4.7 Article

210Pb dating to investigate the historical variations and identification of different sources of heavy metal pollution in sediments of the Pearl River Estuary, Southern China

Journal

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN
Volume 150, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110670

Keywords

Sediment; Heavy metal; Temporal change; Lead isotopes; Pearl river estuary

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41771027, 41701585]
  2. Fundamental Research Fund for the Central Universities of China [171gpy40]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong, China [2017A030310309]
  4. Provincial Special Fund for Economic Development (Marine Economic Development) [GDME2018E005]
  5. Scientifc and Technological Innovation Project of the Water Sciences Department of Guangdong Province (2018-2021)
  6. Asia Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN) [CRRP2019-09MY-Onodera]
  7. 1616FG@GPSINQUA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we investigated the historical variation, source identification, and distribution of heavy metal pollution in sediments of the Pearl River Estuary (PRE) using Pb-210 dating. Our results suggest that the heavy metal concentrations were higher in the western part of the estuary. For all heavy metals, Cd was significantly enriched in the sediments. The Pearl River Delta (PRD) has experienced rapid economic development in the past 40 years, a decreasing trend in heavy metal fluxes after 2004 was identified, which suggests a reduction in heavy metal concentrations due to the removal of heavy polluting industries and the effective control of sewage discharge. A binary mixing model reveals that the contributions of anthropogenic Pb ranged from 45.4 to 64%. Based on lead isotopic ratios (Pb-206/207 and Pb-208/206), it was found that geologic materials and industrial pollution were the main sources of heavy metals in the PRE sediments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available