| Literature DB >> 31438583 |
Yanzhuo Liu1,2, Shanshan Song1,2, Chunjuan Bi3,4,5, Junli Zhao1,2, Di Xi1,2, Ziqi Su1,2.
Abstract
The urban environment is a complex ecosystem influenced by strong human disturbances in multi-environmental media, so it is necessary to analyze urban environmental pollutants through the comprehensive analysis of different media. Soil, road dust, foliar dust, and camphor leaves from 32 sample sites in Shanghai were collected for the analysis of mercury contamination in soil-road dust-leaves-foliar dust systems. Mercury concentrations in surface soils in Shanghai were the highest, followed by road dust, foliar dust, and leaves, successively. The spatial distribution of mercury in the four environmental media presented different distribution patterns. Except for the significant correlation between mercury concentrations in road dust and mercury concentrations in leaves (r = 0.56, p < 0.001), there was no significant correlation between the other groups in the four media. Besides this, there was no significant correlation between mercury concentrations and land types. The LUR (Land use regression) model was used to assess the impact of urbanization factors on mercury distribution in the environment. The results showed that soil mercury was affected by factories and residential areas. Foliar dust mercury was affected by road density and power plants. Leaf mercury was affected by power plants and road dust mercury was affected by public service areas. The highest average HI (Hazard index) value of mercury in Shanghai was found in road dust, followed by surface soil and foliar dust. The HI values for children were much higher than those for adults. However, the HI values of mercury exposure in all sampling sites were less than one, suggesting a lower health risk level. The microscopic mechanism of mercury in different environmental media was suggested to be studied further in order to learn the quantitative effects of urbanization factors on mercury concentrations.Entities:
Keywords: LUR; foliar dust; health risk; leaves; mercury; road dust; soil
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31438583 PMCID: PMC6747141 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16173028
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the sampling sites and their land use type.
Potential predictor variables influencing mercury distribution.
| Variable Type | Subcategory | Buffer Radius (m) | Data Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Land use type | Residential area | 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000 | Shanghai Land Use Classification Map (2014) |
| Business district | |||
| Public service area | |||
| Industrial area | |||
| Traffic facility area | |||
| Other | |||
| Traffic variable | Distance to city expressway | 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000 | OpenStreetMap data (2017) |
| Distance to the highway | |||
| Distance to national highway | |||
| Road network density | |||
| Industrial source | Number of power plants | 2000,5000,10,000, 15,000 | Yang et al. [ |
| Number of national pollutant control factory | |||
| Population | Population density | 1000, 2000, 5000 | Shanghai Statistical Year Book [ |
Parameters for health risk model of mercury.
| Parameter | Definition | Unit | Value | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Children | Adult | ||||
|
| Surface area exposed | cm2 | 852.5 | 1610 | Wang et al., 2008 [ |
|
| Average exposure time | day | 365 × | 365 × | USEPA, 2004 [ |
|
| Exposure frequency | day/a | 180 | 180 | Ferreira-Baptista and De Miguel, 2005 [ |
|
| Inhalation rate | m3/day | 7.6 | 20 | Van den Berg, 1994 [ |
|
| Ingestion rate | mg/day | 200 | 100 | USEPA, 2001 [ |
|
| Exposure duration | a | 6 | 24 | |
|
| Conversion factor | kg/mg | 10−6 | 10−6 | |
|
| Average body weight | kg | 15 | 70 | |
|
| Particle emission factor | mg3/kg | 1.36 × 109 | 1.36 × 109 | |
|
| Skin adherence factor | mg3/kg | 0.2 | 0.07 | |
| ABS | Dermal absorption factor | 0.001 | 0.001 | ||
Mean, minimum, and maximum concentrations of mercury (mg/kg) in soil and road dust in some cities.
| City or Country | Hg in Soil (mg/kg) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Min | Max | Reference | |
| Shanghai, China | 0.361 | 0.078 | 1.362 | This study |
| Beijing, China | 0.3 | 0.022 | 9.4 | Chen et al. (2010) [ |
| Guangzhou, China | 0.334 | 0.025 | 3.32 | Chen et al. (2012) [ |
| Shenzhen, China | 0.09 | 0.017 | 0.02 | Chen et al. (2012) [ |
| Wuhan, China | 0.207 | 0.024 | 2.844 | Fang et al. (2011) [ |
| Slovenia | 0.106 | 0.012 | 5.293 | Gosar et al. (2016) [ |
| San Luis Potosí, México | 0.45 | 2.34 | Perez-Vazquez et al. (2015) [ | |
| South Carolina, U.S. (resident) | 0.024 | 0.22 | Liu et al. (2010) [ | |
| Athens, Greece | 0.166 | 0.01 | 1.08 | Kelepertzis et al. (2015) [ |
|
| ||||
| Shanghai, China | 0.596 | 0.210 | 2.184 | This study |
| Beijing, China | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.78 | Men et al. (2018) [ |
| Nanjing, China | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.34 | Hu et al. (2011) [ |
| Huainan, China | 0.16 | 0.02 | 0.56 | Zheng et al. (2015) [ |
| Nanning, China | 0.338 | 0.045 | 0.804 | Lin et al. (2018) [ |
| Xiamen, China | 0.28 | 0.034 | 1.4 | Ying et al. (2009) [ |
| Baoji, China | 1.11 | 0.48 | 2.32 | Lu et al. (2009) [ |
| Brno, Czech Republic | 0.03 | 2.67 | Coufalík et al. (2014) [ | |
| Luanda, Angola | 0.13 | 0.03 | 0.57 | Ferreira-Baptista et al. (2005) [ |
| Kavala, Greece | 0.13 | 3.3 | Christoforidis et al. (2009) [ | |
| Tijuana, México | 0.1 | 0.3 | Qui~nonez-Plaza et al. (2017) [ | |
Mean, minimum, and maximum concentrations of mercury (mg/kg) in foliar dust and plant leaves in some cities.
| City or Country | Plant Species | Hg in Leaves (mg/kg) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Min | Max | Reference | ||
| Shanghai, China | Camphor tree | 0.088 | 0.026 | 0.453 | This study |
| Zhuzhou, China | Cinnamomum camphora | 13.64 | 2.6 | 22.9 | Chen et al. (2002) [ |
| Harbin, China | woody tree, shrub | 0.113 | 0.004 | 0.772 | Mu et al. (2004) [ |
| Minnesota, U.S. | Tamarack | 0.037 | Laacouri et al. (2013) [ | ||
| Slovakia | Achillea millefolium L.(herb) | 0.019 | 0.055 | Dombaiová et al. (2005) [ | |
| Corylus avellana L., Carpinus betulus L., Salix fragilis L. and Quercus polycarpa Schur. (broadleaves) | 0.022 | 0.052 | |||
| Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. (needles) | 0.014 | 0.053 | |||
| Jódar, Spain | Olea Europea, L.(olive-tree) | 160.6 | 46 | 453 | López-berdonces et al. (2014) [ |
|
| |||||
| Shanghai, China | Camphor tree | 0.259 | 0.024 | 2.260 | This study |
| Inner Mongolia, China (coal-mining area) | Leymus chinensis | 0.251 | 0.05 | 0.42 | Li et al. (2016) [ |
| Yerevan, U.S. | white elm; Chinese elm; Persian walnut; oriental plane tree; common lilac; white poplar; white mulberry tree | 0.57 | 0.03 | 2.37 | Maghakyan et al. (2017) [ |
| Vanadzor, U.S. | Ulmus parvifolia L.; Juglans regia L.; Fraxinus ex- celsior; Acer platanoides L.; Populus alba L.; Populus nigra L | 0.57 | 0.027 | 3.295 | Sahakyan et al. (2018) [ |
Figure 2Interpolation map of mercury concentrations in four media in Shanghai, (a) soil, (b) foliar dust, (c) camphor tree leaves, and (d) dust. R: rural area (R1–R9); S: suburban industrial area (S1–S9); U: urban area (U1–U14).
Figure 3Comparison of mercury concentrations in different land-use types of four environmental media, (a) road dust, (b) foliar dust, (c) soil, and (d) camphor tree leaves. R: rural area (R1–R9); S: suburban industrial area (S1–S9); U: urban area (U1–U14). The solid lines within boxes show the median values of each group. The upper and lower boundary of the boxes indicates the 25th and 75th percentiles. Horizontal lines represent the maximum and minimum values.
Land use regression model for mercury in foliar dust, soil, road dust, and leave.
| Target Compound | Model | Adjusted R2 | LOOCV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R | MSE | |||
| Foliar dust | Y = 0.127 + 427.953 × road_density_100 + 0.418 × power_plant_number_2000 | 0.810 | −0.06 | 0.43 |
| Soil | Lg(Y) = −1.290 + 0.057 × lg(residential_area_200) − 0.259 × lg(factory_number_10000) | 0.303 | 0.47 | 0.27 |
| Road dust | Y = 0.362 + 0.000000204 × public_service_area_1500 | 0.133 | −0.09 | 0.15 |
| Leaves | Lg(Y) = −2.693 + 1.253 × log(power_plant_2000) | 0.138 | −0.91 | 0.36 |
Factory_number means the sum number of sewage treatment plants, waste incineration plants, livestock farms, and heavy metal products companies. Public_service_area means the sum area of municipal utilities, stadiums, and parks. LOOCV means Leave One Out Cross Validation.
Figure 4Correlation coefficients between road density and mercury concentrations in foliar dust for different buffer radii.
Hazard quotient (HQ) for different exposure pathways in soils, dust and foliar dust in different land-use types.
| Children | Urban Area | Rural Area | Industrial Area | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soil |
| 6.1810 × 10−3 | 1.2110 × 10−2 | 6.3510 × 10−3 |
|
| 6.0510 × 10−7 | 1.1910 × 10−6 | 6.2110 × 10−7 | |
|
| 7.5310 × 10−5 | 1.4810 × 10−4 | 7.7310 × 10−5 | |
|
| 6.2610 × 10−3 | 1.2310 × 10−2 | 6.4310 × 10−3 | |
| Road dust |
| 1.0710 × 10−2 | 1.6510 × 10−2 | 1.3210 × 10−2 |
|
| 1.0510 × 10−6 | 1.6210 × 10−6 | 1.2910 × 10−6 | |
|
| 1.3110 × 10−4 | 2.0110 × 10−4 | 1.6110 × 10−4 | |
|
| 1.0910 × 10−2 | 1.6710 × 10−2 | 1.3410 × 10−2 | |
| Foliar dust |
| 6.1610 × 10−3 | 3.0410 × 10−3 | 7.5810 × 10−3 |
|
| 6.0310 × 10−7 | 2.9710 × 10−7 | 7.4210 × 10−7 | |
|
| 7.5010 × 10−5 | 3.7010 × 10−5 | 9.2310 × 10−5 | |
|
| 6.2410 × 10−3 | 3.0810 × 10−3 | 7.6810 × 10−3 | |
| All media |
| 2.3410 × 10−2 | 3.2110 × 10−2 | 2.7510 × 10−2 |
|
| ||||
| soil |
| 6.6210 × 10−4 | 1.3010 × 10−3 | 6.8010 × 10−4 |
|
| 3.4110 × 10−7 | 6.6910 × 10−7 | 3.5010 × 10−7 | |
|
| 1.0710 × 10−5 | 2.0910 × 10−5 | 1.1010 × 10−5 | |
|
| 6.7310 × 10−4 | 1.3210 × 10−3 | 6.9210 × 10−4 | |
| Road dust |
| 1.1510 × 10−3 | 1.7710 × 10−3 | 1.4110 × 10−3 |
|
| 5.9310 × 10−7 | 9.1110 × 10−7 | 7.2810 × 10−7 | |
|
| 1.8510 × 10−5 | 2.8510 × 10−5 | 2.2810 × 10−5 | |
|
| 1.1710 × 10−3 | 1.8010 × 10−3 | 1.4410 × 10−3 | |
| Foliar dust |
| 6.6010 × 10−4 | 3.2610 × 10−4 | 8.1210 × 10−4 |
|
| 3.4010 × 10−7 | 1.6810 × 10−7 | 4.1810 × 10−7 | |
|
| 1.0610 × 10−5 | 5.2410 × 10−6 | 1.3110 × 10−5 | |
|
| 6.7110 × 10−4 | 3.3110 × 10−4 | 8.2610 × 10−4 | |
| All media |
| 2.5110 × 10−3 | 3.4510 × 10−3 | 2.9610 × 10−3 |