Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Heavy Metal Risk in a Peri-Urban Area of Central Portugal



Abstract Views
134

Downloads
144

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Feb 2, 2023
Published Apr 19, 2023
10.24018/ejgeo.2023.4.2.386

Abstract viewed = 134 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Peri-urban areas are characterized by a variety of types of housing, transport infrastructure and multifunctional agriculture, covering extensive areas (ca. 48,000 km2) within the European Union (EU). These areas provide a diverse range of recreation sites and ecosystem services, such as food production. Food security is one of the first priorities for the EU, and there is a critical interface between agriculture and peri-urban land use change. The proximity between urban pollution sources and agricultural areas raises concerns regarding the possible adverse effects of heavy metals contamination on crop quality, and consequent impact on both food security and human health. A field study was performed to assess the risk of soil contamination in a peri-urban area in central Portugal. The total amount and the bioavailable and water-soluble fractions of heavy metals (Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb and Zn) were quantified in the soil samples The results show that heavy metals concentrations were lower than the standard values for soil assessment. However, the bioavailable fraction of Pb was quite variable, depending upon the sampling site. Since only the soluble, exchangeable and chelated metal species in the soils represent the labile fractions available to plants, there is doubt as to how to properly apply the standard values categorized by land utilization to estimate a potential risk relative to metal bioavailability in a multifunctional peri-urban area. It is recommended to standardize a reliable methodology in terms of assessing the risk in soil-crop-human transfer of heavy metals, especially in multifunctional peri-urban areas.
Keywords: Bioavailability Heavy Metals Peri-Urban Areas Risk Assessment Soil Contamination

References

  1. Le Jeannic T. Une nouvelle approche territoriale de la ville, Économie et statistique. 1996; 294/295: 25-46. French.
     Google Scholar
  2. Leitão IA, Ferreira CSS, Ferreira AJD. Assessing long-term changes in potential ecosystem services of a peri-urbanizing Mediterranean catchment. Sci Total Environ. 2019; 660: 993-1003.
     Google Scholar
  3. Piorr A, Ravetz J, Tosics I. Peri-urbanisation in Europe ‒ towards a European policy to sustain urban-rural futures. Frederiksberg: Academic Books Life Sciences; 2011.
     Google Scholar
  4. Wilson G. Multifunctional agriculture: a transition theory perspective. Wallingford: CABI International; 2007.
     Google Scholar
  5. Gilg A, Battershill M. Quality farm food in Europe: a possible alternative to the industrialised food market and to current agri-environmental policies: lessons from France. Food Policy. 1998; 23: 25–40.
     Google Scholar
  6. Boulanger A, Meert H, Van Hecke E. The societal demand for public goods in peri-urban areas: a case from the Brussels urban region. Proceedings of the 90th EAAE Seminar "Multifunctional agriculture, Policies & Markets: Understanding the Critical Linkage"; 2004 Oct 28-29; Rennes, France. Wageningen: European Association of Agricultural Economists; 2004.
     Google Scholar
  7. UN Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects: 2018 Revision (SER.A/417). New York: United Nations; 2018.
     Google Scholar
  8. World Bank Group. World Bank Open Data. [internet] 2022 [updated 2022 Mar 4; cited 2022 Dec 10]; Available from https://data.worldbank.org/ .
     Google Scholar
  9. Specht K. Siebert R, Hartmann I, Freisinger UB, Sawicka M, Werner A, et al. Urban agriculture of the future: An overview of sustainability aspects of food production in and on buildings. Agric Hum Values. 2014; 31: 33–51.
     Google Scholar
  10. Mitchell RG, Spliethoff HM, Ribaudo LN, Lopp DM, Shayler HA, Marquez-Bravo LG, et al. 2014. Lead (Pb) and other metals in New York City community garden soils: Factors influencing contaminant distributions. Environ Pollut. 2014; 187:162–169.
     Google Scholar
  11. Rai PK, Lee SS, Zhang M, Tasng YF, Kim KH. Heavy metals on food crops - health risks, fate mechanisms and management. Environ Int. 2019; 125: 365-385.
     Google Scholar
  12. Word Health Organization. Food security. [Internet] 2022 [updated 2022 May 19; cited 2022 December 15]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/food-safety
     Google Scholar
  13. The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). The state of the world's cities - globalization and urban culture. New York: UN-Habitat: 2004.,
     Google Scholar
  14. European Commission. EU Soil Strategy for 2030 (COM/2021/699). Brussels: European Union; 2021.
     Google Scholar
  15. Buccolieri A, Buccolieri G, Dell’Atti A. Monitoring of total and bioavailable heavy metals concentration in agricultural soils. Environ Monit Assess. 2010; 168:547–560.
     Google Scholar
  16. Kabata-Pendias A. (1993). Behavioural properties of trace metals in soils. Applied Geochem. 1993; 2: 3–9.
     Google Scholar
  17. Pueyo M, Rauret G, Luck D, Yli-Halla M, Muntau H, Quevauville P, et al. (2001). Certification of the extractable contents of Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn in a freshwater sediment following a collaboratively tested and optimised three-step sequential extraction procedure. J Environ Monit. 2001; 3: 243–250.
     Google Scholar
  18. Kordel W, Bernhardt C, Derz K, Hund-Rinke K, Harmsen J, Willie Peijnenburg W, et. al. Incorporating availability/bioavailability in risk assessment and decision making of polluted sites, using Germany as an example. J Hazard Mat. 2013; 261: 854–862.
     Google Scholar
  19. Zhen Z, Wang S, Luo S, Ren L, Liang Y, Yang R, et al. Significant Impacts of Both Total Amount and Availability of Heavy Metals on the Functions and Assembly of Soil Microbial Communities in Different Land Use Patterns. Front. Microbiol. 2019; 10: 2293.
     Google Scholar
  20. Harmsen, J. (2007). Measuring bioavailability: From a scientific approach to standard methods. J Environ Qual. 2007; 36: 1420–1428.
     Google Scholar
  21. Kim RY, Yoon JK, Kim TS, Yang JE, Owens G, Kim KR. Bioavailability of heavy metals in soils: definitions and practical implementation – a critical review. Environ Geochem Health. 2015; 37:1041–1061
     Google Scholar
  22. Peijnenburg W, Jager T. Monitoring approaches to assess bioaccessibility and bioavailability of metals: matrix issues. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2003; 56: 63–77.
     Google Scholar
  23. Peijnenburg W, Zablotskaja M, Vijver MG. Monitoring metals in terrestrial environments within a bioavailability framework and a focus on soil extraction. Ecotoxico. Environ Saf. 2007; 67: 163–179.
     Google Scholar
  24. Camara Municipal de Coimbra. Plano Estrategico de Coimbra; Lisbon: Deloitte, 2006, vol. 2. Portuguese.
     Google Scholar
  25. Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia e Geofísica, 1941-2000. Anuário climatológico de Portugal. I Parte, Continente, Açores e Madeira – Observações de superfície. Lisbon. INMG; 2001. Portugues.
     Google Scholar
  26. Ferreira CSS, Walsh RPD, Shakesby RA, Keizer JJ, Soares D, González-Pelayo O, et al. Differences in overland flow, hydrophobicity and soil moisture dynamics between Mediterranean woodland types in a peri-urban catchment in Portugal. J Hydrol. 2016; 533: 473–485.
     Google Scholar
  27. Pato RLS. Bacia Hidrográfica da Ribeira dos Covões. Variáveis biofísicas e evolução do uso do solo no período 1958–2002. M.S. Thesis. Coimbra University; 2007. Portuguese.
     Google Scholar
  28. Edgell, K. USEPA Method Study 37 - Method 3050, acid digestion of sediment, sludge and soil (EPA/600/4-89/012). Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2002.
     Google Scholar
  29. Standardization Promotion Department. Leaching test method (JIS K 0058-1). Tokyo: Japanese Standards Association; 2005.
     Google Scholar
  30. Halonen O, Tulkki H, Derome J. Nutrient analysis methods. Metsantutkimuslaitoksen Tiedonantoja. 1983; 121: 1–28.
     Google Scholar
  31. Boggas S. Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy. Hoboken: Prentice Hall; 2006.
     Google Scholar
  32. Dinakaran J, Rao KS. Carbon sequestration in terrestrial vegetation and soils. Int J Plant Morphology. 2012; 62(3): 1–15.
     Google Scholar
  33. Shim J, Patrick J. Byung-Taek O. Stabilization of Heavy Metals in Mining Site Soil with Silica Extracted from Corn Cob. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2014; 225 (2152): 1-12.
     Google Scholar
  34. Li X, Poon C, Sun, H, Lo I, Kirk, D. (2001). Heavy metal speciation and leaching behaviors in cement based solidified stabilized waste materials. J Hazard Mater. 2001; 82: 215-230.
     Google Scholar
  35. UMass Soil and Plant Nutrient Testing Laboratory. Soil lead - testing, interpretation & recommendations (Ref. No. SPTTL 5). Amherst: University of Massachusetts; 2020.
     Google Scholar
  36. Stehouwer B, Macneal K. Lead in residential soils - sources, testing, and reducing exposure. University Park (PA): Penn State Extension; 2010.
     Google Scholar
  37. Carlon C, D'Alessandro M, Swartjes F. Derivation methods of soil screening values in Europe - a review of national procedures towards harmonisation, ENSURE Action Report. Brussels: Publications Office the European Communities; 2007.
     Google Scholar
  38. Voet E, Salminen R, Eckelman M, Norgate T, Mudd G, Hisschier R, et al. Environmental Risks and Challenges of Anthropogenic Metals Flows and Cycles, A Report of the Working Group on the Global Metal Flows to the International Resource Panel. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme; 2013
     Google Scholar
  39. Ministry of the Environment. Maaperän pilaantuneisuuden ja puhdistustarpeen arviointi (No. 214/2007). Helsinki; Ministry of the Environment: 2007. Finnish.
     Google Scholar
  40. Rieuwerts, JS, Thornton I, Farago ME, Ashmore MR. Factors influencing metal bioavailability in soils: Preliminary investigations for the development of a critical load approach for metals. Chem Spec Bioavailab.1998;10; 61–75.
     Google Scholar