不同恢复方式下二郎山公路创面的土壤重金属分布特征及其污染评价
Distribution Characteristics and Pollution Assessment of Heavy Metals in Wounded Soils of Erlang Mountain Highway under Different Restoration Methods
DOI: 10.12677/HJSS.2019.74034, PDF,  被引量    国家科技经费支持
作者: 郝云庆, 杜 宇, 梁馨予, 宋奂霖, 穆小琴, 吴军佑, 王祎凡:成都信息工程大学资源环境学院,四川 成都;李 伟*:中国科学院水利部,成都山地灾害与环境研究所,山地表生过程与生态调控重点实验室,四川 成都
关键词: 公路创面土壤重金属人工恢复自然恢复污染评价潜在生态风险Highway Wound Heavy Metals in Soil Manual Reversion Natural Recovery Pollution Assessment Potential Ecological Risk
摘要: 于2018年4月以四川省雅安市二郎山公路创面土壤作为研究对象,分析人工恢复与自然恢复下土壤中4种重金属(Zn, Cr, Pb, Cu)的含量特征及其与土壤化学指标之间的相关性,以四川省土壤背景值和全国土壤重金属Ⅱ级背景值为评价标准,对两种恢复方式下的土壤重金属污染和潜在生态风险进行分析评价。结果显示:无论何种恢复方式下Zn的平均含量值最大,Cr的最低,在这两种恢复方式下4种重金属的平均含量由低到高的排序有所不同,人工恢复方式下为:Zn > Cu > Pb > Cr,自然恢复方式下为Zn > Cu > Cr > Pb。人工恢复方式下4种重金属的变异系数在22.80%~60.95%之间,自然恢复下在28.37%~69.67%之间,表明在两种恢复方式下土壤中重金属含量分布比较均匀,存在一定的相似性。除Pb最大值和Cu最大值比四川省背景值高外,其他重金属含量均未超过我国土壤环境质量标准的II级标准值。人工恢复和自然恢复方式下土壤中Cr、Pb、Zn、Cu含量之间呈极显著正相关,Zn、Cr、Pb三种元素可能来源相同。Cu元素与IP (无机磷)为负相关,其余三种金属元素为正相关;四种金属元素与 、TP、IP的相关性不显著。对比单因子指数法和内梅罗综合污染指数法与Hakanson潜在生态危害指数法得出的分析结果是基本一致,两种恢复方式下的综合污染指数都在2以下,为轻污染;人工恢复下的潜在生态危害系数及潜在生态危害指数均大于自然恢复状态下的值,可推测出人工干预的土壤恢复存在的重金属潜在生态危害较自然恢复下的高。
Abstract: In order to analyze the content characteristics of four heavy metals (Zn, Cr, Pb, Cu) in wounded soil under artificial and natural restoration and their correlation with soil chemical indexes, the soil of Erlangshan Highway in Ya’an City of Sichuan Province was taken as the research object in April 2018, and the soil background values of Sichuan Province and national soil heavy metals level II background values were used as evaluation criteria to analyze the soil heavy metal pollution and potential ecological risk under two restoration modes. The results showed that the average content of Zn was the largest and that of Cr was the lowest under any restoration mode. The order of the average content of four heavy metals was different from low to high under the two restoration modes. The order of the average content of four heavy metals was: Zn > Cu > Pb > Cr under artificial restoration mode and Zn > Cu > Cr > Pb under natural restoration mode. The variation coefficients of the four heavy metals were 22.80% - 60.95% under artificial restoration and 28.37% - 69.67% under natural restoration, which indicated that the distribution of heavy metals in soil under the two restoration methods was relatively uniform and there was some similarity. Except that the maximum values of Pb and Cu are higher than the background values of Sichuan Province, the contents of other heavy metals do not exceed the standard values of Grade II of China’s soil environmental quality standards. The contents of Cr, Pb, Zn and Cu in soil under artificial restoration and natural restoration were significantly positively correlated, and the three elements of Zn, Cr and Pb might come from the same source. Copper is negatively correlated with IP (inorganic phosphorus), while the other three metal elements are positively correlated. There is no significant correlation between the four elements and  , TP and IP. Comparing single factor index method and Nemerow comprehensive pollution index method with Hakanson potential ecological hazard index method, the analysis results are basically the same. The comprehensive pollution index under the two restoration methods is less than 2, which is light pollution. The potential ecological hazard coefficient and potential ecological hazard index under artificial restoration are higher than those under natural restoration, so it can be inferred that the soil under artificial intervention is better than that under natural restoration. The potential ecological hazards of heavy metals recovered are higher than those under natural restoration.
文章引用:郝云庆, 杜宇, 梁馨予, 宋奂霖, 穆小琴, 吴军佑, 王祎凡, 李伟. 不同恢复方式下二郎山公路创面的土壤重金属分布特征及其污染评价[J]. 土壤科学, 2019, 7(4): 275-285. https://doi.org/10.12677/HJSS.2019.74034

参考文献

[1] 朱永官, 段桂兰, 陈保冬, 等. 土壤–微生物–植物系统中矿物风化与元素循环[J]. 中国科学: 地球科学, 2014, 1(6): 1107-1116.
[2] 宁晓波, 项文化, 方晰, 等. 贵阳花溪区石灰土林地土壤重金属含量特征及其污染评价[J]. 生态学报, 2008, 29(4): 2169-2177.
[3] 沈镭, 高丽. 中国西部能源及矿业开发与环境保护协调发展研究[J]. 中国人口•资源与环境, 2013, 23(10): 17-23.
[4] 郑睛之, 王楚栋, 王诗涵, 等. 典型小城市土壤重金属空间异质性及其风险评价: 以临安市为例[J]. 环境科学, 2018, 39(6): 2875-2883.
[5] 曾斌. 土壤重金属污染及生物修复[J]. 中国科技信息, 2017(8): 40-41.
[6] 周旋, 郑琳, 胡可欣. 污染土壤的来源及危害性[J]. 武汉工程大学学报, 2014, 36(7): 12-19.
[7] 易昊旻. 区域土壤重金属污染不同方法评估结果的比较研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 南京: 南京大学, 2014.
[8] 楚纯洁, 朱玉涛. 城市土壤重金属污染研究现状及问题[J]. 环境研究与监测, 2008, 21(3): 7-11.
[9] Manta, D.S., Angelone, M., Bellanca, A., et al. (2002) Heavy Metals in Urban Soils: A Case Study from the City of Palermo (Sicily), Italy. Science of the Total Environment, 300, 229-243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[10] 祝遵凌, 崔利杰, 王飒. 路基边坡土壤重金属污染特征及评价[J]. 水土保持研究, 2012, 19(6): 127-130.
[11] 戴彬, 吕建树, 战金成, 等. 山东省典型工业城市土壤重金属来源、空间分布及潜在生态风险评价[J]. 环境科学, 2015, 36(2): 507-515.
[12] Benítez, E., Romero, E., Gómez, M., et al. (2001) Biosolids and Biosolids-Ash as Sources of Heavy Metals in a Plant-Soil System. Water Air & Soil Pollution, 132, 75-87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[13] 陈丹青, 谢志宜, 张雅静, 等. 基于PCA/APCS和地统计学的广州市土壤重金属来源解析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2016, 25(6): 1014-1022.
[14] Yan, W.B., Mahmood, Q., Peng, D.L., et al. (2015) The Spatial Distribution Pattern of Heavy Metals and Risk Assessment of Moso Bamboo Forest Soil around Lead-Zinc Mine in Southeastern China. Soil & Tillage Research, 153, 120-130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[15] 杨勇, 刘爱军, 朝鲁孟其其格, 等. 锡林郭勒露天煤矿矿区草原土壤重金属分布特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2016, 25(5): 885-892.
[16] 史浩圆, 杨萍果, 周进财, 等. 临汾市不同功能区土壤重金属分布特征及污染评价[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2018, 32(8): 135-140.
[17] 朱光旭. 首钢搬迁遗留场地及周边土壤重金属污染评价及淋洗修复研究[D]: [博士学位论文]. 北京: 中国科学院大学, 2014.
[18] 郑小东, 荣湘民, 罗尊长, 等. 土壤重金属污染及修复方法研究进展[J]. 农学学报, 2011(10): 37-43.
[19] Venegas, A., Rigol, A. and Vidal, M. (2015) Viability of Organic Wastes and Biochars as Amendments for the Remediation of Heavy Metal-Contaminated Soils. Chemosphere, 119, 190-198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[20] Chon, H.-T., Lee, J.-S. and Lee, J.-U. (2011) Heavy Metal Contamination of Soil, Its Risk Assessment and Bioremediation. Geosystem Engineering, 14, 191-206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[21] 赵晶. 陕南高速公路边坡人工植被恢复初期土壤及群落特征变化研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2012.
[22] 丰瞻, 许文年, 李少丽, 等. 基于恢复生态学理论的裸露山体生态修复模式研究[J]. 中国水土保持, 2008(4): 23-26.
[23] 马婵媛, 邓红艳. 重庆市某工业遗留地土壤重金属污染状况分析与评价[J]. 四川环境, 2017, 36(2): 81-85.
[24] 中华人民共和国土壤环境质量标准(GB15618-1995) [S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1995.
[25] 徐争启, 倪师军, 庹先国, 等. 潜在生态危害指数法评价中重金属毒性系数计算[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2008, 31(2): 112-115.
[26] 丁振华, 贾洪武, 刘彩娥, 等. 黄浦江沉积物重金属的污染及评价[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2006, 29(2): 64-66.
[27] 周墨, 李娟, 唐庆, 等. 成土母质对土壤元素地球化学特征的控制作用[C]//中国矿物岩石地球化学学会. 中国矿物岩石地球化学学会第14届学术年会论文集. 南京: 《高校地质学报》出版社, 2013: 469.
[28] 孙慧珍, 陆小静, 陈明月, 等. 哈尔滨市不同类型人工林土壤重金属含量[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011, 22(3): 614-620.