Serpentinite are widespread rock types used worldwide as building material. Heavy metals like Ni in both the serpentinite products and serpentinite mining wastes pose potential environmental and health issues. This work devises an analytical protocol to identify and quantify the Ni speciation in the mineralogical matrix, through: i) bulk Ni quantification; ii) quantitative mineralogical and chemical analysis of each Ni-rich mineral; iii) comparison of bulk analysis results with the sum of each contribution from the Ni-rich minerals. As case study, two commercial serpentinites "Verde Giada" (VG) and "Verde Vittoria" (VV) from Valmalenco (Northern Italy) were analysed by ICP-MS, XRPD, TGA, SEM, TEM, EPMA, and micro-Raman spectroscopy. The bulk Ni content is 1500-1750 mg/kg and 1390-1620 mg/kg for VG and VV, respectively. The major minerals from XRPD and EPMA (antigorite, olivine, pyroxene, magnetite, brucite) account for 1094 and 1291 mg/kg of Ni for VG and VV, respectively. SEM/TEM and EPMA highlighted the presence of minor chrysotile, pentlandite, heazlewoodite, awaruite, rising the computed Ni to 1924 and 1761 mg/kg for VG and VV, in good agreement with bulk ICP-MS. This protocol provides robust results and can thus enhance the exposure assessment of Ni and eventually other naturally occurring hazardous metals. We focus on Ni compounds naturally occurring in serpentinites. Ni has several compounds that are regulated known carcinogen (e.g. bunsenite mineral, NiO). However, Ni also occurs as trace element in other minerals, which are not considered "hazardous material". Environmental and social problems may arise when monitoring campaigns in serpentinite dressing plants employ bulk analytical techniques, which are not able to distinguish between diverse Ni occurrences. Our protocol enables to detect each hazardous phase, also distinguishing the contribution of non-hazardous minerals to the bulk Ni concentration. This method can be eventually applied to other contaminant metal species.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fantini et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: