PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15890388

Geochemical background--concept and reality.

Clemens Reimann·Robert G Garrett
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The definitions and use of the term 'background' in exploration and environmental geochemistry are reviewed. Based on data from two subcontinental-scale geochemical mapping projects, it is shown that trying to define 'a background' for a large area is fraught with problems. It is demonstrated that background may change from area to area within a region and between regions. Although global averages are of general use, no specific global background levels of elements, for example in soils, can be defined, at best regional or local operational estimates can be made, though with caveats. Using background estimates based on concentrations in deeper soil levels to judge element concentrations in upper soil horizons (e.g., the TOP/BOT-ratio) can lead to severe misinterpretations if natural biogeochemical soil formation processes are ignored. Because of large natural variations in element concentrations in, for example soils, even the establishment of maximum admissible concentration based on ecotoxicological investigations is a difficult exercise. Organisms may become adapted to natural differences. Furthermore, there are challenges in converting the concentrations of the soluble substances used in ecotoxicological studies to appropriate levels in solid phase material, for example soils, analysed by commonly employed acid digestion procedures. Toxicological thresholds may thus also need to consider a spatial component that is presently neglected.

Explore related subjects

ElementsEnvironmental MonitoringEuropeGeological PhenomenaGeologyReference ValuesSoil PollutantsTerminology as TopicJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Clemens Reimann, Robert G Garrett. 2005-11-01. Geochemical background--concept and reality.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.01.047

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Use of energy filtering transmission electron microscopy for image generation and element analysis in plant organisms.

Energy filtering TEM (EFTEM) with modern spectrometers and software offers new possibilities for element analysis and image generation in plant cells. In the present review, applications of EFTEM in plant physiology, such as identification of light elements and ion transport, analyses of natural cell incrustations, determination of element exchange between fungi and rootlets during mycorrhiza development, heavy metal storage and detoxification, and employment in plant physiological experiments are summarized. In addition, it is demonstrated that EFTEM can be successfully used in more practical approaches, for example, in phytoremediation, food and wood industry, and agriculture. Preparation methods for plant material as prerequisites for EFTEM analysis are compared with respect to their suitability and technical problems are discussed.

Elements↗
PubMed2006

RM1: a reparameterization of AM1 for H, C, N, O, P, S, F, Cl, Br, and I.

Twenty years ago, the landmark AM1 was introduced, and has since had an increasingly wide following among chemists due to its consistently good results and time-tested reliability--being presently available in countless computational quantum chemistry programs. However, semiempirical molecular orbital models still are of limited accuracy and need to be improved if the full potential of new linear scaling techniques, such as MOZYME and LocalSCF, is to be realized. Accordingly, in this article we present RM1 (Recife Model 1): a reparameterization of AM1. As before, the properties used in the parameterization procedure were: heats of formation, dipole moments, ionization potentials and geometric variables (bond lengths and angles). Considering that the vast majority of molecules of importance to life can be assembled by using only six elements: C, H, N, O, P, and S, and that by adding the halogens we can now build most molecules of importance to pharmaceutical research, our training set consisted of 1736 molecules, representative of organic and biochemistry, containing C, H, N, O, P, S, F, Cl, Br, and I atoms. Unlike AM1, and similar to PM3, all RM1 parameters have been optimized. For enthalpies of formation, dipole moments, ionization potentials, and interatomic distances, the average errors in RM1, for the 1736 molecules, are less than those for AM1, PM3, and PM5. Indeed, the average errors in kcal x mol(-1) of the enthalpies of formation for AM1, PM3, and PM5 are 11.15, 7.98, and 6.03, whereas for RM1 this value is 5.77. The errors, in Debye, of the dipole moments for AM1, PM3, PM5, and RM1 are, respectively, 0.37, 0.38, 0.50, and 0.34. Likewise, the respective errors for the ionization potentials, in eV, are 0.60, 0.55, 0.48, and 0.45, and the respective errors, in angstroms, for the interatomic distances are 0.036, 0.029, 0.037, and 0.027. The RM1 average error in bond angles of 6.82 degrees is only slightly higher than the AM1 figure of 5.88 degrees, and both are much smaller than the PM3 and PM5 figures of 6.98 degrees and 9.83 degrees, respectively. Moreover, a known error in PM3 nitrogen charges is corrected in RM1. Therefore, RM1 represents an improvement over AM1 and its similar successor PM3, and is probably very competitive with PM5, which is a somewhat different model, and not fully disclosed. RM1 possesses the same analytical construct and the same number of parameters for each atom as AM1, and, therefore, can be easily implemented in any software that already has AM1, not requiring any change in any line of code, with the sole exception of the values of the parameters themselves.

Elements↗