广州市农村蔬菜地土壤汞水平及其生态、人体健康风险评价
|
摘要
目的了解广东省广州市农村蔬菜地土壤汞水平并评价其生态和人体健康风险,为本地汞污染防治和生态环境保护提供科学依据。方法 2015—2018年对广州市7个区的农村蔬菜地土壤进行抽样并检测其汞水平,采用Hakanson潜在生态危害指数法评价土壤汞的生态风险,采用美国国家环境保护局(USEPA)推荐的健康风险评价模型分析经口摄入、皮肤接触和呼吸吸入3种暴露途径的人体健康风险。结果共监测土壤样品367份,汞水平在0.007 4～4.65 mg/kg,平均值为0.31 mg/kg,土壤汞合格率为79.29%(291/367),且各区存在差异,其中黄埔区蔬菜地土壤汞的合格率最低(37.50%);研究区域蔬菜地土壤汞潜在生态危害系数在7～4 650之间,86.38%(317/367)的检测样品为强度、严重和极度生态危害;土壤汞对儿童和成人的非致癌风险值均<1,主要风险来自经口摄入,其次为皮肤接触,最后为呼吸吸入,汞对儿童的非致癌风险指数值高于成人。结论广州市农村蔬菜地土壤受到不同程度的汞污染,汞的生态危害较严重,土壤汞对儿童和成人的非致癌风险值均在可接受范围内,应采取措施防治本地汞污染对生态造成危害。
Objective To examine mercury content in vegetable soil of rural Guangzhou and to evaluate its ecological and human health risks and to provide evidences for local mercury pollution prevention and ecological environmental protection. Methods Totally 367 soil samples were collected from vegetable fields in 58 rural villages in 7 districts across Guangzhou and mercury content in the samples was detected from 2015 to 2018. Potential ecological risk related to vegetable soil mercury was assessed using Hankanson potential risk index method. In addition, the model recommended by United States Environment Protection Agency(USEPA) was adopted to evaluate the human health risk associated with oral intake,respiratory inhalation and skin contact of the soil mercury. Results For all soil samples, the mercury contents ranged from0.007 4 to 4.65 mg/kg, with an average content of 0.31 mg/kg. The overall qualification rate of soil mercury content was79.29%(291/367) and the rate varied by regions, with the lowest rate of 37.50% for the samples collected in Huangpu district. The potential ecological harm coefficients for mercury in the soil samples were from 7 to 4 650 and 86.38% of the soil samples were assessed as intensely, seriously or extremely harm to ecological environment. The non-carcinogenic hazard indices for the soil mercury contents were below 1 for both the exposed adults and children and exposures to the soil mercury were mainly through oral intake, followed by skin contact and respiratory inhalation. The non-carcinogenic hazard index for the soil mercury contents was higher for the exposed children than that for the exposed adults. Conclusion Various degrees of soil mercury pollution exist in vegetable fields of rural Guangzhou and may impact a serious ecological risk. The noncarcinogenic hazard of the soil mercury is within an acceptable range for the exposed adults and children. The results suggest that relevant measures should be taken to prevent and control potential ecological harm caused by the soil mercury pollution.
Objective To examine mercury content in vegetable soil of rural Guangzhou and to evaluate its ecological and human health risks and to provide evidences for local mercury pollution prevention and ecological environmental protection. Methods Totally 367 soil samples were collected from vegetable fields in 58 rural villages in 7 districts across Guangzhou and mercury content in the samples was detected from 2015 to 2018. Potential ecological risk related to vegetable soil mercury was assessed using Hankanson potential risk index method. In addition, the model recommended by United States Environment Protection Agency(USEPA) was adopted to evaluate the human health risk associated with oral intake,respiratory inhalation and skin contact of the soil mercury. Results For all soil samples, the mercury contents ranged from0.007 4 to 4.65 mg/kg, with an average content of 0.31 mg/kg. The overall qualification rate of soil mercury content was79.29%(291/367) and the rate varied by regions, with the lowest rate of 37.50% for the samples collected in Huangpu district. The potential ecological harm coefficients for mercury in the soil samples were from 7 to 4 650 and 86.38% of the soil samples were assessed as intensely, seriously or extremely harm to ecological environment. The non-carcinogenic hazard indices for the soil mercury contents were below 1 for both the exposed adults and children and exposures to the soil mercury were mainly through oral intake, followed by skin contact and respiratory inhalation. The non-carcinogenic hazard index for the soil mercury contents was higher for the exposed children than that for the exposed adults. Conclusion Various degrees of soil mercury pollution exist in vegetable fields of rural Guangzhou and may impact a serious ecological risk. The noncarcinogenic hazard of the soil mercury is within an acceptable range for the exposed adults and children. The results suggest that relevant measures should be taken to prevent and control potential ecological harm caused by the soil mercury pollution.
引文
[1]张文新,陈勇,齐誉,等.新疆玛河流域土壤和蔬菜汞分布特征与生态、人体健康风险评价[J].环境化学,2017,36(11):2441-2450.
[2]陈富强,杨君微,李平,等.甲基汞污染大米对大鼠机体氧化损伤及神经毒性作用[J].中国公共卫生,2013,29(5):713-715.
[3]杨振,丁启燕,宋万营.湖北省土壤重金属污染健康风险评价[J].国外医学(医学地理分册),2018,39(3):181-187.
[4]赖营帅,马媛媛,王卫,等.新疆“金三角”地区重金属污染及潜在生态风险评价[J].环境化学,2016,35(7):1381-1389.
[5]中华人民共和国卫生部.GB 15618-1995土壤环境质量标准[S].北京:中国标准出版社,1995.
[6]Hakanson L.An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control[J].Water Research,1980,14(8):975-1001.
[7]魏复盛,杨国治,蒋德珍,等.中国土壤元素背景值基本统计量及其特征[J].中国环境监测,1991,7(1):1-6.
[8]中华人民共和国环保部.HJ 25·3-2014污染场地风险评估技术导则[S].北京:中国环境科学出版社,2014.
[9]郭金停,周俊,胡蓓蓓,等.天津城市公园灰尘重金属污染健康风险评价[J].生态学杂志,2014,33(2):415-420.
[10]谷阳光,高富代.我国省会城市土壤重金属含量分布与健康风险评价[J].环境化学,2017,36(1):62-71.
[11]Zhang XM,Luo KL,Sun XZ,et al.Mercury in the topsoil and dust of Beijing City[J].Science of the Total Environment,2006,368(2):713-722.
[12]尹伟,卢瑛,李军辉,等.广州城市土壤汞的分布特征及污染评价[J].土壤通报,2009,40(5):1185-1188.
[13]《环境科学》编辑部.环境中若干元素的自然背景值及其研究方法[M].北京:科学出版社,1982.
[14]刘勇,王成军,刘华,等.铅锌冶炼厂周边重金属的空间分布及生态风险评价[J].环境工程学报,2015,9(1):477-484.
[15]王小莉,陈志凡,魏张东,等.开封市城乡交错区农田土壤重金属污染及潜在生态风险评价[J].环境化学,2018,37(3):513-522.
[16]陈海珍,龚春生,李文立,等.广州市不同功能区土壤重金属污染特征及评价[J].环境与健康杂志,2010,27(8):700-703.
[17]Xiao Q,Zong YT,Lu SH.Assessment of heavy metal pollution and human health risk in urban soils of steel industrial city(Anshan),Liaoning,Northeast China[J].Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety,2015,120:377-385.
[18]陈勇,张文新,齐誉,等.石河子市区土壤微量汞空间分布及风险评价[J].环境化学,2017,36(2):430-438.
[19]丁怡欣,李柳.汞矿冶炼区土壤重金属汞污染健康风险评价[J].城市地理,2015,8:184-186.
[2]陈富强,杨君微,李平,等.甲基汞污染大米对大鼠机体氧化损伤及神经毒性作用[J].中国公共卫生,2013,29(5):713-715.
[3]杨振,丁启燕,宋万营.湖北省土壤重金属污染健康风险评价[J].国外医学(医学地理分册),2018,39(3):181-187.
[4]赖营帅,马媛媛,王卫,等.新疆“金三角”地区重金属污染及潜在生态风险评价[J].环境化学,2016,35(7):1381-1389.
[5]中华人民共和国卫生部.GB 15618-1995土壤环境质量标准[S].北京:中国标准出版社,1995.
[6]Hakanson L.An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control[J].Water Research,1980,14(8):975-1001.
[7]魏复盛,杨国治,蒋德珍,等.中国土壤元素背景值基本统计量及其特征[J].中国环境监测,1991,7(1):1-6.
[8]中华人民共和国环保部.HJ 25·3-2014污染场地风险评估技术导则[S].北京:中国环境科学出版社,2014.
[9]郭金停,周俊,胡蓓蓓,等.天津城市公园灰尘重金属污染健康风险评价[J].生态学杂志,2014,33(2):415-420.
[10]谷阳光,高富代.我国省会城市土壤重金属含量分布与健康风险评价[J].环境化学,2017,36(1):62-71.
[11]Zhang XM,Luo KL,Sun XZ,et al.Mercury in the topsoil and dust of Beijing City[J].Science of the Total Environment,2006,368(2):713-722.
[12]尹伟,卢瑛,李军辉,等.广州城市土壤汞的分布特征及污染评价[J].土壤通报,2009,40(5):1185-1188.
[13]《环境科学》编辑部.环境中若干元素的自然背景值及其研究方法[M].北京:科学出版社,1982.
[14]刘勇,王成军,刘华,等.铅锌冶炼厂周边重金属的空间分布及生态风险评价[J].环境工程学报,2015,9(1):477-484.
[15]王小莉,陈志凡,魏张东,等.开封市城乡交错区农田土壤重金属污染及潜在生态风险评价[J].环境化学,2018,37(3):513-522.
[16]陈海珍,龚春生,李文立,等.广州市不同功能区土壤重金属污染特征及评价[J].环境与健康杂志,2010,27(8):700-703.
[17]Xiao Q,Zong YT,Lu SH.Assessment of heavy metal pollution and human health risk in urban soils of steel industrial city(Anshan),Liaoning,Northeast China[J].Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety,2015,120:377-385.
[18]陈勇,张文新,齐誉,等.石河子市区土壤微量汞空间分布及风险评价[J].环境化学,2017,36(2):430-438.
[19]丁怡欣,李柳.汞矿冶炼区土壤重金属汞污染健康风险评价[J].城市地理,2015,8:184-186.