmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Grahn et al. ( | |
| Rivers and streams (Poland) | 0.0077–0.72 mmol g−1 | DPASV | Lis et al. ( | |
| Surface waters (Taiwan) | 117 ± 1 pmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Meeravali and Jiang ( | |
| Deep-sea water (Lanmuchang, China) | 0.064–5.382 μmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Xiao et al. ( | |
| Ground water (Lanmuchang, China) | <0.0024 μmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Xiao et al. ( | |
| Surface water (Yanshang, China) | 0.03–0.47 pmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Xiao et al. ( | |
| Surface water (Lanmuchang, China) | 0.24–3.67 μmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Xiao et al. ( | |
| Spring water (Lanmuchang, China) | 0.4–151.7 nmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Xiao et al. ( | |
| Well water (Lanmuchang, China) | 0.049–1.859 μmol L−1 | ICP-MS | Xiao et al. ( | |
| Pearl River (China) | 0.0061–0.0935 μmol g−1 | ICP-MS | Liu et al. ( | |
| North River (China) | 0.0045–0.0158 μmol g−1 | ICP-MS | Liu et al. ( | |
| Elbe (Germany) | 0.0041–0.0095 μmol g−1 | ICP-MS | Liu et al. ( | |
| Streams sediments (Zn–Pb processing area, Poland) | 0.0077–0.7193 μmol g−1 | DPASV | Lis et al. ( | |
| Rivulet sediment (Zn–Pb processing area, Poland) | 0.0367 μmol g−1 | DPASV | Jakubowska et al. ( | |
| Stream sediment (Zn–Pb processing area, Poland) | 0.0073–0.0323 μmol g−1 | DPASV | Karbowska et al. ( | |
| Bolesław-Bukowno, mining area (Upper Silesia, Poland) | 0.0016–0.0685 μmol g−1 | ICP-MS, ASV | Ospina-Alvarez et al. ( | |
| Tamar estuarine sediments (England) | 0.0004–0.0011 μmol g−1 | ICP-MS | Anagboso et al. ( | |
| Tsunami sediments (Thailand) | 0.0019–0.0053 μmol g−1 | DPASV | Lukaszewski et al. ( | |
| Snow and ice | Snow (arctic areas of Canada) | 0.015–0.0044 pmol g−1 | LEAFS | Cheam et al. ( |
| Surface ice (arctic areas of Canada) | 0.0015–0.0055 pmol g−1 | LEAFS | Cheam et al. ( | |
| Deep-sea ice (arctic areas of Canada) | 0.0001–0.0045 pmol g−1 | LEAFS | Cheam et al. ( | |
| Ellesmere island (arctic areas of Canada) | 0.0064–0.0108 pmol g−1 | ETV-ICP-MS | Baiocchi et al. ( | |
| Antarctica (Terra Nova) | 0.0009–0.0022 pmol g−1 | ETV-ICP-MS | Baiocchi et al. ( | |
| Sea water | Pacific Ocean | 58–77 pmol kg−1 | ETV-ICP-MS | Baiocchi et al. ( |
| Atlantic Ocean | 59–80 pmol kg−1 | ETV-ICP-MS | Baiocchi et al. ( | |
| Ross Sea (Antarctica) | 22–25 pmol L−1 | HR-ICP-MS | Baiocchi et al. ( | |
| Air | City center (Zagreb) | |||
| 1998 | 0–0.09 nmol m−3 | FAAS | Hrsak et al. ( | |
| 1999 | 0–0.01 nmol m−3 | FAAS | Hrsak et al. ( | |
| 2000 | 0–0.01 nmol m−3 | FAAS | Hrsak et al. ( | |
| Residential districts | ||||
| 1998 | 0–0.02 nmol m−3 | FAAS | Hrsak et al. ( | |
| 1999 | 0–0.03 nmol m−3 | FAAS | Hrsak et al. ( | |
| 2000 | 0–0.04 nmol m−3 | FAAS | Hrsak et al. ( | |
| Soil | Surface soil (Poland) | 0.2–145.8 μmol kg−1 | DPASV | Lis et al. ( |
| Deep soil (Poland) | 0.1–171.7 μmol kg−1 | DPASV | Lis et al. ( | |
| Soil contaminated by zinc smelter (Poland) | 0.0171–0.1468 μmol g−1 | ICP-MS | Vaněk et al. ( | |
| Soil reference area (Poland) | 0.0010–0.0137 μmol g−1 | ICP-MS | Vaněk et al. ( | |
| Soil floodplain terraces (Poland) | 0.0019–0.0022 μmol g−1 | DPASV | Jakubowska et al. ( | |
| Mine area (Lanmuchang, China) | 0.2–0.6 mmol kg−1 | ICP-MS | Xiao et al. ( | |
| Alluvial soil (Lanmuchang, China) | 0.07–0.3 mmol kg−1 | ICP-MS | Xiao et al. ( | |
| Intact natural soil (Lanmuchang, China) | 7–34 μmol kg−1 | ICP-MS | Xiao et al. ( | |
| Intact natural soil (Yanshang, China) | 4.4–6.8 μmol kg−1 | ICP-MS | Xiao et al. ( | |
| Soil contaminated with pyrite slag (China) | 0.0245–0.0734 μmol g−1 | ICP-MS | Yang et al. ( | |
| Soil background (China) | 0.0079–0.0099 μmol g−1 | ICP-MS | Yang et al. ( | |
| Arable soils (France) | Median 0.0014 μmol g−1 | GFAAS | Tremel et al. ( | |
| Czech soil | 0.0021–0.0039 μmol g−1 | ICP-MS | Vaněk et al. ( | |
| Czech sandy soil | 0.0029–0.0039 μmol g−1 | ICP-MS | Vaněk et al. ( | |
| Korean soil—near cement plants | 0.0059–0.0632 μmol g−1 | ICP-OES | Lee et al. ( | |
| Korean soil—near mines | 0.0009–0.0053 μmol g−1 | ICP-OES | Lee et al. ( | |
| Iranian soil, Chelpu catchment area | 0.0108–0.0264 μmol g−1 | ICP-ES | Taheri et al. ( | |
| Ores and rocks | Sulfide ores (Lanmuchang, China) | 0.5–171.2 mmol kg−1 | ICP-MS | Xiao et al. ( |
| Coal (Lanmuchang, China) | 0.06–0.22 mmol kg−1 | ICP-MS | Xiao et al. ( | |
| Secondary materials (Lanmuchang, China) | 0.12–5.38 mmol kg−1 | ICP-MS | Xiao et al. ( | |
| Mine waste (Lanmuchang, China) | 0.16–12.72 mmol kg−1 | ICP-MS | Xiao et al. ( | |
| Crushed field stone (Lanmuchang, China) | 0.19–2.40 mmol kg−1 | ICP-MS | Xiao et al. ( | |
| Gold ores (Yanshang, China) | 1–78 μmol kg−1 | ICP-MS | Xiao et al. ( | |
| Coal (Yanshang, China) | 1.5–41.1 μmol kg−1 | ICP-MS | Xiao et al. ( | |
| Magmatic rock (France) | 0.0016–0.0083 μmol g−1 | GFAAS | Tremel et al. ( | |
| Metamorphic rock (France) | 0.0013–0.0049 μmol g−1 | GFAAS | Tremel et al. ( | |
| Clastic rock (France) | 0.0002–0.0043 μmol g−1 | GFAAS | Tremel et al. ( | |
| Calcareous rock (France) | 0.0005–0.1057 μmol g−1 | GFAAS | Tremel et al. ( | |
| Sinemurian limestone (France) | 0.0362–0.2691 μmol g−1 | GFAAS | Tremel et al. ( | |
| Carixian marls (France) | 0.0147–0.0167 μmol g−1 | GFAAS | Tremel et al. ( | |
| Composite rock (France) | 0.0002–0.0025 μmol g−1 | GFAAS | Tremel et al. ( | |
| Alluvial rock (France) | 0.0017–0.0036 μmol g−1 | GFAAS | Tremel et al. ( | |
| Floodplain sands, gravel, and silt (Poland) | 0.0022–0.0092 μmol g−1 | DPASV | Lis et al. ( | |
| Slope wash sands and loams (Poland) | 0.0007–0.1717 μmol g−1 | DPASV | Lis et al. ( | |
| Loesses (Poland) | 0.0009–0.0049 μmol g−1 | DPASV | Lis et al. ( | |
| Glaciofluvial sands and gravel (Poland) | 0.0001–0.0113 μmol g−1 | DPASV | Lis et al. ( | |
| Dolomites, ore-bearing dolomites, limestones, and marls (Poland) | 0.0021–0.0298 μmol g−1 | DPASV | Lis et al. ( | |
| Dolomites (Poland) | 0.0014–0.0092 μmol g−1 | DPASV | Karbowska et al. ( | |
| Ore-bearing dolomites (Poland) | 0.0057–0.0396 μmol g−1 | DPASV | Karbowska et al. ( | |
| Belgian Zn–Pb vein deposits | 0.1468–30.8264 μmol g−1 | X-ray fluorescence, XRF | Duchesne et al. ( | |
| Dumps of Zn–Pb processing (Poland) | 0.0338–0.1458 μmol g−1 | DPASV | Lis et al. ( | |
| Galena concentrate (Poland) | 0.0308–0.0357 μmol g−1 | DPASV | Karbowska et al. ( | |
| Blende concentrate (Poland) | 0.0298–0.0494 μmol g−1 | DPASV | Karbowska et al. ( | |
| Crude Zn–Pb ores (Poland) | 0.0091–0.0100 μmol g−1 | DPASV | Karbowska et al. ( | |
| Carbonate rock (Erzmatt, Switzerland) | 0.4893–4.8931 μmol g−1 | ICP-MS | Voegelin et al. ( | |
| Wastewater | Bolesław-Bukowno, mining area (Upper Silesia, Poland) | 0.2447 ± 0.0098 μmol L−1 (9 ± 1 % as Tl III) (91 % as Tl I) | HPLC with ICP-MS | Ospina-Alvarez et al. ( |
| Volcanic ashes | Iceland (2010) Eruption of | 0.0023 ± 0.0002 μmol g−1 | DPASV | Karbowska and Zembrzuski ( |
| White mustard ( | Czech Republic (central part) | 0.1908 μmol g−1 (in stem) | ICP-MS | Groesslova et al. ( |
| Green cabbage ( | Guizhou, China | 0.4942–0.9395 μmol g−1 in the leaves, DW | ICP-MS | Ning et al. ( |
| Urine | Population: pregnant woman | Median 0.0016 μmol L−1
| ICP-MS | Xia et al. ( |
| Population: pregnant woman | Median 0.0009 μmol g−1 in creatinine | ICP-MS | Fort et al. ( | |
| Population: opioid addicts | 0.0–1.693 μmol L−1
| GFAAS | Ghaderi et al. ( | |
Use of FAAS and ICP-MS techniques for determination of thallium in water and biological material samples (Li et al. 2009)
| Sample | ICP-MS technique | FAAS technique | Relative standard deviation [%] | Recovery [%] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tap water | 0.260 μg L−1 | 0.240 μg L−1 | 3.2 | 88–102 |
| River water | 1.220 μg L−1 | 1.340 μg L−1 | 3.4 | 91–106 |
| Human hair | 0.384 mg kg−1 | 0.395 mg kg−1 | 3.0 | 90–98 |
| Human nail | 0.675 mg kg−1 | 0.668 mg kg−1 | 3.2 | 88–97 |
Use of the GFAAS technique for determination of thallium in environmental samples (Asami et al. 1996; Griepink et al. 1988)
| Sample | Separation method | Detection limit [ng g−1] or [ng mL−1] | Interference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surface water | Extraction | 5 | Cu |
| Sea sediments | Extraction | 10 | Fe, Mo, Re, Au, Sb, Ta |
| Soil | Extraction | 20 | Cu, Zn, Pb |
| Particulate matter | Extraction | 3.3 | HBr |
Comparison of thallium determination results in environmental samples using different atomic spectrometry techniques
| Sample | Preparative method | Analytical method | Detection limit | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air | Separated in a filter, dissolved in acid | ICP-AES | 1 μg g−1 | Sitting ( |
| Water | Treated with HNO3 | AAS | 0.1 mg L−1 | NIOSH ( |
| Water | Treated with HNO3 | AAS | 0.1 mg L−1 | APHA ( |
| Water | Treated with HNO3 | GFAAS | 0.1 μg L−1 | EPA ( |
| Wastewater | Acid digestion | ICP-AES | 40 μg L−1 | EPA ( |
| Solid waste | Acid digestion | AAS | 0.1 mg L−1 | EPA ( |
| Solid waste | Acid digestion | GFAAS | 1 μg L−1 | EPA ( |
| Solid waste | Acid digestion | ICP-AES | 40 μg L−1 | EPA ( |
Comparison of thallium determination results in different environmental samples with the use of inversion voltammetry techniques (Griepink et al. 1998)
| Sample | Electrolyte | Type of electrode used in the voltammetric technique | Electrolysis parameters | Interference | Detection limit [ng∙L−1] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural water | pH 4.8; EDTA | HMDE—hanging mercury drop electrode | −0.9 V/SCE | Bi, Cu, Sb | 0.5 |
| Natural water | pH 4.5; octane | MFE—mercury-film electrode | −0.8 V/Ag/AgCl | Cd, Pb, Cu | 0.011 |
| Sea water | EDTA | MFE—mercury-film electrode | −1.1 V | Cd, Pb | 40 |
| Sea water | pH 3.5; KNO3 | MFE—mercury-film electrode | −0.9 V/SCE | Pb, Cu | 0.6 |
| Sea water | KNO3/EDTA | MFE—mercury-film electrode | −1.2 V/Ag/AgCl | Cu, Pb, Cd, Zn, Bi, Co, Ni, Sn, Fe | – |
| Rocks | pH 7–8; citrate | HMDE—hanging mercury drop electrode | −0.75/SCE | Requires separation | – |
| Salts | pH 4.5; EDTA | HMDE—hanging mercury drop electrode | −0.6/SCE | Cu, Pb, Cd, Bi, Sb, Sn | 200 |
Fig. 3Comparison of thallium LOD values for different analytical methods