Distribution and ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in the sediments of Changli ecological monitoring area, northwest of Bohai Bay, China

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of the sampling sites in the present study. S1 to S19 were the typical ecosystem station in the south of the estuary Luanhe to Dapuhe.

Table 1. The background values and the biological toxicity factors of six metals [6,30,31]

Element	Cu	Pb	Cd	Cr	Ni	Zn
Background values (mg·kg^−1)	22	20	0.090	57	26	64
Biological toxicity factors	5	5	30	2	5	1

Table 2. General characteristics of sediments collected from the study area

Site	OM (%)	Grain composition			Heavy metal (mg·kg^−1)
		Sand (%)	Silt (%)	Clay (%)	Cu	Pb	Cd	Cr	Ni^b	Zn
S1	2.28	32.41	50.88	16.71	24.59	19.96	0.22	85.15	34.27	85.98
S2	1.51	66.37	25.36	8.29	22.83	19.96	0.27	74.40	25.58	76.78
S3	1.43	92.82	4.63	2.55	24.04	20.89	0.28	86.29	30.43	85.51
S4	0.34	73.94	22.95	3.12	7.29	12.92	0.26	73.08	12.21	58.53
S5	2.48	19.31	53.79	26.93	24.15	21.47	0.23	77.22	37.33	90.36
S6	1.10	69.67	23.02	7.30	23.82	20.31	0.27	80.32	57.11	68.83
S7	1.43	85.56	9.95	4.48	24.38	21.72	0.26	74.97	23.68	76.50
S8	0.57	54.89	35.61	9.49	24.32	21.61	0.44	106.69	45.25	79.18
S9	0.45	94.31	4.37	1.33	22.07	21.96	0.53	74.37	21.73	63.47
S10	0.26	100.00	0.00	0.00	2.96	13.85	0.15	29.41	0.48	103.03
S11	1.30	96.05	2.88	1.06	25.78	21.69	0.29	89.66	32.32	87.85
S12	0.20	77.82	19.94	2.24	1.38	12.85	0.14	15.44	4.83	128.44
S13	0.23	78.59	17.24	4.19	12.59	19.68	0.34	56.87	19.12	89.57
S14	0.06	100.00	0.00	0.00	3.23	11.13	0.12	23.72	3.27	44.21
S15	0.23	89.48	6.19	4.33	22.08	21.37	0.42	79.50	27.96	75.25
S16	0.06	63.23	29.23	7.55	15.45	14.24	0.48	120.60	17.60	90.36
S17	0.17	100.00	0.00	0.00	16.09	19.85	0.54	83.55	30.42	75.25
S18	0.12	93.00	4.19	2.82	4.66	12.82	0.14	31.66	3.74	94.71
S19	0.06	100.00	0.00	0.00	7.63	12.78	0.18	49.43	12.53	156.38
Mean ± SD	0.75 ± 0.78	76.66 ± 24.55	15.98 ± 16.87	5.39 ± 6.71	16.28 ± 8.99	17.95 ± 4.03	0.29 ± 0.13	69.07 ± 28.00	23.15 ± 15.07	85.80 ± 24.64
Class I-AQSIQ	/	/	/	/	35.0	60.0	0.50	80.0	NA	150.0
Class II-AQSIQ	/	/	/	/	100.0	130.0	1.50	150.0	NA	350.0
Class III-AQSIQ	/	/	/	/	200.0	250.0	5.00	270.0	NA	600.0
SQG-TEL^a	/	/	/	/	18.7	30.2	0.68	52.3	15.9	124
SQG-PEL^a	/	/	/	/	108	112	4.21	160	42.8	271

^aTEL: threshold effect level; PEL: probable effect level [37]; ^b NA: not applicable.

Table 3. The contents of heavy metals in the surface sediments in marine environments (mg·kg⁻¹)

Locations	Heavy metals						References
	Cu	Pb	Cd	Cr	Ni	Zn
Changli ecological monitoring area, China	1.38–25.78	11.13–21.96	0.11–0.54	15.44–120.60	0.48–57.11	44.21–156.38	This study
Luanhe Estuary, China	9.6–35.6	22.6–43.7	0.020–0.240	11.6–76.2	3.5–35.8	12.9–94.7	[15]
Jiaozhou Bay, China	12.8–124.5	42.3–93.1	0.07–0.37	83.3–140.6	-	66.8–243.4	[52]
Northen Dongying coastal area, China	8.66–22.74	6.59–14.34	0.44–1.20	51.31–68.96	-	37.85–76.18	[9]
Chabahar Bay, Iran	< 5–26	10.33–15.5	-	86.67–400	13.5–50.67	24–43	[47]
Nothern Persian Gulf, Iran	19.93–24.26	6.04–9.03	0.59–0.98	93.30–105.53	91.40–101.66	50.95–57.32	[38]
Gabes Gulf, Tunisia	0.59–5.8	3.8–13.9	0.11–950	9–69.3	-	5.2–7165	[39]
Quintero Bay, Chile	41–1467	17–36	-	27–80	8–17	65–167	[40]
Jakarta Bay, Indonesia	3–128	1–111	-	1.2–95	1–29	4–595	[41]

‘-’: no data.

Table 4. Pearson’s correlation matrix for metals and general characteristics in surface sediments from Changli ecological monitoring area, Bohai Sea

	OM	Sand	Silt	Clay	Cu	Pb	Cd	Cr	Ni
Sand	−0.670**
Silt	0.621**	−0.993**
Clay	0.751**	−0.953**	−0.910**
Cu	0.696**	−0.415	0.379	0.479*
Pb	0.597**	−0.294	0.253	0.376	0.924**
Cd	−0.148	0.005	0.005	−0.027	0.495*	0.544**
Cr	0.355	−0.401	0.404	0.367	0.790**	0.629**	0.716**
Ni	0.573*	−0.481*	0.462*	0.498*	0.857**	0.792**	0.430	0.714**
Zn	−0.124	0.054	−0.052	−0.056	−0.316	−0.296	−0.288	−0.288	−0.265

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

Figure 2. % distributions of metal speciation in sediments from different sampling sites. F1: water/acid soluble fraction; F2: reducible fraction; F3: oxidizable fraction; F4: residual fraction.

Table 5. Calculated $E_r^i$ and PERI values of heavy metals in surface sediments from Bohai Sea

Site	$E_r^i$						PERI	Degree of risk
	Cu	Pb	Cd	Cr	Ni	Zn
S1	5.59	4.99	74.26	2.99	6.59	1.34	95.76	Moderate
S2	5.19	4.99	88.86	2.61	4.92	1.20	107.77	Considerable
S3	5.46	5.22	94.72	3.03	5.85	1.34	115.62	Considerable
S4	1.66	3.23	85.05	2.56	2.35	0.91	95.76	Moderate
S5	5.49	5.37	75.00	2.71	7.18	1.41	97.16	Moderate
S6	5.41	5.08	88.88	2.82	10.98	1.08	114.25	Considerable
S7	5.54	5.43	86.99	2.63	4.55	1.20	106.35	Considerable
S8	5.53	5.40	145.58	3.74	8.70	1.24	170.20	Considerable
S9	5.02	5.49	176.26	2.61	4.18	0.99	194.55	Considerable
S10	0.67	3.46	49.90	1.03	0.09	1.61	56.77	Moderate
S11	5.86	5.42	96.48	3.15	6.22	1.37	118.50	Considerable
S12	0.31	3.21	45.32	0.54	0.93	2.01	52.32	Moderate
S13	2.86	4.92	113.38	2.00	3.68	1.40	128.24	Considerable
S14	0.73	2.78	40.53	0.83	0.63	0.69	46.20	Low
S15	5.02	5.34	138.67	2.79	5.38	1.18	158.37	Considerable
S16	3.51	3.56	160.12	4.23	3.39	1.41	176.22	Considerable
S17	3.66	4.96	180.61	2.93	5.85	1.18	199.19	Considerable
S18	1.06	3.20	45.28	1.11	0.72	1.48	52.85	Moderate
S19	1.73	3.20	58.84	1.73	2.41	2.44	70.36	Moderate

Table 6. The evaluating indicator of the potential ecological risk [6]

${\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{r}}^{\mathrm{i}}$	Degree of risk	PERI	Degree of risk
< 40	Low	< 150	Low
40–80	Moderate	150–300	Moderate
80–160	Considerable	300–600	Considerate
160–320	High	> 600	Very high
> 320	Very high

Figure 3. The K_SPEF (secondary phase enrichment factor) of elements in sediments of Changli ecological monitoring area, Bohai Sea.

Hakanson L. An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control. A sedimentological approach. Water Res. 1980;14(8):975–1001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhao Y, Yan M. Geochemistry of sediments of the China shelf sea. Beijing, China: Science Press; 1994. (In Chinese).

 Google Scholar

Xu Z, Ni S, Tuo X, et al. Calculation of heavy metals’ toxicity coefficient in the evaluation of potel ecological risk index. Environ Sci Technol. 2008;31(2):112–115. (In Chinese).

 Google Scholar

MacDonald DD, Carr RS, Calder FD, et al. Development and evaluation of sediment quality guidelines for Florida coastal waters. Ecotoxicology. 1996;5(4):253–278.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liu J, Yin P, Chen B, et al. Distribution and contamination assessment of heavy metals in surface sediments of the Luanhe River Estuary, northwest of the Bohai Sea. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;109(1):633–639.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lin Y, Meng F, Du Y, et al. Distribution, speciation, and ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in surface sediments of Jiaozhou Bay, China. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 2016;22(5):1253–1267.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liu Q, Wang F, Meng F, et al. Assessment of metal contamination in estuarine surface sediments from Dongying City, China: use of a modified ecological risk index. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;126:293–303.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Agah H, Bastami KD, Fumani NS. Ecological risk, source and preliminary assessment of metals in the surface sediments of Chabahar Bay, Oman Sea. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;107(1):383–388.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Neyestani MR, Bastami KD, Esmaeilzadeh M, et al. Geochemical speciation and ecological risk assessment of selected metals in the surface sediments of the northern Persian Gulf. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;109(1):603–611.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

El Zrelli R, Courjault-Radé P, Rabaoui L, et al. Heavy metal contamination and ecological risk assessment in the surface sediments of the coastal area surrounding the industrial complex of Gabes city, Gulf of Gabes, SE Tunisia. Mar Pollut Bull. 2015;101(2):922–929.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Parra S, Bravo MA, Quiroz W, et al. Distribution and pollution assessment of trace elements in marine sediments in the Quintero Bay (Chile). Mar Pollut Bull. 2015;99(1–2):256–263.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sindern S, Tremöhlen M, Dsikowitzky L, et al. Heavy metals in river and coast sediments of the Jakarta Bay region (Indonesia)—geogenic versus anthropogenic sources. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;110(2):624–633.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar