4.3 Article

Source Apportionment and Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals (Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, and Mn) in Surface Sediments from the Dragon Lake, Bengbu, China

期刊

POLISH JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 2203-2212

出版社

HARD
DOI: 10.15244/pjoes/127869

关键词

heavy metals; sediments; assessment; source; Dragon Lake

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41773100]
  2. Plan for Excellent Young Talents of Anhui Higher Education Institutions of China [gxyqZD2019082, gxyq2018106]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Bengbu University [2018ZR04zd]
  4. College-enterprise Cooperative Project [BBXYHX2017017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found high concentrations of heavy metals in the surface sediments of Dragon Lake, with Cd posing the highest biological risk. The north part of the lake showed higher pollution levels and should be given more attention. Heavy metals were mainly attributed to anthropogenic sources.
Heavy metal concentrations in surface sediments of the Dragon Lake were studied based on the field investigation, sampling, indoor test and statistical analysis. Pollution risk was assessed using geoaccumulation index (I-geo), potential ecological risk index (PERI) and sediment quality guidelines (SQGs). The enrichment level of heavy metals in surface sediments decreased in the order of Cd>Zn>Cu>Ni>Pb>Mn. I-geo and PERI indicated Cd had the highest biological risk among the six heavy metals. The concentrations of Cd, Ni and Zn were between threshold effect level (TEL) and probable effect level (PEL), suggesting adverse biological effect occasionally occurred. Comparing the north and south of Dragon lake, the north part should be given more attention due to the higher heavy metal concentrations. The metals (Cd, Zn, Cu, Ni, and Pb) were attributed to anthropogenic sources, including agriculture, industrial emissions and traffic pollution, whereas Mn was mainly from natural sources. The results can provide reference for water quality management of Dragon Lake.

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

4.3
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