4.7 Article

Heavy metal(loid)s in the topsoil of urban parks in Beijing, China: Concentrations, potential sources, and risk assessment

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 260, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114083

关键词

Heavy metal(loid)s; Urban park; Soil; CIT; Risk assessment

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2019YFC180022]
  2. Central Level, Scientific Research Institutes for Basic R&D Special Fund Business [2019YSKY006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urban parks play an important role in the urban ecosystem and are also used by residents for recreation. The environmental quality of urban park soils might influence human health following long-term exposure. To assess potential sources and pollution risks of heavy metal(loid)s in the topsoil of urban parks, we subjected metal concentrations in soil samples from 121 parks in the Beijing urban area to geostatistical analyses, conditional inference tree (CIT) analyses, ecological risk and human health risk assessment. CIT effectively explained the influence of human activity on the spatial variation and accumulation of soil metal(loid)s and identified the contributions of natural and anthropogenic inputs. The main factors influencing the accumulation of heavy metal(loid)s, including urbanization duration, park age, per capita GDP, industrial output, and coal consumption, were evaluated by CIT. Except for Cr and Ni, the average concentrations of the metal(loid)s tested (Cu, Pb, Zn, Hg, As, and Cd) were higher than the background values. In the urban parks, Ni and Cr derived mostly from soil parent materials. Concentrations of Cu, Zn, Pb, Cd, As, and Hg were strongly associated with human influences, including industrial, agricultural, and traffic activity. After assessing health and ecological risks, we conclude that heavy metal(loid)s in the soil of Beijing urban parks pose no obvious health risk to humans, and the ecological risk is also low. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. 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