4.7 Article

Accumulation, ecological-health risks assessment, and source apportionment of heavy metals in paddy soils: A case study in Hanzhong, Shaanxi, China

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 248, 期 -, 页码 349-357

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.02.045

关键词

Heavy metals; Risk assessment; Source apportionment; Positive matrix factorization; Paddy soils

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China in the 13th Five-Year Plan [SQ2017YFNC060064-01]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2452016159]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Contamination of agricultural soil by heavy metals has become a global issue concerning food security and human health risk. In this study, a soil investigation was conducted to evaluate metals accumulation, potential ecological and health risks as well as to identify sources of metals in paddy soils in Hanzhong City, which is located in a sedimentary basin. Ninety-two (92) surface soil samples (bulk soil) and their corresponding rice samples, 21 irrigation water samples, and 18 fertilizer samples were collected from two typical counties and quantified for the heavy metals (i.e., As, Cd, Cu, Hg, Pb, and Zn) concentrations. The results showed that As, Cd, and Zn were the main contaminants in soils in the studied area. Additionally, elevated Hg content in soils might also pose risks to the local ecosystem. Cadmium and As demonstrated high mobility, and their average contents in rice grains were slightly higher than the permissible threshold (0.20 mg kg(-1)). Moreover, Pb, As, and Cd intake via rice consumption might result in potential risks to local residents. Metal distribution revealed that pollution in the studied area is non homogeneous, and agricultural activities (As, Cu, and Cd), transportation emission (Cu and Pb), coal combustion (Hg and As), and smelting activities (Zn, Pb, and Cu) were ascertained as the potential sources based on the Positive matrix factorization (PMF) analysis results. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据