4.6 Article

Uptake and concentration of heavy metals in dominant mangrove species from Hainan Island, South China

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL GEOCHEMISTRY AND HEALTH
卷 43, 期 4, 页码 1703-1714

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10653-020-00717-w

关键词

Heavy metals; Bioconcentration factor; Dominant mangrove species; Transfer factors

资金

  1. Hainan National Science Foundation [419MS049]
  2. Science Research Program of Hainan Province Institutions of Higher Education [Hnky2019-34]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The concentration of heavy metals in different organs of mangroves varies, with roots containing the most. The three mangrove species showed weak concentration capacity, withCeriops tagalbeing the best at distributing heavy metals. This study provides insight into the bioavailability of heavy metals in sediments for ecosystem protection in mangrove wetlands.
By investigating three dominant mangrove species, namelyAegiceras corniculatum,Kandelia candel,Ceriops tagaland their rhizosediment in Mangrove wetlands in Hainan Island, this research analyzed absorption, concentration and distribution of heavy metals (Cr, Cu, Zn, As, Cd and Pb) in mangroves. The results found that the concentration of specific heavy metal differs in the different mangrove organs (leaf, stem and root). The content of heavy metals concentrated greatly in roots, but less in leaves and stems. The study also revealed that concentration capacity was weak in all three mangrove species (BCF0.02-0.91), with their organ ranking BCFroot > BCFstem > BCFleaf. Among three mangrove species, the transfer factors of leaves and stems inCeriops tagalwere highest, indicating a great distribution capability for heavy metals, followed byKandelia candel. Transfer factors inAegiceras corniculatumwere the weakest. This ranking was opposite to bioconcentration factors of roots. This study can further reflect bioavailability of heavy metals in sediments, which provides scientific evidence on ecosystem protection and management in mangrove wetlands.

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

4.6
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