The Malaysian Journal of Analytical Sciences Vol 11 No 2 (2007): 336-339


*1Kamaruzzaman, B.Y., 2Antotina, A., 1Airiza, Z., 1Syalindran, S. and 1Ong M.C.

Institute of Oceanography and Maritime Studies,
International Islamic University Malaysia, Jalan Istana, 25200 Kuantan, Pahang.
Institute of Oceanography,
University Malaysia Terengganu, 21030, Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia.
*Corresponding author:

Keywords - Manganese, Cobalt, Copper, Iron, ICP-MS, mangrove forest


The geochemical profile of Kerteh mangrove sediments was analyzed for the vertical and horizontal distribution. The 100 cm
core sediment sample and 15 surface sediments samples were taken from the field. The geochemical elements of Mn, Co, Cu and
Fe of the sediments were analyzed. Geochemical proxy of Mn, Co, Cu and Fe were analyzed by using Inductively Coupled
Plasma – Mass Spectrometry (ICP–MS). The mean concentrations of Mn, Co, Cu and Fe for the vertical distribution were
210.18µg/g, 15.55µg/g, 43.65µg/g and 1.88µg/g respectively. On the other hand, the mean concentrations of the geochemical
elements for horizontal distributions were 230.50µg/g for Mn, 17.57µg/g for Co, 43.381µg/g for Cu and 2.93µg/g for Fe.
Enrichment factor and normalization was used to point out the level of pollution. The EF and the normalization indicated that all
the geochemical elements were from the natural sources.


The mangrove systems in tropical and subtropical countries have led to a strong risk of heavy metal contamination
in the coastal environment with the high degree of industrialization and urbanization. Mangrove sediment is being
anaerobic, reduced and favors the retention and accumulation of heavy metals [1]. A high heavy metal concentration
in sediment from the geological material is rather than contamination [2]. Clay minerals and organic matter build
aggregates and flocks, which effectively concentrate trace metal and sink down to form a ‘fluffy layer’ [3]. The
cycling of heavy metals, because of their toxicity, bio-accumulation capacity and persistence, is a serious question
recently addressed by many studies on mangrove environments [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10].

Materials and Methods
Sampling site

Sampling was done on May 2005 at Kerteh mangrove forest. The research area located at 04o 31’ 25” N; 103o 27’
03” E for the horizontal distribution and 04o 31’ 23” N; 103o 26’ 48” E for vertical distribution. The vertical
distribution samples were taken by using D-section corer while the horizontal distribution samples were taken by
using the scoop. A core (1 to 2 m deep) was collected at low tide and in shore faces sediments

Analytical method for heavy metal

Sediments were dried and ground with an agate pestle and mortar. The sediment sample were digested and the
analyses for heavy metal concentration following the published methodologies with some modifications [11,12].


The mean concentration for Cu was 43. Co concentration is the highest at 15-20 cm depth and the lowest at 90- 95 cm depth.0 2. The heavy metals concentrations are variable from the surface layer to the 100cm depth. The distribution of Cu concentration is constantly from surface to the bottom sediments but increased rapidly at 65 cm depth.0 20.81µg/g dry weights and 1. 40.71µg/g dry weight.: THE GEOCHEMICAL PROFILE OF Mn. the highest concentration was obtained at Station G7 and the lowest was obtained at Station G3. As for Cu. From the graph.0 Mn (ug/g) 300. 87. From the graph. The mean concentration of Mn was 230. The concentrations of vertical distribution of Co range from 4.g–1 dry weights). The concentration 337 . The highest concentration was at 30cm depth and the lowest concentration at 20 cm depth with 2. The mean concentration of Co was 17. From the graph. Cu and Fe in the bottom sediment of Kerteh mangrove forest. Cu and Fe concentration in Kerteh mangrove forest sediment. the Mn concentration was decreasing from the surface sediment to the bottom sediments.0 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 -1 -2 -3 -4 -7 -8 -9 0- -1 -2 -3 -4 -7 -8 -9 0- 10 20 30 40 65 80 90 10 20 30 40 65 80 90 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y depth (cm ) depth (cm ) 100. The concentrations are still below the mean crustal materials (950 µg.50 µg/g dry weights. Co concentration considered as decreased with the depth. 5.0 2.65 µg/g dry weights. 29.0 100. HCl.0 Co (ug/g) 30. G3 shows the highest Mn concentration and G9 shows the lowest.22 µg/g dry weight and minimum concentration at 25 cm depth.0 1. Co. The core sediment samples in the depth 5-10cm indicate the highest concentration whereas the 85-90cm depth indicates the lowest Mn concentration. the maximum concentration was at Station G5. boric aids and EDTA. Figure 2 shows the horizontal distribution of Mn. Mn concentration varies from 160.0 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 -1 -2 -3 -4 -7 -8 -9 0- -1 -2 -3 -4 -7 -8 -9 0- 10 20 30 40 65 80 90 10 20 30 40 65 80 90 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y depth (cm ) depth (cm ) Figure 1: The concentration of Mn.46 µg/g dry weights and Station G3 was the minimum.18 µg/g dry weights with average 15. the distribution of Fe concentration was invariable.08 µg/g dry weights with average concentration 210.0 Fe (ug/g) 60.18 µg/g dry weights.88µg/g dry weights. From the graph.5 Cu (ug/g) 80.68 µg/g dry weights respectively.75 µg/g dry weights to 36.18 µg/g dry weights respectively.Kamaruzzaman et al.0 0.0 3. Co. 367.0 0.77 µg/g dry weights and 115. The maximum concentration was observed at 65 cm depth with 88.38 µg/g dry weights.0 40. The accuracy was examined by analyzing duplicate a Canadian Certified Reference Materials Project standard. Cu and Fe) concentration for Kerteh mangrove forest is shown in Figure 1. The mean value of Cu was 43.57 µg/g dry weights. 35. Co.24 µg/g dry weights respectively.5 0.5 1.0 0. The digested samples were meshed up to 10mL with Mili-Q water and analyzed by ICP-OES PESCIEX ELLAN 6000 model.12 µg/g dry weights to 317.0 10.0 20. Co.70 µg/g dry weights. Cu AND Fe The samples sediments were digested with concentrated of HF. The mean concentration of Fe for vertical distribution was 1.0 0. For Co concentration.0 400. Result and Discussion The vertical distribution of heavy metals (Mn.0 200.55µg/g dry weights. HNO3.21 µg/g dry weights and 27.

Cd. Cu and Fe significantly enrichment. Cu compounds from anthropogenic source are more available to plants than the ones from natural sources. Pb. the lower concentrations observed in surface sediments in comparison to core sediments suggest a recent decrease of anthropogenic metal emissions for the study area [13].0 30.0 200.0 4.0 0. Five contamination categories are recognized on the basis of the enrichment factor (EF).0 20. Co. 35.83+1.0 10. From Table 1.0 400. Co.0 60.24 natural-minimum enrichment Co 3. Cu and Fe existed in the area anthropogenic.0 Co (ug/g) 25. The mean Fe concentration for horizontal distribution was 2. Cu and Fe in the study area. Metal concentrations are generally higher and more variable downstream from metal-producing locations and in the vicinity of industrial facilities [14].3%.0 2.43+0. Co and Cu were categorized as moderate enrichment. Mn and Fe exist in the area naturally. Small amount of Co and Cu were entering the area anthropogenic. If the anthropogenic input dominates the metal distribution in sediments.93%.16+2.0 100. Mn and Fe were categorized as natural-minimum enrichment.78 moderate enrichment Cu 3.5% and was the lowest at Station G9 with 2. EF used to identify the chemical elements entering the area anthropogenic. Zn and Cu are anthropogenically enriched in top layers of core sediment from the Kerteh mangrove forest.0 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G 0.0 20.93+0. but the decrease of these elements with depth in the core is not systematic.0 Mn (ug/g) 300.25 natural-minimum enrichment 338 . There was a high variability in metal concentrations at different stations of surface sediments and core sediments within a station. Cu and Fe in the surface sediment of Kerteh Mangrove Forest.0 0. Heavy Metal Enrichment Factor Source of Element Mn 0. only Mn was categorized as natural-minimum enrichment and Co.0 15. The Malaysian Journal of Analytical Sciences Vol 11 No 2 (2007): 336-339 of Fe was the highest at Station G3 with 3.0 0.0 Fe (%) 40. Table 1: Contamination Categories based on EF for Mn. Heavy metals concentration showed variation with depth. As for horizontal distribution.77 moderate enrichment Fe 1.0 10 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G 10 Station Station 100.0 Cu (ug/g) 3.0 5.0 80.0 1. Large amount of Co.0 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G 10 10 Station Station Figure 2: The concentration of Mn.

. P. A.R.P.. Environ. 1988. Poland. 1991. 1998. Geochemistry of the marine sediments: Its paleoceanographic significance. Redox stratification and heavy metal partitioning in Avicennia.D Dissertation.A. Martinelli. Cu and Fe occur significantly caused by anthropogenic and human activities.Kamaruzzaman et al. L..5 Lacerda. but can be conclude that there were no serious heavy metal contaminations in Kerteh mangrove forest. 275-285.. 1997. 1980. 1995. 1999. 8 Tam. P.. Uematsu.. Hokkaido University.W..B. 2004.F.. 110.J. 11 Kamaruzzaman.. 31.K. T. 4 Harbison. Sci. 6 Mackey.. Mozetto. 90.S. A. M.. and Leinen. Mn and Fe in the study area of vertical distribution occurs naturally and not greatly caused by anthropogenic and human activities. A.E. P. Environ. Wong. Accumulation and distribution of heavy metals in a simulated mangrove system treated with sewage.. R. The fate of heavy metals in suspended matter in a mangrove creek during a tidal cycle. N. 354–465. Heavy metal storage in near channel sediments of the Lahn River. Anthropogenic sources from the fishing activities and industrial area at the upstream may be the main reasons contributing insignificant heavy metal to the river system. Geol.. Iron and chromium transport and accumulation in a mangrove ecosystem. Geochemical at Comochimica Acta 60. Y. Saenger..S. 181– 186. 157–160. 2004. On the other hand. 1995. Ovalle. Nakanishi. Bull. Australia. 254– 261. Silva. B.D. 513–520. 195– 205. Fish.. Pollut.B. C.I.. Chem. Y. 7 Tam.dominated mangrove sediments: a geochemical model. Mar. for horizontal distribution. Victoria. & Tsunogai.. Pollut. 14 Charles W. Braganc¸ a.. A Ph. 67–75. M.. J... Cu AND Fe Conclusion From the EF calculation. F.Y. Hydrobiologia 352. Warzocha . Lewis. McConchie. D.F.. S.S.. 75. Total Environ. Concentration and spatial distribution of trace metals in mangrove sediments from the Brisbane River. Moreira..C. Scavenged excess aluminium and its relationship to bulk titanium in biogenic sediment from the central equatorial Pacific Ocean. R. 3869- 3878. Geomorphology 61. 149. Wanderley. L. L.W..D. H. I. Ovalle. Acknowledgement This research was organized with joint funding from the Malaysia Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation under the Intensified Research for Priority Areas (IRPA).A. 31. 13 Godoy. C. M.T. . 1998. Rezende.A. 10 Clark. Co and Cu has occurs moderately caused by anthropogenic.Y.. Co. Szefer. 339 .. J.. 147– 171. 246–250. 1996. Pollut. Science of The Total Environment 330. Heavy-metal pollution of sediments from Szczecin Lagoon and the Gdansk Basin. Spatial and temporal variations of heavy metal contamination in sediments of a mangrove swamp in Hong Kong.. Y. S. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 227. Hokkaido Univ. W. Bull..R. Martin. Nogeuira.. C...C.. Spatial variation of heavy metal in surface sediments of Hong Kong mangrove swamps. 2 Murray. Use of a Teflon vessel for the decomposition followed by determination of chemical constituents of various marine samples. References 1 Lacerda.Y. Wong.. G. N. A. Wong.Y. Glasby. D. Water.M.R. 3 G. 249–259. Uchida. Hodgkinson. Fukawa. Bull. C. Geldon and J. Mangrove muds: a sink and a source for trace metals. Germany. P. T. Japan. Pollut. Air and Soil Pollution 56/ 57. The authors wish to express their appreciation to Oceanography Laboratory and INOS and INOCEM. M. Rezende. 2000. Astudy of Guanabara Bay sedimentation rates.. N. 1986..F.: THE GEOCHEMICAL PROFILE OF Mn. UIAM team for their priceless assistance and hospitality throughout the sampling period. Aragon. 249-269. 12 Noriki. 17.. L. 9 Tam. M.A. Mendes. Mar. Co. Fac.