Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Methodological alternatives for calculation of enrichment factors used for assessment of topsoil contamination

  • 325 Accesses

  • 8 Citations

Abstract

Purpose

The research is aimed at comparison of different enrichment factors (EFs) calculated for potentially harmful chemical elements (PHEs) basing on topsoil data from Klaipėda with geological differences between two areas, choice of the reference elements (REs), consideration of the expediency and efficiency of normalisation, the influence of PHE and RE background or upper threshold values on the estimated contamination level of 50 schoolyards and the arising problems, i.e. which PHE should be normalised.

Materials and methods

Composite topsoil samples taken in 50 schoolyards and 28 football fields from 0 to 10-cm depth were air-dried, sieved to <1 mm, milled and analysed for total contents of major elements and As, Ba, Cr, Cu, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Sn, U, V and Zn by energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence and of Ag and Co by optical atomic emission spectrophotometry. Simple EFs in schoolyards were calculated normalising by concentration factor (CF) of Fe, while complex EFs normalising by weighted average of Al, K and Ti concentration factors (WACFs).

Results and discussion

The variability of RE is shown with significant differences between sandy western and loamy eastern areas and lower differences between schoolyards and football fields. The highest effectiveness of normalisation, i.e. the number of sites where WACF > 1 or CF > 1, is when RE background values for schoolyards differentiated for each area are selected. The formulas for the ratio of different EFs demonstrate that (1) for Co, Ba, Mn, Mo, Pb and Cu, the upper threshold-type EFs exceed the background-type EFs; (2) there is the tendency to obtain lower EFs for the greater part of PHE when using differentiated background of PHE and RE. The problems of estimation of the background of some PHE and the expediency of their normalisation are discussed.

Conclusions

The recommendations are (1) to explore the variability of RE in the urban territory and to find out if there are areas with significant differences in RE content, in this case try to estimate the differentiated background values of RE and PHE, because respective EFs are usually lower; (2) for more effective normalisation, to use background values of RE which correspond to the object of assessment; (3) not to use upper threshold-type EFs; (4) to be careful with interpretation of EFs for those PHEs which have significant negative correlation with RE.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. Abdallah MAM (2007) Accumulation and distribution of heavy metals in surface sediments of a semi-enclosed basin in the southeastern Mediterranean Sea, Egypt. Mediterranean marine. Science 8/1:31–40

  2. Al Obaidy AHMJ, Al Mashhadi AAM (2013) Heavy metal contaminations in urban soil within Baghdad city, Iraq. J Environ Prot 4:72–82

  3. Anbar AD, Duan Y, Lyons TW, Arnold GL, Kendall B, Creaser RA, Kaufman AJ, Gordon GW, Scott C, Garvin J, Buick R (2007) A whiff of oxygen before the great oxidation event? Science 317:1903–1906

  4. Awadh SM, Al-Kilabi JA, Khaleefah NH (2015) Comparison the geochemical background, threshold and anomaly with pollution indices in the assessment of soil pollution: Al-Hawija, north of Iraq case study. Int J Sci Res (IJSR) 4(7):2357–2363

  5. Baltrėnas P, Kvasauskas M, Frohner KD (2006) Influence of stevedoring operations of liquid and powdery fertilisers at Klaipėda Strait seaport on the ambient air quality. J Environ Eng Landsc 14(2):59–68

  6. Barakat A, Al-Baghdadi M, Rais J, Nadem S (2012) Assessment of heavy metal in surface sediments of Day River at Beni-Mellal region, Morocco. Research journal of environmental and earth. Sciences 4(8):797–806

  7. Bermudez GMA, Moreno M, Invernizzi R, Plá R, Pignata ML (2010) Evaluating top soil trace element pollution in the vicinity of a cement plant and a former open-cast uranium mine in Central Argentina. J Soils Sediments 16:1081–1092

  8. Birch GF, Snowdon RT (2004) The use of size-normalisation techniques in interpretation of soil contaminant distributions. Water Air Soil Pollut 157:1–12

  9. Bitinas A, Damušytė A, Molodkov A (2011) Geological structure of the quaternary sedimentary sequence in the Klaipėda strait, southeastern Baltic. In: Harff J et al. (eds) The Baltic Sea basin, central and eastern European development studies (CEEDES). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 133–146

  10. Bityukova L, Birke M (2011) Urban geochemistry of Tallinn (Estonia): major and trace-elements distribution in topsoil. In: Johnson CC, Demetriades A, Locutura J, Ottesen RT (eds) Mapping the chemical environment of urban areas. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 348–363

  11. Carr R, Zhang C, Moles N, Harder M (2008) Identification and mapping of heavy metal pollution in soils of a sports ground in Galway City, Ireland, using a portable XRF analyser and GIS. Environ Geochem Hlth 30:45–52

  12. Chen TB, Zheng YM, Lei M, Huang ZC, HT W, Chen H, Fan KK, Yu K, Wu X, Tian QZ (2005) Assessment of heavy metal pollution in surface soils of urban parks in Beijing, China. Chemosphere 60:542–551

  13. De Vleeschouwer F, Fagel N, Cheburkin A, Pazdur A, Sikorski J, Mattielli N, Renson V, Fialkiewicz B, Piotrowska N, Le Roux G (2009) Anthropogenic impacts in North Poland over the last 1300 years—a record of Pb, Zn, Cu, Ni and S in an ombrotrophic peat bog. Sci Total Environ 407(21):5674–5684

  14. Deely JM, Fergusson JE (1994) Heavy metal and organic matter concentrations and distributions in dated sediments of a small estuary adjacent to a small urban area. Sci Total Environ 153:97–111

  15. Díaz Rizo O, Fonticiella Morell D, Arado López JO, Borrell Munoz JL, D‘Alessandro Rodríguez K, López Pino N (2013) Spatial distribution and contamination assessment of heavy metals in urban topsoils from Las Tunas city, Cuba. B Environ Contam Tox 91(1):29–35

  16. Ebbing J, Zachowicz J, Uśscinowicz S, Laban C (2002) Normalisation as a tool for environmental impact studies: the Gulf of Gdansk as a case study. Baltica 15:49–62

  17. Gong Q, Deng J, Xiang Y, Wang Q, Yang L (2008) Calculating pollution indices by heavy metals in ecological geochemistry assessment and a case study in parks of Beijing. J China Univ Geosci 19(3):230–241

  18. Gregorauskienė V, Taraškevičius R, Kadūnas V, Radzevičius A, Zinkutė R (2011) Geochemical characteristics of Lithuanian urban areas. In: Johnson CC, Demetriades A, Locutura J, Ottesen RT (eds) Mapping the chemical environment of urban areas. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 393–409

  19. Guney M, Zagury GJ, Dogan N, Onay TT (2010) Exposure assessment and risk characterization from trace elements following soil ingestion by children exposed to playgrounds, parks and picnic areas. J Hazard Mater 182:656–664

  20. Hakanson L (1980) An ecological risk indexes for aquatic pollution control a sedimentological approaches. Water Res 14(8):975–1001

  21. Han Y, Du P, Cao J, Posmentier ES (2006) Multivariate analysis of heavy metal contamination in urban dusts of Xi’an, Central China. Sci Total Environ 355:176–186

  22. Houba VJG, Uittenbogaard J, Pellen P (1996) Wageningen evaluating Programmes for analytical laboratories (WEPAL), organization and purpose. Commun Soil Sci Plan 27(3):421–431

  23. Johnson CC, Demetriades A (2011) Urban geochemical mapping: a review of case studies in this volume. In: Johnson CC, Demetriades A, Locutura J, Ottesen RT (eds) Mapping the chemical environment of urban areas. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 7–27

  24. Jokšas K, Galkus A, Stakėnienė R (2003) The only Lithuanian seaport and its environment. The Institute of Geology and Geography, Vilnius, 314 pp

  25. Kobierski M, Dąbkowska-Naskręt H (2012) Local background concentration of heavy metals in various soil types formed from glacial till of the Inowrocławska plain. J Elem 17(4):559–585

  26. Lee JS, Chon HT, Kim KW (1998) Migration and dispersion of trace elements in the rock–soil–plant system in areas underlain by black shales and slates of the Okchon zone, Korea. J Geochem Explor 65:61–78

  27. Li X (2011) Geochemical mapping of trace metal pollutants in urban soils of Hong Kong. In: Johnson CC, Demetriades A, Locutura J, Ottesen RT (eds) Mapping the chemical environment of urban areas. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 581–591

  28. Li R, Shu K, Luo Y, Shi Y (2010) Assessment of heavy metal pollution in estuarine surface sediments of Tangxi River in Chaohu Lake basin. Chinese Geogr Sci 20(1):9–17

  29. Malkoc S, Yazici B, Savas Koparal A (2010) Heavy metals in the roadside soils of Eskisehir, Turkey. Environ Toxicol Chem 29(12):2720–2725

  30. Muller G (1969) Index of geoaccumulation in sediments of the Rhine River. GeoJournal 2:108–118

  31. Mwolawa K, Likuku A, Gaboutloeloe G (2011) Assessment of heavy metal pollution in soils along roadside areas in Botswana. Afr J Environ Sci Technol 5(3):186–196

  32. Nováková T, Grygar TM, Kotková K, Elznicová J, Strnad L, Mihaljevi M (2016) Pollution assessment using local enrichment factors: the Berounka River (Czech Republic. J Soils Sediments 16:1081–1092

  33. Reimann C, de Caritat P (2000) Intrinsic flaws of element enrichment factors (EFs) in environmental geochemistry. Environ Sci Technol 34(24):5084–5091

  34. Reimann C, de Caritat P (2005) Distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic sources for elements in the environment: regional geochemical surveys versus enrichment factors. Sci Total Environ 337:91–107

  35. Reimann C, Filzmoser P, Garrett RG (2005) Background and threshold: critical comparison of methods of determination. Sci Total Environ 346:1–16

  36. Rubio B, Nombela MA, Vilas F (2000) Geochemistry of major and trace elements in sediments of the Ria de Vigo (NW Spain): an assessment of metal pollution. Mar Pollut Bull 40(11):968–980

  37. Sager M, Chon YT, Marton L (2015) Spatial variation of contaminant elements of roadside dust samples from Budapest (Hungary) and Seoul (Republic of Korea), including Pt, Pd and Ir. Environ Geochem Hlth 37:81–193

  38. Simasuwannarong B, Satapanajaru T, Khuntong S, Pengthamkeerati P (2012) Spatial distribution and risk assessment of as, Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn in topsoil at Rayong Province, Thailand. Water Air Soil Pollut 223:1931–1943

  39. Sun Y, Zhou Q, Xie X, Liu R (2010) Spatial, sources and risk assessment of heavy metal contamination of urban soils in typical regions of Shenyang, China. J Hazard Mater 174:455–462

  40. Taraškevičius R, Gulbinskas S (2010) Pedogeochemical accumulating associations of education and learning institutions and sport stadiums in Klaipėda. Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Heavy Metals in the Environment. Gdansk, 19–23 September, 2010, pp 781–784

  41. Tomlinson DL, Wilson JG, Haris CR, Jeffrey DW (1980) Problems in the assessment of heavy metal levels in estuaries and the formation of a pollution index. Helgol. Wiss Meeresunters 33:566–575

  42. Wang JS, Qin Y (2007) Some characteristics of the distribution of heavy metals in urban topsoil of Xuzhou, China. Environ Geochem Hlth 29:11–19

  43. Zinkutė R, Taraškevičius R, Želvys T (2011) Major elements as possible factors of trace element urban pedochemical anomalies. Cent Eur J Chem 9(2):337–347

  44. Zinkutė R, Taraškevičius R, Gulbinskas S, Stankevičius Ž, Jankauskaitė M (2015) Variability of estimated contamination extent depending on calculation methods. In: Environment. Technology. Resources, Rezekne, Latvia. Proceedings of the 10th International Scientific and Practical Conference. Volume II, pp 337–343

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Open Access to research infrastructure of the Nature Research Centre under Lithuanian open access network initiative. The authors are grateful to both reviewers for their valuable comments.

Author information

Correspondence to Rimantė Zinkutė.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Jianming Xu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zinkutė, R., Taraškevičius, R., Jankauskaitė, M. et al. Methodological alternatives for calculation of enrichment factors used for assessment of topsoil contamination. J Soils Sediments 17, 440–452 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-016-1549-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Background of reference elements
  • Effectiveness of normalisation
  • Types of enrichment factors