Urbanization influences the distribution, enrichment, and ecological health risk of heavy metals in croplands

Abstract

The contamination of urban soils with heavy elements due to the rapid development of urbanization and urban services has become a major environmental and human health challenge. This study provides insight into the urbanization controls on combined pollution severity and health risk potential of heavy metals in corn-cultivated urban versus non-urban soils. A multifaceted assessment was conducted using enrichment factor (EF), ecological risk (ER), bioconcentration factor (BCF), transmission factor (TF), hazard index (HI), and carcinogenic risk (CR). The results indicate a significant increase in the concentration of all metals in urban farmlands. When compared to the non-urban soils, EF implies a significant increase of all metals in the urban soil, downgrading this index from minimal enrichment (EF < 2) in the control soils to moderate enrichment (2 ≤ EF < 5) in the urban soils. Likewise, the average ER value showed an increase in the urban soils than in the control soils in the order of Fluvisols (66.6%) > Regosols (66.1%) > Cambisols (59.8%) > Calcisols (47%). The BCF and TF values for different elements decreased in the order of Cd (0.41-0.92) > Cu (0.1-0.23) > Zn (0.1-0.18) > Ni (0.01-0.03) > Pb (0.005-0.011) and Zn (0.75-0.94) > Cu (0.72-0.85) > Pb (0.09-0.63) > Cd (0.17-0.22) > Ni (0.01-0.21), respectively, which indicates that certain metals were not mobilized to the extent that they had been accumulated in the plant roots. The total carcinogenic risk was ranged from 5.88E-05 to 1.17E-04 for children and from 1.17E-04 to 2.30E-04 for adults, which implies a greater associated health risk for children.

Figure 1

The location of the study area (https://www.qgis.org/ and https://www.google.com/earth/).

Figure 2

The comparison of the mean values of Zn (a), Cu (b), Cd (c), Pb (d), and Ni (e) between urban and non-urban soils in different soil types. Different letters indicate significant differences in metal content within each soil type at P < 0.05 confidence interval.

Figure 3

The comparison of the mean enrichment factor of Zn (a), Cu (b), Cd (c), Pb (d), and Ni (e) between urban and non-urban soils in different soil types. Different letters indicate significant differences in enrichment factor within each soil type at P < 0.05 confidence interval.

Figure 4

The comparison of the mean ecological risk of selected heavy metals between urban and non-urban soils in different soil types. Different letters indicate significant differences in ecological risk within each soil type at P < 0.05 confidence interval.

Figure 5

Effect of soil type on the mean bioconcentration factor (a) and translocation factor (b) of selected heavy metals in urban soils. Different letters indicate significant differences in bioconcentration and translocation factors among soil types for each metal at P < 0.05 confidence interval.

Figure 6

The comparison of the mean carcinogenic risk of Cd, Pb, and Cd + Pb among different population groups in urban soils. Different letters indicate significant differences among population groups in regard with each metal at P < 0.05 confidence interval.

Figure 7

The effect of soil type on the mean hazard index (a) and carcinogenic risk of Cd (b), Pb (c), and Cd + Pb in urban soils. Different letters indicate significant differences in carcinogenic risk within population groups at P < 0.05 confidence interval.