Whether groundwater Cr(VI) enrichment near landfills results from direct leachate input or geogenic mobilization remains unresolved. Groundwater and leachate hydrochemistry, a Cl−-based mixing model, PHREEQC inverse modeling, sediment Cr fractionation, and correlation analysis were used to investigate a loess-gully landfill in Northwest China. The site was divided into four groundwater environmental units along the flow path. Cr(VI) ranged from below detection to 0.170 mg/L, and 35% of samples exceeded the Class III limit (0.05 mg/L). At the near-source groundwater drainage outlet (II-GEU), Cr(VI) was below detection despite an 8.22% apparent leachate contribution. Downgradient, the contribution decreased to 5.12%, yet Cr(VI) reached 4.17 times the conservative-mixing estimate. Thus, direct leachate mixing cannot explain downstream enrichment. Near the landfill, organic-rich leachate favored reducing conditions and Cr(VI) reduction. Downgradient, increasingly oxidizing conditions limited Cr(VI) reduction, while SO42− competed with chromate for mineral-surface adsorption sites, promoting Cr(VI) desorption and mobility. Leachate-induced mineral dissolution and cation exchange may further facilitate Cr(VI) migration by altering groundwater chemistry and mineral-surface properties. Landfill leachate therefore acts primarily as a geochemical trigger, inducing non-conservative transport and downstream release of geogenic Cr(VI), rather than as a direct Cr(VI) source. This mechanism has implications for monitoring and risk management in loess aquifers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: