| Literature DB >> 28336966 |
Bin Zou1,2, Xiaolu Jiang3, Xiaoli Duan4,5, Xiuge Zhao5, Jing Zhang3, Jingwen Tang6, Guoqing Sun7.
Abstract
Traditional sampling for soil pollution evaluation is cost intensive and has limited representativeness. Therefore, developing methods that can accurately and rapidly identify at-risk areas and the contributing pollutants is imperative for soil remediation. In this study, we propose an innovative integrated H-G scheme combining human health risk assessment and geographical detector methods that was based on geographical information system technology and validated its feasibility in a renewable resource industrial park in mainland China. With a discrete site investigation of cadmium (Cd), arsenic (As), copper (Cu), mercury (Hg) and zinc (Zn) concentrations, the continuous surfaces of carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic risk caused by these heavy metals were estimated and mapped. Source apportionment analysis using geographical detector methods further revealed that these risks were primarily attributed to As, according to the power of the determinant and its associated synergic actions with other heavy metals. Concentrations of critical As and Cd, and the associated exposed CRs are closed to the safe thresholds after remediating the risk areas identified by the integrated H-G scheme. Therefore, the integrated H-G scheme provides an effective approach to support decision-making for regional contaminated soil remediation at fine spatial resolution with limited sampling data over a large geographical extent.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28336966 PMCID: PMC5428519 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-00468-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Statistics of heavy metal concentrations at 33 locations (at 0–20 cm in depth) in the study area.
| Heavy metal (mg/kg) | Cd | As | Cu | Hg | Zn |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min | 1.0 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 12.9 |
| Max | 7.1 | 40.4 | 86.1 | 1.5 | 454.4 |
| Mean | 3.1 | 12.3 | 31.4 | 0.5 | 178.7 |
| Standard value (Grade II)a | 0.3 | 30 | 50 | 0.3 | 200 |
| Mean fold | 10.0 | — | — | 1.7 | — |
| Maximum fold | 23.7 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 5.0 | 2.3 |
Note: Heavy metal concentrations more than the secondary criterion are referred to as “soil pollution”.
aGrade II of environmental quality standards values for soils of China (MEPPRC 1995).
Figure 1Spatial distribution of the heavy metal concentrations before remediation: (a) Cd; (b) As; (c) Cu; (d) Hg; (e) Zn (Note: ArcGIS 10.1 was used to create the map in this figure, http://www.esrichina.com.cn/2015/0107/2830.html).
Cross-validation results for IDW interpolation of heavy metals.
| ME (mg/kg) | MRE (%) | RMSE (mg/kg) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| As | 4.11 | 10.46 | 5.00 |
| Cu | 17.17 | 14.99 | 16.12 |
| Zn | 18.43 | 11.93 | 15.39 |
| Hg | 0.20 | 1.36 | 0.09 |
| Cd | 0.98 | 7.46 | 0.52 |
Figure 2Spatial distribution of non-carcinogenic risk for each specific heavy metal before remediation: (a) Cd; (b) As; (c) Cu; (d) Hg; (e) Zn (Note: non-carcinogenic diseases might be caused by heavy metal exposure if HI > 1; ArcGIS 10.1 was used to create the map in this figure, http://www.esrichina.com.cn/2015/0107/2830.html).
Figure 3Spatial distribution of carcinogenic risk before remediation for As (a) and Cd (b) (Unit: 10−6) (Note: generally cancer might be caused by heavy metal exposure if CR > 1; ArcGIS 10.1 was used to create the map in this figure, http://www.esrichina.com.cn/2015/0107/2830.html).
Figure 4Spatial distribution of health risks and the contaminated areas identified before remediation: (a) CR risk (Unit: 10−4) and associated contaminated area; (b) HI risk and associated contaminated area; (c) the overall contaminated area (Note: ArcGIS 10.1 was used to create the map in this figure, http://www.esrichina.com.cn/2015/0107/2830.html).
Single factor and joint factors’ detection by Geo-detector.
| Determinants | Cd | Hg | Zn | Cu | As | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PD for single factor | 0.267 | 0.158 | 0.305 | 0.312 | 0.460 | |
| PD for joint factors | Cd | |||||
| Hg | 0.547 | |||||
| Zn | 0.611 | 0.697 | ||||
| Cu | 0.600 | 0.679 | 0.593 | |||
| As | 0.682 | 0.795 | 0.620 | 0.654 | ||
Figure 5Spatial distribution of the heavy metal concentrations for Cd (a) and As (b) after remediation (Note: ArcGIS 10.1 was used to create the map in this figure, http://www.esrichina.com.cn/2015/0107/2830.html).
Figure 6Spatial distribution of carcinogenic risk for As (a) and Cd (b) after remediation in areas identified by the H-G scheme (Unit: 10−6) (Note: ArcGIS 10.1 was used to create the map in this figure, http://www.esrichina.com.cn/2015/0107/2830.html).
Figure 7Study area and sampling locations (Note: Map data: Google earth, Digital Globe; ArcGIS 10.1 was used to create the map in this figure, http://www.esrichina.com.cn/2015/0107/2830.html).
Parameters employed for assessing human exposure risks.
| Parameters | Meaning and value | Parameters | Meaning and value |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| skin adherence factor, 1, mg · cm2 |
|
| ingestion rate of soil, 100, mg/d |
| body weight, 55.9, kg |
|
| conversion factor, 10−6, kg · mg |
| exposure duration, 30, a |
|
| exposure frequency, 350, d/a |
| surface area of the skin, 5000, cm2/d |
|
| average time, 365 d · a−1 × 70, d |
| concentration of the exposure contaminant, mg/kg |
|
| absorption factor, 0.001 |
| retention fraction of inhaled particulates in body |
|
| daily air inhalation rate, m3/d |
| fraction of soil-borne particulates |
|
| slope factor, kg · d/mg |
| reference dose, mg/(kg · d) |