| Literature DB >> 33155147 |
Dan Vasiliu1, Andra Bucse2,3, Naliana Lupascu2, Bogdan Ispas2, Catalin Gheablau2, Ion Stanescu2.
Abstract
Forty-three surface sediment samples were collected in September 2019 from Tasaul Lake (Black Sea coast, Romania) to examine the metal distribution patterns, assess the level of metal contamination, and identify the pollutant sources. The determined mean metal concentrations were as follows: Al 49,772 mg/kg, Zn 84.40 mg/kg, Cr 83.70 mg/kg, V 76.45 mg/kg, Ni 42.53 mg/kg, Cu 34.27 mg/kg, Pb 26.30 mg/kg, As 12.49 mg/kg, and Hg 0.06 mg/kg. The metals in the surface sediments of Tasaul Lake displayed moderate spatial variation, with higher metal concentrations mainly occurring in the south and southeast (As, Pb, and Hg), southwest (Cu and Zn), and west of the lake (Cr, Ni, and V). Heavy metal contamination in sediments is assessed using pollution indices such as enrichment factor, contamination factor, and pollution load index. The highest CFs and EFs were determined for As (moderate to high pollution), followed by Pb (low to moderate pollution). The Cu, Zn, and Hg pollution indices showed values corresponding to low pollution levels, while Ni, Cr, and V presented the lowest indices, suggesting unpolluted sediments. Multivariate statistical analyses were performed to identify the origin of the analyzed heavy metals. Cr was predominantly sourced from lithogenic components, Ni and V originated from both natural and anthropogenic sources, and As, Cu, Zn, Pb, and Hg showed mainly anthropogenic sources such as agricultural runoff, domestic and industrial wastewater discharges, and quarrying activities.Entities:
Keywords: Coastal lakes; Metals; Pollution indices; Surface sediments; Tasaul Lake
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33155147 PMCID: PMC7644546 DOI: 10.1007/s10661-020-08698-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Monit Assess ISSN: 0167-6369 Impact factor: 2.513
Fig. 1Location of the study area and sampling sites
Measured and certified values of standard material NCS DC 73022
| Element | Measured value (mg/kg) ± SD | Certified value (mg/kg) ± SD | Recovery (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cr | 75 ± 2.46 | 72 ± 3 | 104 |
| Al2O3 | 12.88 ± 0.31 | 13.61 ± 0.12 | 94.6 |
| As | 289 ± 2 | ||
| Ni | 32.2 ± 0.12 | 29 ± 1 | 110 |
| Cu | 503 ± 4.58 | 483 ± 20 | 104 |
| Pb | 140.3 ± 1.53 | 126 ± 5 | 111 |
| V | 100.1 ± 0.81 | 101 ± 3 | 99 |
| Zn | 861 ± 11.79 | 874 ± 19 | 98.5 |
| Hg | 0.122 ± 0.005 | 0.115 ± 0.023 | 106 |
Fig. 2Grain size and TOC in the surface sediments of Tasaul Lake
Descriptive statistics for the studied variables (TOC, Al, and heavy metals)
| TOC (%) | Al (mg/kg) | Cr (mg/kg) | Ni (mg/kg) | Cu (mg/kg) | Zn (mg/kg) | As (mg/kg) | V (mg/kg) | Pb (mg/kg) | Hg (mg/kg) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min. | 0.29 | 41,506 | 72.3 | 27.74 | 15.12 | 46.4 | 5.86 | 54.40 | 16.50 | 0.02 |
| Max | 3.73 | 67,871 | 103.0 | 57.60 | 83.50 | 133.0 | 17.70 | 95.90 | 34.46 | 0.14 |
| Mean | 2.47 | 49,772 | 83.70 | 42.53 | 34.27 | 84.40 | 12.49 | 76.45 | 26.30 | 0.06 |
| SD | 0.86 | 4529 | 7.0 | 6.45 | 11.18 | 16.1 | 2.99 | 9.06 | 4.71 | 0.02 |
| CV (%) | 34.8 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 15.2 | 32.6 | 19.1 | 23.9 | 11.8 | 17.9 | 38.4 |
Correlation matrix (Pearson) for the particle size, TOC, and heavy metals
| Location | Element mg/kg | Reference | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cu (mg/kg) | Zn (mg/kg) | Hg (mg/kg) | As (mg/kg) | Ni (mg/kg) | Cr (mg/kg) | V (mg/kg) | Pb (mg/kg) | ||
| Tașaul Lake, Romania | 15.1–83.5 | 46.4–133 | 0.02–0.14 | 5.9–17.7 | 27.7–57.6 | 72.3–103 | 54.4–95.9 | 16.5–34.5 | Current study |
| Tasaul Lake,Romania | 18.6–57.4 | - | - | - | 10.7–92.1 | - | - | 26.9–126 | Oros ( |
| Tabacarie Lake, Romania | 44–380 | 307–894 | - | - | 41–76 | 85–128 | 42–93 | 44–376 | Caraivan et al. ( |
| Siutghiol Lake, Romania | 15–40.6 | > 1000 | 0.02–0.28 | 5.0–82.0 | > 100 | Bucur Arpenti et al. ( | |||
| Lesina Lake, Italy | 7.56–65.15 | 9.45–62.01 | - | 0–26.12 | 4.78–41.04 | 9.44–64.74 | 12.22–91.08 | 6.60–76.35 | Spagnoli and Andresini ( |
| Gardno Lake, Poland | 0.7–20.3 | 7.5–113.4 | - | - | - | - | - | 7.4–61.6 | Trojanowski et al. ( |
| San Puoto Lake, Italya | 41 | 67 | - | 18 | 28 | 54 | 66 | 20 | Alvisi and Dinelli ( |
| Akkulam-Veli, India | 4.6–92.8 | 12.2–209.0 | 11.4–69.0 | 16.8–83.2 | 8.4–78.4 | Sheela et al. ( | |||
| Burrulus Lake, Egypta | 23.6 | 75.1 | 53.9 | 22.8 | El-Amier et al. ( | ||||
aResults are expressed as means
Fig. 3Metal distribution in the surface sediments of Tasaul Lake
Comparative heavy metal concentrations (mg/kg) in the sediments of some coastal lakes
| Sand + gravel (%) | Silt (%) | Clay (%) | TOC (%) | Al (mg/kg) | Cr (mg/kg) | Ni (mg/kg) | Cu (mg/kg) | Zn (mg/kg) | As (mg/kg) | V (mg/kg) | Pb (mg/kg) | Hg (mg/kg) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sand + gravel | |||||||||||||
| Silt | |||||||||||||
| Clay | |||||||||||||
| TOC | |||||||||||||
| Al | |||||||||||||
| Cr | 0.268 | ||||||||||||
| Ni | 0.187 | ||||||||||||
| Cu | 0.073 | ||||||||||||
| Zn | 0.081 | 0.262 | 0.035 | ||||||||||
| As | 0.072 | 0.124 | |||||||||||
| V | 0.182 | ||||||||||||
| Pb | 0.035 | 0.217 | |||||||||||
| Hg | 0.255 | 0.243 | 0.272 | 0.229 |
Values in italics are significant at a confidence level α = 0.05
Factor loadings, eigenvalues, and variance in the PCA matrix of heavy metals in the surface sediments of Tasaul Lake
| Parameters | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| TOC (%) | 0.649 | − 0.366 | − 0.420 |
| Al (mg/kg) | 0.017 | 0.929 | 0.103 |
| Cr (mg/kg) | 0.110 | 0.877 | − 0.252 |
| Ni (mg/kg) | 0.819 | 0.475 | − 0.161 |
| Cu (mg/kg) | 0.757 | − 0.118 | 0.583 |
| Zn (mg/kg) | 0.880 | − 0.046 | 0.407 |
| As (mg/kg) | 0.823 | − 0.233 | − 0.281 |
| V (mg/kg) | 0.781 | 0.535 | − 0.108 |
| Pb (mg/kg) | 0.931 | − 0.143 | 0.211 |
| Hg (mg/kg) | 0.598 | − 0.381 | − 0.418 |
| Eigenvalue | 4.963 | 2.515 | 1.092 |
| Variance (%) | 49.63 | 25.15 | 10.92 |
Fig. 4Spatial distribution of EFs in Tasaul Lake
Fig. 5Spatial distribution of CFs in Tasaul Lake
Fig. 6Spatial distribution of PLI in Tasaul Lake
Fig. 7Dendrogram showing clustering of sampling stations