Next Article in Journal
Biochar and Kitchen Stove Ash for Improving Nutrient Availability and Microbial Functions of Tropical Acidic Soil
Next Article in Special Issue
Dynamics of Pharmaceuticals in the Soil–Plant System: A Case Study on Mycorrhizal Artichoke
Previous Article in Journal
Cutting-Edge Technology Using Blended Controlled-Release Fertilizers and Conventional Monoammonium Phosphate as a Strategy to Improve Phosphorus Coffee Nutrition During the Coffee Development Phase
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fate of Carbamazepine and Its Metabolites in a Soil–Aromatic Plant System
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Quantitative Source Identification, Pollution Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements in Soils of a Diamond Mining Area

Diamond and Precious Metal Geology Institute, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Yakutsk 67700, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soil Syst. 2025, 9(2), 48; https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems9020048
Submission received: 15 February 2025 / Revised: 29 April 2025 / Accepted: 10 May 2025 / Published: 13 May 2025

Abstract

:
Potentially toxic elements (PTEs) are the most important indicators of environmental pollution and represent a potential risk to the ecology and human health in industrial regions. Eight potentially toxic elements (Mn, Ni, Co, Cr, Pb, Zn, Cd, As) in soils formed on the territory of the industrial site of the Udachny Mining and Processing Division were considered in this study. The potential ecological risk index (RI) was calculated to determine environmental risks of soil contamination. The concentrations of PTEs decreased in the following order Mn > Ni > Zn > Co > Pb > Cr > As > Cd. In total, 19.51% of the sites in the study area exhibited a high potential ecological risk for Mn and Ni, while only 4.87% exhibited a low potential ecological risk for other PTEs. The greatest impacts on soil contamination are exerted by the areas of the Udachny and Zarnitsa pipes, tailings ponds, and the area’s highly mineralized water outlet. The results of correlation analysis (CA) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) revealed that the same groups of elements were present: Co-Cr-Ni and Cd-Zn. The PMF findings demonstrate that the five main diverse sources of PTEs in this study area’s soils were natural, mining activities, transportation, and industrialization, as well as highly mineralized waters.

1. Introduction

Mineral resources are an important source of income for many countries. In recent years, the mining industry has caused serious environmental problems [1]. Mining operations, which encompass the extraction of minerals and ores both underground and on the surface, are thought to be accompanied by environmental degradation, contamination, and related diseases due to the release of certain trace elements into the environment [2]. Among the various chemical pollutants, trace elements, particularly those that are potentially toxic elements (PTEs), present a significant environmental risk due to their persistence, non-degradability, bioaccumulation, and high toxicity [3]. The concentration of PTEs in soils is influenced by two primary sources: the natural background and anthropogenic impacts [4,5]. The first source is primarily derived from the parent materials from which the soils were formed. The second is the result of intensive human activity. The most significant impact on the environment is caused by open-pit mining operations, such as diamond mining, which are accompanied by a number of geomechanical disturbances. These include the creation of excavations and the formation of dumps, which are caused by aerodynamic disturbances, as well as changes in the regime of water bodies, which are caused by hydrogeological disturbances [6,7]. The lithosphere is the most susceptible to negative impact, with the formation of quarries and dumps leading to the disruption of the terrain. Moreover, a number of processes influence environmental changes and result in anthropogenic geochemical anomalies [8,9,10]. Soil is a significant geochemical sink for a variety of pollutants, acting as a conduit for their transport to the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biomass [11,12,13]. Consequently, a study is required to assess the ecological risk associated with PTEs in soils.
There are few studies on the qualitative identification of the source of PTE contamination from diamond mining, with even fewer studies on the quantitative distribution of the source. The sources of PTEs in soils are usually determined by using statistical methods including descriptive analysis, correlation analysis (CA), hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA), and the positive matrix factorization (PMF) model [14,15]. The results obtained from different methods may not be consistent from one method to another, which could add ambiguity to the conclusions. Thus, a source determined by one method requires confirmation by other methods in order to improve validity [16,17]. Therefore, in this study, we incorporated all the above-mentioned statistical methods as well as spatial analysis of contamination, namely the potential ecological risk index (RI), to investigate the contribution of an element in soil polyelemental contamination.
In this context, the primary objectives of this study are as follows: (1) To study the content and distribution of PTEs in the soils of the study area. (2) To assess the potential ecological risk of PTEs. (3) To determine the relationship between PTEs and possible sources using correlation analysis, hierarchical cluster analysis, and positive matrix factorization (PMF).
It is anticipated that the findings of this study will serve as the foundation for the formulation of policies aimed at reducing the contamination of PTEs in mining regions and mitigating the associated health risks to local communities.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study area is located within the Daldyn–Alakit diamond-bearing area, and specifically, the Daldyn kimberlite field. Figure 1 Shows the map of the study area where the Udachny Mining and Processing Division (Udachny MPD) is based (N 66°25′47″, E 112°24’07″) (Figure 1). At present, two pipes, Udachny and Zarnitsa, have industrial deposit status in this area [18].
The exploration of diamondiferous areas is accompanied by geological prospecting works of various levels of detail, where drilling, geophysical, and mining works are carried out, and a network of cross-cuts. In addition, the operation of the largest diamondiferous pipes is complicated by the inflow of brines from subpermafrost high-pressure aquifers; their safe disposal into underground storage facilities is the key objective of ensuring a favorable environmental setting [19]. Rocks brought up from the depths are accumulated in overburden dumps about 100 m in height, with concentration products being stored in extensive tailings ponds. Thus, significant amounts of chemical elements and their compounds are brought to the day surface from the depth of the Earth, which form anthropogenic geochemical anomalies in soils, bottom sediments, and surface waters.
The climate here is sharply continental: the average annual temperature is 12.7 °C and the average annual precipitation is 250 mm; it is surrounded by a zone of continuous distribution and close occurrence of permafrost [20]. The relief of the study area is characterized by a hilly–U-shaped valley relief with a height of 400–500 m and relative heights above the nearest watercourses of 100–250 m [21]. The major zonal soil type is Cryosols, the intrazonal type is Fluvisols. The subordinate types are Rendzic Leptosols and Umbric Gleysols. The vegetation cover of the study area is situated within the subzone of sparsely stable north taiga larch forests. Larch forests are the dominant vegetation type, occupying 80% of the area, and are represented by such species as Larix gmelinii [22,23].
Geological setting of the studied area, i.e., the presence of two levels of structure (crystalline basement and sedimentary cover), is determined by its location within the ancient craton, the Siberian platform, and specifically, in the junction zone of the northeastern side of the Tunguska syneclise with the southwestern slope of the Anabar anteclise [24].
The sedimentary cover of the study area is composed of the Paleozoic carbonate and terrigenous carbonate rocks of the Vendian, Cambrian, and Ordovician, as well as the Quaternary sediments of various genetic types. The total thickness of the sedimentary strata varies from 2200 to 2500 m. The structural stages are separated from each other by sedimentation breaks, and angular and stratigraphic unconformities. Lower Paleozoic rocks are partially overlapped by Triassic volcanogenic rocks and Quaternary sediments. Magmatic formations are not abundant and are represented by unexposed sills and dikes of dolerites that cross regional faults [25] (Figure 2).

2.2. Sampling, Analysis, and Quality Control

Considering the source of trace element emissions in the study area, soil samples were collected in the vicinity of the industrial zone of the Udachny Mining and Processing Division (near the Udachny and Zarnitsa kimberlite pipe quarries, waste rock dumps, tailings ponds, the processing plant, and other industrial facilities). A total of 60 soil sampling sites were determined. The sampling distribution is shown in Figure 1c.
Samples of soil were collected from the depths 0–20 cm. Sampling was performed using a stainless steel shovel from the ditches. Soil was packed in polyethylene bags labeled with notes with sample code, date, and sampling location. Soil samples were oven dried at room temperature and sieved through a <1.0 mm mesh. These samples were stored in a polyethylene bag for testing in the laboratory.
The samples were analyzed for pH by the potentiometrically method (ISO 10390:2005) [26], soil organic carbon (SOC) by the photoelectric colorimetric method (ISO 14235:1998) [27], total N by the spectrophotometric method (NF ISO 11261:1995) [28], and granulometric composition by sedimentation analysis using the pipette method [29]. The concentration of mobile forms of PTE: lead (Pb), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), cadmium (Cd), cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr), zinc (Zn), and arsenic (As), were determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AAS) model MGA-1000 (GC Lumex, Saint Petersburg, Russia) according to the methodology M 03-07-2014 [30]. Extraction of mobile forms of elements from soils was conducted by a static method consisting of single shaking of the soil samples with a solution at 1:10 (1 mol/dm3 HNO3) soil-to-solution ratio, for the extraction time of 2.5 h. Each sample was filtered through a 0.45 μm aqueous filter membrane, then sent for analysis.
To ensure and control quality, blinded duplicates and standard samples (SDPC-1,-2,-3 [31] and SSC-1,-2,-3 [32], Russian National Center for Standard Materials) were used. The standard deviation was <5% for all elements.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The distribution of data was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests to avoid data dispersion. When testing the data, the null hypothesis was generally rejected. Therefore, the data were transformed into “normal” distributions according to the principles of compositional data analysis (CoDa) [33,34,35] by means of the centered logarithmic ratio transformation (clr transformation). For the transfer of raw data to clr transformation data, CoDaPack software (Version 2.03.01, University of Girona, Girona, Spain) was used (http://www.compositionaldata.com/codapack.php, accessed on 16 November 2022) [36].
Statistical analysis comprised of the determination of the mean and geometric values, median, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, and coefficient of variation. Correlation analysis was utilized to assess the relationships between the studied variables with statistical significance set at the level of p ≤ 0.05 [2]. Elements with p ≤ 0.05 indicated that there was a significant correlation between the elements [37,38]. The hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) is an alternative approach used to validate the results of correlation analysis. Cluster analysis is typically used to represent a group of variables that are comparable to each other at a particular sampling site, as opposed to parameters that exhibit particular variability [39,40]. Non-comparable sites are displayed in a separate cluster group to highlight specific sites corresponding to the level of contamination [41,42]. An identical site is mapped in one cluster group and a different site is mapped in a different cluster group. All statistical analyses were processed using Statistica (Version 13.0), IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 23.0) software and OriginPro 2024 (Version 10.1.0.178).
Spatial information of soil materials can be displayed directly through the application of geostatistical methods. The RI spatial distribution was performed using the standard Kriging method in the Surfer 2023 software (Version 25.2.259).

2.4. Calculations of Contamination Index

2.4.1. Potential Ecological Risk Index (RI)

To evaluate the toxicological effect of PTEs on the ecosystem, the potential ecological risk index (RI) was applied [43]. This method enables the direct reflection of the hazard posed by single or multiple PTEs. This approach has been widely employed to investigate the contamination of surrounding soil by PTEs in various mining regions, and to demonstrate the potential ecological risks posed by overall contamination [44]. The equations for this method are as follows:
  E r i = T r i × P i  
  P i = C n B n
R I = i = 1 n E r i = i = 1 n T r i × P i = i = 1 n T r i × C n B n
where E r i   is the potential ecological risk factor of PTE I, P i   is the pollution index of the i element (mg/kg), C n is the concentration of each i element in the soil, B n is a background value of each i element, T r i is the toxicity response factor of PTE i, and the toxicity coefficient of each PTE is Cd = 30,  Ni = Pb = Co = 5, Zn = Mn = 1, Cr = 2, and As = 10 [45,46,47]. The potential ecological risk index (RI) of the soil can be divided into the following categories: RI ˂ 150—low risk; 150 ≤ RI ˂ 300—moderate risk; 300 ≤ RI ˂ 600—considerable risk; and RI > 600—very high risk [48].

2.4.2. PMF Model

To identify the sources of soil contamination, the PMF model was applied, based on factor analysis technology [49,50]. In this study, EPA PMF 5.0 was implemented to quantitatively analyze the sources of contamination. This method is based on the following Equation (4):
x i j = k = 1 p g i k f k j + e i j
where xij is a measurement matrix of j chemical element in i number of samples; gik is a contribution matrix of the k source factor for i number of samples; fkj is a source profile of j chemical element for the k source factor; and eij is the residual error matrix.
The residual error matrix eij is computed by minimizing the object function Q. Q is calculated by Equation (5):
Q = i = 1 n j = 1 m x i j k p g i k f k j u i j 2
where uij is the uncertainty in the j chemical element for sample i and is calculated by Equations (6) and (7):
U n c = 5 6 × M D L ,   ( i f   c   M D L )
U n c = ( e r r o r   f r a c t i o n × c ) 2 + ( 0.5 × M D L ) 2 ,     i f   c > M D L
where c is the concentration values of soil samples, MDL is the species-specific method detection limit, and the error fraction represents the uncertainty measurement percentage. More detailed information about the software can be found in Reference [49].

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics of Soil Physical–Chemical Properties and PTE Concentrations

Results of the statistical analysis of soil physical–chemical properties are shown in Table 1. The pH values of soil samples were recorded as ranging from 4.3 to 8.7. The majority of the samples exhibited alkaline pH values, with 70% of the samples exhibiting a pH of 7.0 or above, 15% of the samples exhibiting neutral pH values, and 15% of the samples exhibiting slightly to moderately acidic pH values. The content of soil organic carbon in the studied territory is relatively high and exhibits medium spatial variability (CV = 24%). The proportion of physical clay is predominates, i.e., particles of heavier fractions in the studied soils (<0.01 mm).
The results of the PTEs’ content in the study area are shown in Table 2. The mean concentrations of Mn, Ni, Zn, Co, Pb, Cr, As, and Cd were 311.6, 15.4, 12.1, 4.53, 2.21, 1.94, 0.22, and 0.14 mg/kg, respectively. These results also exceeded the background values for Ni, Co, As, Mn, Zn, Pb, Cd, and Cr by 4.93, 1.72, 1.69, 1.65, 1.28, 1.23, 0.79, and 0.48 times, respectively. The coefficients of variation of PTEs in the study soils exhibited the following decreasing sequence: Mn > Ni > Zn > Co > Cr > Pb > As > Cd.

3.2. PTEs’ Contamination Levels of Soils

The Er values of each PTE were found to range from 1.65 to 33.0 for Pb, 5.0 to 819.0 for Ni, 34.8 to 1856.0 for Mn, 0.78 to 33.6 for Cd, 2.7 to 173.3 for Co, 0.22 to 42.9 for Cr, 0.05 to 36.5 for Zn, and 0.25 to 8.4 for As. The order of mean Er values for the investigated PTEs is as follows: Mn > Ni > Co > Zn > Pb > Cd > Cr > As. The results of the comprehensive assessment of potential ecological risk (RI) of the PTEs range from 92.0 to 2840.9, with a mean value of 485.8. The proportion of high environmental risk was 19.51%, while the proportions of considerable, moderate, and low environmental risk were 21.95%, 53.66%, and 4.88%, respectively (Figure 3).

3.3. Multivariate Statistical Analysis Results

The Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk data analysis revealed that the concentrations of elements Mn, Ni, Cd, Co, and Cr in the soils within the study area exhibited a departure from the normal distribution. The observed distribution of Pb, Zn, and As is approximately normal. After undergoing a conformity check in accordance with the principles of normal distribution, the data underwent a transformation using the clr transformation. Upon application of the clr-transformed data, the corresponding standard deviation exhibited a notable decline, and the median and mean exhibited a tendency towards similarity. Thus, the data transformed by the clr transformation showed a normal distribution for most elements as a consequence of the diminished influence of outliers (Table 3).

3.4. Correlation and Hierarchical Cluster Analysis

Correlation analysis is an important basis for determining the source of PTEs. The results of the correlation analysis of PTEs in the study area are presented in Figure 4.
The correlation study of the respective elements showed a significant high positive correlation between Cr, Ni, and Co at p ≤ 0.01. Another significant but weaker correlation was observed between Cd and Zn at p ≤ 0.05. They also showed negative correlation with the previous group—Ni, Co, and Cr. In addition, a significant negative correlation was observed between Pb and Ni (p ≤ 0.05), Pb and Co (p ≤ 0.01), and Mn and Cr (p ≤ 0.05).
Hierarchical cluster analysis can directly reflect the correlation among heavy metals and reveal the sources of soil PTEs. As a result of the present study, a heat map and a dendrogram were created. They were constructed using Ward’s method. The result of the construction is shown in Figure 5. There are three clusters for PTEs in the dendrogram. Zn and Cd are in cluster 1, Co, Cr, and Ni are in cluster 2, and Pb, Mn, and As are in cluster 3.
Clusters of sampling locations were also divided into three categories: Category 1 represents points in the impact zone of the Udachny pipe dumps, tailings pond, and drainage water injection area where soils are chemically transformed. Higher concentrations of Mn, Ni, Cr, Co, and Zn are observed here. Category 2 points are predominantly located near the dumps and pits of the Udachny and Zarnitsa pipes and roads. Category 3 points are predominantly associated with drainage water injection areas. In contrast to category 1 and 2 points, category 3 points are characterized by high As content.

3.5. Source Apportionment by PMF

The PMF model was launched using concentration data and uncertainty data files that cover errors such as sampling and analysis errors [53]. The signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio was defined as “strong” for Mn, Co, Zn, Cd, Ni, and Pb, and “weak” for Cr and As. Residual analysis revealed that the majority of PTE values were distributed primarily in the range of −3 to 3. The fit coefficients (r2) for Mn, Co, Zn, Cd, Ni, Pb, Cr, and As were 0.999, 0.994, 0.884, 0.673, 0.999, 0.689, 0.984, and 0.815, respectively, showing a significant degree of conformity. The PMF model distributed five sources; their factor profiles are shown in Figure 6.
For Factor 1, these were As (89.9%) and Pb (57.6%); for Factor 2, this was Ni (77.9%); for Factor 3, these were Cr (56.9%) and Co (44.3%); for Factor 4, these were Cd (65.5%) and Zn (71.1%); and for Factor 5, this was Mn (65.6%).

4. Discussion

The studied soils of the Udachny Mining and Processing Division are predominantly characterized by alkaline soil conditions. An alkaline environment contributes to the formation of hydrolyzed or complex forms of elements in soils, which can lead to the precipitation and accumulation of PTEs [12,54]. Therefore, when the pH of the soil substrate increases, the solubility of most trace elements decreases. According to the pH precipitation scale [12], the elements Mn, Co, Zn, Cd, and Ni tend to form rather stable compounds when the soil pH is above 7. Consequently, there is a high probability of the accumulation of PTEs, which can pose a significant threat to soil contamination. High soil organic matter values are more likely associated with low decomposition of plant residues, as indicated by the SOC/TN ratio data. The influence of industrial development of the territory is also not excluded, which has resulted in the suppression of natural soil formation processes. Therefore, these data may reflect not so much the actual humus content of the soils, but the total carbon content in them, in which the technogenic component (fuel hydrocarbons, lubricating oils, etc.) is significant [55]. The characteristics and size of soil particles determine the degree of sorption capacity, which contributes to the retention of PTEs by the soil. The more fine particles in the soil, the higher the sorption capacity of the soil. The studied soils have predominantly heavy fractions, which increases the probability of retaining the largest amount of PTEs. In early works, it was noted that the soils of the northern taiga zones have a heavier granulometric composition and high sorption capacity, which accumulate a fairly large amount of PTEs [56].
The soil coefficient of variation can be employed to assess the homogeneity and variability of heavy metal content in soil [57]. It is generally accepted that naturally occurring elements tend to exhibit low coefficients of variation (CVs), whereas elements associated with anthropogenic sources are characterized by high CVs and reflect a heterogeneous distribution of concentrations. This is evidenced by studies such as those conducted by Huang et al., 2009, and Li et al., 2013 [16,58]. The results indicated that Mn, Ni, Zn, Co, and Cr exhibit high variability, whereas the distribution of Pb, As, and Cd in the study area is more homogeneous. It can be postulated that the elements Mn, Ni, Zn, Co, and Cr in the study area are subject to external influences, which are largely attributable to human activities such as transportation and industrial operations. Exceeding the background values of PTEs in the studied soils indicates this influence. The areas with high ecological risk include the waste rock dump sites of the Udachny and Zarnitsa pipes, tailings ponds, and the zone of the highly mineralized water outlet. The majority of the study area was at or above the moderate environmental risk level, with Mn and Ni being the primary risk factors (Figure 7).
A combination of multivariate statistical analysis was used to analyze the sources of PTE. The correlation analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis revealed two identical groups: Ni-Co-Cr and Cd-Zn. The strong positive correlations between these PTEs indicate that the characteristics and emission sources for these elements might be similar [59,60].
The Cr-Ni-Co element group is the elements of the iron group; they usually have an affinity for siderophiles [60]. The close association of these elements reflects the geochemical specificity of kimberlite magmatism of the territory of the Daldyn kimberlite field, as they are elements typomorphic to kimberlites. Accordingly, significant contents of Cr-Ni-Co association are related to their secondary input to the soil surface combined in the form of suspended fine-dispersed dust, resulting from aerogenic dispersion from waste dumps, quarries, industrial sites, and others. A high correlation between these elements was also revealed in earlier studies [59,61].
The association of Cd-Zn makes it possible to suggest that these elements may have a similar origin. A review of the literature shows that mining enterprises emit dust into the environment, the Cd content of which significantly exceeds its level in the topsoil [13,62]. Consequently, the frequently observed accumulation of Cd in topsoil is often attributed to pollution [12]. Cd accumulation may also be influenced by high levels of poorly decomposed soil organic matter (SOM), which acts as a biogenic barrier and accumulates high Cd concentrations. This is indicated by the positive correlation between SOM content and Cd concentration observed in early studies [21].
However, Zn may have a lithogenic source because it forms a range of soluble salts (e.g., chlorides, sulfates, and nitrates) or insoluble salts (e.g., silicates, carbonates, phosphates, oxides, and sulfides) depending on the prevailing pedogenic processes [63]. High concentrations of Zn, though, are often attributed to anthropogenic activities, namely exposure to motor vehicles [16,64,65]. Similar results were obtained in other studies [66,67,68]. Thus, Cd is mostly supplied from the impact of industrial site activities, while Zn is more from vehicular traffic.
The dendrogram of the sampling points forms three groups. Group 1 includes the points (P-35, P-19/1, P-19/2, P-19, P-15) with the highest PTE concentrations, which are located directly in the impact zone of the industrial site facilities. This result illustrates the influence of anthropogenic activities on the variations in concentrations of the studied trace elements. In groups 2 and 3, the proportion of soils within the normal range is the same—43.9 and 43.9%, respectively. However, it is possible to distinguish several sites with enrichment of some elements Mn, Zn, Pb, Ni, Co, and Cr in group 2 and Mn, Zn, Pb, As, Ni, Co, and Cr in group 3.
The PMF model was applied to the further analysis of PTE sources.
The load of As and Pb elements in Factor 1 is the highest. Average geometric values of As and Pb in comparison with the background content were lower, which indicates the absence of significant contamination of the territory by these elements. Based on this, it can be assumed that As and Pb are of natural origin. In addition, previous researches exhibited that the chief source of As and Pb was parent material [69,70].
Ni was predominant in Factor 2. Ni belongs to elements of the iron group, easily binds to oxides in soil, and is closely associated with soil rock components [71]. The highest values are tracked near the Udachny kimberlite pipe dump and in the zone of the highly mineralized water outlet. High CV values and pollution levels confirm the impact of industrial activity.
Factor 3 was mainly loaded with Cr and Co. Cr and Co were usually representative elements of natural sources, and they were widely presented in the pedogenic process and soil parent material [72]. Most of the soil samples had Co and Cr contents identical to background values, pollution levels of the soil samples were predominantly uncontaminated, and the Cr and Co with high values found in the soils came from one source—the Udachny pipe dumps. Furthermore, as mentioned above, these elements are typomorphic elements, i.e., from the natural genesis. Consequently, this factor is classified as mixed—a natural geological origin and anthropogenic.
The main load elements of Factor 4 were Cd and Zn. The geometric mean content and contamination levels were low. In this case, single local points with significant concentrations are observed. The high value of Zn content was primarily distributed near roads, as well as densely populated and congested urban areas, and the high value of Cd content was observed in the area of the landfill of drainage brines and highly mineralized waters—“Oktyabrsky”. Thus, Factor 4 represents transportation and industrial activities.
The main characteristic element in Factor 5 was Mn. According to Goncalves et al. [73], Mn is the second most common metal and the twelfth most abundant element in the crust of the Earth. It is found in nature in various minerals, rocks, soils, and sediments in the form of manganese oxides. The occurrence and distribution of manganese in nature can vary depending on geological and environmental factors. However, the high CV value and very high pollution levels indicated that Mn was influenced by anthropogenic activities.

5. Conclusions

According to this study, the PTE content in the soils of the Udachny MPD industrial site is characterized by significant variability, with high spatial variability observed. Average concentrations of Mn, Ni, Zn, Co, Pb, and As exceeded background values. The results of potential ecological risk assessment showed that the mean RI value in the study area was 485.8, which indicates considerable ecological risk. In total, 19.51% of the sites had high ecological risk, and the main risk factors were Mn and Ni. Hot spots were detected at the impact areas of the dumps of Udachny and Zarnitsa pipes, tailings ponds, and the zone of the highly mineralized water outlet. The results of correlation analysis (CA) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) revealed the same groups of elements: Co-Cr-Ni and Cd-Zn. Through PMF model analysis, five possible sources were identified. Among the PTEs investigated in the soils of the study area, Pb and As were mainly derived from parent materials and have natural origin. The concentrations of Co, Cr, and Ni were the result of a combination of anthropogenic impact and lithogenic nature. Cd, Zn, and Mn primarily originate from different anthropogenic and industry sources.
This study highlights the importance of considering current PTEs’ contamination in soils as an important factor to be considered when developing strategies to mitigate the effects of contamination in mining areas.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.G. and Y.L.; methodology, A.G.; software, A.G.; validation, Y.L.; formal analysis, A.G.; investigation, A.G.; resources, Y.L.; data curation, A.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.G.; writing—review and editing, Y.L.; visualization, A.G.; supervision, A.G. and Y.L.; project administration, A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was carried out within the framework of the State Assignment project of the Diamond and Precious Metals Geology Institute FUFG-2024-0007 «Mantle magmatism, lithosphere evolution and ore bearing capacity of the eastern part of the Siberian Platform, geoecology of subsoil use».

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author(s).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Oelofse, S. Mine water pollution–acid mine decant, effluent and treatment: A consideration of key emerging issues that may impact the state of the environment. In Mining: Environment and Health Concerns; The Icfai University Press: Hyderabad, India, 2009; pp. 83–91. [Google Scholar]
  2. Oyebamiji, A.; Odebunmi, A.; Ruizhong, H.; Rasool, A. Assessment of trace metals contamination in stream sediments and soils in Abuja leather mining, southwestern Nigeria. Acta Geochim. 2018, 37, 592–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ali, H.; Khan, E.; Ilahi, I. Environmental chemistry and ecotoxicology of hazardous heavy metals: Environmental persistence, toxicity, and bioaccumulation. J. Chem. 2019, 2019, 6730305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhang, C.S. Using multivariate analyses and GIS to identify pollutants and their spatial patterns in urban soils in Galway, Ireland. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 142, 501–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nanos, N.; Rodríguez Martín, J.A. Multiscale analysis of heavy metal contents in soils: Spatial variability in the Duero river basin (Spain). Geoderma 2012, 189, 554–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bugaeva, G.G.; Kogut, A.V. Environmental risk factors in the area of open mining. Min. Inf. Anal. Bull. 2007, 15, 292–296. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kalybekov, T. System analysis of geo-ecological risk of technological processes in open-pit mining. Kazakhstan Min. Rep. 2013, 7, 41–43. [Google Scholar]
  8. Raska, P.; Balej, M.; Raska, M. Differential evolution of rockwall and talus cones in abandoned basalt quarries and its implications for restoration management: Case study from the Radobyl Hill, N Czech Republic. Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 2011, 25, 297–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Edwards, D.P.; Sloan, S.; Weng, L.; Dirks, P.; Sayer, J.; Laurance, W.F. Mining and the African environment. Conserv. Lett. 2014, 7, 302–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Khudyakova, L.I.; Voiloshnikov, O.V. Geocological risks and mitigation in magnesium silicate deposit mining. Min. Inf. Anal. Bull. 2018, 2, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Siegel, F.R. Environmental Geochemistry of Potentially Toxic Metals; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2001; 217p. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kabata-Pendias, A. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants, 4th ed.; CRS Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; 548p. [Google Scholar]
  13. Lv, J.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Dai, J.; Dai, B.; Zhu, Y. Identifying the origins and spatial distributions of heavy metals in soils of Ju country (Eastern China) using multivariate and geostatistical approach. J. Soils Sediments 2015, 15, 163–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shi, B.; Yang, X.; Liang, T.; Liu, S.; Yan, X.; Li, J.; Liu, Z. Source apportionment of soil PTE in a northern industrial county using PMF model: Partitioning strategies and uncertainty analysis. Environ. Res. 2024, 252, 118855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Chen, S.; Wang, H.; Han, R. Source Apportionment of Potentially Toxic Elements in Agricultural Soils of Yingtan City, Jiangxi Province, China: A Principal Component Analysis–Positive Matrix Factorization Method. Toxics 2025, 13, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Huang, S.; Tu, J.; Liu, H.; Hua, M.; Liao, Q.; Feng, J.; Weng, Z.; Huang, G. Multivariate analysis of trace element concentrations in atmospheric deposition in the Yangtze River Delta, East China. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 5781–5790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xu, Q.; Wang, J.; Shi, W. Source apportionment and potential ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in soils on a large scale in China. Environ. Geochem. Health 2023, 45, 1413–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. JV Udachninsky GOK AK «ALROSA» (PJSC). Monitoring of Sustainable Development. Available online: https://monitoring-esg.ru/esg-analitika/analitika-po-kompaniyam/sp-ak-alrosa-pao-udachninskij-gorno-obogatitelnyj-kombinat (accessed on 1 October 2022).
  19. Legostaeva, Y.B.; Ksenofontova, M.I.; Popov, V.F. Geoecologic situation at site of drainage brine utilization during development of primary deposits in Yakutia pipe. Eurasian Min. 2019, 1, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mironova, S.I. Plant Successions in the Natural-Technogenic Landscapes of Western Yakutia and their Optimization; Academy of Natural History Publ. House: Moscow, Russia, 2016; p. 140. [Google Scholar]
  21. Legostaeva, Y.; Kozlova, I.; Popov, V.; Noev, D. Geoecological situation in the area of Aikhal MPD. In Proceedings of the Geology and Mineral Resources of the North-East of Russia, Yakutsk, Russia, 8 April 2020; pp. 482–485. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gololobova, A.; Legostaeva, Y. An assessment of the impact of the mining industry on soil and plant contamination by potentially toxic elements in boreal forests. Forests 2023, 14, 1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Legostaeva, Y.B.; Gololobova, A.G. Features of the distribution of trace elements in the soils of the background and impact zones at diamond mining sites in the northwest of the Siberian Platform. Bull. Tomsk Polytech. Univ. Geo Assets Eng. 2021, 332, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yannikov, A.M. Hydrogeology of the Daldyn Kimberlite Field: Republic of Sakha (Yakutia); ALROSA: Mirny, Russia, 2023; p. 305. [Google Scholar]
  25. Yannikov, A.M. Prospects for using permafrost rocks of the daldyn kimberlite field for injection of drainage water of the zarnitsa and udachnaya pipes. Geoecology Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. Geocryol. 2023, 2, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. ISO 10390; Soil Quality-Determination of pH. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.
  27. ISO 14235; Soil Quality-Determination of Organic Carbon by Sulfochromic Oxidation. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998.
  28. NF ISO 11261; Dosage de L’azote Total-Methode de Kjeldahl Modifiee; Qualite des Sols. Association Française de Normalization: Paris, France, 1995.
  29. Ilyin, V.B. Heavy Metals in the Soil-Plant System; Novosibirsk: Nauka, Russia, 1991; p. 150. [Google Scholar]
  30. Method M 03-07-2014. Measurement of the Mass Fraction of Elements (As, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb, V, Zn) in Samples of Soil, Subsoil, Bottom Sediments and Sewage Sludge, FER 16.1:2:2.2:2.3.63-09; Saint Petersburg: Lumex, Russia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  31. GSO 2498-83/2500-83; Standard Sample of Composition of Sod-Podzolic Sandy Loam Soil (SDPC set). NPO “TYPHOON”/NIIPF GOU VPO “ISU”: Obninsk, Russia, 2018.
  32. GSO 2504-83/2506-83; Standard Sample of CARBONATE SERIOZEME SOIL COMPOSITION (set of SSC). NPO “TYPHOON”/NIIPF GOU VPO “ISU”: Obninsk, Russia, 2018.
  33. Aitchison, J. The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1986; p. 416. [Google Scholar]
  34. Aitchison, J. The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data; Blackburn Press: Caldwell, NJ, USA, 2003; p. 460. [Google Scholar]
  35. Pawlowsky-Glahn, V.; Buccianti, A. Compositional Data Analysis: Theory and Applications; Wiley: Chichester, UK; West Sussex, UK, 2011; p. 400. [Google Scholar]
  36. Thio-Henestrosa, S.; Comas, S. CoDaPack V2 User’s Guide University of Girona, Dept. of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics. 2016. Available online: http://ima.udg.edu/codapack/assets/codapack-manual (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  37. Chen, L.H.; Luo, X.F.; Hasi, Q.G. Pollute situation and correlation analysis of soil heavy metals in oil field. J. North Univ. China 2011, 32, 189–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Liu, J.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, A. Quantitative contributions of the major sources of heavy metals in soils to ecosystem andhuman health risks: A case study of Yulin, China. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 164, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Huang, J.; Wu, Y.; Sun, J.; Li, X.; Geng, X.; Zhao, M.; Fan, Z. Health risk assessment of heavy metal (loid) s in park soils of thelargest megacity in China by using Monte Carlo simulation coupled with positive matrix factorization model. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 415, 125629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Rodríguez-Martin, J.A.R.; Ramos-Miras, J.J.; Boluda, R.; Gil, C. Spatial relations of heavy metals in arable and greenhouse soils of a Mediterranean environment region (Spain). Geoderma 2013, 200, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Li, S.; Yang, L.; Chen, L.; Zhao, F.; Sun, L. Spatial distribution of heavy metal concentrations in peri-urban soils in eastern China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 1615–1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Mico, C.; Recatala, L.; Peris, M.; Sanchez, J. Assessing heavy metal sources in agricultural soils of an European Mediterranean area by multivariate analysis. Chemosphere 2006, 65, 863–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Li, J.; He, M.; Han, W.; Gu, Y. Analysis and assessment on heavy metal sources in the coastal soils developed from alluvial deposits using multivariate statistical methods. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 164, 976–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hakanson, L. An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control-a sedimentological approach. Water Res. 1980, 14, 975–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, F.; Cao, G.; Cao, S.; Zhang, Z.; Li, H.; Jiang, G. Characteristics and Potential Ecological Risks of Heavy Metal Content in the Soil of a Plateau Alpine Mining Area in the Qilian Mountains. Land 2023, 12, 1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ruey-An, D.; Yu-Tin, L. Characterization and distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon contaminations in surface sediment and water from Gao-ping River Taiwan. Water Res. 2004, 38, 1733–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhuang, W.; Wang, Q.; Tang, L.; Liu, J.; Yue, W.; Liu, Y.; Yongxia, L.; Fengxia, Z.; Qing, C.; Mantang, W. A new ecological risk assessment index for metal elements in sediments based on receptor model, speciation, and toxicity coefficient by taking the Nansihu Lake as an example. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 89, 725–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kilavi, P.K.; Kaniu, M.I.; Patel, J.P.; Usman, I.T. Assessment of heavy metal pollution in soil and associated risks in the environs adjacent to a heavy mineral sand mine on the south coast of Kenya. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2023, 234, 748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. U.S. EPA. EPA Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) 5.0 Fundamentals and User Guide; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  50. Wang, Y.; Guo, G.; Zhang, D.; Lei, M. An integrated method for source apportionment of heavy metal (loid) s in agricultural soils and model uncertainty analysis. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 276, 116666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Legostaeva, Y.B.; Ksenofontova, M.I.; Dyagileva, A.G. Ecological and geochemical monitoring of soil cover in the impact zone of the Nyurbinsky MPD. Mining J. 2014, 4, 117–121. [Google Scholar]
  52. Gololobova, A.G.; Legostaeva, Y.B. Heavy metals in cryozems of Western Yakutia. In Proceedings of the Water Resources. Forest, Marine and Ocean Ecosystems, Sofia, Bulgaria, 30 June–6 July 2019; pp. 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Paatero, P. Least square formulation of robust non-negative factor analysis. Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 1997, 37, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Vorobeva, K.Y.; Prokhorova, N.V. Features of copper pollution of soils of civil engineering facilities in the Samara region. In Ecological Collection 7: Proceedings of Young Scientists; IEVB RAS; «Anna» Publisher: Tolyatti, Russia, 2019; pp. 115–116. [Google Scholar]
  55. Prokhorova, N.V. Ecological and geochemical role of motor transport in urban environment. Vestnik of Samara University. J. Nat. Sci. 2005, 5, 188–199. [Google Scholar]
  56. Gololobova, A.G.; Legostaeva, Y.B. The stability of frozen soils in conditions of development of mining industry. In Proceedings of the 17th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM, Albena, Bulgaria, 29 June–5 July 2017; Volume 17, pp. 655–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Luo, J.; Wang, T.; Lian, H.; Ding, Z. Bioaccessibility and health risk of arsenic, mercury and other metals in urban street dusts from a mega-city, Nanjing, China. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 1215–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Li, X.; Liu, L.; Wang, Y.; Luo, G.; Chen, X.; Yang, X.; Hall, M.H.P.; Guo, R.; Wang, H.; Cui, J.; et al. Heavy metal contamination of urban soil in an old industrial city (Shenyang) in Northeast China. Geoderma 2013, 192, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Robertson, D.J.; Taylor, K.G.; Hoon, S.R. Geochemical and mineral magnetic characterisation of urban sediment particulates, Manchester, UK. Appl. Geochem. 2003, 18, 269–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Nuralykyzy, B.; Wang, P.; Deng, X.; An, S.; Huang, Y. Heavy metal contents and assessment of soil contamination in different land-use types in the Qaidam Basin. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bhuiyan, M.A.H.; Parvez, L.; Islam, M.A.; Dampare, S.B.; Suzuki, S. Heavy metal pollution of coal mine-affected agricultural soils in the northern part of Bangladesh. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 173, 384–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rodríguez, M.J.A.; Arias, M.L.; Corbi, J.M.G. Heavy metals contents in agricultural topsoils in the Ebro basin (Spain). Appli-cation of the multivariate geoestatistical methods to study spatial variations. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 144, 1001–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gololobova, A.; Legostaeva, Y.; Popov, V.; Makarov, V.; Shadrinova, O. Geochemical characteristics of soils to the impact of diamond mining in Siberia (Russia). Minerals 2022, 12, 1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Adriano, D.C. Trace Elements in Terrestrial Environments: Biogeochemistry, Bioavailability and Risks of Metals; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2001; 867p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Yanin, E.P. Dust emissions from enterprises as a source of cadmium pollution of the urban environment. Ecol. Urban Areas 2009, 1, 30–35. [Google Scholar]
  66. Jiries, A.G.; Hussein, H.H.; Halash, Z. The quality of water and sediments of street runoff in Amman, Jordan. Hydrol. Process. 2001, 15, 815–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bem, H.; Gallorini, M.; Rizzio, E.; Krzeminska, M. Comparative studies on the concentrations of some elements in the urban air particulate matter in Lodz City of Poland and in Milan, Italy. Environ. Int. 2003, 29, 423–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Nezhad, M.T.K.; Tabatabaii, S.M.; Gholami, A. Geochemical assessment of steel smelter-impacted urban soils, Ahvaz, Iran. J. Geochem. Explor. 2015, 152, 91–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Huang, C.C.; Cai, L.M.; Xu, Y.H.; Wen, H.H.; Jie, L.; Hu, G.C.; Chen, L.G.; Wang, H.Z.; Xu, X.B.; Mei, J.X. Quantitative analysis of ecological risk and human health risk of potentially toxic elements in farmland soil using the PMF model. Land Degrad. Dev. 2022, 33, 1954–1967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Fei, X.F.; Lou, Z.H.; Xiao, R.; Ren, Z.Q.; Lv, X.N. Contamination assessment and source apportionment of heavy metals in agricultural soil through the synthesis of PMF and GeogDetector models. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 747, 141293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Fang, Z.; Hua, C.; He, J.; Zhu, M.; Tian, Y.; Yong, X.; Lijun, R. Pollution assessment and source apportionment of heavy metal(loid)s in soil of Huangshui River basin, Qinghai Province, China. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2023, 37, 4843–4855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Wang, J.; Yu, D.; Wang, Y. Source analysis of heavy metal pollution in agricultural soil irrigated with sewage in Wuqing, Tianjin. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 17816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Goncalves, A.C.; Nacke, H.; Schwantes, D.; Coelho, G.F. Heavy metal contamination in Brazilian agricultural soils due to application of fertilizers. Environ. Risk Assess Soil Contam. 2014, 4, 105–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. (a) Location of the study area on the map of the world; (b) location of the study area on the map of Yakutian; (c) map of the Udachny MPD and soil sampling scheme.
Figure 1. (a) Location of the study area on the map of the world; (b) location of the study area on the map of Yakutian; (c) map of the Udachny MPD and soil sampling scheme.
Soilsystems 09 00048 g001
Figure 2. Geological map of Daldyn–Alakit diamond-bearing areas: Є3—Cambrian system, upper section—dolomites, limestones, calcareous conglomerates, gypsum-bearing mudstones; O1—Ordovician system, lower section—dolomites, limestones, calcareous sandstones; O2—Ordovician system, middle section—siltstones, sandstones, mudstones, limestones, marls; S1—Silurian system, lower section—limestones, clayey limestones (often organogenic), dolomites; iD3-C1—Devonian system, upper section—speckled siltstones, argillites, rock salt, anhydrites, sandstones, tuffs, marls, limestones, dolomites, gypsum; C2–3—Carboniferous system, middle-upper sections—sandstones, siltstones, mudstones, coal mudstones, coals, conglomerates; T1—Triassic system, undivided sediments—sandstones, siltstones, mudstones, conglomerates, limestones; νβT1—undifferentiated intrusions—gabbro–dolerites, dolerites, troctolite–dolerites.
Figure 2. Geological map of Daldyn–Alakit diamond-bearing areas: Є3—Cambrian system, upper section—dolomites, limestones, calcareous conglomerates, gypsum-bearing mudstones; O1—Ordovician system, lower section—dolomites, limestones, calcareous sandstones; O2—Ordovician system, middle section—siltstones, sandstones, mudstones, limestones, marls; S1—Silurian system, lower section—limestones, clayey limestones (often organogenic), dolomites; iD3-C1—Devonian system, upper section—speckled siltstones, argillites, rock salt, anhydrites, sandstones, tuffs, marls, limestones, dolomites, gypsum; C2–3—Carboniferous system, middle-upper sections—sandstones, siltstones, mudstones, coal mudstones, coals, conglomerates; T1—Triassic system, undivided sediments—sandstones, siltstones, mudstones, conglomerates, limestones; νβT1—undifferentiated intrusions—gabbro–dolerites, dolerites, troctolite–dolerites.
Soilsystems 09 00048 g002
Figure 3. Single-factor pollution index results for each PTE: (a) potential ecological risk factor (Er) of PTE, (b) potential ecological risk (RI).
Figure 3. Single-factor pollution index results for each PTE: (a) potential ecological risk factor (Er) of PTE, (b) potential ecological risk (RI).
Soilsystems 09 00048 g003
Figure 4. Correlation analysis of PTEs. Correlation coefficient value scale interpretation: up to 0.2 very weak correlation; up to 0.5 weak correlation; up to 0.7 medium correlation; up to 0.9 high correlation; above 0.9 very high correlation. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level, ** correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
Figure 4. Correlation analysis of PTEs. Correlation coefficient value scale interpretation: up to 0.2 very weak correlation; up to 0.5 weak correlation; up to 0.7 medium correlation; up to 0.9 high correlation; above 0.9 very high correlation. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level, ** correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
Soilsystems 09 00048 g004
Figure 5. Heat map of soil PTE levels and sampling locations in the study area.
Figure 5. Heat map of soil PTE levels and sampling locations in the study area.
Soilsystems 09 00048 g005
Figure 6. Factor profile of PTEs from PMF model analysis showing percentage contributions.
Figure 6. Factor profile of PTEs from PMF model analysis showing percentage contributions.
Soilsystems 09 00048 g006
Figure 7. Soil PTE contamination assessment evaluated by potential ecological risk index (RI).
Figure 7. Soil PTE contamination assessment evaluated by potential ecological risk index (RI).
Soilsystems 09 00048 g007
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of physical–chemical characteristics of soils in the study area.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of physical–chemical characteristics of soils in the study area.
IndexPhysicochemical PropertiesGranulometric Fractions, mm
pHHumus, %SOC, %TN, %SOC/TN1–0.250.25–0.050.05–0.010.01–0.0050.005–0.001<0.001<0.01>0.01
Mean7.629.885.730.817.061.047.6523.4510.3415.8325.2151.3832.14
Geometric mean7.567.014.070.626.560.446.6622.5710.3115.2824.1251.2431.43
Median7.806.203.600.764.720.346.2626.6210.1915.7227.9250.0233.08
Minimum4.321.100.640.0313.800.053.0015.619.5511.6712.7046.5522.14
Maximum9.3047.0027.261.9825.522.8112.1930.8611.5523.6629.7457.7142.59
Variance0.7272.5224.400.23106.551.4718.0647.760.6824.0149.9018.0955.80
Standard deviation0.858.524.940.4810.321.214.256.910.834.907.064.257.47
Note: SOC—soil organic carbon, TN—total N.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of PTEs’ mobile forms in the study area, mg/kg.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of PTEs’ mobile forms in the study area, mg/kg.
ElementBackground ValuesMeanGeometric MeanMedianMinimumMaximumVarianceStandard DeviationStandard
Error
SkewnessKurtosis
Pb1.792.211.801.960.336.601.5841.410.221.131.08
Ni3.1215.393.432.401.00163.80295.440.976.403.178.82
Mn189.0311.63199.98184.9034.761856.04242.9415.564.883.008.49
Cd0.110.140.110.100.031.120.0350.180.034.5624.00
Co2.644.532.732.690.5334.6553.496.921.083.4712.20
Cr0.931.940.970.850.1121.4518.794.080.644.0816.70
Zn9.4712.109.3611.460.0536.4651.786.991.091.172.53
As0.130.220.120.200.030.8442.220.210.031.030.62
Note: Regional background values regarding the content of mobile forms of trace elements are based on the geometric mean values of soil samples (n = 212) of the natural/undisturbed landscapes outside the impact zone of the mining and processing division [51,52].
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for raw data and clr-transformed data of PTEs.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for raw data and clr-transformed data of PTEs.
PTERaw DataClr-Transformed Data
Shapiro–WilkKolmogorov–SmirnovShapiro–WilkKolmogorov–Smirnov
Statisticp-ValueDecision at Level (5%)Statisticp-ValueDecision at Level (5%)Statisticp-ValueDecision at Level (5%)Statisticp-ValueDecision
at Level (5%)
Pb0.916790.01Reject normality0.147060.38Cannot reject normality0.975650.60Cannot reject normality0.095960.97Cannot reject normality
Ni0.38995<0.0001Reject normality0.46737<0.0001Reject normality0.74921<0.0001Reject normality0.250810.018Reject normality
Mn0.56651<0.0001Reject normality0.294520.003Reject normality0.975850.60Cannot reject normality0.098740.93Cannot reject normality
Cd0.50433<0.0001Reject normality0.303970.002Reject normality0.918810.011Reject normality0.132590.52Cannot reject normality
Co0.51187<0.0001Reject normality0.3747<0.0001Reject normality0.966990.35Cannot reject normality0.086721.00Cannot reject normality
Cr0.40102<0.0001Reject normality0.40484<0.0001Reject normality0.959140.20Cannot reject normality0.122860.62Cannot reject normality
Zn0.932320.02944Reject normality0.141680.43Cannot reject normality0.80372<0.0001Reject normality0.205280.08Cannot reject normality
Cu0.84230.0001Reject normality0.198930.10Cannot reject normality0.984550.88Cannot reject normality0.074331.00Cannot reject normality
As0.867090.0005Reject normality0.183880.15Cannot reject normality0.930920.027Reject normality0.133630.51Cannot reject normality
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gololobova, A.; Legostaeva, Y. Quantitative Source Identification, Pollution Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements in Soils of a Diamond Mining Area. Soil Syst. 2025, 9, 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems9020048

AMA Style

Gololobova A, Legostaeva Y. Quantitative Source Identification, Pollution Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements in Soils of a Diamond Mining Area. Soil Systems. 2025; 9(2):48. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems9020048

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gololobova, Anna, and Yana Legostaeva. 2025. "Quantitative Source Identification, Pollution Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements in Soils of a Diamond Mining Area" Soil Systems 9, no. 2: 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems9020048

APA Style

Gololobova, A., & Legostaeva, Y. (2025). Quantitative Source Identification, Pollution Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements in Soils of a Diamond Mining Area. Soil Systems, 9(2), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems9020048

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop