Next Article in Journal
Effect of Maritime Traffic on Water Quality Parameters in Santa Marta, Colombia
Previous Article in Journal
It Often Howls More than It Chugs: Wind versus Ship Noise Under Water in Australia’s Maritime Regions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JMSE
Volume 9
Issue 5
10.3390/jmse9050473
jmse-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Environmental Risk Assessment of Petroleum Activities in Surface Sediments, Suez Gulf, Egypt

by
Magda M. Abou El-Safa
1,
Mohamed Gad
2,
Ebrahem M. Eid
3,4,*,
Ashwaq M. Alnemari
5,
Mohammed H. Almarshadi
6,
Abdullah S. Alshammari
7,
Farahat S. Moghanm
8 and
Ali H. Saleh
1
1
Environmental Geology, Surveying of Natural Resources in Environmental Systems Department, Environmental Studies and Research Institute, University of Sadat City, Minufiya 32897, Egypt
2
Hydrogeology, Evaluation of Natural Resources Department, Environmental Studies and Research Institute, University of Sadat City, Minufiya 32897, Egypt
3
Biology Department, College of Science, King Khalid University, Abha 61321, Saudi Arabia
4
Botany Department, Faculty of Science, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Sheikh 33516, Egypt
5
Biology Department, College of Science and Humanities, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 11940, Saudi Arabia
6
Arid Land Agriculture Department, College of Meteorology, Environment and Arid Land Agriculture, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
7
Biology Department, College of Science, University of Ha’il, Ha’il 55476, Saudi Arabia
8
Soil and Water Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Sheikh 33516, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9(5), 473; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9050473
Submission received: 1 April 2021 / Revised: 19 April 2021 / Accepted: 22 April 2021 / Published: 27 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Geological Oceanography)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The present study focuses on the risk assessment of heavy metal contamination in aquatic ecosystems by evaluating the current situation of heavy metals in seven locations (North Amer El Bahry, Amer, Bakr, Ras Gharib, July Water Floud, Ras Shokeir, and El Marageen) along the Suez Gulf coast that are well-known representative sites for petroleum activities in Egypt. One hundred and forty-six samples of surface sediments were carefully collected from twenty-seven profiles in the intertidal and surf zone. The hydrochemical parameters, such as pH and salinity (S‰), were measured during sample collection. The mineralogy study was carried out by an X-ray diffractometer (XRD), and the concentrations of Al, Mn, Fe, Cr, Cu, Co, Zn, Cd, and Pb were determined using inductively coupled plasma mass spectra (ICP-MS). The ecological risks of heavy metals were assessed by applying the contamination factor (CF), enrichment factor (EF), geoaccumulation index (Igeo), pollution load index (PLI), and potential ecological risk index (RI). The mineralogical composition mainly comprised quartz, dolomites, calcite, and feldspars. The average concentrations of the detected heavy metals, in descending order, were Al > Fe > Mn > Cr > Pb > Cu > Zn > Ni > Co > Cd. A non-significant or negative relationship between the heavy metal concentration in the samples and their textural grain size characteristics was observed. The coastal surface sediment samples of the Suez Gulf contained lower concentrations of heavy metals than those published for other regions in the world with petroleum activities, except for Al, Mn, and Cr. The results for the CF, EF, and Igeo showed that Cd and Pb have severe enrichment in surface sediment and are derived from anthropogenic sources, while Al, Mn, Fe, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn originate from natural sources. By comparison, the PLI and RI results indicate that the North Amer El Bahry and July Water Floud are considered polluted areas due to their petroleum activities. The continuous monitoring and assessment of pollutants in the Suez Gulf will aid in the protection of the environment and the sustainability of resources.

1. Introduction

The increase in heavy metal concentrations in a coastal ecosystem is considered an indication of pollution in coastal zones. As a result, public health may be affected, and it can also be regarded as a threat to any sustainable development in coastal areas [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Metals in seawater and coastal sediments can easily enter the aquatic food chain [8,9,10,11,12,13]. In addition, heavy metals from natural and/or anthropogenic sources are among the most hazardous contaminants that affect the aquatic environment. The natural composition of the sediments can be further affected by human activities, such as discharging pollutants. Since pollutants are much higher and less variable in time and space than in seawater, marine sediments are favored for monitoring the environmental quality of seawater, and they represent the pollution level in the region in an integrated manner. Moreover, heavy metals from anthropogenic sources that enter the aquatic environment accumulate rapidly in the sediments, and they may represent a secondary source of heavy metals as time goes on. Sediments are heavy metal sources in marine environments, and they play a crucial role in their deposition and transmission through the trophic chain, so they must be controlled [7,14]. Due to their specific characteristics, sediments are well-known as the primary carriers of toxic metals. Coastal sediments have been found to be a reservoir for metal contaminants and to provide time-integrated records of contamination history in numerous studies. Investigating the heavy metals that accumulate in sediments allows for the continuous monitoring of pollutants in the environment, which can be differentiated from evaluating and researching the amount and form of contamination and making the necessary control decisions. Additionally, heavy metal pollution has become an important topic for research, especially, for tourism resources (beach sand, water, sea food, etc.) [15,16].
The Suez Gulf is an important strategic maritime region in Egypt because it joins the two world trade passages, the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. The majority of the Egyptian petroleum exploration and production processes are processed in the Suez Gulf. The northern part of the Suez Gulf coastal region is a densely industrialized zone with numerous tourism and entertainment projects. However, the northern region receives a large amount of wastewater from industrial and sewage effluents. Generally, the Suez Gulf has been subjected to point and nonpoint pollution sources as a result of oil industry wastes, oil spills, platforms, oil treatments, offshore oil, maritime traffics, housing projects, fertilizer manufacturing, power stations, domestic drainage, and microbial pollution, which has an effect on the health of these important marine habitats and, as a result, on their economic growth [17,18,19]. The monitoring and evaluation of chemical pollutants in the Suez Gulf are important steps to ensure that a healthy marine environment can coexist with required human activities. The tourism projects located in the northern part and near the mouth of the Suez Gulf require high environmental quality. Therefore, environmental monitoring and assessment programs are necessary continuously.
Petroleum exploration and production are a critical industry along the Suez Gulf coast. The Suez Gulf oil basin contains more than 1000 exploration wells, in more than 80 oil fields [20]. This industry is a point source of environmental pollution as it is heavily contaminated with heavy metals, which pose a high threat to the environment. The ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in coastal ecosystems is an important research area because of their potential toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate and affect public health and seafood safety [21,22]. Moreover, water quality and coastal sediment pollutants in the Suez Gulf and the Red Sea are considered areas of research interest [9,18,19,23,24]. The area around Ras Gharib and Ras Shokeir is the oldest site of oil production. The oil wells in the study area are characterized by the production of a large volume of produced water. Water is applied to achieve maximum oil recovery by injecting it into the reservoir as an addition to the reservoir water. Thus, a large volume of wastewater is produced through the processes of oil treatment. The discharged water of the treatment processes is pumped through pipelines into the Suez Gulf water at 500 m from the coastal line. This water is highly saline water, with a salinity of 110‰, and it contains environmental pollutants, such as heavy metals [25,26,27]. There is a scarcity of studies on the environmental impact of petroleum activities carried out at areas around Ras Gharib and Ras Shokeir to the best of the authors’ knowledge. Therefore, the present study aims to (1) assess the current situation of heavy metal concentrations and their spatial distribution along Suez Gulf coast’s surface sediments around Ras Gharib and Ras Shokeir; (2) characterize the texture and mineralogical composition of the surface sediments; (3) assess the ecological risk of heavy metals in the surface sediment by using the contamination factor (CF), enrichment factor (EF), geoaccumulation index (Igeo), pollution load index (PLI), and potential ecological risk index (RI) for nine heavy metals, namely, Mn, Fe, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Study Area

The Suez Gulf occupies the Red Sea’s northwestern arm between the Eastern Desert and the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt. It was formed during the Red Sea rifting system. The Suez Gulf’s length, from the north (south Suez city), is about 314 km, and its width varies from 19 to 32 km. The average depth of the Suez Gulf ranges from 55 to 73 m. The study area exists between latitude 28°06′18″ and 28°44′25″ N, and longitude 33°18′45″ and 32°49′20″ E. It includes seven locations: North Amer El Bahry, Amer, Bakr, Ras Gharib, July Water Floud, Ras Shokeir, and El Marageen. These locations exist along the Suez Gulf western coast around Ras Gharib and Ras Shokeir (Figure 1).

2.2. Sample Collection

The samples were collected in April 2014 from oil fields of North Amer El Bahry, Amer, Bakr, Ras Gharib, July Water Floud, Ras Shokeir, and El Marageen. The geographical data of each sample site (Figure 1) were located with a GPS (Garmin/eTrex Vista HCx/personal navigator) for 27 profiles (Table 1). The pH was directly measured in the field using a multi-parameter instrument (CRISON MM 40). Salinity (S‰) was detected via a portable refractometer. One hundred and forty-six sediment samples were collected from 27 profiles that covered 7 locations along the Suez Gulf west coast (Figure 1 and Table 1). The sediments at each profile were collected from the intertidal zone and surf zone at a depth of 0.5 and 1.0 m, respectively. The collected sediment samples were put in sealable plastic bags, and then they were preserved in an isolated field box with ice to be transported to the laboratory. The sediments were air-dried at room temperature for three days and packed to be used for mechanical, mineralogical, and geochemical analysis.
All of the chemical analyses were carried out at the Environmental Geology Lab (EGL) and Environmental and Food Lab (EFL), University of Sadat City (ISO/IEC 17025/2017). Elements Al, Fe, Mn, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb were measured with inductively coupled plasma mass spectra (ICAP TQ ICP-MS Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA).
Grain size analysis was carried out using dry sieving. The mechanical data were processed using the GSSTAT program to determine the sediment texture classes. The mineralogy composition was identified using an X-ray diffractometer (D2 PHASER 2nd Gen/serial No. 209450/ BRUKER AXS—Germany) with a Ni filter using a Cu radiation wavelength of 1.542 A° at 30 Kv and 10 MA, a scan speed of 0.02 °/second, and 2θ from 10 to 70.
Sediment samples were ground using an agate mechanical mill (Retsch RM200). Twenty-seven sediment samples from the intertidal zone, 21 sediment samples from the surf zone at a 0.5 m depth, and 19 sediment samples at a 1 m depth were prepared to measure their metal concentration by acid digestion, according to the US EPA 3052 method [28], using the Speedwave microwave digestion system. The used reagents were deionized water, concentrated nitric acid, and concentrated hydrofluoric acid. The final volume was diluted to 50 mL. The present study adopted quality control by using standard sediment reference materials (GBW07333) provided by the Second Institute of Oceanography (SOA), China, and by duplicating sample or reference material. Experiment vessel contamination was avoided by pre-cleaning and soaking the used vessel in dilute nitric acid for at least 24 h, and then it was soaked and rinsed with deionized water. Blanks were prepared identically and by using the same reagents for testing the precision.

2.3. Environmental Pollution Indices

Ecological risk indices, such as CF, EF, Igeo, and PLI, were used to evaluate the degree of anthropogenic heavy metal contamination in surface sediments. The CF was calculated as the ratio of the measured concentration in the sediment to the background value [29]; that is, CF = sample metal concentration/baseline metal concentration, which is classified into four levels (Table 2).
The EF is an effective tool for assessing the sediment pollution degree (Table 2) to clarify whether the contamination is of natural or anthropogenic sources [30,31]. It was calculated by Equation (1).
E F x = ( C x / C A l ) s a m p l e / ( C x / C A l ) b a c k g r o u n d
where the (Cx/CAl) sample is the ratio between the element x concentration in ppm and the analyzed sample’s aluminum concentration. (Cx/CAl), the background, is the ratio between the element x concentration in ppm and the background reference metals [32]. The Igeo was used to assess metal contamination in sediments with a corresponding natural background (Table 2). Equation (2) was used to determine the geoaccumulation index according to Müller [33], as described by Boszke et al. [34].
I g e o = ( C n 1.5 B n )  
where Cn = the measured concentration of heavy metals in the sediment. Bn = the geochemical background of an element. Factor 1.5 was used for the possible variations of the background data due to lithological variations.
The PLI was applied to compare the integrated pollution status at different locations. The PLI was calculated as the nth root of the multiplications of CF (Equation (3)) for all elements at each profile [35,36]. The PLI for each area was calculated as the nth root of the multiplications of PLI for the intertidal and surf zone at 0.5 and 1 m.
PLI = (CF1 × CF2 × CF3 × … × CFn)1/n
The RI was used to assess the ecological risk (Table 2) of heavy metals in sediments [37,38]. It considers four factors: concentration, type of pollutant, toxicity level, and the sensitivity of the water body to metal contamination in sediments. The potential ecological risk index was calculated by Equation (4).
RI = ΣEr, Er = Tr × CF
where Er is the potential ecological risk factor of the individual element, and Tr is the toxic response [37,39].
Statistical analysis was used to analyze the results of grain size and heavy metals in the sediment samples. Pearson correlation analysis was applied to process the data and to identify the sources of heavy metal contamination of the sediments [24]. The statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS 20.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Sediment Properties

Grain size analysis results is illustrated in Table 3. The sediments of the present study area at the intertidal and surf zones were mainly gravelly sand. The intertidal zone’s sorting varies from well to moderately sorted sediments in the rest of the study area. In contrast, the surf zone sediments are mainly poorly sorted. The mineralogical compositions of the coastal sediment at the study area mainly comprised quartz, feldspars, aragonite, and calcite (Figure 2).

3.2. Hydrochemical Properties

Table 1 shows the sample and profile locations and the hydrochemical parameters, such as pH and salinity (S‰), for the seven studied locations. The pH values varied from an average of 7.39 at Ras Gharib to 8.34 at Amer. The pH decreased from north to south at the surf zone. It also decreased from north to south at 200 and 500 m distances from the shoreline. The average salinity increased from 42‰ in the north to 43.5‰ in the south. In sum, pH showed a decrease from north to south, whereas S‰ showed an increase at the same direction.

3.3. Heavy Metals

Table 3 presents the concentration of heavy metals in the intertidal and surf zone sediment samples. The average of iron concentration at the intertidal zone varied from 0.1% at El Marageen to 9.5% at Ras Gharib, whereas manganese was from 39.5 ppm at Bakr to 361.6 ppm at North Amer El Bahry. The average of chromium concentration ranged from 15.4 ppm at Baker to 257.9 ppm at Ras Shokeir, whereas the average of cobalt concentration was from 0.3 ppm at El Marageen to 5.3 ppm at July Water Floud. The average of nickel concentration had a minimum value (2.9 ppm) at El Marageen, while its maximum average (35.3 ppm) was recoded at Bakr. The minimum average of copper was 10.2 ppm at El Marageen, and the maximum average was 88.1 ppm at July Water Floud. The average zinc concentration varied from 11.9 ppm at Baker to 75.5 ppm at July Water Floud; the average of cadmium concentration was from 0.3 ppm at El Marageen to 2.8 ppm at North Amer El Bahry. Finally, the average of lead concentration ranged from 8.2 ppm at El Marageen to 634.7 ppm at July Water Floud.
The heavy metals average for the surf zone at 0.5 m had minimum values for Mn, Cr, Co, and Ni at Ras Gharib. The minimum value for Cd was at Bakr, and for Fe, Cu, Zn, and Pb, it was at Ras Shokeir. The maximum average value for Fe, Co, and Cu was at July Water Floud; for Mn, Cr, Ni, and Cd, it was at Ras Shokeir; for Zn, it was at Amer; and for Pb, it was at Baker.
The Pearson correlations matrix (Table 4) shows a non-significant and negative relation between heavy metals and grain size for the surface sediments at the intertidal and surf zones. The correlation matrix displays a strong significant positive relation between metal pairs Co, Fe, and Zn (≥0.5), as well as between Cu and Zn at the intertidal zone. There is a strong positive correlation between heavy metal pairs Fe, Mn, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn at the surf zone.

3.4. Ecological Indices

The CF average (Table 5) at the intertidal zone for the study localities ranged from low to moderate with respect to Al, Mn, Fe, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn. The EF (Table 6) for Mn, Fe, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn revealed no enrichment to minor or moderate enrichment for the study area at the intertidal zone, except at North Amer El Bahry, Baker, July Water Floud, and El Marageen. The EF of Zn showed considerable enrichment in Cd and Pb. North Amer El Bahry, Baker, July Water Floud, and El Marageen showed considerable enrichment in Zn, Cd, and Pb at the surf zone. The Igeo average as shown in Table 6 was calculated to relate the metal contamination in sediments to its natural origin.
The pollution load index (PLI) and the potential ecology risk index (RI) averages (Table 6) were calculated to detect and classify the polluted localities. The PLI average ranged from 0.18 at El Marageen to 1.09 at July Water Floud. The North Amer El Bahry and July Water Floud at intertidal zone are classified as polluted localities. At the surf zone, the PLI indicated North Amer El Bahry and July Water Floud as polluted areas, in addition to Amer (1.05).
The RI average (Table 6) reflects serious ecological risk due to the presence of Cd and Pb, which are potential environmental toxic metals. Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the spatial distribution of the pollution load index and the potential ecological risk index of the above-mentioned metals.

4. Discussion

Grain size analysis contributes to evaluating the environment’s textural and depositional characteristics. The particle size distribution in sediments is mostly controlled by the parent materials’ particle sizes and depositional processes [41]. Generally, the distribution of grain size in the study area may reflect the action of erosion and accretion processes along the coast, as well as the influence of shell fragments and the dominance of terrigenous fine and coarse grain-sized sediments [42]. Furthermore, the distance from the shoreline and water depth represents the main factors that control grain size distributions [43].
The morphological and sedimentological characteristics of the beach area represent an accretional area (Table 1 and Table 3). This area is divided into two main zones: the first has a high accretion rate that is characterized by relatively finer and moderately sorted sediments with gentle slope beach face; the second zone is characterized by relatively low accretional processes of less sorted and coarser sediment with a relatively steep beach face [44].
The carbonate content in the sediment of the studied stations is mainly attributable to their biogenic origin containing coral reefs and marine shells as well as land-derived terrigenous materials rich in carbonate [42]. The average pH and salinity recorded agreed with the results of previous studies and international reports [19]. The fluctuation of pH and salinity may be attributed to local climatic change and human activities, such as producing water discharge and internal current circulations along the gulf. The pH and salinity data revealed that the Suez Gulf’s water is located within the acceptable levels of the seawater quality standard.
Heavy metal concentration averages at the intertidal zone along the seven locations were as follows: Fe > Pb > Mn > Cr > Cu > Zn > Ni > Co > Cd in descending order. The Fe concentrations in the studied sediments were relatively high, indicating natural contamination by sediment of terrigenous origin. The average of heavy metals for the surf zone at 0.5 m along the seven areas was as follows: Fe > Mn > Pb > Cr > Zn > Cu > Ni > Co > Cd in decreasing order, whereas the heavy metals average for the surf zone at 1 m along the seven areas in descending order was as follows: Fe > Mn > Cr > Pb > Cu > Zn > Ni > Co > Cd. The heavy metals average along the study area in descending order was as follows: Al > Fe > Mn > Cr > Pb > Cu > Zn > Ni > Co > Cd. The variation in the concentration of these metals may result from the differences in the particle size distribution, percentage of silicates, oxide-hydroxide, carbonates, and organic matters in sediments [45]. Upon comparing the findings of this study with those of a previous one from coastal areas associated with the oil industry in other areas of the world, it can be concluded that the total average concentrations of Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb of the surface sediments along the intertidal and surf zones were equal to or lower than those in other areas of the world. However, the total average concentrations of Al, Mn, and Cr were higher than those in other localities (Table 7).
The correlation between metals in surface sediments is usually related to the discharge of contaminants and their effect on the partitioning of metals in aquatic systems, which may be influenced by differences in the physical, chemical, and biological processes [59,60].
CF in the intertidal zone was very high for Cd and Pb in all localities except El Marageen, and the surf zone showed the same trend. In addition, the CF for Cd and Pb was very high at North Amer El Bahry and July Water Floud. The measured concentrations for some heavy metals in the present study are mainly concerned with the common constituents of oil production activities [54,61,62]. Produced water discharge from oil treatment units and offshore oil wells could be potential sources of metal pollution in the study area. El-Sikaily et al. [63] and Masoud et al. [47] reported that the sediment of the Egyptian Red Sea coast is highly enriched with Cd and Pb, which indicated that Al, Mn, Fe, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn were unpolluted across the intertidal and surf zones areas (Igeo < 0); however, some localities’ Igeo ranged from unpolluted to moderately polluted and from moderately polluted to strongly polluted (July Water Floud, Ras Shokeir, and North Amer El Bahry). Moreover, the Igeo index revealed that Cd and Pb were strongly to extremely polluted, except for at Ras Shokeir, which was an unpolluted to moderately polluted area. Relatively higher Igeo values for heavy metals in sediment revealed that they originate from an anthropogenic source, especially industrial emissions, such as petroleum activities [6,64]. Accordingly, lower Igeo values for metals in the studied sediments may represent natural sources. The contamination is stationed around the produced water discharge pipes and near the petroleum production activities. The data obtained from the present study and the investigation with various categories, sizes, and ecological indices (i.e., contamination factors, enrichment factors, the geoaccumulation index, and the pollution load index), in addition to mineralogy and field observations, revealed that the concentration of heavy metals in the studied area mainly depends on the local prevailing condition in addition to the diagenetic and authigenic resources.
Beyond assessing metal concentrations, evaluating the ecological danger of metals is needed to comprehend possible harmful effects. Heavy metal contamination is a source of concern in the environment, since the metals behave similarly to persistent harmful chemicals. The presence of heavy metals in sediments, which exceeds a permissible amount, will rapidly degrade the ecosystem balance, and deteriorate it [6,22,65]. Heavy metals can be absorbed directly from seawater or indirectly by food by bivalve animals. Another issue is biomagnification, which occurs when toxins accumulate in a food chain from one organism to the next. As a result, further up the food chain, more metals accumulate. The transfer of high concentrations of heavy metals to the body occurs when humans consume polluted species [66]. The Suez Gulf and the adjacent marine ecosystem are characterized by huge colonies of coral reefs and marine nature reserves; consequently, the presence of heavy metals from anthropogenic sources without an environmental monitoring program will degrade such important resources. All of these impacts directly and indirectly affect tourism activities in the Suez Gulf. Since human activity has the greatest impact on semiclosed aquatic environments, effective management and continuous monitoring to identify potential changes and implement the best management practices are needed in these areas. Therefore, the Suez Gulf needs comprehensive investigation into its environmental status.

5. Conclusions

The pH decreased and S‰ increased from north to south. The estimated pH values decreased from north to south at the surf zone. The same observation for a variation in pH values was made based on the distance from the coastline, whereas this value was lower at 200 m from coastline than at 500 m from the coastline. With regard to salinity, it increased from 42‰ in the north to 43.5‰ in the south. The variation in salinity may be attributed to local climatic changes. The sediments at the intertidal zone are mainly composed of well- to moderately sorted gravelly sand and poorly sorted sediments at the surf zone, which is comprised of quartz, feldspars, aragonite, and calcite. The sorting varied from well- to moderately sorted sediments at the intertidal zone to poorly sorted sediments at the surf zone. The morphological and sedimentological characteristics of the beach area reflect an accretional area that is divided into two main zones: a high accretion rate with a gentle slope beach face, and a relatively low accretional rate with a relatively steep beach face. The heavy metal concentrations average was in descending order: Al > Fe > Mn > Cr > Pb > Cu > Zn > Ni > Co > Cd. The total concentration of Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb along the intertidal and surf zones was the same as or lower than their concentration in other world areas with petroleum activities, while the concentrations of Al, Mn, and Cr were higher than their concentrations in other localities. The contamination factor (CF) average for Cd and Pb was mainly very high at North Amer El Bahry and July Water Floud. The enrichment factor average (EF) reflected anthropogenic sources at North Amer El Bahry, Baker, July Water Floud, and El Marageen, which showed severe enrichment with Zn, Cd, and Pb. The geoaccumulation index (Igeo) averages for Al, Mn, Fe, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn suggest that they are unpolluted metals due to their natural origin, but shows that Cd and Pb are considered polluted metals due to their anthropogenic origin. The pollution load index (PLI) indicates that North Amer El Bahry and July are polluted areas, in addition to Amer at the surf zone. In comparison, the potential ecology risk index (RI) averages indicate that North Amer El Bahry and July Water Floud are source-point-polluted areas due to their anthropogenic origin, which is mainly related to petroleum activities. Chemical analysis showed that, in general, no trend controls the concentration of the heavy metals. The major factor for the configuration of the heavy metals in the studied area may be due to the diagenetic processes and/or the authigenic action affecting the area. However, some correlative values of the average concentrations of heavy metals due to petroleum activities were equal or low when compared to the different sites of petroleum activities all over the world. The presence of heavy metals from anthropogenic sources without an environmental monitoring program will degrade the marine ecosystem, including coral reefs, marine nature reserves, and other nature resources. Consequently, tourism activities will be affected.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.A.E.-S. and A.H.S.; methodology, M.M.A.E.-S., A.H.S., M.G. and F.S.M.; software, A.H.S., M.M.A.E.-S., M.G., M.H.A. and A.S.A.; formal analysis, A.H.S. and M.M.A.E.-S.; resources, E.M.E.; data curation, A.H.S., M.M.A., M.G., F.S.M. and M.H.A.; writing—original draft preparation, A.H.S., M.M.A.E.-S., M.G. and F.S.M.; writing—review and editing, E.M.E., A.M.A., M.M.A.E.-S., A.H.S., A.S.A. and M.G.; supervision, E.M.E.; project administration, E.M.E.; funding acquisition, E.M.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University, RGP. 1/60/42.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article and in the supplementary materials file.

Acknowledgments

Abou El-Safa M.M., Gad M., Moghanm F.S., and Saleh A.H. received financial aids from The General Petroleum Company (GPC) covering the research team’s accommodation and facilitating field measurements and the collection of samples. Eid E.M. extends his appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University for funding this work through the Research Group Project under grant number RGP. 1/60/42.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tang, W.; Shan, B.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, W.; Zhao, Y.; Ding, Y.; Rong, N.; Zhu, X. Heavy metal contamination in the surface sediments of representative limnetic ecosystems in eastern China. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 7152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Qian, Y.; Zhang, W.; Yu, L.; Feng, H. Metal Pollution in Coastal Sediments. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 2015, 1, 203–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Bastami, K.D.; Neyestani, M.R.; Shemirani, F.; Soltani, F.; Haghparast, S.; Akbari, A. Heavy metal pollution assessment in relation to sediment properties in the coastal sediments of the southern Caspian Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 92, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Birch, G.F. Determination of sediment metal background concentrations and enrichment in marine environments—A critical review. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 580, 813–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Masindi, V.; Muedi, K.L. Environmental contamination by heavy metals. Heavy Metals 2018, 7, 115–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Zhang, H.B.; Walker, T.R.; Davisa, E.; Ma, B. Ecological risk assessment of metals in small craft harbour sediments in Nova Scotia, Canada. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 146, 466–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Meng, K.; Xu, M.; Zhao, Y.; Li, F.; Xu, W.; Chen, Y. Accumulation, sources and pollution of heavy metals in the sediments of coastal tidal flats in the North Jiangsu Radial Sand Ridges, China. Environ. Earth Sci. 2019, 78, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hosono, T.; Su, C.C.; Delinom, R.; Umezawa, Y.; Toyota, T.; Kaneko, S.; Taniguchi, M. Decline in heavy metal contamination in marine sediments in Jakarta Bay, Indonesia due to increasing environmental regulations. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2011, 92, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. El-Sorogy, A.S.; Mohamed, M.A.; Nour, H.E. Heavy metals contamination of the Quaternary coral reefs, the Red Sea coast, Egypt. Environ. Earth Sci. 2012, 67, 777–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cardoso, P.G.; Pereira, E.; Duarte, A.C.; Azeiteiro, U.M. Temporal characterization of mercury accumulation at different trophic levels and implications for metal biomagnification along a coastal food web. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 87, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hu, J.; Zhou, S.; Wu, P.; Qu, K. Assessment of the distribution, bioavailability and ecological risks of heavy metals in the lake water and surface sediments of the Caohai plateau wetland, China. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0189295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Wu, S.; Yang, H.; Guo, F.; Han, R. Science of the Total Environment Spatial patterns and origins of heavy metals in Sheyang River catchment in Jiangsu, China based on geographically weighted regression. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 580, 1518–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Kuang, Z.; Gu, Y.; Rao, Y.; Huang, H. Biological risk assessment of heavy metals in sediments and health risk assessment in marine organisms from Daya bay, China. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Li, Y.; Cai, Y. Mobility of toxic metals in sediments: Assessing methods and controlling factors. J. Environ. Sci. 2015, 31, 203–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zakaly, H.M.; Uosif, M.A.; Madkour, H.; Tammam, M.; Issa, S.; Elsaman, R.; El-Taher, A. Assessment of natural radionuclides and heavy metal concentrations in marine sediments in view of tourism activities in Hurghada City, northern Red Sea, Egypt. J. Phys. Sci. 2019, 30, 21–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mikhailenko, A.V.; Ruban, D.A.; Ermolaev, V.A.; van Loon, A.J. Cadmium pollution in the tourism environment: A literature review. Geosciences 2020, 10, 242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Emara, M.M.; Farid, N.A.; El-Sabagh, E.A.; Ahamed, O.E.; Kamal, E.M. Physico- Chemical Study of Surface Seawater in the Northwestern the Suez Gulf. Egypt. J. Chem. 2013, 56, 345–365. [Google Scholar]
  18. Abo-El-Khair, E.M.; Abdel Fattah, L.M.; Abdel Halim, A.M.; Abd-Elnaby, M.A.; Fahmy, M.A.; Ahdy, H.H.; Hemeilly, A.; Abu El-Soud, A.; Shriadah, M.A. Assessment of the hydrochemical characteristics of the Suez Gulf Coastal Waters during 2011–2013. J. Environ. Prot. 2016, 7, 1497–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Mahmoud, M.G.; Abu El-Khir, E.; Ebeid, M.H.; Mohamed, L.A.; Fahmy, M.A.; Shaban, K.S. An assessment on the coastal seawater quality of the Suez Gulf, Egypt. J. Environ. Prot. 2020, 11, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Alsharhan, A.S. Petroleum geology and potential hydrocarbon plays in the Gulf of Suez rift basin, Egypt. AAPG Bull. 2003, 87, 143–180. [Google Scholar]
  21. Milab, A.; Conti, G.O.; Dadar, M.; Mahjoub, M.; Copat, C.; Ferrante, M. Heavy metal concentrations in edible muscle of whitecheek shark, Carcharhinus dussumieri (elasmobranchii, chondrichthyes) from the Persian Gulf: A food safety issue. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2016, 97, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Xu, F.; Hu, B.; Yuan, S.; Zhao, Y.; Dou, Y.; Jiang, Z.; Yin, X. Heavy metals in surface sediments of the continental shelf of the South Yellow Sea and East China Sea: Sources, distribution and contamination. Catena 2018, 160, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Diab, H.M.; Ramadan, A.; Monged, M.H.D.; Shahin, M. Environmental assessment of radionuclides levels and some heavy metals pollution along the Suez Gulf, Egypt. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 12346–12358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ibrahim, M.I.A.; Mohamed, L.A.; Mahmoud, M.G.; Shaban, K.S.; Fahmy, M.A.; Ebeid, M.H. Potential ecological hazards assessment and prediction of sediment heavy metals pollution along the Suez Gulf, Egypt. Egypt. J. Aquat. Res. 2019, 45, 329–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Azetsu-Scott, K.; Yeats, P.; Wohlgeschaffen, G.; Dalziel, J.; Niven, S.; Lee, K. Precipitation of heavy metals in produced water: Influence on contaminant transport and toxicity. Mar. Environ. Res. 2007, 63, 146–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Pichtel, J. Oil and Gas Production Wastewater: Soil Contamination and Pollution Prevention. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2016, 2016, 2707989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Al-Ghouti, M.A.; Al-Kaabi, M.A.; Ashfaq, M.Y.; Da’na, D.A. Produced water characteristics, treatment and reuse: A review. J. Water Process Eng. 2019, 28, 222–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Method 3052: Microwave Assisted Acid Digestion of Siliceous and Organically Based Matrices; Print. Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1996; p. 20. [Google Scholar]
  29. Loska, K.; Cebula, J.; Pelczar, J.; Wiechuła, D.; Kwapuliński, J. Use of enrichment, and contamination factors together with geoaccumulation indexes to evaluate the content of Cd, Cu, and Ni in the Rybnik water Reservoir in Poland. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1997, 93, 347–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lim, W.Y.; Aris, A.Z.; Hanidza, T.; Ismail, T.; Lim, W.Y.; Aris, A.Z.; Ismail, T. Spatial Geochemical Distribution and Sources of Heavy Metals in the Sediment of Langat River, Western Peninsular Malaysia. Environ. Forensic 2013, 14, 133–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, A.; Wei, C.; Xu, Y.; Hakif, M.; Hassan, A.; Ye, X.; Hoe, K. Assessment of heavy metal pollution in surficial sediments from a tropical river-estuary-shelf system: A case study of Kelantan River, Malaysia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 125, 492–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Hu, Z.; Gao, S. Upper crustal abundances of trace elements: A revision and update. Chem. Geol. 2008, 253, 205–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Müller, G. Index of geoaccumulation in sediments of the Rhine River. Geol. J. 1969, 2, 108–118. [Google Scholar]
  34. Boszke, L.; Sobczyński, T.; Głosińska, G.; Kowalski, A.; Siepak, J. Distribution of mercury and other heavy metals in bottom sediments of the middle Odra River (Germany/Poland). Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2004, 13, 495–502. [Google Scholar]
  35. Tomlinson, D.L.; Wilson, J.G.; Harris, C.R.; Jeffrey, D.W. Problems in the assessment of heavy-metal levels in estuaries and the formation of a pollution index. Helgoländer Meeresunters. 1980, 33, 566–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Harikumar, P.S.; Nasir, U.P.; Rahman, M.P.M. Distribution of heavy metals in the core sediments of a tropical wetland system. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 6, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Hakanson, L. An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control. Water Res. 1980, 14, 975–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Maanan, M.; Saddik, M.; Maanan, M.; Chaibi, M. Environmental and ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in sediments of Nador lagoon, Morocco. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 48, 616–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Juen, L.; Ahmad, L.; Aris, Z. Application of enrichment factor, geoaccumulation index, and ecological risk index in assessing the elemental pollution status of surface sediments. Environ. Geochem. Health 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hanif, N.; Eqani, S.A.M.A.S.; Ali, S.M.; Cincinelli, A.; Ali, N.; Katsoyiannis, I.A.; Bokhari, H. Geo-accumulation and enrichment of trace metals in sediments and their associated risks in the Chenab River, Pakistan. J. Geochem. Explor. 2016, 165, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mansour, A.M.; Askalany, M.S.; Madkour, H.A.; Bakheit, B.; Assran, B.B. Assessment and comparison of heavy-metal concentrations in marine sediments in view of tourism activities in Hurghada area, northern Red Sea. Egypt. Egypt. J. Aquat. Res. 2013, 39, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Salem, D.M.S.A.; Khaled, A.; El Nemr, A.; El-Sikaily, A. Comprehensive risk assessment of heavy metals in surface sediments along the Egyptian Red Sea coast. Egypt. J. Aquat. Res. 2014, 40, 349–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Wang, C.; Chen, M.; Qi, H.; Intasen, W.; Kanchanapant, A. Grain-size distribution of surface sediments in the Chanthaburi coast, Thailand and implications for the sedimentary dynamic environment. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Paul, B.K.; Rashid, H. Chapter Four—Coastal Landform Changes: Coastal Erosion. Land Accretion and Subsidence. In Climatic Hazards in Coastal Bangladesh, 1st ed.; Paul, B.K., Rashid, H., Eds.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 121–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Barut, I.F.; Ergin, M.; Meriç, E.; Avsar, N.; Nazik, A.; Suner, F. Contribution of natural and anthropogenic effects in the Iznik Lake bottom sediment: Geochemical and microfauna assemblages evidence. Quat. Int. 2018, 486, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hanna, R.G.M. The level of heavy metals in the Red Sea after 50 years. Sci. Total Environ. 1992, 125, 417–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Masoud, M.S.; Said, T.O.; El Zokm, G.; Shreadah, M.A. Assessment of heavy metals contamination in surface sediments of the Egyptian Red Sea coasts. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2012, 6, 44–58. [Google Scholar]
  48. El Nemr, A.; El-Said, G.F.; Khaled, A.; Ragab, S. Distribution and ecological risk assessment of some heavy metals in coastal surface sediments along the Red Sea, Egypt. Int. J. Sediment Res. 2016, 31, 164–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. El-Metwally, M.E.A.; Abouhend, A.S.; Dar, M.A.; El-Moselhy, K.M. Effects of urbanization on the heavy metal concentrations in the Red Sea coastal sediments, Egypt. Int. J. Mar. Sci. 2017, 7, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. El-Metwally, M.E.A.; Othman, A.I.; El-Moselhy, K.M. Distribution and assessment of heavy metals in the coastal area of the Red Sea, Egypt. Egypt. J. Aquat. Biol. Fish. 2019, 23, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Soliman, N.F.; Younis, A.M.; Elkady, E.M.; Mohamedein, L.I. Geochemical associations, risk assessment, and source identification of selected metals in sediments from the Suez Gulf, Egypt. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 2019, 25, 738–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nour, H.E.; El-Sorogy, A.S.; Abd El-Wahab, M.; Nouh, E.S.; Mohamaden, M.; Al-Kahtany, K. Contamination and ecological risk assessment of heavy metals pollution from the Shalateen coastal sediments, Red Sea, Egypt. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 144, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Alharbi, T.; Alfai, H.; El-sorogy, A. Metal pollution in Al-Khobar seawater, Arabian Gulf, Saudi Arabia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 119, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Ruiz-fernández, A.C.; Sanchez-cabeza, J.A.; Pérez-bernal, L.H.; Gracia, A. Spatial and temporal distribution of heavy metal concentrations and enrichment in the southern Gulf of Mexico. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 3174–3186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Pereira-Dore, M.; Farias, C.; Hamacher, C. Offshore drilling effects in Brazilian SE marine sediments: A meta-analytical approach. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2017, 189, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Breuer, E.; Stevenson, A.G.; Howe, J.A.; Carroll, J.; Shimmield, G.B. Drill cutting accumulations in the northern and central North Sea: A review of environmental interactions and chemical fate. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2004, 48, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Secrieru, D.; Secrieru, A. Heavy metal enrichment of man-made origin of superficial sediment on the continental shelf of the north-western Black Sea. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2002, 54, 513–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. De Mora, S.; Sheikholeslami, M.R.; Wyse, E.; Azemard, S.; Cassi, R. An assessment of metal contamination in coastal sediments of the Caspian Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2004, 48, 61–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Usman, A.R.A.; Alkredaa, R.S.; Al-wabel, M.I. Heavy metal contamination in sediments and mangroves from the coast of Red Sea: Avicennia marina as potential metal bioaccumulator. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2013, 97, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Arienzo, M.; Bolinesi, F.; Aiello, G.; Barra, D.; Donadio, C.; Stanislao, C.; Ferrara, L.; Mangoni, O.; Toscanesi, M.; Giarra, A.; et al. The environmental assessment of an estuarine transitional environment, southern Italy. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Pereira, J.S.F.; Moraes, D.P.; Antes, F.G.; Diehl, L.O.; Santos, M.F.P.; Guimarães, R.C.L.; Fonseca, T.C.O.; Dressler, V.L.; Flores, E.M.M. Determination of metals and metalloids in light and heavy crude oil by ICP-MS after digestion by microwave-induced combustion. Microchem. J. 2010, 96, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Khuhawar, M.Y.; Aslam Mirza, M.; Jahangir, T.M. Determination of metal ions in crude oils. In Crude Oil Emulsions—Composition Stability and Characterization; Abdel-Raouf, M.E., Ed.; InTech: London, UK, 2012; pp. 121–144. [Google Scholar]
  63. El-Sikaily, A.; Khaled, A.; El-Nemr, A. Leachable and total nine heavy metals in muddy and sandy sediment collected from Gulf of Suez. Egypt. J. Aquat. Res. 2005, 31, 99–119. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ma, X.L.; Zou, H.; Tian, M.J.; Zhang, L.J.; Meng, J.; Zhou, X.N.; Min, N.; Chang, X.Y.; Liu, Y. Assessment of heavy metals contamination in sediments from three adjacent regions of the Yellow River using metal chemical fractions and multivariate analysis techniques. Chemosphere 2016, 144, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Gholizadeh, M.; Patimar, R. Ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in surface sediments from the Gorgan Bay, Caspian Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 137, 662–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Li, G.; Hu, B.; Bi, J.; Leng, Q.; Xiao, C.; Yang, Z. Heavy metals distribution and contamination in surface sediments of the coastal Shandong peninsula (Yellow Sea). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 76, 420–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jmse 09 00473 g001 550
Figure 1. Map of the study area and measuring points.
Figure 1. Map of the study area and measuring points.
Jmse 09 00473 g001
Jmse 09 00473 g002 550
Figure 2. XRD patterns of some sediment samples.
Figure 2. XRD patterns of some sediment samples.
Jmse 09 00473 g002
Jmse 09 00473 g003 550
Figure 3. Spatial distribution for the pollution load index (PLI) and the potential ecological risk index (RI) at North Amer El-Bahry.
Figure 3. Spatial distribution for the pollution load index (PLI) and the potential ecological risk index (RI) at North Amer El-Bahry.
Jmse 09 00473 g003
Jmse 09 00473 g004 550
Figure 4. Spatial distribution for the pollution load index (PLI) and the potential ecological risk index (RI) at Ras Gharib.
Figure 4. Spatial distribution for the pollution load index (PLI) and the potential ecological risk index (RI) at Ras Gharib.
Jmse 09 00473 g004
Jmse 09 00473 g005 550
Figure 5. Spatial distribution for the pollution load index (PLI) and the potential ecological risk index (RI) at Ras Shokeir.
Figure 5. Spatial distribution for the pollution load index (PLI) and the potential ecological risk index (RI) at Ras Shokeir.
Jmse 09 00473 g005
Table
Table 1. Field measurements, sampling, and hydrochemical properties.
Table 1. Field measurements, sampling, and hydrochemical properties.
Location Sediment Samples The Distance (m) Water Samples
Name Profile NO. Longitude E Latitude N Sample No. H.T. –B.F. B.F.- L.T. Surf Zone Surf Zone pH Salinity (S‰) 200 m * 500 m *
North Amer El BahryP132°49′18.408″28°44′25.080″P1-1 to P1-66228W18.2242AMN 1
pH: 8.26
(S‰):42		AMN 2
pH 8.27
(S‰)42
P232°49′20.460″28°44′22.668″P2-1 to P2-53318W28.2342
P332°49′21.648″28°44′19.680″P3-1 to P3-53228W38.2442
P432°49′23.232″28°44′16.152″P4-1 to P4-52525.5W48.3742
P532°49′24.168″28°44′12.588″P5-1 to P5-54410W58.442
AmerP632°56′39.912″28°31′57.252″P6-1 to P6-55630W68.3142AMS1
8.11
44		AMS2
8.12
43
P732°56′40.848″28°31′54.948″P7-1 to P7-55416W78.342
P832°57′5.580″28°31′30.468″P8-1 to P8-12101.26W88.1943
P932°57′57.528″28°30′59.508″P9-1 to P9-106210W98.442
P1032°57′47.520″28°30′44.280″P10-1 to P10-84331W108.4843
P1132°58′38.388″28°29′38.868″P11-1 to P11-810419W118.3842
BakrP1232°59′55.608″28°29′19.320″P12 W128.2344NB1
7.21
42.1		NB2
7.4
43
P1332°59′55.140″28°29′6.180″P13-1 to P13-54310W138.1243
P1433°0′31.788″28°28′11.640″P14-1 to P14-73.53.511W148.1343
P1533°1′34.500″28°26′59.172″P15-1 to P15-3533W157.4944B 1
7.22
42.5		B 2
7.47
42.3
P1633°3′2.520″28°24′6.048″P16-1 to P16-63425W167.1143
GharibP1733°3′56.088″28°23′13.128″P17-1 to P17-56410W177.3143GH1
7.48
43		GH2
7.49
43
P1833°4′8.868″28°22′48.900″P18-1 to P18-64.53.57W187.4142
P1933°6′4.572″28°21′37.908″P19-1 to P19-321N.M.W197.4443
July Water FloudP2033°13′25.140″28°11′12.372″P20-1 to P20-66245W207.8943JWF 1
7.81
43		JWF 2
7.71
43
P2133°14′26.412″28°10′17.652″P21-1 to P21-63210W217.8343
P2233°14′30.048″28°8′52.692″P22-1 to P22-65214.5W227.9743
Ras ShokeirP2333°15′42.048″28°8′22.668″P23-1 to P23-55513W237.5643SH1
7.82
43		SH2
7.88
43
P2433°16′50.700″28°7′47.460″P24-1 to P24-32.52.5N.M.W247.6443
P2533°16′58.368″28°7′40.080″P25-1 to P25-2459.5W257.5743
P2633°18′32.040″28°6′13.680″P26-1 to P26-433N.M.W267.9243
El MarageenP2733°18′45.900″28°6′1.080″P27-1 to P27-333N.M.W277.7943M1
7.89
42		M2
7.78
42
* Distance from shoreline; H.T.: high tide; B.F.: beach face; L.T.: low tide; N.M.: not measured.
Table
Table 2. Contamination factor (CF), enrichment factor (EF), geoaccumulation index (Igeo), pollution load index (PLI), and risk index (RI) classes describing the degree of metal concentration in sediment.
Table 2. Contamination factor (CF), enrichment factor (EF), geoaccumulation index (Igeo), pollution load index (PLI), and risk index (RI) classes describing the degree of metal concentration in sediment.
IndexIndex Categories Description Reference
CF≤1Low CF [35]
1 < CF ≤ 3Moderate CF
3 < CF ≤ 6Considerable CF
6 < CFVery high
EF<1No enrichment[40]
1–3Minor enrichment
3–5Moderate enrichment
5–10Moderately severe enrichment
10–25Severe enrichment
25–50Very severe enrichment
>50Extremely severe enrichment
IgeoIgeo ≤ 0Unpolluted [33]
0 < Igeo ≤ 1Unpolluted to moderately polluted
1 < Igeo ≤ 2Moderately polluted
2 < Igeo ≤ 3Moderately to strongly polluted
3 ˂ Igeo ≤ 4Strongly polluted
4 < Igeo ≤ 5Strongly to extremely polluted
5 < Igeo Extremely polluted
PLI1 > PLIUnpolluted [36]
1 < PLIPolluted
RIRI < 40Low ecological risk [37]
40 < RI < 80Moderate ecological risk
80 < RI < 160Appreciable ecological risk
160 < RI < 320High ecological risk
320 < RISerious ecological risk
Table
Table 3. Sediment types and concentrations of heavy metals in ppm, except for aluminum and iron, which are in %.
Table 3. Sediment types and concentrations of heavy metals in ppm, except for aluminum and iron, which are in %.
Location Profile
No. 		Intertidal Zone
Sediment Type Gravel % Sand % Silt % Al Fe Mn Cr Co Ni Cu Zn Cd Pb
North Amer El BahryP1Gravel53.1646.840.002.80.7323.993.43.726.246.527.82.6463.3
P2Sand9.9490.030.039.62.8768.4247.29.941.216.645.34.0246.9
P3Sand0.5299.380.104.11.3386.072.84.913.780.356.66.2613.6
P4Sand9.7990.050.163.50.5210.250.01.84.949.225.61.0376.4
P5Sand3.8496.150.014.60.2119.538.81.05.040.616.60.1252.5
AmerP6Gravelly sed.14.8785.060.074.80.3145.839.21.24.236.916.80.5486.4
P7Sand0.2799.710.029.21.2447.4116.45.72.813.271.12.3956.4
P8Gravel60.1939.810.005.20.4147.635.42.33.742.345.20.9345.0
P9Sand0.4799.460.071.40.2118.843.01.184.00.12.93.0232.3
P10Gravelly sed.34.8264.990.191.70.146.510.10.87.126.620.10.4669.7
P11Sand2.5197.340.153.01.9225.3124.76.611.769.575.70.6294.3
BakrP12Gravelly sed.34.2265.780.006.30.538.820.00.65.219.525.20.4293.7
P13Sand5.3394.640.030.50.130.04.30.980.04.210.84.5312.6
P14Gravelly sed.25.5574.450.001.30.17.53.10.27.96.85.30.127.2
P15Gravelly sed.14.9685.010.030.90.494.541.51.483.419.511.72.97.3
P16Gravelly sed.25.8174.190.002.20.226.58.10.30.18.56.30.1320.9
GharibP17Gravelly sed.19.9979.950.069.31.4178.085.72.99.1143.950.11.0108.6
P18Gravelly sed.19.9979.950.0610.90.566.358.31.64.128.512.92.7224.6
P19Gravelly sed.21.5578.450.008.40.9115.3112.52.15.134.325.51.6205.5
July Water FloudP20Gravelly sed.26.2173.760.0312.50.8101.0134.05.35.954.422.52.0430.9
P21Sand4.6595.320.035.70.3169.836.72.74.240.060.10.8932.0
P22Sand0.2899.720.007.70.8392.2146.97.86.4170.1143.82.2541.2
Ras ShokeirP23Gravelly sed.45.4054.600.000.20.011.54.50.17.70.30.20.640.1
P24Gravelly sed.10.6389.370.006.60.6110.1916.82.83.880.534.52.6591.4
P25Sand4.8195.180.014.80.366.6294.60.65.813.112.40.2148.8
Gravelly sed.22.1075.252.701.30.239.717.70.57.36.73.20.430.2
P26Sand0.7999.080.133.10.51441.555.91.41.749.963.20.1132.2
El MarageenP27Sand0.0499.870.090.20.158.295.40.32.910.234.40.311.2
LocationProfile
No.		Surf Zone at 0.5 m depth
Sediment typeGravel %Sand %Silt %AlFeMnCrCoNiCuZnCdPb
North Amer El BahryP1Gravelly sed.36.7363.150.121.20.5131.227.61.55.222.818.80.4118.0
P2Gravelly sed.16.9882.740.281.60.4176.930.21.35.234.837.64.3230.3
P3Gravelly sed.20.3379.140.534.31.4399.675.45.014.283.158.66.4635.1
P4Gravel54.7845.180.043.90.1118.738.71.010.140.413.00.4214.4
P5Gravelly sed.16.3083.280.423.70.5135.536.51.23.636.1545.87.1145.6
AmerP6Gravelly sed.10.9188.870.224.91.2187.656.92.98.382.9388.87.2486.4
P7Gravelly sed.38.9361.050.022.91.4325.887.15.080.224.356.54.2654.4
P8Gravelly sed.26.3073.340.361.40.6354.415.24.48.814.2587.12.2639.9
P9Sand6.9992.460.550.90.129.112.20.487.13.416.12.5173.4
P10Gravelly sed.23.8775.350.780.40.08.22.60.18.30.31.80.4105.7
P11Sand5.2994.560.150.20.04.31.10.18.50.81.50.27.0
BakrP13Gravelly sed.34.1465.8601.70.362.831.41.316.168.934.00.5301.2
P14Gravelly sed.16.1983.770.041.50.16.92.80.27.54.41.00.327.7
P16Gravelly sed.10.7988.810.41.010.61059.2350.37.311.385.365.81.0820.6
GharibP17Gravelly sed.35.0164.230.761.10.782.072.02.38.971.671.52.9249.5
P18Gravelly sed.32.8266.151.031.31.076.4183.51.810.832.723.01.3372.2
July Water FloudP20Gravelly sed.34.0865.690.237.65.9832.8258.010.124.1263.466.46.3130.4
P21Gravelly sed.23.676.4001.75.1915.3404.512.043.0684.7195.42.2114.7
P22Sand0.0010007.62.6580.5281.317.335.6369.3196.018.7120.1
Ras ShokeirP23Gravelly sed.14.9884.990.039.82.91943.9265.211.647.1308.2218.09.3351.3
P26Sand2.4496.990.570.60.4115.8377.42.079.810.312.61.128.8
LocationProfile
No		Surf Zone at 1.0 m depth
Sediment typeGravel %Sand %Silt %AlFeMnCrCoNiCuZnCdPb
North Amer El BahryP1Sand1.9998.010.001.34.91350.9284.514.953.3235.3194.04.6121.6
P2Sand0.0099.410.593.70.6331.168.12.69.959.438.01.0328.4
P3Gravel72.8624.712.432.00.9338.163.73.08.163.874.71.8207.0
P4Sand0.0098.801.204.01.51210.8394.410.4103.2412.4132.44.1218.7
P5Gravelly sed.14.0085.250.753.21.21645.2269.110.125.3537.2173.25.0347.6
AmerP6Sand4.0195.560.434.98.24533.5604.029.447.1617.2231.34.9993.0
P7Gravelly sed.36.5960.093.323.20.6204.733.02.077.045.0184.72.9165.8
P8Gravelly sed.17.0083.000.002.10.8255.7219.510.522.977.461.40.3153.0
P9Sand2.5496.840.625.80.5216.553.63.11.9123.4117.30.6428.4
P10Sand0.2997.482.233.50.2119.028.62.081.67.64.34.0520.8
P11Sand0.0199.640.351.10.146.410.30.984.25.998.72.6181.5
BakrP13Gravelly sed.31.7568.250.001.50.145.55.40.884.80.310.24.0214.6
P14Gravelly sed.30.7169.290.001.50.16.92.80.27.44.31.00.327.4
P16Gravelly sed.28.2471.500.268.47.1800.2340.412.644.9579.5396.85.3552.8
GharibP18Gravelly sed.32.8266.151.031.61.6219.7116.72.22.772.134.50.8192.6
July Water FloudP20Gravelly sed.28.5171.210.283.32.31036.5181.816.214.4242.2234.13.31652.6
P21Gravelly sed.16.5283.480.001.29.62769.68002.520.786.3410.8247.512.8404.2
P22Sand0.2899.720.001.510.4651.24596.330.7189.6495.2961.043.6260.2
Ras ShokeirP23Gravel89.2810.720.001.50.119.927.40.27.51.71.60.230.1
Table
Table 4. Pearson correlation coefficient variables of heavy metals in surface sediments.
Table 4. Pearson correlation coefficient variables of heavy metals in surface sediments.
Intertidal Zone
Gravel % Sand % Silt % Al Fe Mn Cr Co Ni Cu Zn Cd Pb
Gravel %1
Sand %−1.001
Silt %0.03−0.061
Al−0.050.06−0.221
Fe−0.210.21−0.110.531
Mn−0.300.30−0.090.170.431
Cr−0.190.20−0.120.290.240.051
Co−0.240.24−0.150.570.860.430.261
Ni−0.170.17−0.07−0.320.02−0.05−0.110.011
Cu−0.160.16−0.150.420.350.220.270.49−0.261
Zn−0.350.35−0.180.360.470.490.150.70−0.240.741
Cd−0.220.23−0.160.190.420.140.190.480.550.130.151
Pb−0.130.14−0.220.340.150.090.190.40−0.210.240.450.261
Surf Zone at 0.5 m depth
Gravel %Sand %Silt %AlFeMnCrCoNiCuZnCdPb
Gravel %1
Sand %−1.001
Silt %−0.280.261
Al−0.040.04−0.121
Fe−0.120.12−0.030.251
Mn−0.140.14−0.200.660.681
Cr−0.270.270.190.300.710.651
Co−0.210.210.120.690.610.760.721
Ni−0.240.240.000.090.020.190.390.241
Cu−0.100.10−0.020.470.500.640.680.830.181
Zn−0.160.16−0.010.280.020.19−0.030.22−0.180.161
Cd−0.370.370.280.790.150.410.280.730.130.450.381
Pb0.15−0.15−0.060.070.400.300.030.14−0.04−0.120.270.051
Surf Zone at 1.0 m depth
Gravel %Sand %Silt %AlFeMnCrCoNiCuZnCdPb
Gravel %1
Sand %−1.001
Silt %0.17−0.211
Al−0.200.190.131
Fe−0.270.28−0.340.131
Mn−0.290.29−0.190.190.661
Cr−0.170.18−0.27−0.250.740.411
Co−0.380.39−0.340.120.900.750.591
Ni−0.420.420.00−0.170.510.120.520.481
Cu−0.340.35−0.240.460.780.750.410.820.331
Zn−0.280.28−0.200.110.780.240.540.760.680.641
Cd−0.270.28−0.20−0.170.710.150.650.670.800.470.921
Pb−0.170.17−0.070.400.260.460.020.45−0.100.380.180.011
Table
Table 5. Contamination factor (CF) results of metals in sediment samples.
Table 5. Contamination factor (CF) results of metals in sediment samples.
Location Profile No. Intertidal zone
Al Mn Fe Cr Co Ni Cu Zn Cd Pb
North Amer El
Bahry		P10.340.540.201.100.521.860.3926.9728.9528.95
P21.201.280.802.910.820.660.6440.5215.4315.43
P30.510.640.380.860.273.210.8063.1238.3538.35
P40.440.350.130.590.101.970.3610.3923.5323.53
P50.570.200.060.460.101.620.230.6315.7815.78
AmerP60.600.240.090.460.081.480.245.0830.4030.40
P71.150.750.331.370.060.531.0023.9259.7859.78
P80.650.250.110.420.071.690.649.1321.5621.56
P90.180.200.060.511.680.000.0430.5114.5214.52
P100.210.080.030.120.141.060.283.8241.8641.86
P110.380.380.541.470.232.781.076.3118.3918.39
BakrP120.780.060.130.240.100.780.363.6818.3618.36
P130.060.050.020.051.600.170.1545.8219.5419.54
P140.160.010.020.040.160.270.071.401.701.70
P150.110.160.110.491.670.780.1629.290.450.45
P160.280.040.050.100.000.340.091.0620.0620.06
GharibP171.350.110.140.690.081.140.1827.4114.0414.04
P181.040.190.251.320.101.370.3616.5612.8512.85
P191.150.300.391.010.185.760.719.736.786.78
July Water FloudP201.560.170.231.580.122.170.3220.6826.9326.93
P210.710.280.100.430.081.600.858.4058.2558.25
P220.950.650.221.730.136.802.0222.2633.8233.82
Ras ShokeirP230.020.020.010.050.150.010.005.722.512.51
P240.810.180.1710.790.083.220.4926.9736.9636.96
P250.590.110.083.470.120.520.171.539.309.30
0.160.070.060.210.150.270.053.561.891.89
P260.392.400.130.660.032.000.890.898.268.26
El MarageenP270.030.100.031.120.060.410.482.800.700.70
LocationProfile No.Surf Zone at 0.5 m depth
AlMnFeCrCoNiCuZnCdPb
North Amer El BahryP10.150.220.140.330.090.100.910.274.537.38
P20.200.290.120.360.080.101.390.5343.3814.40
P30.530.670.390.890.300.283.320.8265.3339.69
P40.490.200.040.450.060.201.620.184.0713.40
P50.460.230.130.430.070.071.457.6972.269.10
AmerP60.610.310.340.670.170.173.325.4873.9230.40
P70.360.540.401.020.291.600.970.8043.2740.90
P80.170.590.180.180.260.180.578.2722.3939.99
P90.110.050.020.140.021.740.140.2325.4110.84
P100.050.010.000.030.000.170.010.033.686.61
P110.030.010.000.010.000.170.030.022.420.44
BakrP130.220.100.080.370.080.322.750.485.4718.83
P140.190.010.020.030.010.150.170.013.341.73
P160.131.773.024.120.430.233.410.939.8151.29
GharibP170.160.130.282.160.110.221.310.3213.3015.59
P180.130.140.190.850.130.182.861.0129.9423.26
July Water FloudP200.941.391.683.040.590.4810.540.9364.378.15
P210.221.531.474.760.700.8627.392.7522.647.17
P220.940.970.743.311.020.7114.772.76191.037.51
Ras ShokeirP231.223.240.823.120.680.9412.333.0794.7921.96
P260.070.190.104.440.121.600.410.1811.431.80
LocationProfile No.Surf Zone at 1.0 m depth
AlMnFeCrCoNiCuZnCdPb
North Amer El BahryP10.162.251.413.350.881.079.412.7346.637.60
P20.460.550.160.800.150.202.370.539.8020.52
P30.250.560.260.750.180.162.551.0518.2912.94
P40.502.020.414.640.612.0616.501.8641.5213.67
P50.402.740.353.170.590.5121.492.4450.5021.72
AmerP60.607.562.337.111.730.9424.693.2649.6162.06
P70.400.340.170.390.121.541.802.6029.2910.36
P80.260.430.232.580.620.463.100.862.559.56
P90.720.360.140.630.180.044.941.655.8526.77
P100.430.200.050.340.121.630.300.0640.7132.55
P110.140.080.020.120.051.680.241.3926.7311.34
BakrP130.190.080.020.060.041.700.010.1440.7113.41
P140.190.010.020.030.010.150.170.013.311.71
P161.041.332.024.000.740.9023.185.5953.5534.55
GharibP180.200.370.461.370.130.052.890.498.2712.04
July Water FloudP200.401.730.662.140.950.299.693.3033.96103.29
P210.154.622.7494.151.221.7316.433.49130.4225.26
P220.181.092.9854.071.813.7919.8113.54444.3916.26
Ras ShokeirP230.190.030.010.320.010.150.070.021.791.88
Table
Table 6. Enrichment factor (EF), geoaccumulation index (I geo), pollution load index (PLI), and risk index (RI) results of metals in sediment samples.
Table 6. Enrichment factor (EF), geoaccumulation index (I geo), pollution load index (PLI), and risk index (RI) results of metals in sediment samples.
Location Profile
No. 		Intertidal Zone
(EF) (Igeo) PLI PLI Average RI RI
Average
Mn Fe Cr Co Ni Cu Zn Cd Pb Al Mn Fe Cr Co Ni Cu Zn Cd Pb
North Amer El BahryP11.570.583.200.621.535.4111.4078.5484.32−2.13−1.47−2.91−0.45−2.81−1.520.31−1.944.174.271.100.95970988
P21.070.672.430.490.690.555.3333.8712.90−0.33−0.23−0.910.96−1.36−0.86−1.18−1.234.763.361.841311
P31.260.741.670.560.546.2715.56123.2274.86−1.55−1.22−1.99−0.81−2.39−2.451.10−0.915.404.681.482107
P40.800.301.340.230.224.478.1823.6253.45−1.77−2.10−3.50−1.35−3.86−3.920.39−2.062.793.970.68442
P50.350.100.800.100.182.854.121.1127.76−1.40−2.91−4.74−1.72−4.68−3.910.11−2.68−1.253.390.38108
AmerP60.410.150.770.120.142.463.948.4650.69−1.32−2.63−4.05−1.70−4.41−4.17−0.02−2.671.764.340.530.61314560
P70.650.291.200.290.050.468.7420.8852.18−0.39−1.01−2.18−0.13−2.15−4.71−1.51−0.584.005.321.191026
P80.380.160.640.210.112.599.7614.0133.07−1.20−2.61−3.82−1.85−3.46−4.340.17−1.242.613.850.66393
P91.110.362.830.369.390.022.25170.6381.20−3.07−2.92−4.54−1.57−4.530.16−8.70−5.224.353.270.31998
P100.360.150.560.220.664.9913.2717.90196.33−2.81−4.28−5.59−3.66−5.03−3.41−0.49−2.411.354.800.34331
P110.991.423.881.030.627.3528.1916.7048.68−1.99−2.00−1.48−0.03−1.95−2.680.89−0.492.073.621.13303
BakrP120.080.170.300.050.131.004.564.7323.56−0.95−4.54−3.51−2.67−5.41−3.85−0.94−2.081.303.610.400.23208554
P130.840.320.840.8826.922.8125.69770.82328.69−4.66−4.91−6.32−4.90−4.840.09−3.17−3.304.933.700.301482
P140.080.110.220.060.981.674.588.6510.54−3.21−6.91−6.46−5.38−7.26−3.24−2.47−4.34−0.100.180.1053
P151.400.974.330.7114.816.9114.58260.084.03−3.74−3.25−3.79−1.62−4.230.15−0.95−3.194.29−1.720.43895
P160.160.190.350.060.011.233.223.8272.63−2.44−5.08−4.87−3.97−6.59−9.10−2.14−4.07−0.513.740.13134
GharibP170.080.110.510.070.060.841.3420.3010.40−0.15−3.76−3.40−1.13−4.03−4.20−0.40−3.054.193.230.620.79901611
P180.190.241.270.120.101.323.4615.9412.36−0.53−2.96−2.59−0.18−3.61−3.87−0.13−2.063.463.100.78572
P190.260.340.880.150.165.006.138.465.90−0.38−2.34−1.94−0.57−3.16−3.041.94−1.092.702.181.01359
July Water FloudP200.110.151.010.200.081.392.0313.2617.270.06−3.16−2.710.07−2.26−3.670.54−2.243.794.171.031.09772735
P210.400.140.610.220.122.2511.9211.8382.04−1.08−2.41−3.94−1.80−3.26−4.170.09−0.832.485.280.77554
P220.690.231.810.480.137.1321.2223.3335.45−0.65−1.20−2.790.20−1.71−3.552.180.433.894.491.64880
Ras ShokeirP230.900.392.490.387.250.601.49268.31117.56−6.14−6.29−7.49−4.82−7.53−3.28−6.88−8.891.930.740.050.30185305
P240.230.2113.240.200.093.955.9633.1045.36−0.88−3.03−3.122.85−3.18−4.291.10−1.634.174.621.191033
P250.190.135.850.050.200.882.942.5815.68−1.34−3.76−4.291.21−5.54−3.69−1.52−3.100.032.630.39103
0.420.411.330.190.931.732.9322.8412.09−3.27−4.50−4.56−2.85−5.65−3.37−2.48−5.041.250.330.19119
P266.180.341.690.200.095.1422.892.2821.26−1.950.68−3.51−1.19−4.24−5.490.41−0.75−0.762.460.5683
El MarageenP273.801.2443.930.722.2816.01189.55109.5027.31−5.88−3.95−5.56−0.42−6.36−4.69−1.88−1.630.90−1.110.180.189393
LocationProfile
No.		Surf Zone at 0.5 m depth
(EF)(Igeo)PLIPLI AverageRIRI
Average
MnFeCrCoNiCuZnCdPbAlMnFeCrCoNiCuZnCdPb
North Amer El BahryP11.450.912.150.560.686.0417.5529.9448.79−3.31−2.78−3.45−2.21−4.14−3.86−0.72−2.501.592.300.400.681791235
P21.470.601.770.380.526.9426.39216.4171.82−2.90−2.35−3.64−2.08−4.31−3.85−0.11−1.504.853.260.621383
P31.260.741.670.560.546.2715.56123.2274.86−1.50−1.17−1.94−0.76−2.34−2.401.15−0.865.444.731.542181
P40.400.080.930.120.413.313.748.3327.43−1.62−2.92−5.20−1.72−4.64−2.890.11−3.041.443.160.45200
P50.490.290.930.150.163.13166.46156.4719.71−1.70−2.73−3.49−1.81−4.42−4.38−0.052.365.592.600.862230
AmerP60.510.551.090.280.275.3989.07120.2249.44−1.29−2.26−2.15−1.17−3.11−3.171.141.875.624.341.480.322395975
P71.511.102.860.824.472.7122.19120.57113.98−2.06−1.47−1.92−0.55−2.350.10−0.62−0.914.854.771.481520
P83.491.081.051.531.033.36488.06132.13236.05−3.15−1.34−3.04−3.07−2.53−3.10−1.402.463.904.740.95886
P90.460.201.350.2016.401.2921.32239.09101.98−3.82−4.95−6.17−3.39−6.110.22−3.45−2.734.082.850.29827
P100.280.080.620.063.420.265.1875.82135.96−4.95−6.78−8.60−5.63−9.08−3.17−6.88−5.901.302.140.06145
P110.280.070.490.176.731.218.3595.6317.41−5.89−7.71−9.65−6.92−8.41−3.14−5.62−6.150.69−1.770.0376
BakrP130.490.391.710.361.5012.7922.2225.4087.41−2.80−3.84−4.15−2.02−4.26−2.220.88−1.651.873.650.550.44275323
P140.060.090.180.050.790.920.7117.669.14−2.99−7.02−6.50−5.50−7.38−3.33−3.10−6.801.150.200.09111
P1613.8623.7432.363.371.7826.8072.8077.04402.78−3.560.231.011.46−1.80−2.731.19−0.692.715.101.84582
GharibP170.781.7113.250.651.338.0419.8981.6195.71−3.20−3.56−2.430.53−3.82−2.80−0.20−2.213.153.380.690.75490762
P181.051.436.491.021.3621.9477.13229.38178.19−3.52−3.46−3.00−0.82−3.50−3.080.93−0.584.323.950.821033
July Water FloudP201.481.783.230.630.5111.209.9468.428.66−0.67−0.110.161.02−1.34−1.642.81−0.685.422.442.512.7520382924
P217.056.7822.003.263.97126.62127.24104.6933.13−2.790.02−0.031.67−1.09−0.804.190.883.922.262.65874
P221.030.793.521.080.7615.7329.40203.397.99−0.68−0.63−1.021.14−0.56−1.073.300.886.992.323.145861
Ras ShokeirP232.660.672.570.560.7810.1425.2577.9418.05−0.301.11−0.871.06−1.13−0.673.041.035.983.873.721.4130361704
P262.691.4161.781.6622.205.7424.71159.0325.01−4.38−2.96−3.891.57−3.650.09−1.86−3.082.930.260.53372
LocationProfile
No.		Surf Zone at 1.0 m depth
(EF)(Igeo)PLIPLI averageRIRI
average
MnFeCrCoNiCuZnCdPbAlMnFeCrCoNiCuZnCdPb
North Amer El BahryP114.469.0721.505.646.8460.44175.47299.4448.79−3.270.59−0.091.16−0.77−0.492.650.874.962.342.601.7615051444
P21.200.361.740.330.435.1511.5821.2344.47−1.70−1.44−3.18−0.91−3.30−2.920.66−1.492.713.770.87413
P32.271.073.030.710.6510.3142.4973.8352.23−2.60−1.41−2.51−1.00−3.09−3.220.77−0.513.613.110.93631
P44.050.839.311.234.1433.1037.4183.3027.43−1.590.43−1.851.63−1.290.463.460.314.793.192.911423
P56.800.887.851.471.2653.3060.51125.2853.89−1.900.87−2.081.08−1.34−1.573.840.705.073.862.711748
AmerP612.513.8611.762.871.5640.8753.9282.13102.74−1.312.330.642.240.21−0.674.041.125.055.375.601.051960944
P70.850.430.970.293.854.5065.0973.2825.93−1.91−2.14−3.13−1.95−3.680.040.260.794.292.791.09951
P81.620.879.832.351.7411.7832.909.7136.38−2.51−1.82−2.720.78−1.28−1.711.05−0.800.772.671.02152
P90.500.200.870.250.056.8422.908.1037.10−1.06−2.06−3.39−1.25−3.04−5.331.720.141.964.160.85338
P100.460.130.780.283.790.711.4094.5475.57−1.80−2.92−4.78−2.16−3.650.12−2.30−4.634.764.440.611395
P110.550.110.860.3611.921.6798.35189.1480.24−3.41−4.28−6.64−3.63−4.890.17−2.67−0.114.162.920.42870
BakrP130.400.130.330.238.940.057.54214.6470.69−2.98−4.31−5.91−4.56−5.090.18−7.23−3.394.763.160.260.4512981108
P140.060.090.180.050.790.920.7117.669.14−3.00−7.04−6.51−5.51−7.39−3.34−3.12−6.811.140.190.09109
P161.281.943.840.710.8622.2153.5451.3033.10−0.52−0.170.431.42−1.01−0.743.951.905.164.534.221918
GharibP181.812.266.800.630.2714.2824.0540.9259.60−2.89−2.03−1.72−0.13−3.55−4.790.94−1.632.463.000.730.73327327
July Water FloudP204.271.635.292.360.7123.9581.4883.94255.30−1.890.20−1.190.51−0.65−2.382.691.144.506.112.815.0015996531
P2130.9018.34630.318.1711.56110.00233.38873.14169.11−3.331.620.875.97−0.300.203.451.226.444.076.094332
P225.9716.40297.429.9420.86108.94744.502444.2389.45−3.04−0.470.995.170.271.343.723.178.213.447.2913,663
Ras ShokeirP230.170.071.680.060.780.361.149.319.82−2.97−5.50−6.85−2.22−7.05−3.32−4.43−6.100.250.330.110.116565
Table
Table 7. Comparison of heavy metal averages in surface sediment of the present study and other coastal areas with presence of the petroleum industry.
Table 7. Comparison of heavy metal averages in surface sediment of the present study and other coastal areas with presence of the petroleum industry.
RegionAl (%)Fe (%)MnCrCoNiCuZnCdPbReference
Intertidal4.70.6210.2103.82.515.939.733.11.6332.0Present study
Surf 0.5 m2.81.7359.4124.34.224.9106.8124.23.8282.2
Surf 1.0 m2.92.7831.6805.49.150.1210.0168.25.4368.4
Average3.51.7467.0344.05.330.3118.8108.53.6327.5
Gulf of Suze-0.5434.0-6.719.015.025.30.924.0[46]
Red Sea-0.5245.0-6.027.033.040.01.115.2
Gulf of Suze-0.3382.9---7.7-3.347.8[47]
Ras Gharib-----6.30.16.80.11.0[48]
Safaga, Red Sea-----14.80.751.30.43.5
Ras Gharib-0.4137.8-13.721.524.130.13.539.4[49]
Red sea-1.1277.4-15.632.041.358.43.546.7
Red sea-2.0547.5---63.097.53.942.0[50]
Gulf of Suze-0.0370.7---15.3-1.318.0[51]
Shalatein, Red Sea-0.9198.8-3.917.59.444.20.511.4[52]
Al-Khobar—Arabian Gulf, Saudi Arabia0.20.8116.150.94.575.9-180.10.25.2[53]
Southern Gulf of Mexico---16.7-17.720.96.5-3.8[54]
Brazil (America)-2.6422.034.5-17.146.328.00.720.2[55]
North Sea (Europe)---232.0-68.8242.03,350.07.02,393.0[56]
Black Sea (Asia)-2.6166.568.036.172.538.890.02.023.5[57]
Caspian Sea, Russia (Asia)1.90.5200.032.03.814.08.317.10.14.2[58]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abou El-Safa, M.M.; Gad, M.; Eid, E.M.; Alnemari, A.M.; Almarshadi, M.H.; Alshammari, A.S.; Moghanm, F.S.; Saleh, A.H. Environmental Risk Assessment of Petroleum Activities in Surface Sediments, Suez Gulf, Egypt. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 473. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9050473

AMA Style

Abou El-Safa MM, Gad M, Eid EM, Alnemari AM, Almarshadi MH, Alshammari AS, Moghanm FS, Saleh AH. Environmental Risk Assessment of Petroleum Activities in Surface Sediments, Suez Gulf, Egypt. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2021; 9(5):473. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9050473

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abou El-Safa, Magda M., Mohamed Gad, Ebrahem M. Eid, Ashwaq M. Alnemari, Mohammed H. Almarshadi, Abdullah S. Alshammari, Farahat S. Moghanm, and Ali H. Saleh. 2021. "Environmental Risk Assessment of Petroleum Activities in Surface Sediments, Suez Gulf, Egypt" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 9, no. 5: 473. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9050473

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