| Literature DB >> 27879826 |
Abstract
Heavy metal concentrations were measured in soils and plants in and around a copper-tungsten mine in southeast Korea to investigate the influence of past base metal mining on the surface environment. The results of chemical analysis indicate that the heavy metals in soils decreased with distance from the source, controlled mainly by water movement and topography. The metal concentrations measured in plant species generally decreased in the order; spring onions > soybean leaves > perilla leaves » red pepper > corn grains » jujube grains, although this pattern varied moderately between different elements. The results agree with other reports that metal concentrations in leaves are usually much higher than those in grain. Factors influencing the bioavailability of metals and their occurrences in crops were found as soil pH, cation exchange capacity, organic matter content, soil texture, and interaction among the target elements. It is concluded that total metal concentrations in soils are the main controls on their contents in plants. Soil pH was also an important factor. A stepwise linear multiple regression analysis was also conducted to identify the dominant factors influencing metal uptake by plants. Metal concentrations in plants were also estimated by computer-aided statistical methods.Entities:
Keywords: Heavy metal; metal uptake; mining activities; soil pollution
Year: 2008 PMID: 27879826 PMCID: PMC3673422 DOI: 10.3390/s8042413
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Site description and sampling locations of soils and crop plants.
The results of QA/QC in chemical analysis for soils and plants (Units: μg g−1).
| Cd | 0.009 | 0.008 | 0.200 | 0.025 | 0.125 | 0.014 |
| Cu | 0.039 | 0.054 | 0.200 | 0.025 | 0.776 | 0.019 |
| Pb | 0.728 | 0.131 | 2.000 | 0.250 | 1.849 | 0.111 |
| Zn | 0.865 | 0.831 | 0.400 | 0.050 | 0.839 | 0.312 |
Mean of 8 values
Instrumental detection limit was converted from μg mL−1 to μg g−1 using factors of 40 for soils and 5 for plants
Analytical detection limit was calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the mean reagent blank value by 2.365: this value derived from t-table using degree of freedom 7 (95% confidence limit)
Comparison between observed and recommended concentrations of metals in international certified materials (Units: μg g−1).
| SRM2711 | Cd(N[ | 40.7±2.33 | 2.92 | 41.7±0.25 | 3.00 | −2.40 |
| (soil) | Cu(N=8) | 112±11.4 | 5.20 | 114±2.0 | 0.90 | −1.75 |
| Pb(N=8) | 1,059±23.9 | 1.15 | 1,162±31 | 1.36 | −8.86 | |
| Zn(N=8) | 346±22.9 | 3.38 | 350±4.8 | 0.70 | −1.26 | |
| CRM281 | Cd(N=8) | 0.14±0.02 | 6.58 | 0.12±0.00 | 1.28 | +16.7 |
| (rye grass) | Cu(N=8) | 9.24±0.45 | 2.49 | 9.65±0.38 | 2.00 | −4.25 |
| Pb(N=8) | 2.45±0.47 | 9.82 | 2.38±0.11 | 2.36 | +2.94 | |
| Zn(N=8) | 26.9±2.69 | 5.09 | 31.5±1.4 | 2.27 | −14.6 | |
Mean value ± 2 × standard deviation (95% confidence limit)
RSD(%) (residual standard deviation) = (standard deviation / observed mean) × 100
Bias (%) = {(observed mean – recommended mean) / recommended mean{ × 100
Number of samples
Heavy metal concentrations in surface soils and their physical and chemical properties.
| Cd (mg/kg) | 4.4±3.6[ | 1.8±0.5 | 1.8±0.9 | 0.9±0.4 |
| Cu (mg/kg) | 1,953±1,811 | 183±92 | 269±299 | 29±9 |
| Pb (mg/kg) | 1,028±616 | 63±26 | 84±54 | 18±3 |
| Zn (mg/kg) | 419±462 | 136±30 | 175±68 | 97±14 |
|
| ||||
| pH | 4.1±0.7 | 5.3±0.8 | 5.6±0.9 | 5.6±0.5 |
| LOI (%) | 3.2±1.4 | 7.9±0.9 | 7.7±1.7 | 6.6±1.0 |
| CEC (meq/100g) | 11.4±3.4 | 17.5±1.9 | 23.2±10.5 | 30.1±14.7 |
| Sand (%) | 86±7 | 66±2 | 70±6 | 65±4 |
| Silt (%) | 8±3 | 22±1 | 20±5 | 23±6 |
| Clay (%) | 6±4 | 12±1 | 10±4 | 12±4 |
Number of samples;
Mean ± standard deviation
Heavy metal concentrations in plants from mining and control areas. (Unit : μg g−1, DW).
| Mining area | 3 | 0.41±0.07[ | 8.95±4.12 | 0.41±0.11 | 40.7±10.3 | |
| Control area | 1 | 0.15 | 1.60 | 0.18 | 20.0 | |
| Ratio[ | 2.7 | 5.6 | 2.3 | 2.1 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Mining area | 6 | 0.47±0.02 | 9.17±0.72 | 1.19±0.04 | 22.5±2.80 | |
| Control area | 2 | 0.44±0.01 | 8.43±0.09 | 0.10±0.02 | 18.0±0.40 | |
| Ratio | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.9[ | 1.3[ | ||
|
| ||||||
| Mining area | 3 | 0.24±0.04 | 26.0±2.62 | 1.33±0.12 | 80.7±28.2 | |
| Control area | 2 | 0.18±0.02 | 21.6±0.85 | 1.13±0.10 | 52.8±0.60 | |
| Ratio | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.5 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Mining area | 6 | 0.34±0.05 | 25.5±5.86 | 1.22±0.28 | 32.2±3.29 | |
| Control area | 4 | 0.27±0.02 | 8.45±0.62 | 0.38±0.07 | 28.1±0.56 | |
| Ratio | 1.3[ | 3.0[ | 32[ | 1.1[ | ||
|
| ||||||
| Mining area | 8 | 1.01±0.45 | 18.9±3.00 | 2.41±0.39 | 163±46.4 | |
| Control area | 3 | 0.24±0.05 | 10.5±1.81 | 1.55±0.15 | 54.9±20.9 | |
| Ratio | 4.2[ | 1.8[ | 1.6[ | 3.0[ | ||
|
| ||||||
| Mining area | 4 | 1.88±0.35 | 26.4±4.58 | 4.23±1.16 | 256±79.5 | |
| Control area | 4 | 0.77±0.10 | 18.3±1.72 | 3.02±0.18 | 47.4±13.6 | |
| Ratio | 24[ | 1.4 | 1.4 | 5.3[ | ||
Number of samples
Mean ± standard deviation
Calculated by mean concentrations in plants grown in the mining area divided by that in the control area
Significant difference in mean concentrations in plants sampled between in the mining area and control area at p < 0.05
Figure 2.Diagrams showing concentrations of Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn in surface soils.
Figure 3.Relationships between Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn concentrations in soil and crop plants.
Results of stepwise linear multiple regression analysis.
| Plant type | Multiple regression equation[ | r2(%) |
|---|---|---|
| Corn grain (N=4) | (Zn)s = 47.113 + 0.251 (Zn)s - 7.102 LOI | 98.84 |
| Jujube grain (N=8) | (Cu)p = 10.3012 + 0.0068 (Cu)s - 0.3892 pH | 83.78 |
| (Zn)p = 18.12 + 0.05 (Zn)s - 0.78 LOI | 90.04 | |
| (Pb)p = 0.0687 + 0.0017 (Pb)s | 82.19 | |
| Perilla leaves (N=5) | (Cu)p = 20.655 + 0.0253 (Cu)s | 93.32 |
| (Zn)p = 6.6733 + 0.4495 (Zn)s | 91.58 | |
| Red pepper (N=10) | (Cu)p = 5.0217 + 0.1047 (Cu)s | 98.53 |
| (Zn)p = 21.3541 + 0.0718 (Zn)s | 87.84 | |
| (Cd)p = 0.289 + 0.093 (Cd)s - 0.015 pH | 87.69 | |
| (Pb)p = 0.1623 + 0.0157 (Pb)s | 94.79 | |
| Soybean leaves (N=11) | (Cu)p = 81.916 + 0.318 (Cu)s - 4.012 pH - 0.722 sand | 96.24 |
| (Zn)p = -34.261 + 1.369 (Zn)s | 70.89 | |
| (Pb)p = 3.614 + 0.006 (Pb)s - 0.341 pH | 86.94 | |
| Spring onions (N=8) | (Cu)p = 17.916 + 0.067 (Cu)s - 3.601 pH - 0.853 silt | 94.35 |
| (Zn)p = 516 + 2.28 (Zn)s - 124 pH | 94.17 | |
| (Cd)p = -0.291 + 0.347 (Cd)s - 0.477 pH + 0.532 LOI | 96.31 | |
| (Pb)p = 14.143 + 0.051 (Pb)s - 0.186 sand | 90.18 |
Note : (Cu)p = Cu in plant (μg g−1, dry weight); (Cu)s = Cu in surface soil (μg g−1);
P < 0.01