Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Dec 15;11(1):e41247.
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41247. eCollection 2025 Jan 15.

Exploring environmental risk in soils: Leveraging open data for non-sampling assessment?

Affiliations

Exploring environmental risk in soils: Leveraging open data for non-sampling assessment?

Silvia Aparisi-Navarro et al. Heliyon. .

Abstract

Soil contamination by heavy metals (HM) is a critical area of research. Traditional methods involving sample collection and lab analysis are effective but costly and time-consuming. This study explores whether geostatistical analysis with GIS and open data can provide a faster, more precise, and cost-effective alternative for HM contamination assessment without extensive sampling. Concentrations of nine HMs (Cu, Pb, Ni, Co, Mn, As, Cd, Sb, Cr) were analysed from 498 soil samples collected in two mining areas in Portugal: the Panasqueira and Aljustrel mines. Corresponding data were extracted from the Lucas TOPSOIL 1 km raster maps. Several contamination indices, Contamination Factor (Cf), Modified Contamination Degree (mCd), Geoaccumulation Index (Igeo), Nemerow Pollution Index (Pn), Potential Ecological Risk Index (PERI), and Pollution Load Index (PLI) were calculated for both datasets. A confusion matrix was used to evaluate the percentage of correct classifications, while a concordance analysis assessed the alignment of accurately classified points between the two data sources. In the soil samples, very high contamination levels for As were observed in 42% of the samples, according to the Cf, with high levels for Sb found in approximately 30% of the samples. The mCd revealed that approximately 11% of soil samples exhibited very high levels of contamination, while the Pn indicated that 78.9% of the soil samples fell within the seriously polluted domain. Similar contamination trends were observed for the other indices. In contrast, the results for the LUCAS points showed significant discrepancies. No high contamination levels were found for any metal. The misclassification rates for mCd, Pn, PERI, and PLI were 84.25%, 97.55%, 95%, and 82%, respectively, when compared to the field data. This study concludes that while open data raster maps offer rapid overviews, they fall short of providing the detailed precision required for reliable contamination assessments. The significant misclassification rates observed highlight the limitations of relying solely on these tools for critical environmental decisions. Consequently, traditional sampling and laboratory analysis remain indispensable for accurate risk assessments of HM contamination, ensuring a more reliable foundation for decision-making and environmental management.

Keywords: Comparison of contamination indices; Geostatistical raster maps; Heavy metal contamination assessment; Heavy metal pollution indices; Soil sample data vs raster data.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Figures

Image 1
Graphical abstract
Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Working Scheme.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Location of the study areas: A) Panasqueira Mine B) Aljustrel Mine.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Results of the geoaccumulation index for soil points.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Contamination factor, Geoaccummulation Index and potential risk index of a single element comparison matrices for arsenic (250 m) and cadmium (100 m).
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Success rate in classification for individual indices.

Similar articles

References

    1. Wuana R.A., Okieimen F.E. Heavy metals in contaminated soils: a review of sources. Chemistry, Risks and Best Available Strategies for Remediation, ISRN Ecol. 2011;2011:1–20. doi: 10.5402/2011/402647. - DOI
    1. Micó C., Recatalá L., Peris M., Sánchez J. Assessing heavy metal sources in agricultural soils of an European Mediterranean area by multivariate analysis. Chemosphere. 2006;65:863–872. doi: 10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2006.03.016. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rashid A., Schutte B.J., Ulery A., Deyholos M.K., Sanogo S., Lehnhoff E.A., Beck L. Heavy metal contamination in agricultural soil: environmental pollutants affecting crop health. Agronomy. 2023;13:1521. doi: 10.3390/AGRONOMY13061521/S1. - DOI
    1. Wójcik M., Dresler S., Tukiendorf A. Physiological mechanisms of adaptation of Dianthus carthusianorum L. to growth on a Zn-Pb waste deposit - the case of chronic multi-metal and acute Zn stress. Plant Soil. 2015;390:237–250. doi: 10.1007/S11104-015-2396-6/FIGURES/5. - DOI
    1. Yadav I.C., Devi N.L., Singh V.K., Li J., Zhang G. Spatial distribution, source analysis, and health risk assessment of heavy metals contamination in house dust and surface soil from four major cities of Nepal. Chemosphere. 2019;218:1100–1113. doi: 10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2018.11.202. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources