| Literature DB >> 35010745 |
Huiyue Su1,2,3, Yueming Hu1,2,3, Lu Wang1,2,3, Huan Yu4, Bo Li5, Jiangchuan Liu5.
Abstract
Food security and cultivated land utilization can be seriously affected by heavy metal (HM) pollution of the soil. Therefore, identifying the pollution sources of farmland is the way to control soil pollution and enhance soil quality effectively. In this research, 95 surface soil samples, 34 vegetable samples, 27 irrigation water samples, and 20 fertilizer samples were collected from the Wuqing District of Tianjin City, China and was used to determine their HMs accumulation and potential ecological risks. Then, kriging interpolation and positive matrix factorization (PMF) were utilized to identify the sources of soil HMs. The results indicated that soil HMs in the study area were contaminated at a medium level, but that the pollution of Cd was more severe, and the Cd content in vegetables was slightly higher than the permissible threshold (0.02 mg·kg-1). Furthermore, a non-homogeneous distribution was observed, with higher concentrations of HM contaminants concentrated in the southwest of the study area, where many metal manufacturing industries are located. Our results suggest that the Cd originated from industrial activity; As and Pb from agricultural practices; Ni, Cu, Cr, and As mainly from natural sources; Zn and Cu from organic fertilizer; Pb and Cd mainly from traffic discharge; and Cr, Ni, and Pb from sewage irrigation. Obviously, the accumulation of soil HMs in the study area could be mainly attributed to industrial activities, implying the need for implementation of government strategies to reduce industrial point-source pollution.Entities:
Keywords: heavy metal; positive matrix factorization model; soil; source apportionment; vegetable
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35010745 PMCID: PMC8744921 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19010485
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Location of the study area and the sampling point distribution.
(a) I value and assessment standards; (b) Potential ecological risk index and assessment standards; (c) Ecological risk factor and assessment standards.
| (a) | Risk Grade | (b) | Risk Grade |
| Risk Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uncontaminated to Medium polluted | Low level of pollution | Low potential risk | |||
| 1 < | Medium polluted | 1 < | Moderate level of pollution | Moderate potential risk | |
| 2 < | Medium to heavily polluted | 2 < | High level of pollution | Considerable potential risk | |
| 3 < | Heavily polluted | Extremely high level of pollution | High potential risk | ||
| 4 < | Heavily to extremely polluted |
| Serious | ||
| Extremely polluted |
Statistical results of soil properties and HMs concentrations (n = 92).
| Unit | Max | Min | Mean | Standard Deviation | Skewness | Kurtosis | CV (%) | Background Value a | Risk Screening Values b/Exceedance Rates (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.5 < pH ≤ 7.5 | pH > 7.5 | ||||||||||
| pH | 8.89 | 6.63 | 7.69 | 0.39 | −0.04 | 0.46 | 5.01 | / | |||
| SOM | g·kg−1 | 42.48 | 7.17 | 19.30 | 6.27 | 0.85 | 1.98 | 32.48 | / | ||
| Cd | mg·kg−1 | 2.83 | 0.06 | 0.23 | 0.31 | 7.03 | 56.15 | 136.15 | 0.09 | 0.3 (6.25%) | 0.6 (3.16%) |
| Pb | mg·kg−1 | 191.87 | 17.91 | 46.28 | 29.27 | 3.05 | 11.05 | 63.25 | 20.6 | 120 (0.0%) | 170 (3.16%) |
| As | mg·kg−1 | 25.73 | 1.08 | 13.36 | 3.26 | 0.79 | 3.93 | 24.39 | 8.39 | 30 (0.0%) | 25 (1.59%) |
| Cr | mg·kg−1 | 113.30 | 48.21 | 69.33 | 12.82 | 0.89 | 0.50 | 18.50 | 63.69 | 200 (0.0%) | 250 (0.0%) |
| Cu | mg·kg−1 | 233.30 | 17.26 | 35.76 | 23.80 | 6.44 | 51.45 | 66.55 | 19.88 | 100 (6.25%) | 100 (0.0%) |
| Ni | mg·kg−1 | 47.19 | 19.89 | 29.49 | 6.82 | 1.10 | 0.33 | 23.14 | 26.69 | 100 (0.0%) | 190 (0.0%) |
| Zn | mg·kg−1 | 801.93 | 61.03 | 113.64 | 78.81 | 7.43 | 63.49 | 69.35 | 66.87 | 250 (6.25%) | 300 (0.0%) |
a Soils background values in Tianjin City (GB15618-2018). b Risk control standard for soil contamination for agricultural soils in China (GB15618-2018).
Figure 2Geo-accumulation index (, a) and ecological risk index (b) of HMs.
Figure 3DTPA-extractable metals content (mg·kg−1) in soil.
Figure 4The available metal content (mg·kg−1) versus the total metal content (mg·kg−1) in soils.
Figure 5DTPA-extractable metal content (mg·kg−1) versus soil organic matter content (g·kg−1).
Figure 6Spatial distribution of HMs in the study area.
Content of HMs in organic fertilizer.
| Unit | Max | Min | Mean | SD | Variance | CV (%) | Standard | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cd | mg·kg−1 | 0.59 | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.55 | 3 |
| Pb | mg·kg−1 | 18.82 | 1.22 | 5.81 | 4.53 | 20.54 | 0.78 | 50 |
| As | mg·kg−1 | 80.63 | 3.75 | 24.77 | 18.76 | 352.05 | 0.76 | 15 |
| Cr | mg·kg−1 | 46.32 | 22.89 | 32.48 | 6.79 | 46.09 | 0.21 | 150 |
| Cu | mg·kg−1 | 616.02 | 9.63 | 132.69 | 167.70 | 28124.15 | 1.26 | / |
| Ni | mg·kg−1 | 16.60 | 2.88 | 10.58 | 4.32 | 18.68 | 0.41 | / |
| Zn | mg·kg−1 | 1220.61 | 117.25 | 425.84 | 320.11 | 102467.52 | 0.75 | / |
Note: SD: standard deviation; CV: coefficient of variation. Standard values for different elements in irrigation water were obtained from NY525-2012.
Figure 7(a) Metal accumulation in vegetable samples and (b) bioconcentration factor (BCF) of different metals.
Figure 8Pearson correlation matrix of HMs in soils (mg kg−1), soil DTPA-extractable metal content (mg kg−1), and metal accumulation in vegetable samples (mg kg−1).
Figure 9Source profiles from the PMF model and contribution of different factors to HM accumulation.
HM content in irrigation water.
| Unit | Max | Min | Mean | SD | Variance | CV (%) | Standard | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cd | μg·L−1 | 0.33 | 0.26 | 0.30 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 10.00 |
| Pb | μg·L−1 | 0.45 | 0.21 | 0.27 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.23 | 200.00 |
| As | μg·L−1 | 28.41 | 0.12 | 9.57 | 7.74 | 59.87 | 0.81 | 50.00 |
| Cr | μg·L−1 | 4.00 | 0.24 | 1.03 | 0.71 | 0.50 | 0.69 | 100.00 |
| Cu | μg·L−1 | 35.44 | 1.52 | 4.83 | 6.25 | 39.07 | 1.30 | 1000.00 |
| Ni | μg·L−1 | 6.30 | 1.71 | 3.17 | 1.11 | 1.23 | 0.35 | / |
| Zn | μg·L−1 | 16.77 | 3.32 | 6.46 | 2.66 | 7.09 | 0.41 | 2000.00 |
Note: SD: standard deviation; CV: coefficient of variation. Standard values for different elements in irrigation water were obtained from GB5084-2005 (MEPRC, 2004).