烟台市农村土壤重金属污染及潜在生态风险评价
|
摘要
目的了解烟台市农村环境土壤中重金属污染状况,使用现有的风险评估方法对被调查地区土壤潜在生态风险进行评价。为土壤污染防控提供依据和支持。方法 2014—2017年按照《国家农村环境卫生监测项目方案》要求,每年随机抽取烟台市4个县市区20个乡镇80个行政村作为监测采样点。共采集样品320份,测定土壤中的重金属铅、镉和铬,并按照GB15618-2018《土壤环境质量农用地土壤污染风险管控标准(试行)》评价重金属超标情况,应用地积累指数和Hakanson潜在生态危害指数法评价农村土壤综合质量状况。结果 320份土壤样品中,土壤中铅、镉和铬中位数分别为23.78、0.22和63.89 mg/kg,镉超标率为22.81%。铅和铬元素的地积累指数均属于无风险范围,镉元素属于中度污染程度;Hakanson潜在生态危害指数法评价,铅和铬元素均属于无风险范围(指数均小于40),镉元素属于中度风险范畴,潜在生态综合污染指数63.02,表明土壤受到轻度生态危害。结论烟台市部分地区农村土壤受到轻度生态危害,镉元素为中度风险,应加强相关方面防控。
[Objective]To understand the pollution status of heavy metals in rural environmental soil of Yantai City, evaluate the potential ecological risk of soil in the survey area by using the existing risk assessment methods, and provide basis and support for soil pollution prevention and control.[Methods] According to the requirements of the Rural environmental sanitation monitoring project for 2014-2017, 80 administrative villages in 20 townships were randomly selected from four counties/cities/districts of Yantai City as monitoring sampling points every year. A total of 320 samples were collected to determine heavy metals such as lead, cadmium and chromium in soil, and to evaluate the situation of heavy metals exceeding the standard according to GB 15618-2018 of Soil Environmental Quality Standard for Risk Control of Soil Pollution in Agricultural Land(Trial Implementation). The comprehensive quality of rural soil was assessed by the method of land accumulation index and Hakanson potential ecological hazard index.[Results]Among 320 soil samples, the median values of lead, cadmium and chromium were23.78 mg/kg, 0.22 mg/kg and 63.89 mg/kg respectively,and the over-standard rate of cadmium was 22.81%. Assessment of lead and chromium elements by land accumulation index method belonged to the risk-free range, and cadmium was evaluated to the moderate pollution level. Hakanson potential ecological hazard index assessment showed that lead and cadmium belonged to the risk-free range(index is less than 40), and cadmium belonged to the moderate pollution range. The potent ial ecological comprehensive pollution index of 63.02 indicated that the soil is slightly ecologically harmed.[Conclusion] The environmental soil in some rural areas of Yantai City is slightly damaged by ecological environment, and risk caused by cadmium is at a moderate level. Therefore, relevant prevention and control measures should be strengthened.
[Objective]To understand the pollution status of heavy metals in rural environmental soil of Yantai City, evaluate the potential ecological risk of soil in the survey area by using the existing risk assessment methods, and provide basis and support for soil pollution prevention and control.[Methods] According to the requirements of the Rural environmental sanitation monitoring project for 2014-2017, 80 administrative villages in 20 townships were randomly selected from four counties/cities/districts of Yantai City as monitoring sampling points every year. A total of 320 samples were collected to determine heavy metals such as lead, cadmium and chromium in soil, and to evaluate the situation of heavy metals exceeding the standard according to GB 15618-2018 of Soil Environmental Quality Standard for Risk Control of Soil Pollution in Agricultural Land(Trial Implementation). The comprehensive quality of rural soil was assessed by the method of land accumulation index and Hakanson potential ecological hazard index.[Results]Among 320 soil samples, the median values of lead, cadmium and chromium were23.78 mg/kg, 0.22 mg/kg and 63.89 mg/kg respectively,and the over-standard rate of cadmium was 22.81%. Assessment of lead and chromium elements by land accumulation index method belonged to the risk-free range, and cadmium was evaluated to the moderate pollution level. Hakanson potential ecological hazard index assessment showed that lead and cadmium belonged to the risk-free range(index is less than 40), and cadmium belonged to the moderate pollution range. The potent ial ecological comprehensive pollution index of 63.02 indicated that the soil is slightly ecologically harmed.[Conclusion] The environmental soil in some rural areas of Yantai City is slightly damaged by ecological environment, and risk caused by cadmium is at a moderate level. Therefore, relevant prevention and control measures should be strengthened.
引文
[1]中华人民共和国国务院.国务院关于印发土壤污染防治行动计划的通知[EB/OL].(2016-05-28)[2018-11-15].http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2016-05/31/content_508377.htm.
[2]中华人民共和国卫生和计划生育委员会.国家卫生计生委办公厅关于印发《2013年空气污染(雾霾)人群健康影响监测和农村环境卫生监测工作方案》的通知[EB/OL].(2013-10-15)[2018-11-15].http://www.moh.gov.cn/jkj/s5898bm/201310/02c483b454264c4aa0e99d580fc91c71.shtml.
[3]中华人民共和国环境保护局.土壤质量铅、镉的测定石墨炉原子吸收分光光度法:GB 17141-1997[S].北京:中国标准出版社,1997:1-3.
[4]中华人民共和国环境保护部.土壤总铬的测定火焰原子吸收分光光度法:HJ 491-2009[S].北京:中国环境科学出版社,2009:1-5.
[5]中华人民共和国农业部.土壤pH的测定:NY/T 1377-2007[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2007:1-3.
[6]中华人民共和国生态环境部,国家市场监督管理总局.土壤环境质量农用地土壤污染风险管控标准(试行):GB 15618-2018[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2018:2-3.
[7]万金保,王建永,吴丹,等.乐安河沉积物重金属污染现状评价[J].环境科学与技术,2008,31(11):130-133.
[8]庞绪贵、陈钰、刘汉栋,等.山东半岛蓝色经济区土壤地球化学基准值与背景值[J].山东国土资源,2014(8):21-26.
[9]孙煜.沿海某县级市农村土壤卫生状况及风险评估[D],济南:山东大学,2017:17-18.
[10]胡艳霞,周连第,魏长山,等.北京水源保护地土壤重金属空间变异及污染特征[J].土壤通报,2013,44(6):1483-1490.
[11]赵庆令,李清彩,谢江坤,等.应用富集系数法和地累积指数法研究济宁南部区域土壤重金属污染特征及生态风险评价[J].岩矿测试,2015,34(1):129-137.
[12]CHABUKDHARA M,NEMA AK.Assessment of Heavy Metal Contamination in Hindon River Sediments:A Chemometric and Geochemical Approach[J].Chemosphere,2012,87(8):945-953.
[13]BERGANASCHI L,RIZZIO E,VALCUVIA MG.Determination of Trace Elements and Evaluation of Their Enrichment Factors in Himalayan Lichens[J].Environ Pollut,2002,120(1):137-144.
[14]卢岚岚,刘桂建,王兴明,等.淮南顾桥矿土壤环境中微量元素的分布及其生态风险评价[J].中国科学技术大学学报,2014,44(2):119-127.
[15]王存龙,曾宪东,刘华峰,等.烟台市土壤环境质量现状及重金属元素分布迁移规律[J].中国地质,2015,42(1):317-330.
[16]于云江,胡林凯,李定龙,等.某典型农业区农田土壤重金属污染的健康风险初步评价[J].环境与健康杂志,2010,27(8):693-696.
[17]陈学敏,杨克敌,衡正昌.环境卫生学[M].6版.北京:人民卫生出版社,2007,203-206.
[18]杨铭建,黄信有,李佳进,等.南平市2013-2016年农田土壤卫生监测评价[J].海峡预防医学,2017,23(4):61-63.
[19]徐建军,刘磊,王松松,等.2014-2017年烟台市农村土壤卫生监测结果分析及评价[J].环境卫生学杂志,2018,8(2):139-143.
[20]刘勇,岳玲玲,李晋昌,等.太原市土壤重金属污染及其潜在生态风险评价[J].环境科学学报,2011,31(6):1285-1293.
[21]HAKANSON L.An ecology risk index for aquatic pollution control:Asediment logical approach[J].Water Res,1980,14(8):975-1001.
[22]武永锋,刘丛强,涂成龙,等.贵阳市土壤重金属及其潜在生态学风险评价[J].矿物岩石地球化学通报,2007,26(3):254-257.
[2]中华人民共和国卫生和计划生育委员会.国家卫生计生委办公厅关于印发《2013年空气污染(雾霾)人群健康影响监测和农村环境卫生监测工作方案》的通知[EB/OL].(2013-10-15)[2018-11-15].http://www.moh.gov.cn/jkj/s5898bm/201310/02c483b454264c4aa0e99d580fc91c71.shtml.
[3]中华人民共和国环境保护局.土壤质量铅、镉的测定石墨炉原子吸收分光光度法:GB 17141-1997[S].北京:中国标准出版社,1997:1-3.
[4]中华人民共和国环境保护部.土壤总铬的测定火焰原子吸收分光光度法:HJ 491-2009[S].北京:中国环境科学出版社,2009:1-5.
[5]中华人民共和国农业部.土壤pH的测定:NY/T 1377-2007[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2007:1-3.
[6]中华人民共和国生态环境部,国家市场监督管理总局.土壤环境质量农用地土壤污染风险管控标准(试行):GB 15618-2018[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2018:2-3.
[7]万金保,王建永,吴丹,等.乐安河沉积物重金属污染现状评价[J].环境科学与技术,2008,31(11):130-133.
[8]庞绪贵、陈钰、刘汉栋,等.山东半岛蓝色经济区土壤地球化学基准值与背景值[J].山东国土资源,2014(8):21-26.
[9]孙煜.沿海某县级市农村土壤卫生状况及风险评估[D],济南:山东大学,2017:17-18.
[10]胡艳霞,周连第,魏长山,等.北京水源保护地土壤重金属空间变异及污染特征[J].土壤通报,2013,44(6):1483-1490.
[11]赵庆令,李清彩,谢江坤,等.应用富集系数法和地累积指数法研究济宁南部区域土壤重金属污染特征及生态风险评价[J].岩矿测试,2015,34(1):129-137.
[12]CHABUKDHARA M,NEMA AK.Assessment of Heavy Metal Contamination in Hindon River Sediments:A Chemometric and Geochemical Approach[J].Chemosphere,2012,87(8):945-953.
[13]BERGANASCHI L,RIZZIO E,VALCUVIA MG.Determination of Trace Elements and Evaluation of Their Enrichment Factors in Himalayan Lichens[J].Environ Pollut,2002,120(1):137-144.
[14]卢岚岚,刘桂建,王兴明,等.淮南顾桥矿土壤环境中微量元素的分布及其生态风险评价[J].中国科学技术大学学报,2014,44(2):119-127.
[15]王存龙,曾宪东,刘华峰,等.烟台市土壤环境质量现状及重金属元素分布迁移规律[J].中国地质,2015,42(1):317-330.
[16]于云江,胡林凯,李定龙,等.某典型农业区农田土壤重金属污染的健康风险初步评价[J].环境与健康杂志,2010,27(8):693-696.
[17]陈学敏,杨克敌,衡正昌.环境卫生学[M].6版.北京:人民卫生出版社,2007,203-206.
[18]杨铭建,黄信有,李佳进,等.南平市2013-2016年农田土壤卫生监测评价[J].海峡预防医学,2017,23(4):61-63.
[19]徐建军,刘磊,王松松,等.2014-2017年烟台市农村土壤卫生监测结果分析及评价[J].环境卫生学杂志,2018,8(2):139-143.
[20]刘勇,岳玲玲,李晋昌,等.太原市土壤重金属污染及其潜在生态风险评价[J].环境科学学报,2011,31(6):1285-1293.
[21]HAKANSON L.An ecology risk index for aquatic pollution control:Asediment logical approach[J].Water Res,1980,14(8):975-1001.
[22]武永锋,刘丛强,涂成龙,等.贵阳市土壤重金属及其潜在生态学风险评价[J].矿物岩石地球化学通报,2007,26(3):254-257.