Essential Site Maintenance: Authorea-powered sites will be updated circa 15:00-17:00 Eastern on Tuesday 5 November.
There should be no interruption to normal services, but please contact us at [email protected] in case you face any issues.

loading page

Quantitative analysis of ecological risk and human health risk of potentially toxic elements in farmland soil based on PMF model
  • +7
  • Chang-Chen Haung,
  • Li-mei Cai,
  • Yao-Hui Xu,
  • Han-Hui Wen,
  • Jie Luo,
  • Guo-Cheng Hu,
  • Lai-Guo Chen,
  • Han-Zhi Wang,
  • Xu-Bang Xu,
  • Jing-Xian Mei
Chang-Chen Haung
Yangtze University

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Li-mei Cai
Yangtze University
Author Profile
Yao-Hui Xu
Yangtze University
Author Profile
Han-Hui Wen
Yangtze University
Author Profile
Jie Luo
Yangtze University
Author Profile
Guo-Cheng Hu
South China Institute of Environmental Sciences
Author Profile
Lai-Guo Chen
South China Institute of Environmental Sciences
Author Profile
Han-Zhi Wang
Yangtze University
Author Profile
Xu-Bang Xu
Yangtze University
Author Profile
Jing-Xian Mei
Yangtze University
Author Profile

Abstract

In this research, enrichment factor (EF) and pollution load index (PLI) were utilized to estimate the features of enrichment and contamination of PTEs in farmland soil. Furthermore, combining the spatial distribution characteristics of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) and positive matrix factorization (PMF) to distinguish and quantify the sources of PTEs in farmland soil, and then the potential ecological risk (PER) and human health risk (HHR) model based on PMF are applied to quantify the ecological and human health risks from different sources. Taking Puning District as an example, four sources of PTEs in farmland soil were quantitatively allocated. For ecological risk, the study area is at moderate ecological hazard level, and industrial activities were the greatest contributor. The mean E_r^i of Hg were 69.82, reaching medium ecological risk level. For human health risks, both adults and children have no evident non-carcinogenic risk in the study area. And natural source was the largest contributor to non-carcinogenic risk, followed by agricultural activities. With regard to carcinogenic risk, tolerable risks of soil PTEs in the study area were limited not only for adults but also for children. Furthermore, compared with adults, the health risks of children, whether non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic, were higher than those of adults, and the trends in health risks for children and adults were similar. A comprehensive scheme combining source contribution and risk assessment is conducive to quantitatively assess ecological risks, health risks and priority pollution sources, thereupon provide effective suggestions for protecting human health and preventing and controlling pollution.
05 Aug 2021Submitted to Land Degradation & Development
06 Aug 2021Submission Checks Completed
06 Aug 2021Assigned to Editor
19 Aug 2021Reviewer(s) Assigned
30 Aug 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
03 Oct 2021Editorial Decision: Revise Major
23 Oct 20211st Revision Received
25 Oct 2021Submission Checks Completed
25 Oct 2021Assigned to Editor
28 Dec 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
28 Dec 2021Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
01 Jan 20222nd Revision Received
04 Jan 2022Submission Checks Completed
04 Jan 2022Assigned to Editor
08 Jan 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
09 Jan 2022Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
29 Jan 20223rd Revision Received
31 Jan 2022Submission Checks Completed
31 Jan 2022Assigned to Editor
06 Feb 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
06 Feb 2022Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
28 Feb 20224th Revision Received
28 Feb 2022Submission Checks Completed
28 Feb 2022Assigned to Editor
05 Mar 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
05 Mar 2022Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
08 Mar 20225th Revision Received
09 Mar 2022Submission Checks Completed
09 Mar 2022Assigned to Editor
12 Mar 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
13 Mar 2022Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
16 Mar 20226th Revision Received
17 Mar 2022Submission Checks Completed
17 Mar 2022Assigned to Editor
20 Mar 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
20 Mar 2022Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
23 Mar 20227th Revision Received
24 Mar 2022Submission Checks Completed
24 Mar 2022Assigned to Editor
25 Mar 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
27 Mar 2022Editorial Decision: Accept
30 Mar 2022Published in Land Degradation & Development. 10.1002/ldr.4277