4.5 Article

Heavy metal accumulation and health risk assessment of crayfish in the middle and lower reaches of Yangtze River during 2015-2017

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-021-09652-4

关键词

Human health risk; Heavy metal; Target hazard quotient; Pollution index; Hierarchical clustering analysis

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2019YFC1606003, 2017YFC1602000]
  2. Major Project of National Statistical Science Foundation of China [2021LD01]
  3. Research Foundation for Advanced Talents of Beijing Technology and Business University [19008020162]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed and assessed the presence of five heavy metals in crayfish samples collected from six provinces in the middle and lower reaches of Yangtze River. The results showed significant correlations between arsenic, lead, and cadmium, as well as spatial similarities in heavy metal contamination among provinces. The study also highlighted the potential health risks posed by mercury exposure in Anhui province.
This study performed statistical analysis and risk assessment of five heavy metals (As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb) in crayfish samples collected from six provinces in the middle and lower reaches of Yangtze River during 2015-2017. The Spearman correlation test and the results of hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) indicated that As, Pb, and Cd in crayfish were significantly correlated, and the results of HCA showed that Jiangxi, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang were clustered into one group; Hubei, Hunan, and Anhui were clustered into another group; and provinces in the same group had spatial similarities in heavy metals. The pollution index (PI) values of five heavy metals in all provinces were below 1, implying that crayfish samples in this area were not highly contaminated. The target hazard quotient (THQ) values of five heavy metals were mainly below 1 except Hg in Anhui (2.9709), which was far beyond 1, indicating that the health risk posed by Hg exposure should not be ignored in Anhui.

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

4.5
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