4.6 Article

Study of fractionation, mobility and risk assessment of selected metals in suburban, urban and roadside soil from Pakistan

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES
卷 80, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12665-021-09898-8

关键词

Metal; Soil; Mobility; Contamination; Statistical analysis

资金

  1. Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the chemical fractionation pattern of selected metals in soil collected from roadside, urban, and suburban environments. It found that different metals exhibited varying levels of mobility and availability, with some showing low risk while others showed medium to high risk. Additionally, there was evidence of anthropogenic contamination of metals in the soil.
This study was carried out to elucidate the chemical fractionation pattern of selected metals (Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Pb, Sr and Zn) in the soil collected from roadside, urban and suburban environment. Modified sequential extraction method was applied to assess the exchangeable, reducible, oxidisable and residual fractions of the metals in soil samples. Quantification of the metals was performed by atomic absorption spectrometry. Various statistical methods were used to evaluate the comparative distribution and mutual relationships among the metals. In addition, risk assessment employing contamination factor, enrichment factor and risk assessment code were also carried out. Among the metals, Ca, Sr, Mn, Mg, Cd, Co and Pb exhibited significant mobility and availability whereas Zn, Fe, Cu and Cr were mainly found in the residual fraction. Most of the soil samples exhibited low risk for Fe, Zn, Cu and Cr, but medium risk was associated with Co, Mn, Pb and Cd, while Ca and Sr showed high risk in most of the cases. Similarly, Zn, Co, Sr, Pb and Cd exhibited moderately severe to extremely severe enrichment of the metals in soil. Cluster analysis indicated significant anthropogenic contamination of the metals in soil.

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