Comprehensive analysis of heavy metals in soils from Baoshan District, Shanghai: a heavily industrialized area in China

YYChena, JWang a, WGaob,XJ Sunc, SYXu a

a Key Laboratory of Geographic Information Science of Ministry of Education, EastChinaNormalUniversity, Shanghai 200062, China

b USDA UV-B Monitoring and Research Program, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Colorado, 80521, US

c Shanghai Environmental Monitoring Station of Baoshan District, Shanghai, 200940, China

Contents

Table A1Comparison of metal concentrations(mg·kg-1) in soil of the Baoshan District with different references

TableA2Distribution trend and theoretical semivariogram models of prediction for each metal

Table A3Evaluation standards for metals in the soil (mg·kg-1)

Table A4Standards of heavy metals potential ecological risk indexes and degrees.

Table A1Comparison of metal concentrations(mg·kg-1) in soil of the Baoshan District with different references

Standards / pH / Pb / Cr / Cd / Hg / As / Zn / Cu
Background values of Shanghaia / No confine / 25.47 / 75.00 / 0.1323 / 0.1012 / 9.10 / 86.10 / 28.59
Background values of Chinab / No confine / 23.5 / 57.3 / 0.079 / 0.038 / 9.6 / 68.0 / 20.7
Values for Safe, Healthy,
High Quality Farm Outputsc / No confine / 35 / 85 / 0.3 / 0.20 / 13 / 100 / 40
Values for Green Foodd / <6.5 / 50 / 120 / 0.30 / 0.30 / 20 / / / 50
6.5-7.5 / 50 / 120 / 0.30 / 0.40 / 20 / / / 60
7.5 / 50 / 120 / 0.40 / 0.40 / 15 / / / 60
Values of class II Soile / 6.5 / 250 / 250 / 0.30 / 0.3 / 30 / 200 / 50
6.5-7.5 / 300 / 300 / 0.60 / 0.5 / 25 / 250 / 100
7.5 / 350 / 350 / 1.0 / 1.0 / 20 / 300 / 100
This study / 03 / 6.5 / 34.85 / 60.30 / 0.21 / 0.17 / 8.30 / 80.95 / 34.70
6.5-7.5 / 29.94 / 85.12 / 0.22 / 0.16 / 7.76 / 130.14 / 34.48
7.5 / 31.15 / 81.02 / 0.20 / 0.15 / 7.62 / 126.22 / 31.93
07 / 6.5 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
6.5-7.5 / 40.60 / 105.40 / 0.19 / 0.18 / 7.68 / 173.30 / 39.40
7.5 / 40.10 / 113.00 / 0.19 / 0.14 / 7.33 / 143.60 / 39.60

a Wang (1992); b CNEMC (1990); cSMBQ&TS(2000); dMAPRC (2000); e NEPAC (1995).class II value of the Environmental Quality Standard for Soils in China.

Table A2Distribution trend and theoretical semivariogram models of prediction for each metal (Comparing the prediction errors resulted in each spatial interpolation.Proper Kriging interpolation was chosen for each metal. The theoretical semivariogram models were used as an input toKriging interpolation. The exponential semivariogram model was the most commonlyused method among the fitted models. Nugget/sill and prediction errors are also displayed in Table A2.In general, the absolutevalues of mean predictionerrors were near 0. This indicates thatthe interpolation methods and semivariogram models were the bestapplied methods for prediction).

Metal / ske / kur / Method / Semivariogram model / Nugget/sill / Predicted error (mean)
2003 / Pb / 0.33 / 4.03 / Indicator Kriging / Exponential / 0.16 / -0.01
Cr / 0.57 / 5.04 / Simple Kriging / Exponential / 0.02 / -0.22
Cd / 2.43 / 9.30 / Simple Kriging / Exponential / 0.01 / -0.002
Hg / 0.16 / 3.37 / Ordinary Kriging / Exponential / 0.1 / 0.0001
As / 0.19 / 4.15 / Ordinary Kriging / Stable / 0.01 / -0.002
Zn / 2.93 / 19.15 / Indicator Kriging / Exponential / 0.03 / -2.74
Cu / 1 / 4.18 / Indicator Kriging / Exponential / 0.03 / -0.11
2007 / Pb / 1.08 / 5,54 / Simple Kriging / Exponential / 0.19 / 0.006
Cr / 1.66 / 6.90 / Ordinary Kriging / Exponential / 0.03 / -0.27
Cd / 0.09 / 4.20 / Ordinary Kriging / Exponential / 0.11 / -0.0009
Hg / -0.12 / 3.21 / Ordinary Kriging / Exponential / 0.03 / 0.002339
As / 0.88 / 5.29 / Ordinary Kriging / Exponential / 0.03 / -0.06
Zn / 1.01 / 4.12 / Simple Kriging / Exponential / 0.12 / -1.92
Cu / 2.16 / 8.66 / Universal Kriging / Exponential / 0 / -1.03

Table A3Evaluation standards for metals in the soil (mg·kg-1).

Grades / pH / Pb / Cr / Cd / Hg / As / Zn / Cu
Ecology / No confine / ≤ / 25.47 / 75 / 0.1323 / 0.1012 / 9.1 / 86.1 / 28.59
Safety / No confine / ≤ / 35 / 85 / 0.3 / 0.20 / 13 / 100 / 40
Green / <6.5 / ≤ / 50 / 120 / 0.30 / 0.30 / 20 / / / 50
6.5-7.5 / ≤ / 50 / 120 / 0.30 / 0.40 / 20 / / / 60
>7.5 / ≤ / 50 / 120 / 0.40 / 0.40 / 15 / / / 60
Qualified / <6.5 / ≤ / 250 / 250 / 0.30 / 0.3 / 30 / 200 / 50
6.5-7.5 / ≤ / 300 / 300 / 0.60 / 0.5 / 25 / 250 / 100
>7.5 / ≤ / 350 / 350 / 1.0 / 1.0 / 20 / 300 / 100
Unqualified / <6.5 / 250 / 250 / 0.30 / 0.3 / 30 / 200 / 50
6.5-7.5 / 300 / 300 / 0.60 / 0.5 / 25 / 250 / 100
>7.5 / 350 / 350 / 1.0 / 1.0 / 20 / 300 / 100

Table A4Standards of heavy metals potential ecological risk indexes and degrees.

Monomial potential ecological
risk factor ranges () / Multi-metal potential
ecological risk index RI / Potential ecological risk degree
＜40 / ＜55 / Low
40~80 / 55~110 / Moderate
80~160 / 110~220 / Fairly high
160~320 / 220~440 / High
≥320 / ≥440 / Considerable

Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 21 6223 2083; fax: +86 21 6223 2416.

E-mail addresses: (Y.Y. Chen), (J. Wang), (W. Gao).

