Jump to content

Legacy pollution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of a series on
Pollution
Air pollution from a factory
Air
Biological
Digital
Electromagnetic
Natural
Noise
Radiation
Soil
Solid waste
Space
Thermal
Visual
War
Water
Topics
Misc
Lists
Categories

Legacy pollution or legacy pollutants are persistent materials in the environment that were created through a polluting industry or process that have polluting effects after the process has finished. Frequently these include persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals or other chemicals residual in the environment long after the industrial or extraction processes that produced them.[1][2][3][4] Often these are chemicals produced by industry and polluted before there was widespread awareness of the toxic effects of the pollutants, and subsequently regulated or banned.[3] Notable legacy pollutants include mercury, PCBs, Dioxins and other chemicals that are widespread health and environmental effects.[5][3] Sites for legacy pollutants include mining sites, industrial parks, waterways contaminated by industry, and other dump sites.

These chemicals often have outsized impact in countries jurisdictions with little or no environmental monitoring or regulation—because the chemical were often produced in new jurisdictions after they were banned in more heavily regulated jurisdictions.[4] Often in these countries, there is a lack of capacity in environmental regulatory, health and civic infrastructure to address the impact of the pollutants.[4]

The impact of legacy pollutants can be visible many years after the initial polluting process, and require environmental remediation.[6] Grassroots communities and environmental defender frequently advocate for responsibility of industry and states through environmental justice action and advocacy for recognition of human rights, such as the right to a healthy environment.[6][7][8]

Brownfields

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Brownfield land.[edit]
Example of brownfield land after excavation at a disused gasworks site, with soil contamination from removed underground storage tanks

Brownfield is previously-developed land that has been abandoned or underutilized,[9] and which may carry pollution, or a risk of pollution, from industrial use.[10] The specific definition of brownfield land varies and is decided by policy makers and land developers within different countries.[11][12] The main difference in definitions of whether a piece of land is considered a brownfield or not depends on the presence or absence of pollution.[11][13] Overall, brownfield land is a site previously developed for industrial or commercial purposes and thus requires further development before reuse.[11][14]

Many contaminated post-industrial brownfield sites sit unused because the cleaning costs may be more than the land is worth after redevelopment. Previously unknown underground wastes can increase the cost for study and clean-up.[15] Depending on the contaminants and damage present adaptive re-use and disposal of a brownfield can require advanced and specialized appraisal analysis techniques.[15]

Mine tailings

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Tailings.[edit]

In mining, tailings or tails are the materials left over after the process of separating the valuable fraction from the uneconomic fraction (gangue) of an ore. Tailings are different from overburden, which is the waste rock or other material that overlies an ore or mineral body and is displaced during mining without being processed.

Tailings are likely to be dangerous sources of toxic chemicals such as heavy metals, sulfides and radioactive content. These chemicals are especially dangerous when stored in water in ponds behind tailings dams. These ponds are also vulnerable to major breaches or leaks from the dams, causing environmental disasters, such as the Mount Polley disaster in British Columbia. Because of these and other environmental concerns such as groundwater leakage, toxic emissions and bird death, tailing piles and ponds have received more scrutiny, especially in developed countries, but the first UN-level standard for tailing management was only established 2020.[16]

Abandoned mines

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Abandoned mine.[edit]

An abandoned mine refers to a former mining or quarrying operation that is no longer in use and has no responsible entity to finance the cost of remediation and/or restoration of the mine feature or site. Such mines are typically left unattended and may pose safety hazards or cause environmental damage without proper maintenance. The term incorporates all types of old mines, including underground shaft mines and drift mines, and surface mines, including quarries and placer mining. Typically, the cost of addressing the mine's hazards is borne by the public/taxpayers/the government.[17][18][19][20]

An abandoned mine may be a hazard to health, safety or environment.

copper mine adit with bat gate in warren county, New Jersey
Pahaquarry Copper Mine adit, New Jersey, US

Abandoned gas wells

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Orphan wells.[edit]
Abandoned oil well in the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge.

Orphan, orphaned, or abandoned wells are oil or gas wells that have been abandoned by fossil fuel extraction industries. These wells may have been deactivated because had become uneconomic, failure to transfer ownerships (especially at bankruptcy of companies), or neglect, and thus no longer have legal owners responsible for their care. Decommissioning wells effectively can be expensive, costing several thousands of dollars for a shallow land well to millions of dollars for an offshore one.[21] Thus the burden may fall on government agencies or surface landowners when a business entity can no longer be held responsible.[22]

Orphan wells are a potent contributor of greenhouse gas emissions, such as methane emissions, contributing to climate change. Much of this leakage can be attributed to failure to have them plugged properly or leaking plugs. A 2020 estimate of abandoned wells in the United States was that methane emissions released from abandoned wells produced greenhouse gas impacts equivalent to three weeks of US oil consumption each year.[22] The scale of leaking abandoned wells is well understood in the US and Canada because of public data and regulation; however, a Reuters investigation in 2020 could not find good estimates for Russia, Saudi Arabia and China—the next biggest oil and gas producers.[22] However, they estimate there are 29 million abandoned wells internationally.[22][23]

Abandoned wells have the potential to contaminate land, air and water, potentially harming ecosystems, wildlife, livestock, and humans.[22][24] For example, many wells in the United States are situated on farmland, and if not maintained could contaminate soil and groundwater with toxic contaminants.[22]

Remediation

[edit]

Human industrial activities can often lead to long-lasting pollutants in ecosystems.[25] With industrialization and its consequences, technology has been developed to repair and detoxify the ecosystem. Some methods of remediation include natural bioremediation techniques that use plants and or microorganisms as well as [26] Physical techniques like soil washing, vitrification, electrokinetic remediation, and permeable barrier systems are used to cleanse the ecosystem as well.[27] Chemical remediation is another common method of detoxification in the ecosystem using methods like stabilization/solidification, precipitation, and ion-exchange resin.[27]

Bioremediation and Legacy Pollutants

Bioremediation is a process that is typically used in detoxifying an ecosystem that is suffering from legacy pollutants.[26] Microorganisms are typically the main biotechnology used in the process of removing heavy metals from contaminated sources.[26] Common sources of heavy metal contamination from human actions includes cadmium, zinc, copper, nickel, and lead.[25]  Microbes employed in the process convert harmful heavy metals into non-toxic versions that are safer for the ecosystem.[26] The process of using microbes is often considered one of the most safe, effective, and convenient methods of remediation due to the natural ability of native microbes to cleanse toxic products.[25]

Physical Techniques in Remediation

Soil washing is a common method of remediation that has been well studied. It is most effective when used as a pair with other techniques like advanced oxidation or phytoremediation.[28] The effectiveness of soil washing varies based on cleaning agents, pH levels, and the types of pollutants present.[28] Vitrification has been studied, and shows potential for remediating large quantities of lead and zinc.[29] In heat vitrification, bringing the material to roughly 1850 °C has been shown to effectively immobilize heavy-metals and non-volatile inorganic compounds.[29] Electrokinetic remediation involves using electric currents to extract pollutants from the ecosystem, and is effective in the removal of radionuclides, heavy metals, and organic/inorganic material mixtures.[30] For groundwater remediation, permeable barriers are commonly used to clean up pollution underground and aid in detoxification by using special materials.[31]

Chemical Techniques in Remediation

Stabilization/solidification is a process that involves mixing waste with a binder to decrease its "leachability" which allows for safer disposal in landfills and other channels while changing its physical and chemical properties.[32] Precipitation is another chemical remediation technique that involves making contaminates become solid particles by adding chemicals or microbes to form precipitates.[33] Ion-exchange is another successful chemical remediation method that uses ion-exchange resins to remove pollutants from groundwater.[34] Studies show success in the removal of cadmium, lead, and copper from contaminated groundwater.[34]

Challenges and Strategies Managing Non-Point Source Pollution and "Hot Spots"

The management of non-point source pollution and identification of "hot spots" are pivotal in addressing legacy pollution. Tackling these issues requires a comprehensive understanding of pollution sources and the implementation of targeted management practices. Innovative strategies, such as the application of technology for monitoring and remediation, play a crucial role in mitigating the impacts of legacy pollutants on ecosystems and human health.[35]

Social impacts

[edit]

Environmental Justice and Legacy Pollution

Legacy pollution disproportionately affects marginalized communities, including people of color, Indigenous populations, and low-income areas. Studies show that these communities are more likely to live near polluted sites and face higher health and safety risks. An environmental justice approach is critical, emphasizing the importance of equitable cleanup efforts and recognizing the right to a healthy environment for all individuals.[36]

Social Impacts Globally

[edit]

DDT Usage

DDT was a popular pesticide from the 1960s to the 1980s that was used intensely to kill mosquitos.[37] The United States banned the pesticide in 1972, largely in part because of a movement started by Rachel Carson and the book Silent Spring.[38] The book, published in 1962, drastically changed how scientists conducted their research and increased focus on the impacts of humans on the environment.[38] The persistent usage of DDT led to resistance by many of the pests it was actively supposed to kill.[39]

Social Impacts in Canada

[edit]
The Giant Mine site while undergoing a remediation project.

Giant Mine, Northwest Territories, Canada.

The Giant Mine was a large gold mine that was predominately active during the period of 1949-1999.[40] During this period, approximately 20,000 tonnes of arsenic was released at the site.[41] The mine was owned by the company Royal Oak Mines until 1999. The mine went bankrupt and ownership was transferred to the federal and territorial governments.[42] In the process of operations, ore roasting is a commonly used practice for gold recovery.[40] The Giant Mine used ore Roasting as a method of gold recovery primarily, and with this method of use came the release of large amounts of arsenic. Ore roasting is impactful to toxicity levels of arsenic, increases the solubility, and increases its rate of Bioaccessibility.[40] Studies have shown that underground chambers at the site contain approximately 237,000 tonnes of arsenic trioxide dust.[43] This has led to arsenic concentrations exceeding 4000 parts per million (ppm) without accounting other sources of arsenic sources and sinks that are present in the area that further contaminate the region.[43] Local Metis populations have given statements regarding the former mine site stating that their land, fish, and water are all contaminated from legacy pollution caused by the site.[44] a representative of the community stated that cancer rates in his community have risen due to the legacy pollution still impacting the local community.[44]

The Athabasca River runs directly through the highlighted orange Athabasca Oil Sands region.

Athabasca River, Alberta, Canada.

With the development and expansion of oil sand operations in the region of the Athabasca River, concerns have been raised regarding higher cancer rates in local residents due to pollutants from tailing ponds.[45] Evidence of mercury, nickel, thallium, and all 13 priority pollutants were discovered in nearby area samples throughout various seasons in the year varying in concentration.[45] First Nations populations that are reliant on local foods have been found to be directly exposed to Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) as a result of oil sands operations.[46] Fish from the area are the most significant contributors to BaP exposure in the communities, leading to BaP intake levels that rival on average nine cigarettes a day.[46] Levels are anticipated to grow along with industrial expansion in the region.[46]

Case Studies: Giant Mine and Athabasca River

The Giant Mine in Canada's Northwest Territories and the Athabasca River in Alberta serve as stark reminders of the social and environmental impacts of legacy pollution. The Giant Mine, with its history of arsenic pollution, and the Athabasca River, affected by oil sand operations, illustrate the dire consequences of industrial activities on local communities, particularly on Indigenous populations. These case studies underscore the urgency of cleanup efforts and the need for ongoing vigilance to protect human health and the environment.[47][48]

Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster, Ukraine

[edit]

Chernobyl Accident, 1986

Chernobyl radiation map from 1996, ten years after the initial disaster.

The Chernobyl disaster occurred on April 26, 1986, at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine. An explosion and fire released large quantities of radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere, which spread over much of Europe. The immediate aftermath involved acute radiation sickness and deaths among plant workers and emergency responders. Long-term health effects, including thyroid cancer, leukemia, and other cancers, have been observed in thousands of individuals exposed to radiation.[49] The disaster also led to the permanent displacement of over 300,000 people from their homes, creating profound social and psychological impacts and a legacy of health and economic hardships.[50]

Bhopal Gas Tragedy, India

[edit]

Bhopal Disaster, 1984

On the night of December 2 to 3, 1984, a pesticide plant owned by Union Carbide in Bhopal, India, released 42 tons of methyl isocyanate gas. Exposure to the gas killed thousands immediately, and many more succumbed to related illnesses in the following weeks. Survivors suffer from chronic respiratory problems, eye irritations, and skin diseases. The incident has also resulted in genetic disorders and birth defects in subsequent generations.[51] The social fallout includes ongoing litigation for fair compensation, lack of adequate medical facilities for the affected, and persistent economic stagnation in the community.[52]

Most common legacy pollutants and health hazards

[edit]

The most common legacy pollutants found in the natural environment are lead, arsenic, bromate, brominated flame retardants (BFR's), chlorinated naphthalenes, dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, mercury, and PCBs.[53]

Lead

High levels of lead in human blood is detrimental to the health of individuals at all ages. In children and infants, high levels of lead can contribute to behavioural changes, reduce cognitive performance, impact postnatal growth at all stages and delaying puberty, and can directly impact hearing capacity of the individual.[54] Adults suffer from the impacts of lead toxicity as well. Adults can face severe health hazards including cardiovascular disease, central nervous system disorders, kidney issues, and fertility issues.[54] In pregnancy, lead exposure can result in issues regarding fetal growth.[54]

Arsenic

The exposure of humans to arsenic occurs through air, water, food, and soil[55] Arsenic is distributed through the body in organs like the liver, kidney, and lungs.[55] Arsenic can also accumulate in bodily tissues like hair, nails, and skin.[55] Arsenic has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.[55] Other effects on the human body includes endocrine disruption, neuropathic and neurobehavioral issues, reproductive issues, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory related issues.[55]

Bromate

Consumption of high levels of bromate poses a risk for cancer when exceeding the maximum contaminant limit (MCL).[56] This limit is established at an international scale for many countries.[56]

Chlorinated Naphthalenes

A historical incident occurred during World War II that lead to greater understanding of the impact of chlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) on human health.[57] A product containing PCNs was consumed by individuals at the time, and led to symptoms of gastrointestinal disruption, neuropathy, depression, and chloracne.[57] Regular exposure of PCNs by cable workers, assemblers, and labourers, has led to fatalities.[57]

Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds

Dioxin and similar compounds are placed among the most toxic chemicals know to the public.[58] Dioxins are recognized as a carcinogen at an international scale.[58] Dioxin exposure can also lead to atherosclerosis, hypertension, and diabetes.[58] Disruption to the nervous system, immune system, reproductive system, and endocrine system are all impacts of long term exposure to dioxins and dioxin-like compounds.[58] Short term exposure to dioxin leads to a condition known as chloracne.[58] Fetuses and infants are very sensitive to dioxin exposure, and can suffer very harmful effects.[58]

Mercury

The impact of mercury pollution is extensive in regard to human health. While mercury occurs naturally and is released through erosion and volcanic activity, human related activities like smelting and industrial production increase the risk to exposure.[59] Mercury related diseases are noted and well studied. Food related outbreaks have been devastating to many communities in developing countries, and has resulted in a high number of deaths.[59] Mercury poisoning can cause severe issues to the human nervous system, cause neurological disorders, create organ related issues, and result in immune system issues.[59] Mercury exposure can also lead to cancer risk, and birth defects.[59]

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

PCBs are a confirmed carcinogen that is very harmful to human health.[60] A study on a husband and wife who faced PCBs as an occupational hazard suffered from and developed thyroid cancer, and malignant melanoma.[60] The husband was a non-smoker and developed lung cancer due to exposure.[60] Residents in close proximity to PCB contamination sites face higher rates of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, and reduced cognitive ability.[60]

International policy

[edit]

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is one of the main international mechanisms for supporting the elimination of legacy persistent organic pollutants such as PCBs.[5]

Global Efforts Against Legacy Pollution

Comparing approaches to managing legacy pollution across different countries highlights the variety of strategies employed worldwide. While some nations have advanced regulatory frameworks and technologies for pollution control, others struggle due to limited resources and infrastructure. International cooperation, such as through the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, is essential for the global elimination of legacy pollutants and the sharing of best practices .[35][36][61]

Recent Efforts in U.S. Legislation

[edit]

Recent efforts within the U.S. on remediation of superfund sites can be seen across the nation. In 2023, the EPA deleted four sites from the National Priorities List, allowing for further development of the remediated land due to the completion of the clean-up.[62]

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in the U.S.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in the U.S., signed by President Joe Biden, is an investment in the country. It allocates funds to multifaceted infrastructure needs and will directly invest in communities focusing on environmental justice, climate change, and economic growth.[63]

In a historic move to tackle legacy pollution, the Biden Administration's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocates $16 billion towards the cleanup of abandoned mine lands and orphaned oil and gas wells. This funding represents the largest investment in addressing legacy pollution in American history, aiming to mitigate environmental hazards, protect public health, and revitalize affected communities.[61]

By aiding in legacy pollution remediation, the law will greatly improve the disparities among communities, decreasing the social impacts. With one in four Black and Hispanic Americans living within 3 miles of a superfund site, the law will deliver investments to clean those superfund sites up and reclaim the land.[64] Creating jobs and addressing legacy pollution, the Bipartisan infrastructure law will remediate environmental harm and advance overdue environmental justice.[64]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ dksackett (2018-01-22). "Legacy pollution, an unfortunate inheritance". The Fisheries Blog. Retrieved 2023-03-10.
  2. ^ Technology, International Environmental. "What Is Legacy Pollution?". Envirotech Online. Retrieved 2023-03-10.
  3. ^ a b c "Primer - Legacy Pollutants | Poisoned Waters". www.pbs.org. Retrieved 2023-03-10.
  4. ^ a b c Khwaja, Mahmood A. (2020-11-12). "Toxic Legacy Pollution: Safeguarding Public Health and Environment from Industrial Wastes". Sustainable Development Policy Institute – via Think-Asia.
  5. ^ a b Environment, U. N. (2017-09-13). "PCBs a forgotten legacy?". UNEP - UN Environment Programme. Retrieved 2023-03-10.
  6. ^ a b Sanchez, Heather K.; Adams, Alison E.; Shriver, Thomas E. (2017-03-04). "Confronting Power and Environmental Injustice: Legacy Pollution and the Timber Industry in Southern Mississippi". Society & Natural Resources. 30 (3): 347–361. Bibcode:2017SNatR..30..347S. doi:10.1080/08941920.2016.1264034. ISSN 0894-1920. S2CID 151362873.
  7. ^ D., Bullard, Robert (2008). The quest for environmental justice : human rights and the politics of pollution. Sierra Club Books. ISBN 978-1-57805-120-5. OCLC 780807668.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ Dermatas, Dimitris (May 2017). "Waste management and research and the sustainable development goals: Focus on soil and groundwater pollution". Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy. 35 (5): 453–455. Bibcode:2017WMR....35..453D. doi:10.1177/0734242x17706474. ISSN 0734-242X. PMID 28462675. S2CID 41048855.
  9. ^ "Brownfield land registers". GOV.UK. Retrieved February 20, 2023.
  10. ^ "Glossary of Brownfields Terms". Brownfields Center. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Law Institute. Archived from the original on February 26, 2015.
  11. ^ a b c Jacek, Guillaume; Rozan, Anne; Desrousseaux, Maylis; Combroux, Isabelle (May 18, 2021). "Brownfields over the years: from definition to sustainable reuse". Environmental Reviews. 30: 50–60. doi:10.1139/er-2021-0017. S2CID 236348006.
  12. ^ Loures, Luis; Vaz, Eric (February 1, 2018). "Exploring expert perception towards brownfield redevelopment benefits according to their typology". Habitat International. Regional Intelligence: A new kind of GIScience. 72: 66–76. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.11.003. ISSN 0197-3975.
  13. ^ Tang, Yu-Ting; Nathanail, C. Paul (May 3, 2012). "Sticks and Stones: The Impact of the Definitions of Brownfield in Policies on Socio-Economic Sustainability". Sustainability. 4 (5): 840–862. doi:10.3390/su4050840. ISSN 2071-1050.
  14. ^ Alker, Sandra; Joy, Victoria; Roberts, Peter; Smith, Nathan (January 1, 2000). "The Definition of Brownfield". Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 43 (1): 49–69. Bibcode:2000JEPM...43...49A. doi:10.1080/09640560010766. ISSN 0964-0568. S2CID 153395212.
  15. ^ a b Chen, I-Chun; Chuo, Yu-Yu; Ma, Hwong-wen (April 1, 2019). "Uncertainty analysis of remediation cost and damaged land value for brownfield investment". Chemosphere. 220: 371–380. Bibcode:2019Chmsp.220..371C. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.116. ISSN 0045-6535. PMID 30590303. S2CID 58557619.
  16. ^ "Mining industry releases first standard to improve safety of waste storage". Mongabay Environmental News. 2020-08-06. Retrieved 2021-04-16.
  17. ^ "Abandoned Hardrock Mines – Information on Number of Mines, Expenditures, and Factors That Limit Efforts to Address Hazards GAO 20-238" (PDF). GAO.gov. March 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-03-18.
  18. ^ Joseph F., Castrilli (2007). "Wanted: A Legal Regime to Clean Up Orphaned /Abandoned Mines in Canada" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-08-02.
  19. ^ "Managing Australia's 50,000 abandoned mines". www.mining-technology.com. 12 April 2015. Retrieved 2021-12-13.
  20. ^ "With its mining boom past, Australia deals with the job of cleaning up". Mongabay Environmental News. 2020-08-20. Retrieved 2021-12-13.
  21. ^ Kaiser MJ (2019). Decommissioning forecasting and operating cost estimation : Gulf of Mexico well trends, structure inventory and forecast models. Cambridge, MA: Gulf Professional Publishing. doi:10.1016/C2018-0-02728-0. ISBN 978-0-12-818113-3. S2CID 239358078.
  22. ^ a b c d e f Groom N (2020-06-17). "Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace". Reuters. Retrieved 2021-04-07.
  23. ^ Geller D (13 July 2020). "More Exposures from Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Come Into Focus". Verisk.
  24. ^ Allison E, Mandler B (14 May 2018). "Abandoned Wells. What happens to oil and gas wells when they are no longer productive?". Petroleum and Environment. American Geosciences Institute.
  25. ^ a b c Dixit, Ruchita; Wasiullah; Malaviya, Deepti; Pandiyan, Kuppusamy; Singh, Udai B.; Sahu, Asha; Shukla, Renu; Singh, Bhanu P.; Rai, Jai P.; Sharma, Pawan Kumar; Lade, Harshad; Paul, Diby (February 2015). "Bioremediation of Heavy Metals from Soil and Aquatic Environment: An Overview of Principles and Criteria of Fundamental Processes". Sustainability. 7 (2): 2189–2212. doi:10.3390/su7022189. ISSN 2071-1050.
  26. ^ a b c d Verma, Samakshi; Kuila, Arindam (May 2019). "Bioremediation of heavy metals by microbial process". Environmental Technology & Innovation. 14: 100369. doi:10.1016/j.eti.2019.100369. ISSN 2352-1864.
  27. ^ a b Bradl, H.; Xenidis, A. (2005), "Chapter 3 Remediation techniques", Heavy Metals in the Environment: Origin, Interaction and Remediation, Interface Science and Technology, vol. 6, Elsevier, pp. 165–261, doi:10.1016/s1573-4285(05)80022-5, ISBN 978-0-12-088381-3, retrieved 2024-04-05
  28. ^ a b Liu, J.; Zhao, L.; Liu, Q.; Li, J.; Qiao, Z.; Sun, P.; Yang, Y. (2022-01-01). "A critical review on soil washing during soil remediation for heavy metals and organic pollutants". International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 19 (1): 601–624. doi:10.1007/s13762-021-03144-1. ISSN 1735-2630.
  29. ^ a b Dellisanti, Francesco; Rossi, Piermaria L.; Valdrè, Giovanni (2009-12-08). "In-field remediation of tons of heavy metal-rich waste by Joule heating vitrification". International Journal of Mineral Processing. 93 (3): 239–245. doi:10.1016/j.minpro.2009.09.002. ISSN 0301-7516.
  30. ^ Acar, Yalcin B.; Gale, Robert J.; Alshawabkeh, Akram N.; Marks, Robert E.; Puppala, Susheel; Bricka, Mark; Parker, Randy (1995-02-01). "Electrokinetic remediation: Basics and technology status". Journal of Hazardous Materials. Soil Remediation: Application of Innovative and Standard Technologies. 40 (2): 117–137. doi:10.1016/0304-3894(94)00066-P. ISSN 0304-3894.
  31. ^ Thiruvenkatachari, R.; Vigneswaran, S.; Naidu, R. (2008-03-01). "Permeable reactive barrier for groundwater remediation". Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. 14 (2): 145–156. doi:10.1016/j.jiec.2007.10.001. ISSN 1226-086X.
  32. ^ Tajudin, S A A; Azmi, M A M; Nabila, A T A (July 2016). "Stabilization/Solidification Remediation Method for Contaminated Soil: A Review". IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 136: 012043. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/136/1/012043. ISSN 1757-8981.
  33. ^ Taharia, Md.; Dey, Debanjan; Das, Koyeli; Sukul, Uttara; Chen, Jung-Sheng; Banerjee, Pritam; Dey, Gobinda; Sharma, Raju Kumar; Lin, Pin-Yun; Chen, Chien-Yen (February 2024). "Microbial induced carbonate precipitation for remediation of heavy metals, ions and radioactive elements: A comprehensive exploration of prospective applications in water and soil treatment". Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 271: 115990. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2024.115990. ISSN 0147-6513. PMID 38262090.
  34. ^ a b Vilensky, Mark Y.; Berkowitz, Brian; Warshawsky, Abraham (2002-04-01). "In Situ Remediation of Groundwater Contaminated by Heavy- and Transition-Metal Ions by Selective Ion-Exchange Methods". Environmental Science & Technology. 36 (8): 1851–1855. doi:10.1021/es010313+. ISSN 0013-936X. PMID 11993887.
  35. ^ a b Shahady, Thomas D. (2023-04-12). "Legacy pollution and our struggle to control non-point source pollution". Open Access Government. 38 (1): 503. doi:10.56367/OAG-038-10734. ISSN 2516-3817.
  36. ^ a b "New Legislation Addresses Legacies of Pollution in Environmental Justice Communities". The Equation. 2021-06-11. Retrieved 2024-04-25.
  37. ^ "A Legacy of Contamination (U.S. National Park Service)". www.nps.gov. Retrieved 2024-04-24.
  38. ^ a b "Legacy of Rachel Carsons Silent Spring National Historic Chemical Landmark". American Chemical Society. Retrieved 2024-04-24.
  39. ^ US EPA, OCSPP (2014-01-07). "DDT - A Brief History and Status". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 2024-04-24.
  40. ^ a b c Jamieson, H. E. (2014). "The Legacy of Arsenic Contamination from Mining and Processing Refractory Gold Ore at Giant Mine, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada". Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry. 79 (1): 533–551. Bibcode:2014RvMG...79..533J. doi:10.2138/rmg.2014.79.12. Retrieved 2024-03-22.
  41. ^ Bromstad, Mackenzie J.; Wrye, Lori A.; Jamieson, Heather E. (July 2017). "The characterization, mobility, and persistence of roaster-derived arsenic in soils at Giant Mine, NWT". Applied Geochemistry. 82: 102–118. Bibcode:2017ApGC...82..102B. doi:10.1016/j.apgeochem.2017.04.004. ISSN 0883-2927.
  42. ^ Sandlos, John; Keeling, Arn (2016-07-06). "Toxic Legacies, Slow Violence, and Environmental Injustice at Giant Mine, Northwest Territories". Northern Review (42): 7–21. doi:10.22584/nr42.2016.002. ISSN 1929-6657.
  43. ^ a b Clark, Ian D.; Raven, Kenneth G. (June 2004). "Sources and circulation of water and arsenic in the Giant Mine, Yellowknife, NWT, Canada". Isotopes in Environmental and Health Studies. 40 (2): 115–128. Bibcode:2004IEHS...40..115C. doi:10.1080/10256010410001671014. ISSN 1025-6016. PMID 15223665.
  44. ^ a b Western, Sally Abbott (2021-05-25). "Arsenic Lost Years: Pollution Control at Giant Mine from 1978 to 1999". Northern Review (51): 69–104. doi:10.22584/nr51.2021.004. ISSN 1929-6657.
  45. ^ a b Kelly, Erin N.; Schindler, David W.; Hodson, Peter V.; Short, Jeffrey W.; Radmanovich, Roseanna; Nielsen, Charlene C. (2010-09-14). "Oil sands development contributes elements toxic at low concentrations to the Athabasca River and its tributaries". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (37): 16178–16183. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10716178K. doi:10.1073/pnas.1008754107. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 2941314. PMID 20805486.
  46. ^ a b c Zhan, Faqiang; Parajulee, Abha; Binnington, Matthew J.; Gawor, Anya; Wania, Frank (2023-04-26). "A multi-pathway exposure assessment for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons among residents in the Athabasca oil sands region, Canada". Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts. 25 (4): 755–766. doi:10.1039/D2EM00526C. ISSN 2050-7895. PMID 36883478.
  47. ^ Neuberger, Jillian; Cyrs, Tom; Saha, Devashree (September 27, 2021). "How the US Can Address Legacy Fossil Fuel Sites for a Clean Energy Future". World Resources Institute.
  48. ^ "Sen. Booker, Rep. McEachin Introduce Legislation to Clean Up Key Sources of Legacy Pollution". www.edf.org. Retrieved 2024-04-24.
  49. ^ Cardis, Elisabeth; Krewski, Daniel; Boniol, Mathieu; Drozdovitch, Vladimir; Darby, Sarah C.; Gilbert, Ethel S.; Akiba, Suminori; Benichou, Jacques; Ferlay, Jacques; Gandini, Sara; Hill, Catherine; Howe, Geoffrey; Kesminiene, Ausrele; Moser, Mirjana; Sanchez, Marie (2006-09-15). "Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident". International Journal of Cancer. 119 (6): 1224–1235. doi:10.1002/ijc.22037. ISSN 0020-7136. PMID 16628547.
  50. ^ Szalai, Jennifer (2019-02-06). "An Enthralling and Terrifying History of the Nuclear Meltdown at Chernobyl". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-04-24.
  51. ^ Eckerman, Ingrid (2005-04-04). "The Bhopal Saga: Causes and Consequences of the World's Largest Industrial Disaster". Environmental Health Perspectives. 113(5) (A344): A344. PMC 1257585.
  52. ^ Lapierre, Dominique; Moro, Javier (2002-09-07). Five Past Midnight in Bhopal. BMJ. ISBN 0-743-22034-X.
  53. ^ Canada, Health (2008-01-31). "Environmental Contaminants". www.canada.ca. Retrieved 2024-03-22.
  54. ^ a b c Kumar, Amit; M. M.s., Cabral-Pinto; Chaturvedi, Ashish K.; Shabnam, Aftab A.; Subrahmanyam, Gangavarapu; Mondal, Raju; Gupta, Dipak Kumar; Malyan, Sandeep K.; Kumar, Smita S.; A. Khan, Shakeel; Yadav, Krishna K. (January 2020). "Lead Toxicity: Health Hazards, Influence on Food Chain, and Sustainable Remediation Approaches". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 17 (7): 2179. doi:10.3390/ijerph17072179. ISSN 1660-4601. PMC 7177270. PMID 32218253.
  55. ^ a b c d e Munera-Picazo, Sandra; Cano-Lamadrid, Marina; Castaño-Iglesias, María Concepción; Burló, Francisco; Carbonell-Barrachina, Ángel A. (2015-01-09). "Arsenic in your food: potential health hazards from arsenic found in rice". Nutrition and Dietary Supplements. 7: 1–10. doi:10.2147/NDS.S52027.
  56. ^ a b Alomirah, Husam F.; Al-Zenki, Sameer F.; Alaswad, Marivi C.; Alruwaih, Noor A.; Wu, Qian; Kannan, Kurunthachalam (February 2020). "Elevated concentrations of bromate in Drinking water and groundwater from Kuwait and associated exposure and health risks". Environmental Research. 181: 108885. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2019.108885. ISSN 0013-9351. PMID 31708174.
  57. ^ a b c Fernandes, Alwyn; Rose, Martin; Falandysz, Jerzy (July 2017). "Polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) in food and humans". Environment International. 104: 1–13. Bibcode:2017EnInt.104....1F. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.015. ISSN 0160-4120. PMID 28391007.
  58. ^ a b c d e f Marinković, Natalija; Pašalić, Daria; Ferenčak, Goran; Gršković, Branka; Rukavina, Ana (2010-12-01). "Dioxins and Human Toxicity". Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. 61 (4): 445–453. doi:10.2478/10004-1254-61-2010-2024. ISSN 0004-1254. PMID 21183436.
  59. ^ a b c d Tchounwou, Paul B.; Ayensu, Wellington K.; Ninashvili, Nanuli; Sutton, Dwayne (January 2003). "Review: Environmental exposure to mercury and its toxicopathologic implications for public health". Environmental Toxicology. 18 (3): 149–175. Bibcode:2003EnTox..18..149T. doi:10.1002/tox.10116. ISSN 1520-4081. PMID 12740802.
  60. ^ a b c d Carpenter, David O. (2015-05-01). "Exposure to and health effects of volatile PCBs". Reviews on Environmental Health. 30 (2): 81–92. doi:10.1515/reveh-2014-0074. ISSN 2191-0308. PMID 25822318.
  61. ^ a b "Legacy Pollution | U.S. Department of the Interior". www.doi.gov. 2022-03-31. Retrieved 2024-04-24.
  62. ^ US EPA, OLEM (2020-11-02). "Superfund Remedial Annual Accomplishments Metrics". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 2024-04-24.
  63. ^ House, The White (2021-11-06). "Fact Sheet: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal". The White House. Retrieved 2024-04-24.
  64. ^ a b House, The White (2021-11-16). "The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Advances Environmental Justice". The White House. Retrieved 2024-04-24.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legacy_pollution&oldid=1232115966"