| Literature DB >> 36011761 |
Qinglu Yao1, Ling Chen1,2, Lingchen Mao3, Yu Ma1, Fengyan Tian3, Ruijie Wang3, Xiang-Zhou Meng4,5, Feipeng Li3.
Abstract
In Taipu River, after being transformed from a drainage channel to a drinking water supply river in 1995, heavy metals that have accumulated in sediments have become an environmental issue. Herein, we collected sediments of Taipu River in 2018, 2020, and 2021 and analyzed the distribution of Sb, As, Cd, Cu, Pb, Cr, and Zn to identify their sources. The results revealed that the mean concentrations of heavy metals were above the background values, except for Cr and As. During the non-flood season, the midstream of Taipu River becomes a heavy metal hotspot, with their concentrations 2-5 times higher than those in upstream sediment. There were significant correlations (r = 0.79-0.99) among drainage, precipitation and flow rate, which indicated that drainage caused by both the opening of Taipu Gate and precipitation control the flow rate and, then, possibly influenced the distribution of heavy metals. Moreover, three sources (industrial sources, particle deposition sources, and natural sources) were characterized as the determinants for the accumulation of heavy metal by the Positive Matrix Factorization model, with the contribution rates of 41.7%, 32.9%, and 25.4%, respectively. It is recommended that the influence of hydrological conditions and industrial activities should be a key consideration when developing regulations for the management of heavy metals in rivers.Entities:
Keywords: Sediment; heavy metal; hydrodynamic; industrial activity; source apportionment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36011761 PMCID: PMC9407723 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191610116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Location and sampling site.
Heavy metals concentration (mg·kg−1) in sediments (n = 143).
| Sb | Cd | Cr | Cu | Zn | As | Pb | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max | 5.29 | 0.67 | 117.14 | 501.08 | 375.42 | 32.35 | 73.23 |
| Min | 0.44 | 0.06 | 22.58 | 9.83 | 28.52 | 1.72 | 17.18 |
| Mean | 1.83 | 0.26 | 57.36 | 61.12 | 154.75 | 8.97 | 44.86 |
| Median | 1.65 | 0.24 | 55.06 | 47.73 | 142.21 | 8.19 | 44.86 |
| SD | 0.94 | 0.13 | 17.15 | 54.76 | 67.81 | 5.00 | 12.08 |
| VC (%) | 51.38 | 48.75 | 29.89 | 89.60 | 43.82 | 55.73 | 26.93 |
| GB | 0.77 | 0.08 | 83 | 27 | 69 | 9.2 | 23.9 |
| ER (%) | 91.6 | 98.6 | 8.4 | 92.3 | 91.6 | 37.1 | 96.5 |
Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; VC, variation coefficient, GB, the geochemical background of heavy metals in the plain of Taihu Lake, Jiangsu, China; ER, exceedance rate.
The summary of heavy metals average concentration (mg·kg−1) in sediments.
| Sb | Cd | Cr | Cu | Zn | As | Pb | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taipu River, China, 2021 | 1.83 | 0.26 | 57.36 | 61.12 | 154.75 | 8.97 | 44.86 | Present study |
| Taipu River, China, 2015 | 7.74 | 0.74 | 87.20 | 62.20 | / | / | 34.90 | [ |
| Taihu Lake, China, 2018 | / | 0.61 | 68.85 | 35.53 | 109.32 | 16.99 | 29.70 | [ |
| Taihu Lake, China, 2015 | 2.37 | 0.55 | 82.30 | 32.80 | 109.0 | / | 35.10 | [ |
| Huangpu River, China, 2018 | 2.80 | 2.20 | 96.30 | 40.20 | 139.7 | 11.30 | 68.60 | [ |
| The Yellow River, China, 2020 | / | 0.11 | 45.31 | 15.59 | 49.40 | 11.74 | 17.71 | [ |
| Three Gorges Reservoir, China, 2014 | / | 1.17 | 114.8 | 95.81 | 164.89 | / | 73.92 | [ |
| Jialu River, China, 2009 | / | 2.93 | 60.80 | 39.22 | 107.58 | 6.31 | 29.35 | [ |
| The Pearl River, China, 2011 | / | 3.77 | 180.6 | 182.5 | 487.12 | / | 150.61 | [ |
| Xiangjiang River, China, 2010 | / | 15.0 | 51.99 | 43.01 | 266.57 | 71.10 | [ | |
| Lianjiang River, China, 2005 | / | 4.10 | / | 1070 | 324.0 | / | 230.0 | [ |
| Zijiang River, China, 2017 | 36.6 | 3.00 | 67.51 | 34.19 | 141.90 | 31.53 | 35.68 | [ |
| St. Lawrence River, Canada, 2016 | / | 0.80 | 68.50 | 108.0 | 3035.9 | 8.80 | 58.20 | [ |
| Nador lagoon, Morocco, 2013 | / | 1.60 | 71.60 | 10.20 | 554.9 | / | 135.0 | [ |
| Danube River, Germany, 2001 | / | 1.50 | 71.10 | / | 258.0 | 20.10 | 52.5 | [ |
Figure 2Temporal distribution of heavy metals in sediments (The red dashed line represented the background value of each heavy metal).
Figure 3Spatial distribution of industrial enterprises, transport, and gates around the S2, S3.
Figure 4Spatial and temporal distribution of Sb, Cd, and Pb in S2, S3 sediments.
Figure 5Classification results of PMF model (Different color-sized circles were used to indicate the proportion of each heavy metal in the different factors).
Figure 6Lead isotope ratios (206Pb/207Pb vs 208Pb/206Pb) in sediments and citations (data from Table S3). The data of regression line for Chinese coals was from Bi et al. [64].