4.7 Review

Comparisons of heavy metal input inventory in agricultural soils in North and South China: A review

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 660, 期 -, 页码 776-786

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.066

关键词

Agricultural soils; Heavy metal input; Atmospheric deposition; Livestock manures; Spatial heterogeneity; China

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFD0800304]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41771277, U1401234, 41701262]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin City [17JCQNJC08100]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A national-scale inventory of heavy metal inputs is essential to understand the current situation of contribution and spatial heterogeneity of heavy metal sources in China. Published literatures from 2008 to 2018 about heavy metal inputs from various pollution sources (atmospheric deposition, livestock manures, fertilizers, and sewage irrigation) to agricultural soils were collected. In the past ten years, atmospheric deposition was the main pollution source which was responsible for 50-93% of the total As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, and Pb inputs, with livestock manures contributed to approximately 76% of total Cu inputs. However, due to industrial structure, geographical condition and the characteristics of economic development, the contribution of different sources to heavy metal pollution varies in different regions. For example, atmospheric deposition was the most important contributor in North China with its highly developed heavy industry and more coal combustion, while the contribution of livestock manures was obviously higher in South China due to its flourishing agricultural production and animal husbandry. Based on the analysis for clarifying the major pollution sources of five typical heavy metals (namely Cd, As, Hg, Cu and Pb), the controlling measures are suggested to make more effective and targeted strategies to protect agricultural soils in the future. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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