| Literature DB >> 36078801 |
Guoxiu Shang1, Xiaogang Wang1, Long Zhu1, Shan Liu2, Hongze Li1, Zhe Wang1, Biao Wang1, Zhengxian Zhang1.
Abstract
Xinfengjiang River, the largest tributary of Dongjiang River, plays a key role in the water supply of Heyuan, Huizhou, Guangzhou and even the Pearl River urban agglomeration. It is crucial to determine the pollution status, potential ecological risk degree of heavy metals in Xinfengjiang river sediment and their influence on the abundance of fish species. In this paper, seven heavy metal concentrations in sediment from the Heyuan section of the Xinfengjiang river were investigated. The order of average concentration was: As > Zn > Pb > Cr > Cu > Cd > Hg. The average concentrations of Cd, Zn and Cu in the upper reaches of the Xinfengjiang Reservoir were significantly higher than those in the reservoir. The mean value order of Igeo was: Cd > Zn > Pb > As > Cu > Cr > Hg. Cd and As had the highest ecological risk index and the greatest threat to the ecological environment. Pearson correlation analysis and principal component analysis demonstrated that the pollution source of heavy metals such as Cu and Cd are much more likely to originate from the mine fields located in the northeast of the sampling sites. In addition, agriculture, electronic industry and domestic sewage also contributed to the concentration of heavy metals in different degrees. Redundancy analysis showed that the abundance of Cypriniformes was negatively correlated with Cu and Cd concentrations, suggesting that mining activities might indirectly affect the abundance of fish species.Entities:
Keywords: ecological risk; fish species; heavy metal; sediment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36078801 PMCID: PMC9518545 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191711087
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Study area and the location of the sampling sites.
Statistics of heavy metal concentration in sediments of XFJR.
| Sample Sites | Cu | Zn (mg/kg) | Pb | Cd (mg/kg) | Cr (mg/kg) | Hg (mg/kg) | As (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 32.50 | 163.0 | 68.8 | 1.680 | 41.80 | 0.08 | 22.80 |
| S2 | 24.20 | 119.0 | 73.8 | 0.640 | 31.20 | 0.09 | 14.30 |
| S3 | 29.30 | 121.0 | 71.5 | 0.630 | 43.10 | 0.08 | 27.50 |
| S4 | 145.00 | 186.0 | 143.0 | 2.390 | 59.80 | 0.11 | 327.00 |
| S5 | 14.50 | 80.2 | 135.0 | 0.250 | 22.30 | 0.07 | 33.10 |
| S6 | 18.50 | 29.7 | 16.3 | 0.080 | 59.30 | 0.07 | 437.00 |
| S7 | 12.00 | 32.2 | 30.4 | 0.060 | 66.00 | 0.07 | 36.50 |
| S8 | 1.80 | 12.9 | 25.1 | 0.035 | 6.86 | 0.04 | 10.40 |
| S9 | 1.90 | 21.8 | 65.2 | 0.033 | 8.12 | 0.05 | 3.45 |
| S10 | 1.78 | 18.7 | 22.3 | 0.038 | 8.26 | 0.06 | 24.90 |
| S11 | 32.40 | 152.0 | 38.9 | 0.790 | 38.70 | 0.14 | 13.20 |
| Mean | 28.50 | 85.13 | 62.75 | 0.602 | 35.04 | 0.078 | 86.38 |
| CV(%) | 141.60% | 76.70% | 69% | 129.10% | 61.90% | 35.60% | 172% |
| Background value | 16.17 | 48.99 | 39.65 | 0.08 | 38.53 | 0.11 | 19.77 |
Classes of contamination indices and corresponding levels.
| Igeo Class a | Sediment Quality |
| Potential Risk | RI Class c | Ecological Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <0 | Uncontaminated |
| Low |
| Low |
| 0–1 | Uncontaminated to moderately contaminated |
| Moderate |
| Moderate |
| 1–2 | Moderately contaminated |
| Considerable |
| Considerable |
| 2–3 | Moderately to heavily contaminated |
| High |
| Very high |
| >5 | Extremely contaminated |
Igeo the geo-accumulation index, the potential ecological risk factor of single metal, RI the potential ecological risk index, CF the contamination factor, PLI the pollution load index. a [30]; b [31]; c [32].
Figure 2Geo-accumulation index (Igeo) of heavy metals in sediment: (a) Boxplot of Igeo values; (b) Igeo class in different sites.
Individual ecological risks () and potential ecological risks (RI) of heavy metals.
| Sites |
| RI | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cu | Zn | Pb | Cd | Cr | Hg | As | ||
| S1 | 10.05 | 3.33 | 8.68 | 630.00 | 2.17 | 29.09 | 11.53 | 694.8 |
| S2 | 7.48 | 2.43 | 9.31 | 240.00 | 1.62 | 32.73 | 7.23 | 300.8 |
| S3 | 9.06 | 2.47 | 9.02 | 236.25 | 2.24 | 29.09 | 13.91 | 302.0 |
| S4 | 44.84 | 3.80 | 18.03 | 896.25 | 3.10 | 40.00 | 165.40 | 1171.4 |
| S5 | 4.48 | 1.64 | 17.02 | 93.75 | 1.16 | 25.45 | 16.74 | 160.2 |
| S6 | 5.72 | 0.61 | 2.06 | 30.00 | 3.08 | 25.45 | 221.04 | 288.0 |
| S7 | 3.71 | 0.66 | 3.83 | 22.50 | 3.43 | 25.45 | 18.46 | 78.0 |
| S8 | 0.56 | 0.26 | 3.17 | 13.13 | 0.36 | 14.55 | 5.26 | 37.3 |
| S9 | 0.59 | 0.44 | 8.22 | 12.38 | 0.42 | 18.18 | 1.75 | 42.0 |
| S10 | 0.55 | 0.38 | 2.81 | 14.25 | 0.43 | 21.82 | 12.59 | 52.8 |
| S11 | 10.02 | 3.10 | 4.91 | 296.25 | 2.00 | 50.91 | 6.68 | 373.9 |
Figure 3RI value of heavy metals in sediment (derived from the value).
Pearson’s correlation matrix of sediment heavy metals.
| Heavy | Cu | Zn | Pb | Cd | Cr | Hg | As |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cu | 1 | ||||||
| Zn | 0.723 * | 1 | |||||
| Pb | 0.643 * | 0.596 | 1 | ||||
| Cd | 0.883 ** | 0.891 ** | 0.610 * | 1 | |||
| Cr | 0.520 | 0.426 | 0.106 | 0.438 | 1 | ||
| Hg | 0.577 | 0.804 ** | 0.281 | 0.602 * | 0.492 | 1 | |
| As | 0.528 | 0.084 | 0.093 | 0.287 | 0.582 | 0.154 | 1 |
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Figure 4Principal component analysis (PCA) of heavy metals in sediment sampling sites.
The interpretation variance of heavy metals on three principal components.
| Heavy Metals | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cu | 0.926 | 0.066 | 0.246 |
| Cd | 0.923 | −0.169 | 0.076 |
| Zn | 0.898 | −0.325 | −0.220 |
| Hg | 0.762 | −0.085 | −0.549 |
| Pb | 0.647 | −0.432 | 0.518 |
| Cr | 0.632 | 0.603 | −0.248 |
| As | 0.442 | 0.792 | 0.319 |
Figure 5Distribution of fish species at sampling sites.
Figure 6Redundancy analysis diagram between heavy metals and fish species.