| Literature DB >> 35895595 |
Jianjun Yang1,2, Huan Xu1,2, Xinjun Wang3.
Abstract
Human activities can significantly impact the natural ecosystem. As an important part of terrestrial ecosystems, soil participates in energy and material cycle. With the continuous intensification of human activities, soil undergoes increasingly serious disturbance. Under the influence of global change and human activities, the variability of heavy metals in soil is worthy of further discussion. Taking Lujiaowan and Juhuatai Scenic Spot on the northern slope of Tianshan Mountain as the research area, this study investigated the concentrations of Pb, As, Zn, Cu and Mn in the soil and analyzed their distribution and pollution levels. Meanwhile, the main sources of soil heavy metals were explored using autocorrelation analysis and principal component analysis. Results showed that the order of the average concentration of heavy metals in the study area was as follows: Mn> Zn> Cu> Pb> As. None of them exceeded the national soil environmental quality level II standard, and the average concentrations of Zn, Cu, and As exceeded the background value of Xinjiang soil, reaching a light pollution level. In addition, the distribution of heavy metals in soil displayed a regular trend, and a positive correlation was found between disturbance intensity and heavy metal concentration. The geoaccumulation index also showed that the five heavy metals in the study area had lower pollution degree compared with the background value in Xinjiang. The order of potential ecological risk was As > Cu > Pb > Zn > Mn.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35895595 PMCID: PMC9328507 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267829
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Overview of sampling points.
| Study area | Sampling area | Coordinates | Soil type | Vegetation type | bulk density(g/cm3) | soil moisture content(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lujiaowan | No disturbance area | 43°96′N, 85°15′E | Chernozem | Grassland | 0.76±0.05 | 0.24±0.03 |
| Moderate disturbance area | 43°98′N, 85°16′E | Chernozem | Grassland | 1.12±0.02 | 0.23±0.01 | |
| Severe disturbance area | 43°97′N, 85°11′E | Chernozem | Grassland | 1.08±0.02 | 0.12±0.01 | |
| Hiking trail area | 43°97′N, 85°11′E | Grey cinnamon soil | Grassland | 0.96±0.02 | 0.21±0.01 | |
| Juhuatai | No disturbance area | 43°45′N, 87°13′E | Grey cinnamon soil | Grassland | 0.98±0.08 | 0.23±0.02 |
| Moderate disturbance area | 43°45′N, 87°11′E | Alpine meadow soil | Forest | 1.19±0.05 | 0.22±0.01 | |
| Severe disturbance area | 43°45′N, 87°12′E | Alpine meadow soil | Grassland | 0.95±0.03 | 0.16±0.01 | |
| Hiking trail area | 43°46′N, 87°12′E | Grey cinnamon soil | Grassland | 0.98±0.03 | 0.21±0.01 |
Soil particle size composition.
| Study area | Sampling area | 1.0–2.0mm | 0.5–1.0mm | 0.25–0.5mm | 0.1–0.25mm | <0.1mm |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lujiaowan | No disturbance area | 4.90±0.93 | 17.64±2.09 | 25.12±1.44 | 20.06±0.95 | 32.28±2.6 |
| Moderate disturbance area | 1.43±0.35 | 7.31±1.19 | 19.12±0.80 | 26.82±0.85 | 45.32±1.47 | |
| Severe disturbance area | 6.32±0.73 | 21.52±1.08 | 22.64±0.71 | 20.33±0.53 | 29.19±1.12 | |
| Hiking trail area | 4.44±0.45 | 18.82±1.15 | 24.46±0.97 | 23.09±0.65 | 29.19±1.52 | |
| Juhuatai | No disturbance area | 5.29±1.25 | 15.80±2.97 | 21.66±0.72 | 23.83±1.82 | 33.43±2.55 |
| Moderate disturbance area | 6.47±0.92 | 20.55±1.91 | 21.88±0.78 | 20.91±0.87 | 30.19±2.24 | |
| Severe disturbance area | 4.89±0.74 | 23.69±1.49 | 23.15±0.64 | 21.25±0.65 | 27.02±1.64 | |
| Hiking trail area | 5.59±0.60 | 21.93±1.42 | 23.58±0.54 | 20.06±0.63 | 28.84±1.24 |
Single factor pollution index criteria.
| Range of Pi | Pollution level |
|---|---|
| Pi≤1 | Uncontaminated |
| 1<Pi≤2 | Light contaminated |
| 2<Pi≤3 | Moderate contaminated |
| 3<Pi | Heavily contaminated |
Geoaccumulation Index classes.
| Class | Igeo value | Soil pollution category |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Igeo ≤0 | Uncontaminated |
| 1 | 0 < Igeo ≤ 1 | Uncontaminated to moderately contaminated |
| 2 | 1 < Igeo ≤ 2 | Moderately contaminated |
| 3 | 2 < Igeo ≤ 3 | Moderately to heavily contaminated |
| 4 | 3 < Igeo ≤ 4 | Heavily contaminated |
| 5 | 4 < Igeo | Extremely contaminated |
Potential ecological risk index criteria and toxicity response coefficient of heavy metals.
|
| Ecological risk level | RI | Ecological risk level | heavy metal | Background value of Xinjiang | Corresponding coefficients |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | RI<150 | Low | Pb | 19.40 | 5 | |
| 40< | Moderate | 150<RI≤300 | Moderate | As | 11.20 | 10 |
| 80< | Higher | 300<RI≤600 | Higher | Zn | 68.80 | 1 |
| 160< | High | 600<RI≤1200 | High | Cu | 26.70 | 5 |
| 320< | Serious | RI>1200 | Serious | Mn | 688 | 1 |
Fig 1Concentrations of soil heavy metal at different sampling plots.
Fig 2Soil bulk density at different sampling plots.
Fig 3Heavy metal concentration in soil under different disturbance levels in Lujiaowan Scenic Area.
Fig 4Heavy metal concentration in soil under different disturbance levels in Juhuatai Scenic Area.
Heavy metal concentration in soils of study area.
| Study area | Disturbance level | Pb (mg·kg-1) | As (mg·kg-1) | Zn (mg·kg-1) | Cu (mg·kg-1) | Mn (mg·kg-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lujiaowan | No disturbance area | 14.83±0.98 | 10.22±0.81 | 80.41±4.27 | 24.26±1.66 | 537.78±26.27 |
| Moderate disturbance area | 17.71±0.54 | 12.81±0.52 | 71.17±1.78 | 31.70±1.39 | 534.65±13.74 | |
| Severe disturbance area | 14.10±0.71 | 9.92±0.29 | 76.98±1.66 | 38.14±1.22 | 587.69±17.34 | |
| Hiking trail area | 14.08±0.66 | 10.92±0.44 | 75.23±2.01 | 34.09±1.54 | 588.78±15.67 | |
| Juhuatai | No disturbance area | 16.00±0.75 | 11.10±1.00 | 63.51±2.25 | 23.48±1.93 | 445.85±33.08 |
| Moderate disturbance area | 16.83±0.50 | 10.25±0.37 | 95.56±4.09 | 26.69±0.93 | 516.31±22.26 | |
| Severe disturbance area | 17.04±0.88 | 12.25±0.53 | 85.69±3.48 | 26.49±1.30 | 595.93±24.41 | |
| Hiking trail area | 17.68±0.67 | 11.88±0.48 | 76.83±2.39 | 26.71±0.96 | 543.54±14.05 | |
| Background value of Xinjiang | 19.40 | 11.20 | 68.80 | 26.70 | 688.00 | |
| National soil environmental quality class II | 350 | 25 | 300 | 100 | — | |
| Coefficient of Variation at Lujiaowan | 0.23 | 0.18 | 0.13 | 0.20 | 0.16 | |
| Coefficient of Variation at Juhuatai | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.19 | |
Correlation analysis of soil heavy metals.
| Lujiaowan | Juhuatai | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pb | As | Zn | Cu | Mn | Pb | As | Zn | Cu | Mn | |
| Pb | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| As | 0.79* | 1 | 0.47 | 1 | ||||||
| Zn | -0.37 | -0.65 | 1 | 0.31 | -0.27 | 1 | ||||
| Cu | -0.01 | -0.08 | -0.42 | 1 | 0.45 | -0.36 | 0.26 | 1 | ||
| Mn | -0.69 | -0.77 | 0.60 | -0.69 | 1 | 0.60 | 0.51 | 0.53 | 0.16 | 1 |
* statistically significant at p<0.05
The principal component analysis results of heavy metal.
| Study area | PC | Pb | As | Zn | Cu | Mn | Variance | Cumulative variance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lujiaowan | PC1 | 0.28 | 0.32 | -0.25 | -0.01 | -0.30 | 59.12 | 59.12 |
| PC2 | -0.08 | -0.04 | -0.41 | 0.74 | 0.21 | 26.40 | 85.52 | |
| Juhuatai | PC1 | 0.37 | 0.42 | 0.08 | -0.03 | 0.40 | 45.13 | 45.13 |
| PC2 | 0.13 | -0.42 | 0.42 | 0.48 | 0.08 | 31.52 | 76.65 |
Fig 5Geoaccumulation and potential ecological risk of soil heavy metal in Lujiaowan Scenic Area.
Fig 6Geoaccumulation and potential ecological risk of heavy metal in Juhuatai Scenic Area.