Next Article in Journal
Creep Assessment of the Cement Matrix of Self-Compacting Concrete Modified with the Addition of Nanoparticles Using the Indentation Method
Previous Article in Journal
Energy Efficiency and Thermal Performance of Office Buildings Integrated with Passive Strategies in Coastal Regions of Humid and Hot Tropical Climates in Madagascar
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mangrove Soil-Borne Trace Elements in Qi’ao Island: Implications for Understanding Terrestrial Input of Trace Elements into Part of the Pearl River Estuary

1
School of Geography, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China
2
International Envirotech Limited, Hong Kong 999077, China
3
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10(7), 2439; https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072439
Submission received: 31 January 2020 / Revised: 22 March 2020 / Accepted: 29 March 2020 / Published: 3 April 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Sciences)

Abstract

:
An investigation was conducted to characterize the trace element status of mangrove soils of Qi’ao Island in the Pearl River estuary. The results show that the spatial variation in the soil-borne trace elements in the investigated area was minor and most of the trace elements were at a level higher than those in other mangrove wetlands around the world, suggesting the mangrove soils of Qi’ao Island were heavily contaminated by trace elements transported from the Pearl River in the past two decades. Zn was closely related to Pb, Cu, Cd, and As, while some trace elements were not closely related to each other, indicating that they were derived from different sources. An integrated Nemerow pollution index of the surface soils at the 17 sampling locations ranged from 7.53 to 48.42, values which all fall within the highest pollution category. Among the 17 sampling locations, six locations had an ecological risk index (ERI) greater than 300, and 12 locations had an Ecological Risk Index (ERI) greater than 600, indicating that most of the investigated locations were at high or very high ecological risk. The findings obtained from this study have implications for understanding the terrestrial inputs of trace elements into part of the Pearl River estuary. This understanding can be used to guide the development of management strategies for controlling the discharges of trace elements from the catchment area and managing the aquatic ecosystems in the Pearl River Estuary.

1. Introduction

Mangrove soils act as a sink for trace elements transported from inland areas by coastal rivers [1,2,3,4]. The elevated levels of trace elements in the mangrove soils could have adverse impacts on the mangrove growth, aquatic biota, and microbial activities in the mangrove habitats [5,6,7,8]. Understanding the level and spatial variation of trace elements in mangrove sediments/soils is essential for environmental risk assessment of the mangrove ecosystems. The relevant contamination information can also be used to indicate trace element loads of the river discharging into the estuary, thus helping environmental regulators and policy-makers to ensuring better environmental pollution control in the upstream catchment.
The Pearl River delta is one of the heavily industrialized areas in China, with petrochemical, electronic, electroplating, manufacturing, and textile industries being the major industrial sectors. These have resulted in discharge of substantial amounts of industrial wastewater into the Pearl River Estuary [9,10].
The Pearl River is the third longest river in China, draining a total area of 453,690 km2. The large catchment size, coupled with a humid subtropical climate, makes the sediment load of the river great, resulting in the rapid growth of the Pearl River delta in the estuarine embayment. The sedimentation rate in the deltaic areas is generally very high and consequently disfavors colonization of mangrove plants. Therefore, mangroves are limited to islands or small bays along the coastline of the estuarine embayment that are far from the active distributaries. In the Pearl River estuary, trace element contamination in mangrove soils has been investigated in Mai Po and Futian in the Shenzhen Bay [7,11,12]. However, these locations are far from the active distributaries of the Pearl River and the trace elements in the contaminated mangrove soils are of local sources, such as discharges of municipal and industrial wastewater.
In this study, Qi’ao Island, which faces two major distributaries of the Pearl River, was selected to investigate the level and distribution of trace elements in the mangrove wetlands. The natural mangrove forest was largely cleared during the period from the early 1950s to the late 1990s. Since the establishment of the Qi’ao Natural Reserve in 1999, replanting of mangroves has resulted in an increase in the area of mangrove wetland from 32 ha to 600 ha. This has created favorable conditions for trapping suspended sediments discharged from the Pearl River. Therefore, the status of trace elements in the mangrove soils could, to a certain extent, reflect the characteristics of the riverine sediment-bearing trace elements. The aim of this study was to characterize the soil-borne trace elements in the mangrove soils and, based on the findings, evaluate their environmental risk and explore the links with the terrestrial input of the trace elements.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Qi’ao Island (113°36′41″ E–113°39′16″ E; 22°23′41″ N–22°27′39″ N) has a total area of 23.8 km2. The area experiences a subtropical monsoon climate with annual average temperature and precipitation of 23.5 °C and 1948.9 mm, respectively. It has a mixed semidiurnal tidal cycle and the annual average salinity of the seawater is 1.82%. Major types of rocks in the island include granite and granodiorite. The soils in the investigated area were classified as salic gleyic fluvisols according to the World Reference Base (WRB) soil classification system [13]. Major mangrove species include Sonneratia apetala, Sonneratia caseolaris (Linn.) Engl., Kandelia candel (Linn.) Druce, Heritiera littoralis Dryand., Parmentiera cerifera Seem., Bruguiera gymnorrhiza (Linn.) Savigny, Excoecaria agallocha Linn., Thespesia populnea (Linn.) Soland. ex Corr. and Acanthus ilicifolius Linn. Sp. [14,15,16].

2.2. Soil Sampling Method

Soil samples were collected from 17 selected locations with varying surface elevations (Figure 1). At each location, three replicate soil samples were collected from each of the three different soil layers (0–10 cm, 10–20 cm, and 20–30 cm). A total of 153 soil samples was collected from the investigated area. Sampling Locations S1–S5 were within the upper intertidal zone; Sampling Locations S6–S13 were within the mid intertidal zone; and S14–S17 were within the lower intertidal zone. At each sampling location, 3 soil cores were taken to a depth of 30 cm using a soil corer. Soil samples were collected at 10 cm intervals (i.e., 3 samples from each soil profile) and put in sealable plastic bags. In the laboratory, the soil samples were air-dried, ground, and passed through a 0.149 mm sieve prior to analysis.

2.3. Laboratory Methods

The soil-borne trace elements were determined by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (IPC-MS Agilent 7700) after digesting 0.13 g of soil with 8 mL of HNO3 and 2 mL of HF in a microwave digestion system (MARSTM 6). The soil analysis was performed by the accredited laboratory of the Nanjing Soil Research Institute Analytical Service, Chinese Academy of Sciences.

2.4. Evaluation of Soil Environmental Quality

The environmental quality of the mangrove soils was assessed by a modified integrated Nemerow pollution index. The Nemerow pollution index (NPI) was calculated using the following formula [17]:
NPI = C i / B i
where C i is the observed concentration of a trace element in the investigated soil, while B i represents the regional background value of that trace element.
By taking into account all the trace elements contained in the soil, the integrated Nemerow pollution index (INPI) can be obtained as follows [18]:
INPI = [ ( N P I a v e ) 2 + ( N P I m a x ) 2 2 ] 0.5
where N P I a v e denotes the mean value of the Nemerow pollution index for all the trace elements of concern while N P I m a x represents the maximum value of the Nemerow pollution index among these trace elements. Five pollution categories were set (Table 1) according to Hou et al. [18].
The soil environmental quality was also assessed against the ecological risk index (ERI) using the following formula [19,20]:
ERI = E r i
E r i = T i × C i / B i
where E r i represents an individual ecological risk factor, C i is the observed concentration of a trace element in the investigated soil, and B i represents the regional background value of that trace element. T i is the toxicity coefficient of a trace element. For Hg, Cd, As, Ni, Cu, Pb, Cr and Zn, T i is set at 40, 30, 10, 5, 5, 5, 2, and 1, respectively [21]. Four ERI categories were set for this study (Table 2) according to Guo et al. [20]

3. Results

3.1. Upper Intertidal Zone

On average, the concentration of the investigated trace elements was in the following decreasing order: Zn > Cr > Pb > Cu > As > Ni > Cd > Hg. In general, both horizontal and vertical variations in all the investigated trace elements were not remarkable, although exceptional high or low values were observed at some locations or soil layers. For example, Cd was several times higher in the surface soil layer at Location S1 than in the bottom soil layer at the same location and the soil layers at other locations. Similarly, Hg was several times higher in the surface soil layer at Location S4 than in the bottom soil layer at the same location and the soil layers at other locations (Table 3).

3.2. Mid Intertidal Zone

In general, marked horizontal and vertical variations in the investigated trace elements were not observed. However, the subsoil layer (10–20 cm) tended to have a higher concentration of Zn and As, as compared to the surface soil layer (0–10 cm) and the bottom soil layer (20–30 cm) at most of the sampling locations. An unusually high concentration of Cd was recorded at Location S8 and an unusually high concentration of Hg was detected at Location S11. The mean values of various trace elements were comparable to those in the upper intertidal zone with a similar decreasing order being observed: Zn > Cr > Pb > Cu > As > Ni > Cd > Hg (Table 4).

3.3. Lower Intertidal Zone

The average concentration of the investigated trace elements showed the decreasing order: Zn > Cr > Pb > Cu > Ni > As > Cd > Hg, which is different to those in the upper and mid intertidal zones. The soil-borne trace elements were only slightly variable horizontally. No clear pattern of vertical variation in the soil-borne trace elements was observed. An unusually high concentration of Cd was observed for the surface soil layer at Location S17 (Table 5).

4. Discussion

The sedimentation rate in the tidal zone of Qi’ao Island was approximately 1.68 cm/year [22]. Therefore, the mangrove soils (0–30 cm) investigated in this study were mostly derived from sediments deposited during the past two decades. Due to the very small local catchment size, it was unlikely that soil erosion from the hill slopes contributed significantly to the tidal sediments. Most of the sediments present in the tidal zone should have been deposited from the suspended materials discharged into the Pearl River estuary from the Pearl River. It is clear from the results that spatial variation in the investigated soil-borne trace elements was minor, suggesting that the whole intertidal zone received relatively constant amounts of trace elements from the Pearl River catchment in the past two decades. This can be used to indicate that the trace element loadings in the Pearl River distributaries were generally stable during the recent two decades.
Chromium was not related to any other investigated trace elements (Table 6). This appears to suggest that this trace element was not largely derived from the same water pollution sources as the other seven investigated trace elements. The major water pollution sources of Cr include chrome plating, leather tanning, and textile industries [23,24,25], which do not release substantial amounts of other trace elements.
Mercury was also not related to any other trace elements (Table 6). Mining is a major source of mercury in many places [26]. However, Hg discharge related to mining activities is always accompanied with discharges of heavy metals and metalloids [27]. Therefore, Hg discharged into Pearl River was likely to be due to other sources, such as pulp and paper industries [28].
There was a close relationship between Pb and Zn in the investigated mangrove soils (Table 6). This can be explained by the close association between lead sulfide and zinc sulfides in lead–zinc deposits [29]. Mining and smelting of lead–zinc ores result in simultaneous discharge of both Pb and Zn.
The close relationship between Ni and Cu (Table 6) could be attributed to their concurrent presence in nickel–copper sulfide ores [30]. The sources of nickel include nickel plating, non-Ni ore mining, burning of coal and oil, nickel–cadmium batteries, sewage, phosphate fertilizers, and pesticides, which also involve other trace elements [31]. The fact that Ni was only closely related to Cu but not to other trace elements suggests that these are not major contributors to the Ni loading in the Pearl River system.
It is interesting to note that Zn was not only closely related to Pb but also to Cu, Cd, and As (Table 6). Zn discharge can be caused by a wide range of economic activities, including mining, smelting, coal burning, manufacturing, and the use of pesticides and fungicides [32,33,34], which frequently involve other trace elements.
It is also interesting to note that there is a trend showing that the concentration of Cd and Hg decreased from the upper intertidal zone to the lower intertidal zone. This suggests that these two elements tended to be retained in the upper part of the tidal zone and their seaward transport was relatively weak. The extremely high concentration of Cd and Hg in the surface soil layer at some locations was accompanied by a large standard deviation, indicating the significant variation among the three replicate samples collected at the same location. This can be attributed to unusual contamination by local sources at certain isolated spots. Further investigation is needed to understand the causes of these observations.
The background concentrations of Cr, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Cd, Hg, and Pb were 50.5, 14.4, 17, 47.3, 8.9, 0.05, 0.078, and 36 mg/kg, respectively. It can be seen from Figure 2 that the concentrations of the eight investigated soil-borne trace elements were all greater than the respective background concentration of each trace element.
The INPI of the surface soils at the 17 sampling locations ranged from 7.53 to 48.42, values which all fall within the highest pollution category (Category 5), i.e., heavy pollution (Table 7).
Using the ecological risk assessment method of Hakanson [19], among the 17 sampling locations, six locations had an ERI greater than 300 and 12 locations had an ERI greater than 600 (Figure 3), indicating that most of the investigated locations were at high or very high ecological risk.
By comparison with some other mangrove wetlands around the world, the concentration of soil-borne Cr, Zn As, Cd, and Hg was higher at this study site than in the majority of the reference sites (Table 8). Qi’ao Island is the island closest to the mouths of two major active distributaries of the Pearl River. Therefore, the mangrove tidal zone was directly exposed to the sediment-borne trace elements discharged from the Pearl River. Although a firm conclusion cannot be drawn from the data obtained at this study site alone, the special location of Qi’ao Island does allow some level of confidence to suggest that Pearl River is amongst the heavily contaminated rivers around the world.

5. Conclusions

The mangrove soils of Qi’ao Island were heavily contaminated by trace elements transported from the Pearl River. These soil-borne trace elements pose a high risk to the mangrove ecosystem. The whole intertidal zone received relatively constant amounts of trace elements from the Pearl River catchment in the past two decades. Zn showed common sources with many other trace elements while some trace elements were not closely related to each other. The findings obtained from this study have implications for understanding the terrestrial inputs of trace elements into part of the Pearl River estuary. Although a firm conclusion cannot be drawn from the data obtained at this study site alone, the special location of Qi’ao Island does allow some level of confidence to suggest that Pearl River is amongst the heavily contaminated rivers in the world. This will provide useful information for decision-makers to better control the discharge of trace elements from the catchment area and manage the aquatic ecosystems in the Pearl River Estuary.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.X. and A.N.; methodology, A.N., J.M.; investigation, A.N., J.M., and Y.G.; resources, S.X.; data curation, A.N. and Y.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.N.; writing—review and editing, C.L.; visualization, Y.G. and A.N.; supervision, S.X. and C.L.; project administration, S.X.; funding acquisition, S.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 41877411.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bayen, S. Occurrence, bioavailability and toxic effects of trace metals and organic contaminants in mangrove ecosystems: A review. Environ. Int. 2012, 48, 84–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kumar, A.; Ramanathan, A.L.; Prasad, M.B.K.; Datta, D.; Kumar, M.; Sappal, S.M. Distribution, enrichment, and potential toxicity of trace metals in the surface sediments of Sundarban mangrove ecosystem, Bangladesh: A baseline study before Sundarban oil spill of December, 2014. Environn. Sci. Pollut. R. 2016, 9, 8985–8999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Machado, W.; Silva-Filho, E.V.; Oliveira, R.R.; Lacerda, L.D. Trace metal retention in mangrove ecosystems in Guanabara Bay, SE Brazil. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2002, 11, 1277–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Soto-Jimenez, M.F.; Paez-Osuna, F. Distribution and normalization of heavy metal concentrations in mangrove and lagoonal sediments from Mazatlan Harbor (SE Gulf of California). Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2001, 3, 259–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ahmed, A.; Ohlson, M.; Hoque, S.; Moula, M.G. Chemical composition of leaves of a mangrove tree (Sonneratia apetala buch.-ham.) And their correlation with some soil variables. Bangladesh J. Bot. 2010, 1, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Naidoo, G.; Hiralal, T.; Naidoo, Y. Ecophysiological responses of the mangrove Avicennia marina to trace metal contamination. Flora 2014, 1, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. He, B.; Li, R.; Chai, M.; Qiu, G. Threat of heavy metal contamination in eight mangrove plants from the Futian mangrove forest, China. Environ. Geochem. Health 2014, 3, 467–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liu, Y.; Tam, N.F.Y.; Yang, J.X.; Pi, N.; Wong, M.H.; Ye, Z.H. Mixed heavy metals tolerance and radial oxygen loss in mangrove seedlings. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2009, 12, 1843–1849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hu, Z. Studies on the Discharging and Distribution of Heavy Metal Pollution in the Pearl River Delta. Ph.D. Thesis, Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Guangzhou, China, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ministry of Ecology and Environment of People’s Republic of China. Bulletin of the State of the Environment of China; Ministry of Ecology and Environment of People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2011.
  11. Tam, N.F.Y.; Wong, Y. Spatial variation of heavy metals in surface sediments of Hong Kong mangrove swamps. Environ. Pollut. 2000, 2, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Liang, Y.; Wong, M. Spatial and temporal organic and heavy metal pollution at Mai Po Marshes Nature Reserve, Hong Kong. Chemosphere 2003, 52, 1647–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. World Reference Base for Soil Resources-WBR, 2nd ed.; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Roma, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  14. Wei, G.; Baowen, L.; Fengying, Q.; Xinghua, G.; Jing, H.; Guanghong, T.; Xiongbang, Y. A Preliminary study on controlling the invasive species spartina alterniflora using Sonneratia apetala. Forest Res. 2009, 4, 603–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Guanghong, T.; Mingyan, D.; Xiongbang, Y.; Yanjun, S.; Wenbo, L.; Zhen, L.; Jiajun, G. Characteristics of sarcosperma laurinum community and species diversity from Qi-ao island in Zhuhai city, Guangdong province. Plant Sci. J. 2013, 5, 461–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yijie, T.; Zhanqiang, F.; Yangting, Z.; Zaiwang, Z.; Kang, C.; Dong, A.; Xiongbang, Y.; Baowen, L. Succession of macrofauna communities in wetlands of Sonneratia apetala artificial mangroves during different ecological restoration stages. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2012, 10, 3160–3169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yang, Z.; Lu, W.; Long, Y.; Bao, X.; Yang, Q. Assessment of heavy metals contamination in urban topsoil from Changchun City, China. J. Geochem. Explor. 2011, 108, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hou, X.; Huang, J.; Liu, A. Heavy metals pollution and it’s assessment in the wetlands of min river estuary in Fujian province. J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 2009, 11, 2302–2306. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hakanson, L. An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control, a sediment-ecological approach. Water Res. 1980, 14, 975–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Guo, W.; Liu, X.; Liu, Z.; Li, G. Pollution and potential ecological risk evaluation of heavy metals in the sediments around dongjiang harbor, Tianjin. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2010, 2, 729–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Xu, Q.; Ni, S.; Tuo, X.; Zhang, C. Calculation of heavy metals’ toxicity coefficient in the evaluation of potential ecological risk index. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 2, 112–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ruili, L.; Minwei, C.; Guoyu, Q.; Bei, H. Mercury and copper accumulation during last fifty years and their potential ecological risk assessment in sediment of mangrove wetland of shenzhen, China. Chin. J. Environ Sci. 2012, 12, 4276–4283. [Google Scholar]
  23. Avudainayagam, S.; Megharaj, M.; Owens, G.; Kookana, R.S.; Chittleborough, D.; Naidu, R. Chemistry of chromium in soils with emphasis on tannery waste sites. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2003, 178, 53–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhao, Y.; Guo, H.; Sun, Z.; Shi, X. Wu, K.N. Principle component analyses based on soil knowledge as a tool to indicate origin of heavy metals in soils. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2008, 1, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sun, H.; Bi, T.; Guo, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Chai, M.; Guo, Z. Source apportionment analysis of trace metal contamination in soils of Guangdong province, China. Acta Sci. Circumstantiae 2018, 2, 704–714. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhang, H.; Chen, J.; Zhu, L.; Yang, G.; Li, D. Anthropogenic mercury enrichment factors and contributions in soils of guangdong province, South China. J. Geochem. Explor. 2014, 144, 312–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. David, G.; Jiming, H.; Ye, W.; Jingkun, J.; Melissa, C.; Hezhong, T.; Xinbin, F. Anthropogenic mercury emissions in China. Atmos. Environ. 2005, 40, 7789–7806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Zhang, Q.; Liu, X.; Zhou, J.; Liu, X. Contents and risk assessment of heavy metal sediments in Guangdong coastal areas. China Environ. Sci. 2018, 12, 4653–4660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Newton, L. Pollution of the rivers of west wales by lead and zinc mine effluent. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2008, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xueshu, Z.; Franco, P.; Dexian, Q.; Zhuguo, F.; Guanliang, L.; Hong, N. Baimazhai, Yunnan province, China: A hydrothermally modified magmatic nickel-copper-pge sulfide deposit. Int. Geol. Rev. 2006, 8, 725–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hutchinson, T.C.; Whitby, L.M. Heavy-metal pollution in the sudbury mining and smelting region of canada, I. soil and vegetation contamination by nickel, copper, and other metals. Environ. Conserv. 1974, 2, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hashem, M.A.; Nur-A-Tomal, M.S.; Mondal, N.R.; Rahman, M.A. Hair burning and liming in tanneries is a source of pollution by arsenic, lead, zinc, manganese and iron. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2017, 3, 501–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Urszula, A.K.; Dariusz, C. Groundwater hydrochemistry and soil pollution in a catchment affected by an abandoned lead–zinc mine: Functioning of a diffuse pollution source. Environ. Earth Sci. 2012, 4, 1179–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jeon, S.-K.; Kwon, M.J.; Yang, J.-S.; Lee, S. Identifying the source of Zn in soils around a Zn smelter using pb isotope ratios and mineralogical analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 601, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Liuqiang, L.; Zhenhua, D.; Jinling, L.; Huina, L.; Hao, W. Distribution of heavy metals in surficial sediments from main mangrove wetlands of China and their influence factors. Acta Oceanol. Sin. 2008, 5, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ji, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Wu, D. Distribution and bioavailability of seven heavy metals in mangrove wetland sediments in Dongzhai Harbor, Hainan Island, China. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 2, 593–600. [Google Scholar]
  37. Wei, J.; Wang, Z.; Pan, L. Heavy metal contents and ecological risk assessment of surface sediments in Shankou mangrove wetland of Guangxi. J. Subtrop. Resour. Environ. 2019, 2, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cai, M.; Wang, Y.; Qiu, C. Heavy metals in surface sediments from mangrove zone in Zhangjiang River estuary, South China. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Environmental Science and Information Application Technology, Wuhan, China, 4–5 July 2009; Volume 3, pp. 34–38. [Google Scholar]
  39. Chowdhury, R.; Favas, P.J.C.; Jonathan, M.P.; Venkatachalam, P.; Raja, P.; Sarkar, S.K. Bioremoval of trace metals from rhizosediment by mangrove plants in Indian Sundarban Wetland. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 124, 1078–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kehrig, H.A.; Pinto, F.N.; Moreira, I.; Malm, O. Heavy metals and methylmercury in a tropical coastal estuary and a mangrove in Brazil. Org. Geochem. 2003, 34, 661–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Harikumar, P.S.; Jisha, T.S. Distribution pattern of trace metal pollutants in the sediments of an urban wetland in the southwest coast of India. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2010, 2, 840–850. [Google Scholar]
  42. Baskar, B.; Biraja, K.S.; Jayappriyan, K.R.; Arockia, V.L.; Marimuthu, N.; Nandakumar, P.; Prabakaran, P. Assessment of heavy metal concentrations and associated resistant bacterial communities in bulk and rhizosphere soil of Avicennia marina of Pichavaram mangrove, India. Environ. Earth Sci. 2017, 1, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mackey, A.P.; Hodgkinson, M.C. Concentrations and spatial distribution of trace metals in mangrove sediments from the Brisbane River. Aust. Environ. Pollut. 1995, 2, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Maps showing the geographical location of the study area within the Pearl River estuary and the sampling locations within the study area
Figure 1. Maps showing the geographical location of the study area within the Pearl River estuary and the sampling locations within the study area
Applsci 10 02439 g001
Figure 2. Concentration of the investigated soil-borne trace elements (Cr, Cu, As, Hg, Ni, Zn, Cd and Pb) compared to their respective background values.
Figure 2. Concentration of the investigated soil-borne trace elements (Cr, Cu, As, Hg, Ni, Zn, Cd and Pb) compared to their respective background values.
Applsci 10 02439 g002
Figure 3. Comparison of ERI among the 17 sampling locations in the investigated area.
Figure 3. Comparison of ERI among the 17 sampling locations in the investigated area.
Applsci 10 02439 g003
Table 1. Classification system for pollution level of the mangrove soils based on integrated Nemerow pollution index (INPI).
Table 1. Classification system for pollution level of the mangrove soils based on integrated Nemerow pollution index (INPI).
Pollution CategoryINPIDegree of Pollution
1<0.7No pollution
20.7–1Alert
31–2Slight pollution
42–3Medium pollution
5>3Heavy pollution
Table 2. Classification system for ecological risk of the mangrove soils based on ecological risk index.
Table 2. Classification system for ecological risk of the mangrove soils based on ecological risk index.
CategoryERIEcological Risk Level
1<150low
2150–300medium
3300–600high
4>600very high
Table 3. Mangrove soil-borne trace elements (mg/kg) in the upper intertidal zone.
Table 3. Mangrove soil-borne trace elements (mg/kg) in the upper intertidal zone.
LocationDepthCrNiCuZnAsCdHgPb
S10–10 cm115.59 ± 17.8231.57 ± 4.2363.62 ± 5.3794.63 ± 7.6356.78 ± 33.115.51 ± 2.900.53 ± 0.0359.90 ± 19.54
10–20 cm104.03 ± 0.0728.97 ± 1.6659.67 ± 3.62107.18 ± 33.22100.00 ± 49.753.83 ± 1.890.69 ± 0.2758.51 ± 15.08
20–30 cm92.52 ± 4.8125.53 ± 1.8739.67 ± 3.0597.84 ± 6.0520.37 ± 2.380.46 ± 0.040.41 ± 0.1231.90 ± 4.50
S20–10 cm89.19 ± 2.8826.50 ± 0.3135.82 ± 1.99122.37 ± 13.5520.92 ± 0.670.49 ± 0.020.16 ± 0.0136.32 ± 0.40
10–20 cm90.08 ± 2.4826.09 ± 0.7735.44 ± 1.99102.21 ± 4.7621.12 ± 0.380.51 ± 0.010.56 ± 0.4536.69 ± 1.40
20–30 cm94.39 ± 2.0226.88 ± 0.4241.62 ± 3.00107.18 ± 0.8023.25 ± 1.220.59 ± 0.050.37 ± 0.2240.21 ± 1.17
S30–10 cm80.93 ± 1.6922.24 ± 0.0035.78 ± 1.7793.23 ± 11.3520.90 ± 0.760.41 ± 0.010.22 ± 0.0031.97 ± 0.55
10–20 cm86.15 ± 3.4129.00 ± 1.7245.88 ± 7.41122.37 ± 2.6225.73 ± 6.180.74 ± 0.140.24 ± 0.0338.20 ± 5.06
20–30 cm93.79 ± 2.3939.70 ± 11.4247.96 ± 4.63128.05 ± 1.8623.28 ± 0.200.90 ± 0.300.20 ± 0.0445.85 ± 8.72
S40–10 cm91.40 ± 1.1028.22 ± 3.6032.18 ± 0.69100.41 ± 10.0817.78 ± 0.930.61 ± 0.042.81 ± 2.1935.89 ± 2.14
10–20 cm102.47 ± 5.4225.42 ± 1.3734.43 ± 2.75110.72 ± 20.4235.76 ± 16.321.55 ± 0.990.88 ± 0.3543.69 ± 8.82
20–30 cm107.20 ± 8.4429.43 ± 3.6036.70 ± 2.57129.14 ± 24.5345.67 ± 24.331.72 ± 1.020.67 ± 0.1653.03 ± 11.56
S50–10 cm93.60 ± 4.6123.82 ± 1.0730.21 ± 0.7085.84 ± 2.5448.82 ± 26.900.80 ± 0.180.18 ± 0.0349.83 ± 3.71
10–20 cm112.71 ± 0.9330.63 ± 1.4138.09 ± 1.82106.42 ± 4.0622.79 ± 1.620.77 ± 0.050.23 ± 0.0345.53 ± 4.23
20–30 cm103.66 ± 3.1326.31 ± 0.3834.09 ± 1.27111.96 ± 6.5521.49 ± 0.090.68 ± 0.050.24 ± 0.0340.82 ± 1.59
Average 97.37 ± 1.9028.02 ± 0.9540.81 ± 1.58108.60 ± 3.5632.90 ± 5.011.30 ± 0.300.57 ± 0.1743.34 ± 2.15
Table 4. Mangrove soil-borne trace elements (mg/kg) in the mid intertidal zone.
Table 4. Mangrove soil-borne trace elements (mg/kg) in the mid intertidal zone.
SampleDepthCrNiCuZnAsCdHgPb
S60–10 cm95.45 ± 2.5231.66 ± 0.3241.39 ± 7.3990.20 ± 1.6026.06 ± 0.520.62 ± 0.160.19 ± 0.0439.62 ± 5.41
10–20 cm100.84 ± 1.5729.00 ± 0.8837.78 ± 1.93106.08 ± 4.5632.15 ± 9.640.60 ± 0.040.18 ± 0.0240.38 ± 1.83
20–30 cm92.82 ± 2.3129.02 ± 1.4934.91 ± 0.9182.33 ± 3.4421.85 ± 0.582.32 ± 1.890.14 ± 0.0141.27 ± 10.87
S70–10 cm93.31 ± 1.7927.53 ± 0.0533.48 ± 0.99103.08 ± 2.8120.40 ± 0.960.49 ± 0.010.15 ± 0.0137.84 ± 0.38
10–20 cm101.17 ± 4.4730.61 ± 0.4346.08 ± 6.83181.25 ± 72.36106.00 ± 83.202.26 ± 1.630.16 ± 0.0481.20 ± 41.36
20–30 cm100.95 ± 1.1528.31 ± 0.5343.14 ± 6.8392.49 ± 4.6922.68 ± 0.850.48 ± 0.020.13 ± 0.0335.67 ± 0.62
S80–10 cm90.07 ± 2.6829.98 ± 1.5044.21 ± 7.37109.70 ± 9.8330.36 ± 8.564.03 ± 3.460.39 ± 0.0664.78 ± 24.19
10–20 cm94.22 ± 4.3427.89 ± 1.6843.36 ± 5.46128.33 ± 7.0751.37 ± 27.644.68 ± 3.380.33 ± 0.0374.49 ± 29.23
20–30 cm95.21 ± 1.7427.33 ± 0.3537.14 ± 1.69107.32 ± 8.5624.66 ± 3.042.26 ± 1.610.25 ± 0.0647.33 ± 12.18
S90–10 cm97.92 ± 1.8926.90 ± 0.3334.77 ± 0.4795.15 ± 0.6021.47 ± 0.160.48 ± 0.020.33 ± 0.0837.19 ± 1.16
10–20 cm98.50 ± 4.3729.08 ± 0.7841.45 ± 2.14177.89 ± 32.7778.47 ± 31.502.58 ± 1.060.23 ± 0.0462.33 ± 12.11
20–30 cm98.95 ± 5.5329.41 ± 1.6638.98 ± 2.98102.79 ± 5.6422.19 ± 0.850.66 ± 0.030.22 ± 0.0437.00 ± 0.49
S100–10 cm90.08 ± 0.7625.59 ± 0.8837.30 ± 2.07105.57 ± 9.0121.03 ± 1.420.50 ± 0.000.37 ± 0.0940.07 ± 4.72
10–20 cm100.86 ± 5.9726.89 ± 1.1335.79 ± 2.08106.34 ± 10.3820.52 ± 0.900.53 ± 0.100.32 ± 0.0436.49 ± 2.20
20–30 cm98.85 ± 3.8327.64 ± 0.5639.26 ± 2.0897.24 ± 2.0021.03 ± 1.750.58 ± 0.040.28 ± 0.0237.86 ± 1.33
S110–10 cm91.48 ± 6.8825.98 ± 0.2932.51 ± 0.89128.32 ± 32.5719.82 ± 1.060.50 ± 0.052.84 ± 2.4236.42 ± 2.21
10–20 cm98.17 ± 4.3627.82 ± 1.2436.72 ± 2.38124.35 ± 27.7849.26 ± 28.191.01 ± 0.370.78 ± 0.4247.11 ± 10.30
20–30 cm159.26 ± 56.1234.98 ± 8.2137.11 ± 2.29110.31 ± 12.8922.35 ± 0.870.92 ± 0.160.49 ± 0.1940.52 ± 0.47
S120–10 cm90.15 ± 9.2730.10 ± 5.0332.75 ± 1.79104.86 ± 2.5617.86 ± 1.800.49 ± 0.030.31 ± 0.0436.01 ± 3.13
10–20 cm107.01 ± 2.1932.14 ± 2.6737.97 ± 1.16108.61 ± 5.5019.92 ± 0.440.71 ± 0.060.35 ± 0.0444.19 ± 0.12
20–30 cm103.50 ± 3.0332.20 ± 0.5340.53 ± 0.90115.91 ± 3.3223.56 ± 0.640.83 ± 0.010.32 ± 0.0346.89 ± 0.93
S130–10 cm95.03 ± 6.0530.16 ± 2.4644.76 ± 3.44118.77 ± 6.8623.11 ± 1.500.60 ± 0.030.12 ± 0.0240.40 ± 1.88
10–20 cm99.64 ± 6.5432.35 ± 0.3743.79 ± 1.12115.31 ± 14.3722.60 ± 0.390.80 ± 0.080.12 ± 0.0244.69 ± 0.87
20–30 cm93.22 ± 5.5629.44 ± 2.1440.58 ± 0.71105.90 ± 1.8122.60 ± 0.770.66 ± 0.020.11 ± 0.0138.80 ± 1.92
Average 99.44 ± 2.5929.25 ± 0.4738.99 ± 0.75113.96 ± 4.5531.02 ± 4.441.23 ± 0.240.38 ± 0.1145.36 ± 2.55
Table 5. Mangrove soil-borne trace elements (mg/kg) in the lower intertidal zone.
Table 5. Mangrove soil-borne trace elements (mg/kg) in the lower intertidal zone.
SampleDepthCrNiCuZnAsCdHgPb
S140–10 cm79.60 ± 0.7424.20 ± 0.5634.20 ± 4.12109.30 ± 9.3339.79 ± 22.994.02 ± 3.700.07 ± 0.0033.68 ± 3.22
10–20 cm82.70 ± 7.2527.90 ± 0.3736.20 ± 3.35101.99 ± 7.1618.51 ± 0.970.42 ± 0.030.07 ± 0.0133.69 ± 2.40
20–30 cm107.00 ± 18.1032.80 ± 3.6845.20 ± 6.78138.67 ± 21.6240.15 ± 15.171.54 ± 0.880.10 ± 0.0251.64 ± 7.93
S150–10 cm81.60 ± 6.2827.40 ± 0.2338.90 ± 0.9365.74 ± 47.9012.66 ± 7.042.26 ± 1.900.08 ± 0.0034.33 ± 3.96
10–20 cm106.00 ± 24.534.60 ± 6.2439.60 ± 2.98112.05 ± 4.5420.55 ± 1.710.47 ± 0.050.08 ± 0.0132.75 ± 2.77
20–30 cm99.30 ± 9.7731.90 ± 1.8153.00 ± 9.39312.17 ± 173.6217.74 ± 5.841.08 ± 0.430.10 ± 0.0245.59 ± 4.72
S160–10 cm83.50 ± 13.2030.60 ± 0.0943.50 ± 2.27119.37 ± 7.9421.71 ± 0.900.51 ± 0.100.10 ± 0.0034.98 ± 4.71
10–20 cm151.00 ± 68.1048.30 ± 17.2044.70 ± 5.16126.34 ± 8.3321.39 ± 0.720.59 ± 0.040.08 ± 0.0138.28 ± 2.74
20–30 cm91.30 ± 1.6830.90 ± 0.7460.80 ± 12.00190.22 ± 44.0921.79 ± 1.810.62 ± 0.040.10 ± 0.0239.54 ± 1.65
S170–10 cm91.30 ± 2.9732.00 ± 1.3139.20 ± 2.07120.63 ± 15.9040.38 ± 19.910.87 ± 0.360.09 ± 0.0345.68 ± 9.21
10–20 cm95.30 ± 3.0330.00 ± 0.4242.30 ± 1.64113.64 ± 5.5921.69 ± 0.850.54 ± 0.040.08 ± 0.0241.54 ± 1.49
20–30 cm95.80 ± 5.4132.70 ± 3.1148.70 ± 1.76131.08 ± 2.4222.61 ± 1.310.65 ± 0.060.08 ± 0.0242.34 ± 3.19
Average 101.55 ± 2.7430.37 ± 0.7540.76 ± 1.08124.84 ± 8.9326.26 ± 2.160.94 ± 0.130.28 ± 0.0843.35 ± 1.40
Table 6. Correlation matrix showing the correlation coefficients between the investigated trace elements.
Table 6. Correlation matrix showing the correlation coefficients between the investigated trace elements.
CrNiCuZnAsCdHgPb
Cr1
Ni0.1291
Cu−0.1630.549 **1
Zn−0.3170.0070.459 *1
As−0.382−0.0490.3890.965 **1
Cd−0.082−0.1630.3960.550 **0.495 *1
Hg0.316−0.394−0.0790.0170.0100.2701
Pb0.171−0.267−0.0890.450 *0.3840.360−0.0541
** significant at p < 0.01. * significant at p < 0.05.
Table 7. The integrated Nemerow pollution index (INPI) of the surface soils at the 17 sampling locations.
Table 7. The integrated Nemerow pollution index (INPI) of the surface soils at the 17 sampling locations.
Sampling LocationINPIDegree of Pollution
S112.74Heavy pollution
S211.41Heavy pollution
S314.52Heavy pollution
S416.38Heavy pollution
S514.29Heavy pollution
S648.42Heavy pollution
S716.45Heavy pollution
S87.53Heavy pollution
S911.72Heavy pollution
S109.31Heavy pollution
S119.56Heavy pollution
S129.90Heavy pollution
S1317.69Heavy pollution
S1722.70Heavy pollution
S1815.18Heavy pollution
S198.02Heavy pollution
S209.35Heavy pollution
Table 8. Levels of heavy metals in mangrove wetland soils.
Table 8. Levels of heavy metals in mangrove wetland soils.
Study AreaCrNiCuZnAsCdHgPb
Sanya, China [35]61.5-21.012614.30.09-42.3
Luoyang Bridge, China [35]18.6-34.01065.310.06-167
Dongzhai Harbor, China [36]75.831.019.644.88.670.62-20.7
Yingluo Harbor, China [37]56.7-7.7631.9-0.110.0414.2
Shenzhen Bay, China [7]96.244.688.83581720.940.1472
Zhangjiang River Estuary, China [38]--21.04--0.330.0363.2
Sunderban mangrove, India [39]41.847.460.0688.3-0.480.2452.9
Guanabara Bay, Brazil [40]42.4-98.64831.321.32-160
Kottuli, India [41]0.260.3869.3384-0.03-6.91
Hong Kong, China [11]40.03.0024040.0-3.00-80
Pichavaram, India [42]530253150108-34.5-133
Brisbane River, Australia [43]7.6–1162.4–57.63.1–34.140–1440–13.00–2.0-7.7–84.7
This Study99.529.240.811630.01.160.4144.0

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Niu, A.; Ma, J.; Gao, Y.; Xu, S.; Lin, C. Mangrove Soil-Borne Trace Elements in Qi’ao Island: Implications for Understanding Terrestrial Input of Trace Elements into Part of the Pearl River Estuary. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2439. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072439

AMA Style

Niu A, Ma J, Gao Y, Xu S, Lin C. Mangrove Soil-Borne Trace Elements in Qi’ao Island: Implications for Understanding Terrestrial Input of Trace Elements into Part of the Pearl River Estuary. Applied Sciences. 2020; 10(7):2439. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072439

Chicago/Turabian Style

Niu, Anyi, Jiaojiao Ma, Yifei Gao, Songjun Xu, and Chuxia Lin. 2020. "Mangrove Soil-Borne Trace Elements in Qi’ao Island: Implications for Understanding Terrestrial Input of Trace Elements into Part of the Pearl River Estuary" Applied Sciences 10, no. 7: 2439. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072439

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop