Accepted Manuscript

Title: Spatial characteristics of heavy metal pollution and the

potential ecological risk of a typical mining area: A case study
in China

Authors: Yixian Chen, Xiaosan Jiang, Yong Wang, Dafang

Zhuang

PII: S0957-5820(17)30343-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.10.008
Reference: PSEP 1205

To appear in: Process Safety and Environment Protection

Received date: 17-6-2017

Revised date: 5-10-2017
Accepted date: 9-10-2017

Please cite this article as: Chen, Yixian, Jiang, Xiaosan, Wang, Yong, Zhuang, Dafang,
Spatial characteristics of heavy metal pollution and the potential ecological risk of a
typical mining area: A case study in China.Process Safety and Environment Protection
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.10.008

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
Spatial characteristics of heavy metal pollution and the potential
ecological risk of a typical mining area: A case study in China

Yixian Chena, Xiaosan Jianga, Yong Wangb,*, Dafang Zhuangb

a College of Resources and Environmental Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China
b State Key Laboratory of Resources and Environmental Inforamtion System, Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources
Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China

Graphical abstract

Highlights:

 Using potential ecological risk assessment method to evaluate heavy metals pollution from a small-scale
perspective and accurately locate the high risk regions.
 The assessment domain of the Hakanson method is adjusted in this research that could obtain
 more precise evaluation results .
 Inverse distance weighted(IDW) interpolation effectively predicts the distribution of pollution
 characteristics for five different heavy metals.
 The combination of IDW and Hnkanson risk assessment is applied to evaluate the pollution
situation in Suxian.

Abstract: The goal of the presented research was to evaluate the possible heavy metal pollution in soil by applying
Hakanson risk evaluation method with adjusting assessment domain combined with ArcGIS technology. The
assessment standards were adjusted based on the amount and types of studied heavy metals. Topsoil samples in
mining area were collected and tested the content of five kinds of heavy metals, Arsenic (As), mercury (Hg), copper
(Cu), lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn). The area of different risk levels and the area ratio in each township were accurately
calculate, and the regions with high pollution risk were further precisely located. The results indicate the
following:(1)It was observed that the accuracy of soil-heavy metal assessment in Suxian was evidently improved by
using Hakanson potential ecological risk with assessment domain adjustment. (2) The single factor and Nemero
pollution indexes showed an evident contamination of five types of heavy metals in Suxian. (3) There is a high
index of comprehensive ecological risk in Suxian; approximately 82.9% of Suxian is at a strong (level 3 or higher)
risk level, demonstrating serious soil pollution. The quite strong risk region with the portion of 18.33% of total area
is primarily concentrated in the area of the large Polymetallic Mine and coal mining area. Using the single factor
ecological risk index, the distribution of large areas of As and Pb high-risk pollution were explored. More than half

1
of the soil in Suxian presents a strong Hg (level 3 and higher) risk level, and the primary strong ecological risk and
quite strong ecological risk townships were identified as well. (4) A more finely characterized pollution status was
achieved from this pollution assessment in Suxian based on the township level, rendering the study results a more
practical guide and increasing their significance.

Key words: mining area, soil pollution assessment, ArcGIS, potential ecological risk

1 Introduction
Human activities such as industry and agriculture are the main ways for heavy metals to enter the environment.
Heavy metals produced during mining process have become one of the primary sources of soil pollution in large
mining areas. Heavy metal can inhibit and poison the growth of plants when it enter into soil as well as negatively
affect ecological environment. Also, the non-degradability and accumulation of heavy metals are harmful human’s
health(Li Z et al.,2014;Zhao H et al.,2012;Wuana R A,2011). Copper and Zinc are one of the major hazardous
heavy metals produced by industrial activities. They mainly infringe on the liver and kidney function and the
central nervous system after absorbed into bodies, and Copper gives rise to depression or even lung cancer(Sani H
A,2017). Derived from waste residue and the dissolved substances of minerals, inorganic arsenic tremendously
cause neurological disorder, skin diseases and cancer by food chains into bodies(Adio S O,2017). Therefore, it is
necessary to conduct soil heavy metal pollution assessment.
Numerous heavy metal evaluation methods,such as the single-factor evaluation method, the Nemero index, the
enrichment factor index method, the potential ecological risk index(Hakanson L, 1980), the pollution load
index(Liu, W H, 2005), the geographical accumulation index(G. Müller, 1969), the fuzzy coefficient method(G et al.
Onkal- Engin, 2004), and the gray clustering method(Fan L Q, 2012), have been used to evaluate soil heavy metal
pollution . The selection of a method should depend on research purposes and regional characteristics. The method
of potential ecological risk evaluation comprehensively considers the content of soil heavy metal, heavy metal
toxicity and their behaviors of migration and transformation in the environment to evaluate the levels of heavy
metal pollution in the soil(Hakanson L, 1980). This method has extensively been applied into the studies of soil
heavy metal pollution in mining areas by scholars in China and other countries.
The first innovation place involves that this research creatively adjusted the evaluation domain of E and RI
according to the number and type of heavy metal. Few researchers has noticed that Hakanson ecological risk
assessment standard is not appropriate for all soil pollution evaluation, since the standards of single risk index ( E )
and comprehensive risk index ( RI ) are put forward based on the maximum toxicity coefficient of pollutants
(TPCB=THg=40) and the total amount of toxicity coefficients among eight pollutants (133>the maximum toxicity
coefficient, THg=40). The change of amount and type of heavy metals may lead to the different assessment
standards, which means applying fixed evaluation standards may cause inaccurate results. It is necessary to
scientifically adjust evaluation domain to strengthen the objectivity and accuracy of the results(Peng, 2007; Fu
C,2009; Jian-Hua M A,2011). Comparing the results of new standards and the old ones, we find that the outcomes
evaluated by the adjusted evaluation domain are more in line with real situation.
The second place of novelty in our research is that we evaluate heavy metals pollution in a small-scale region
and accurately locate the areas with high risk levels by applying the combination methods of adjusted potential
ecological risk and GIS technology. The spatial interpolation technology that can output visualization figure of risk
distribution by predicting the value of unknown points provides the evaluation way for soil samples with spatial
location information(Chabukdhara M,2013; Sun C,2010). Previous researches on soil pollution of minging area are
mainly focused on large scale regions, and few scholars pays attention on precise studies of pollution assessment on
small scale need to be conducted, also the former researchers don’t take further quantitative research to accurately
calculate the area occupied by different risk levels(Yang J,2013; Zang F,2017; Li K,2017). In our research, the
2
different risk levels in each township have been divided and calculated its own area and area ratio. The study scale
and risk evaluation method in this research are more refinement and rationalization compared with previous
researches, which provide new research perspectives and ideas for soil heavy metal assessment in the future.
In this paper, Chinese famous large polymetallic mining area—Suxian district is selected as research region .
Five kinds of heavy metals (copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), lead (Pb), arsenic (As), mercury (Hg)) are selected as the
research objects to explore the spatial distribution and the ecological risk of heavy metals at the level of villages and
towns, achieving to explore the spatial characteristics of soil heavy metal content and the ecological risk of heavy
metals within a small perspective and provide heavy metal pollution control and governance decisions for all levels
of managers.

2 Research survey

2.1 The study area

The Suxian District is in the southern Hunan province (Figure1), range from east longitude
112°53′55″–113°16′20 to north latitude 25°30′21″–26°03′29, and extending 37.4 kilometers from east to west and
61.0 kilometers from south to north. Suxian has a mild climate, belonging to the subtropical monsoon humid
climate zone with abundant rainfall. The average annual rainfall is 1469.8 mm, and the average yearly temperature
is 17.8 degrees Celsius.
There are abundant mineral resources in this area: the Shi Zhuyuan nonferrous metals mine, which is highly
prestigious worldwide; the large Qiao Kou lead-zinc ore; the Ma Nao Mountain manganese ore; and the large Xu
Jiadong, Jie Dong and Qi Fengdu coal mines. Suxian district has been detected over 50 categories of non-ferrous
metals consisting of its mineral resources, among which lead, zinc, tungsten, tin, bismuth and molybdenum are the
majority resources even in mining industry across the whole world. There are 18 deposits in Suxian, including 4
large deposits primarily distributed in Bai Lutang, Tang Xi, Da Kuishang, and Ao Shang. The Shizhuyuan
nonferrous metals mine is the largest polymetallic deposit in the world and contains 143 types of minerals. This
mine is known as the "world’s museum of nonferrous metals."
As of December 31, 2010, the administrative area of Suxian contained two subdistricts (Nan Ta and Su
Xianling), eight towns (Qi Fengdu, Wu Lipai, Xu Jiadong, Qiao Kou, Bai Ludong, Bai Lutang, Ao Shang, and
Liang Tian), and nine villages (Liao Wangping, Gang Jiao, Tai Ping, Ma Touling, He Yeping, Tang Xi, Da Kuishang,
Deng Jiatang, and Liao Jiawan).

2.2 Sample collection and analysis

In this study, soil samples were randomly and averagely collected between July and September 2015. Soil
sampling principles are as follows(Bao S D, 2000): soil sampling points of surface layer (0-20 cm) were taken
according to the buffer distance of mining area ; 4 to 5 soil samples were taken from each 9 m2 area by using a
plastic shovel. Taking out about 100 g of each soil sample and mixed before being packed into a sample bag. All
samples were labelled with the sampling location, date, soil type, and numbers and then dried and stored in a
non-pollution area. 166 soil samples were collected in this study to test the content of As、Hg、Cu、Pb、Zn . The test
method using is based on the Chinese”Soil environmental and quality standards”(GB 15618-1995): soil samples
were dried and ground. Each sample was accurately weighed 0.1-0.2g with 1/10000 balances (accurately recorded

3
data) and then put into polytetrafluoroethylene digestion tank. Soil samples were cooked by HCl-HNO3-HClO4-HF.
Control the testing quality of by keeping the standard reference material (GBW-07405) and the whole blank
samples within allowable error range . All agent used in the process of experiment was analytical pure. Soil
samples were digested by microwave digestion apparatus (Labtech, DigiBlock, ED54-iTouch) to prepare for further
test of elements.As and Hg were tested by Atomic fluorescence spectrometer (AFS-2202);Cu,Pb and Zn were tested
by Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-OES, USA).
The test method of heavy metals content reference the book-GB 15618-1995. The soil samples were dispersed
into smaller soil unit through microwave digestion instrument (Labtech DigiBlock ED54-iTouch), Hg and As are
tested by Atomic fluorescence photometer (AFS-2202), Cu, Pb and Zn are detected through ICP-OES (America).pH
is detected by pH tester.

2.3 Data source and processing

Basic geographic data, including a map of the township class administrative region of the Suxian District, a
Suxian District village map, and a map of the mining areas of Suxian, were acquired from the Resource and
Environmental Science Data Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which guaranteed the accuracy of the
data. GPS technology was used to record the coordinates of the sampling points. Microsoft Excel 2010, IBM SPSS
Statistics 19, and ArcGIS10.1 (ESRI Inc.) were used to process the samples and geographic data.

3 Methods of research

3.1 Data processing

The remote sensing image of Suxian district downloaded from China Resource Satellite Application Center- data
service platform was digitized to acquire the map including the township class administrative region of the Suxian
District , Suxian District village,distribution of mining areas and the location of rivers. The locations for soil
sampling points were recorded by GPS and then marked on the map.

3.2 Potential ecological risk index method

The existence of large mining and coal areas in Suxian poses a potential risk of heavy metal pollution to the
surrounding soil environment. To quantitatively describe the potential pollution degree of the heavy metals, the
Hakanson pollution assessment method based on levels of heavy metal toxicity was applied to explore the soil
heavy metal pollution risk in the Suxian District. This method was proposed by the Swedish scholar Hakanson in
1980 and has been widely used in the evaluation of heavy metal pollution. The principles of the method can be
referenced in the paper(Hakanson L, 1980), and the formula is as follows:
Cm
E ij  T i  C ij  T i  . (1)
Cr
The calculation formula for a comprehensive potential ecological risk index RI j is
n
RI   E i ,
j i 1 j
(2)
i
where E j is the index of a single potential ecological risk of heavy metal i at sampling point j ; RI j is the

4
index of comprehensive potential ecological risk at sampling point j ; Ti is the toxic response coefficient of heavy
metal i (As=10 Cu=5 Hg=40 Pb=5 Zn=1)(Suresh et al.,2012;Feng S et al.,2017), which reflects the level of
toxicity and the sensitivity of organisms to the pollution; C ij is the pollution coefficient of heavy metal i at
sampling point j ; Cm is the measured value of heavy metal i at sampling point j ; and Cr is the reference
content of heavy metal i .
The view of Hakanson considers several factors in soil toxic coefficient: the harm of heavy metal to human
and to ecological system is closely associated with the principle of abundance” and “release effect”(Hakanson L,
1980;Zheng Q X,2008). The proposed Hakanson classification standard is based on consideration of the toxic
coefficient of 8 types of pollutants, and calculation of the Hakanson standard depends on the pollutant with the
maximum toxic coefficient in 8 types of heavy metals. The calculation of the toxic coefficient can be referenced
from the paper(Hakanson L.,1980; Fernández J A, Carballeira A,2001) . However, only 5 types of heavy metals are
examined in this study, which could have resulted in inaccurate results as there was a change in the number and
types of the heavy metals. Most research applying the potential ecological risk assessment method does not take
into account the adjustment of the types and amount of heavy metals(Wei B G, 2010;Hu Y,2013). The limitation to
the classifying standard of Hakanson has garnered attention from some scholars, who have made relative
adjustments. However, specific adjustment methods and consistent evaluation levels remain unknown (Qing
X,2008.). Therefore, in order to improve the accuracy of the analysing results, this paper modifies the evaluation
domain based on the type and the amount of studied heavy metals, detailed adjustment method(Li , 2015; Jian-Hua
M A,2011;Fernández J A, 2001)The classification of Ei and RI i in Hakanson method is based on the the maximum
Toxicity Coefficient among 8 kinds of heavy metals as well as the total amount of Toxicity Coefficient of 8 heavy
metals(Li L，2016). The adjustment of Ei : the first grade boundary value of Ei =non-production index(C=1)×the
maximum toxicity coefficient among participating pollutants, the grade value for each grade is 2 times higher than
the last grade. The adjustment of RI :Firstly, determining the unit grading value of Toxicity Coefficient
i

RI=150(Hakanson first grade boundary value)/133(total toxic coefficient of 8 pollutants) =1.13; The heavy metal
with the greatest Toxicity Coefficient is Hg(40),and the total toxic coefficient of 5 heavy metals is 61,and then
RI i
calculating the first grade boundary value after adjustment =61*1.13≈70, the grade value for each grade is 2
times higher than the last grade. Table 1 shows a comparison of the values E and RI between the Hakanson standard
and this research.

3.3 IDW interpolation of heavy metals in soil

Inverse Distance Weighted(IDW) is applied to predict heavy metals content in this research bases on the
consideration of data characteristics, research purpose, sampling point settings and referencing previous
research(Spokas K, 2003; Wartenberg D, 1991; Zhou Y, 2009; Gong G, 2014; Ferguson R B, 1996). IDW as one of
methods commonly used in soil heavy metals research can precisely predict unknown data . The interpolation
principle is based on similarity principle that two objects maintain similar properties if there is less distance
between them; conversely, the farther the distance is, the weaker the similarities.Take the distance between
interpolation points and sample points as the weight value which is then weighted average, the sample points closer
to interpolation points will be gave greater weight values. Take an assumption that a series of discrete points with
known of their coordinates and valuer presented by , , （ i =1,2,....,n）are distributed on the same plane, then,
X i Yi Z i

acquiring Z value through weight value. The following is the formula of IDW interpolation:

 
n n

Z x   wi zi wi , and (1)
i 1 i 1

wi  diu , (2)
where Z(x) is the predicted value at an interpolated point, Zi is a known point, n is the total number of known

5
points used in interpolation, di is the distance between point i and the prediction point, and wi is the weight assigned
to point i. Greater weighting values are assigned to values closer to the interpolated point. As the distance increases,
the weight decreases (Shepard, 1968), and u is the weighting power that determines how the weight decreases as the
distance increases.

4 Results and analysis

4.1 Soil heavy metal pollution

4.1.1 Characteristic value analysis of heavy metals in soil

The statistics of five heavy metals in soil are presented in Table 2. In this research, we focus on explaining and
analyzing soil heavy metal pollution in Suxian district through key experimental data generally involving average
content of revealing entire content situation, the coefficient of variation, and indexes of single factor and Nemero
used to reflect overall pollution conditions. The second levels of soil environmental quality standards are
pollutionlimit values (Table 2). It can obverse that the average contents of As (78.70 mg/kg) and Zn (202.79 mg/kg)
in soil have exceeded their own standards(As:40 mg/kg; Zn: 200 mg/kg), and Hg content (0.31 mg/kg) reached
limitated content of the standard(0.3 mg/kg), indicating the potential of a high pollution risk may exist. In mining
area, As exists in soil mostly as the form of inorganic residual. The forms of Pb and Zn are similarly found in soil as
acid extractable non residual states. Cu is a sulfophilic element that is easily oxidized to S2- in anaerobic
environment. Heavy metals with non residual states are more liable causing the pollution to soil than residual form
elements (Huang X X, 2012; Fang Z Q, 2016).
The method of single factor index assessment has been widely used to evaluate soil heavy metal pollution
across the world. The calculating method can be referenced in this paper (Guo., 2011). The results show the trend of
accumulation of heavy metals in the soil(single factor index >1) since the five heavy metal single factors is
Hg>Pb>As>Zn>Cu>1 (, higher index indicates more accumulation). Hg registers the greatest accumulation with the
highest single factor index of 10.41. Nemero index method used to evaluate the pollution situation in the whole
study area (Kowalska J, Mazurek R, Gasiorek M, 2016; Yang G, Shao C, Ju M, 2014.) is focusing the effects of
heavy metals with high concentrations on soil environmental quality. The formula can be accessed in the following
paper(Nemerow N L, 1974):. In the Nemero index, P is lower than 1 for non-pollution; 1<P≤2 for slight pollution;
2<P≤3 for moderate pollution; and P>3 for heavy pollution. Nemero index in this research is 11.60 indicating that
the environment of the Suxian District suffers from heavy pollution which may be caused by human activities
within the research area.
The coefficient of variation in Table 1 is testing the average variation degree for each sampling point as well as
the accumulation of soil elements in the study area (Manta D S, 2002). A strong variation with coefficient over 1,
demonstrates that soil heavy metal contents are heavily influenced by human activities. The variation indexes for
five heavy metals exceed 50%, indicating strong variation, and the comparison, Pb>Cu>As>Zn>Hg, indicates that
there is a large change of mass fraction and elegant spatial variability in the local region.
Previous studies have shown that various industrial activities can lead to toxic pollutants releasing into
environment, which become a great concern for environmental health(Saleh T A,2015c). Suxian district, as a large
mining area, the exploitation of mineral resources and strong human activities constitute primary reasons for soil
pollution. The study outcomes show that the high content of various heavy metals and obvious high single factor

6
and Nemero indexes as well as the strong variability for soil heavy metals are closely associated with human
activities. Therefore, further study on the degree of soil pollution is necessarily conducted.

4.1.2 Heavy metal pollution in the study area

The content distribution of soil heavy metals can be analyzed by IDW interpolation in ArcGIS, and the results are
presented in Figure 2. The mining area is represented with a deep red colour. The other four heavy metals have
similar distribution trends with the exception of Hg, which has a high accumulation area located at the junction of
three towns: Bailu, Tangxi and Da Kuishang. A high value distribution in the local region for As, Pb and Zn was
predicted, caused by mining activity in a small mining area. The Hg content is quite high and dispersed primarily in
the towns of Wu Lipai, Qi Fengdu, Ma Touling, Qiaokou, Liangtian and Aoshang. According to the investigation,
the high value area in the vicinity of Shi Zhuyuan–Manaoshan is a large metal mining area related to the processes
of large-scale mining, transportation and processing. There are some local high value areas, primarily distributed in
the vicinity of the small mining areas. Although there are some primary mining areas situated in Qi Fengdu and Xu
Jiadong, these areas are less influenced by soil heavy metal pollution apart from Hg pollution. Especially low heavy
metal content exists in Liangtian, although that area has lead and zinc mining. This area is not a high content
accumulation area.
The environment of the soil surrounding a large mining area is heavily influenced by human activities, which
causes massive accumulation of heavy metals in the soil in most regions. The mining industry in the Suxian district
has experienced rapid development since the 1980s. However, these industries were mainly small scale, had lag
technology and resources were wasted. Their nonstandard operation resulted in tailing, waste water, and waste ore
being directly discharged into the river, causing 80% of the riverbed in some rivers to be comprised of tailing. In
addition, rains would wash away farmland, crops, and large tracts of land during the rainy season. The local
township pollution is primarily caused by mining activity of small mining areas, and high content regions are
primarily situated at the junctions of townships.

4.2 Ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in soil

4.2.1 Single factor ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in soil

The ecological risk of five heavy metals in the study area was evaluated by the Integrating ArcGIS
interpolation technique and the potential ecological risk assessment method, for which the evaluating standard was
adjusted. The distributions of different ecological risk level areas for five heavy metals in each township of the
Suxian District are presented in Figure 3. The figure indicates a slight risk (level 1) of Zn and Cu in the entire
research area, and there is a high ecological risk level for Hg. The distribution area at the highest risk level is
presented in a deep colour that demonstrates serious Hg pollution throughout the study area. High risk levels for As
and Pb were observed locally. These high-risk areas occurred primarily in the townships situated near the large Shi
Zhuyuan heavy metals mining area (Bai Lutang, Tang Xi and Da Kuishang), all of which register strong pollution
(level 3). In addition, there is an As high-risk region near the Qi Fengdu-Ma Touling coal mining area. The
distribution trends of a heavy metal ecological risk area can only be approximated by ArcGIS interpolation, which
cannot evaluate specific pollution conditions for each township. Therefore, the areas of different pollution levels in
each township were analyzed in this study, and only the results regarding As, Hg, and Pb were considered because
there is no obvious pollution risk for Zn and Cu in the Suxian District.

7
4.2.2 Ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in soil based on
township scale

4.2.2.1 Potential ecological risk assessment of As

Table 3 is the statistic results for different As ecological risk level areas for each township. 5 levels are
individually presenting five types of pollution levels. Of the total area, 59.37% has a slight pollution risk, and the
proportions of levels 2, 3, and 4 to the total area are 24.46%, 10.05%, and 6.10%, respectively; only 0.02% has a
risk level of 5. Observing Table 3 vertically, moderate risk regions are primarily focused in Ma Touling, Bai Ludong,
Bai Lutang and Tang Xi, occupying more than 10% of the total moderate risk (level 2) area. Large areas of strong
risk (level 3) are situated in Bai Lutang, Tang Xi and Da Kuishang, individually occupying 40.05%, 20.07% and
19.39% of the total level 3 area, respectively. Areas of quite strong risk (level 4) are primarily distributed in Bai
Lutang, Tang Xi and Da Kuishang, and the proportions of each of those level 4 township areas to the total level 4
area are 42.93% and 44.59%, respectively. According to the study, the coal mining areas are primarily situated near
the junction of Qi Fengdu and Xu Jiadong. As contamination accompanies the exploitation of coal mining, resulting
in the appearance of local regional pollution risk in Ma Touling, Gang Jiao, Qiao Kou and Bai Ludong.
The results demonstrate that Ma Touling, Bai Ludong, Bai Lutang and Tang Xi, which contain the majority of
moderate As pollution risk, should improve soil heavy metal monitoring and control. In addition, there is a large
area of strong and above risk level in Bai Lutang, Tang Xi and Da Kuishang. More accurate categorization is
achieved using the village boundaries to identify the villages with very strong risk (level 4): the Ma Touling town,
Ban Zilou; the Tang Xi towns, which are Heng Long, Wu Malong, Shang He, and Shi Hu; the Bai Lutang towns,
which are Dong Bo, Shi Zhuyuan, Bai Lutang, and Xiang Shanping; and the Da Kuishang towns, which are Liang
Sanping and Tai Pingtou. Minerals can lead to the content of As increase in soil and water through eluviation(Saleh
T A,2011).Suxian district is distributed with several large mining areas, soil surrounded by mines prone to be
contaminated by As.Therefore, the locations of mining regions, especially with high content of heavy metals in soil,
need to be monitored as well as improving soil quality.

4.2.2.2 Potential ecological risk assessment of Hg

The various pollution risk levels for each township are presented in Table 4. Examining the entire district
reveals serious Hg pollution in the Suxian District; 56.17% of the total area is at a strong risk (level 3), and 26.43%
of the total area has a quite strong risk (level 4). Observing Table 4 horizontally, more than half of the area is at a
strong risk in each township, excluding the Gang Jiao, Liao Jiawan and Su Xianling, and Nan Ta subdistricts;
84.5% of the total Gang Jiao area is at risk (level 3) for Hg. Bai Lutang, Tang Xi and Da Kuishang individually
compose the total area of level 3 risk at 13.37%, 14.49%, and 16.48%, respectively. The majority of the area of
quite strong risk is occupied by Wu Lipai (16.32%), Qiao Kou (14.76%) and Ao Shang (10.79%); the area
proportions of level 4 in other townships are less than 10%. Separately 65.38%, 14.06% and 4.64% of the total level
5 area is in Aiao Kou, Wu Lipai and Liang Tian, respectively.
Relative research reveals that industries such as metallurgy, gilding copper can lead to the leakage of mercury
into the environment (Saleh T A,2015a). There are 34 metal mining enterprises, 11 coal mining enterprises and 48
building materials enterprises according to business volume statistics. The studied results demonstrate that high
pollution risk is the primary characteristic of the Hg assessment in the Suxian District, which indicates that more
than 50% of the area is at a moderate and above risk level for most townships.. Therefore, improving soil quality
and monitoring must be conducted for each township. The townships near the metal mining area (Bai Lutang, Tang
8
Xi and Da Kuishang) and near the coal mining areas (Wu Lipai, Qiao Kou and Ao Shang) should be evaluated to
promote and manage the work, and mining resource exploitation and transportation activities must be regulated.

4.2.2.3 Potential ecological risk assessment of Pb

The different Pb risk levels for each township are presented in Table 5. A massive area (80.23%) of slight risk
level was observed in the entire Suxian district, which has a low Pb pollution risk. Strong Pb pollution risk (level 3)
regions are identical to the strong As risk (level 3) regions, primarily distributed among the townships near the large
Tang Xi-Wu Malong mining area, including Ba Lutang (33.20% of the total level 3 area), Tang Xi (33.49% of the
total level 3 area) and Da Kuishang (23.65% of the total level 3 area). Bai Lutang and Da Kuishang are also the
primary regions for quite strong (level 4) and extremely strong (level 5) risk areas; extreme Pb ecological risk can
be observed in these two townships.
The entire study area has a low Pb pollution risk. The strong risk regions remain identical for Pb pollution and As
pollution, and the primary Pb strong ecological risk regions are in Bai Lutang, Tang Xi and Da Kuishang, close to
the large mining areas of interacting the industries of mining, ore dressing, smelting and trade. As one of the most
toxic metals released into the surface, lead is widely used in various industries,especially in mining industry(Saleh
T A,2015b). Therefore, soil has high potential contamination risk in these three townships, and corresponding
promotion of the risk and monitoring must be conducted in these three townships in addition to managing mine
resource exploitation activities. Further analysis of the high-risk regions classified the townships with a high risk
level into villages; the primary villages with high Pb pollution are in Tang Xi (Heng Long, Wu Malong, Shang He,
and Shi Hu), in Bai Lutang (Dong Bo, Shi Zhuyuan, Bai Lutang, and Xiang Shanping), in Da Kuishang (Liang
Sanping and Tai Pingtou), and in Qiao Kou (Bao Anling and Bai Xi).

4.2.3 Comprehensive ecological risk evaluation of heavy metal in soil

Overall, Figure 5 shows the comprehensive ecological risk level for 5 types of heavy metals, which can be
perceived as a high comprehensive risk index in Suxian. Most areas of Suxian are at a Level 3 and above ecological
risk level. The most serious area with a quite strong (level 4) risk surrounds the Shi Zhuyuan mining area and
contains Bai Lutang, Tang Xi, and Da Kuishang. In the centre of these three townships is a large mining area with
an extremely strong (level 5) ecological risk.
To further clarify the situation of comprehensive ecological risk for each township, the area comprising different
risk levels in each township is presented in Table 6. Only 2.34% of the total area is at slight risk; however, 65.80%
and 18.33% of the total area are at strong and quite strong risk levels, and 0.75% of the area is at an extremely
strong risk. The horizontal view, except for Liao Wangping, Su Xianling, Nan Ta, Deng Jiatang and Liao Jiawan,
indicates that in the remainder of the townships, the majority of the area is at a pollution risk of level 3 and above.
Quite strong and extremely strong pollution areas may primarily be observed in Ma Touling (level 4, 7.40%), Qiao
Kou (level 4, 8.83%; level 5, 17.72%), Bai Lutang (level 4, 24.68%; level 5, 59.60%), Tang Xi (level 4, 26.89%),
Ao Shang (level 4, 5.97%; level 5, 2.29%) and Da kuishang (level 4, 15.13%; level 5, 19.95%).
The high ecological risk in Bai Lutang and Tang Xi may be associated with the large surrounding mining area;
Scholars have ever studied the main causes for soil pollution surrounded by mining area in Suxian district, finding
that waste water releasing activities, tailing accumulation and leaching and other can lead to soil heavy metals
pollution, heavy metals are the primary inorganic pollutants in waste water from industrial, domestic and
agricultural activities(Gupta V K, 2012;Saleh T. A.,2015d).Therefore, key pollution abatement and control
measures should be focused on Bai Lutang and Tang Xi, strengthening the monitoring of soil heavy metals near the
large mining areas.
9
5 Discussion

5.1 Potential ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in soil based on

township scale

Large mining areas are the primary focus for assessment of soil heavy metal pollution. Although the degree of
pollution and the approximate distribution around mining areas can be identified, detailed description and analysis
of specific pollution locations remains unknown because of a lack of consideration for specific division standards
and examination of the region on a smaller scale. In addition, the positioning of small-scale pollution areas cannot
be identified. There is also some soil pollution research targeting particular environments that may be influenced by
mining areas; however, mastering the problem of mining area pollution is constrained by a limited study area.
Therefore, to understand the entire situation of soil pollution, identify small-scale pollution, and ascertain the
locations of high-risk pollution areas, it is necessary to use township divisions to represent the soil heavy metal risk
level figures in the entire Suxian District. The final assessment outcomes include the statistics of the various risk
levels in each township, which can identify the distribution of the pollution area and effectively promote the
management of soil heavy metals.
Using soil As ecological pollution risk assessment as an example, the results of As single-factor potential
ecological risk level (Figure 3) and the As potential ecological risk condition of each township (Table 3) were
comprehensively analyzed in paragraph 4.2.2.1. Figure 3 represents the approximate distribution regions with high
risk levels, which can be allocated in townships by reducing the risk level figure with township boundaries; thus,
the detailed position and area statistics of high risk regions(Table 3) can be obtained using the units of townships.
High-risk townships that include subordinate villages are listed at two levels of significant treatment for each
area (Table 7) — level 1 villages with serious pollution (quite strong ecological risk level) and level 2 villages with
pollution (strong ecological risk level) — and townships with slight and moderate risk level simply requiring
monitoring. Using a smaller scale can allow for the allocation of high-pollution risk areas to specific townships and
benefit pollution management. In addition, the difficulty of implementing pollution control is reduced, and small
regions with high ecological risk levels can be evaluated as well. The guiding significance of these results was
ignored in previous research.

5.2 The adjustment of the potential ecological risk assessment domain

Ascertaining a comprehensive ecological risk index (RI) involves pollutant types and volume. Because the
results of the evaluation standards of the Hakanson method are presented based on testing 8 types of heavy metals,
the evaluation standard is not applicable when the number of heavy metals is less than or more than eight.
Extensive application of the potential ecological risk method adjusting the evaluation domain will improve the
assessment accuracy. Therefore, the assessment domain of the Hakanson method was adjusted in this paper to
obtain evaluation results with more practical value. By comparing the figure of total ecological risk (3.2.3, Figure 4)
after adjusting the evaluation standard with Figure 5 and before adjusting the evaluation domain, the outcomes
indicate that the locations of high risk townships remain identical; clearly, lower total pollution risk levels are
obtained when evaluation standards are not adjusted. Only 4 risk levels were observed, and moderate risk (level 2)
was the dominant level in the majority of the area; however, 5 risk levels were included when the assessment
standards were adjusted, primarily level 3 (strong risk level).

10
 The various areas of comprehensive risk levels in the Suxian District were counted before adjusting the
assessment domain to quantify the influence of evaluation standards on potential ecological risk assessment, and the
result was compared to the outcome (3.2.2, Table 6) after assessment domain adjustment. Table 8 indicates an
obvious decline in level 1 and level 2 areas when assessment standards are adjusted, from 17.92% to 2.34% and
66.28% to 12.77%, respectively. However, high risk levels cover more area. Before adjusting evaluation standards,
a level 2 risk was assigned to the majority of the area in the Suxian District; however, level 3 was the primary risk
level when assessment standards were adjusted, accounting for 65.80% of the total area. Even a level 5 risk was
observed, which was not present under the original evaluation standards. The validity of the assessment levels of
soil ecological risk is weakened if evaluation domains are not adjusted. Without adjustment, the risk levels do not
reflect the real situation.

5.3 Selection of spatial interpolation methods for heavy metals in soil

Inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation predicted and analyzed the soil heavy metals in this study.
Numerous interpolation methods are available, such as IDW, Spline and Kriging. Although many comparisons of
these interpolation methods have been conducted, there is no consistent conclusion to identify the most accurate
interpolation method that is appropriate for all situations. Some scholars believe that IDW produces the best
interpolation effect(Ferguson R B, 1996; Weber D D, 1992), which is contradicted by other conclusions that
Kriging is better than other interpolation methods (Laslett G M, 1987; Panagopoulos T, 2006). Uniform standards
do not exist, and there is no absolute advantage of one method over other methods. Differences in research
objectives produce differences in accuracy when various interpolations are used (Bhunia G S, 2016; Mcshane L M,
1997; Dlamini P, 2012). It is unnecessary to obtain high precision semi-variation functions when applying IDW,
which can simplify operability. However, the use of IDW is only appropriate for data with non-normal distributions
(Xia, 1968). Table 9 displays the single sample K-S test results, which can directly show whether the data are
normally distributed. The table indicates that bilateral significant values of five types of heavy metals are lower than
0.10; thus, the null hypothesis is rejected. The data do not meet the significance test requirements, which
demonstrates that the data of five types of heavy metals do not conform to a normal distribution. In addition, a
smoothing effect should be considered with regard to the selection of interpolation methods because a smoothing
effect exists in different interpolations to varying degrees, which can influence the prediction accuracy of pollution
in the research area as well as the complexity reflection of the entire pollution situation. There is less of a
smoothing effect with IDW interpolation. Researchers have compared IDW with other interpolation methods,
observing that the IDW index is close to the average pollution prediction index and the average sampling points
pollution index. Therefore, IDW interpolation was selected to study the pollution of soil with heavy metals in the
study area.

There is considerable room for improving interpolation accuracy in future research. Better prediction outcomes
can be obtained for Kriging interpolation using the high accuracy semi-variance function, which can be promoted
with intelligent algorithms, and the promotion of IDW accuracy should include the appropriate choice of index and
estimation of the neighbourhood sample number(Kravchenko A, 1999; Weber D, 1992). In addition, the continuous
variables or category information associated with soil properties is used as auxiliary information to improve
interpolation precision, which causes the result to be closer to the true value. Combining different research
objectives with several interpolation methods can improve the accuracy of the results (Dlamini P, 2012). Using the
traditional interpolation method, researchers can apply high-accuracy surface modelling (HASM) to the soil
interpolation, which produces evident advantages for interpolation accuracy. However, the above methods are still
in a stage of development and exploration and have not been used extensively; the accuracy of the results can’t be
guaranteed. Therefore, in order to ensure high precision outcomes, the IDW interpolation method has been used.

11
6 Conclusion
Using Hakanson risk assessment method with adjusting evaluation domain combined with AgcGIS technology
to predict soil heavy metals content as well as grading different pollution risk levels. Take further to accurately
locate the high risk region based on the administrative divisions of the township levels and calculate different risk
level areas and area ratio for each township. The study achieves more precise exploration for soil heavy metal
pollution and provides guidance value for practical work.The following are some of the results obtained in this
study:
(1) IDW interpolation and Hakanson potential ecological risk method with adjusting evaluation standards
according to the number and types of studied heavy metals are effectively applied into exploring soil heavy metal
pollution in mining area. The pollution results with more serious and higher pollution levels after adjusting
evaluation domain are more consistent with the actual situation.
(2) Calculate the area of different risk levels for each township and locate the sites with high risk levels in
specific villages. This results advances more finely tuned pollution situations and more practical guidelines.
(3) The contents of As, Cu, Pb, and Zn are similarly distributed but differ for Hg.The highest accumulation area
of the four heavy metals is in Bai Lutang, Tang Xi, the south of Tang Xi and the junction between Bai Lutang and
Da Kuishang. However, the Hg content is relatively higher than the former heavy metals and is dispersed over a
high value area, primarily distributed in Wu Lipai, Qi Fengdu, Ma Touling, Liang Tian and Ao Shang. The
significant pollution situation for five types of heavy metals in Suxian District is revealed by the single factor and
the Nemero pollution index.
(4) The single-factor ecological risk index indicates that there is a large area of high pollution risk for As and Pb
distributed in Bai Lutang, Tang Xi and Da Kuishang. The majority of area in Suxian is polluted by Hg reaching to
strong (4 level) even higher ecological risk level. Wu Lipai, Ma Touling and Qi Kou are the primary locations for
Strong risk level(level 4 ), and Liang Tian, Qiao Kou, Wu Lipai are distributed the area of extremely strong risk
level (level 5). The result of a single ecological risk assessment reveals that Zn and Cu are at slight risk levels in the
entire Suxian region; the comprehensive ecological risk index indicates that the high comprehensive ecological risk
level is in Suxian. In which 82.9% of the total area is at a strong (level 3) or higher risk level, indicating that serious
pollution issues exist in the soil of Suxian. Quite strong (level 4) risk regions occur primarily in the vicinity of the
Shizhuyuan Polymetallic Mine and coal mining area.

Acknowledge
This study was partially funded by Data Acquisition and Feature Information Mining of Sudden Biological
Hazards(2016YFC1201301) and Common technology of high-resolution earth observation system major project
application(30Y20A07900317/18). We like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their helpful remarks.

12
Reference:
Allen T. R., Shellito B.,2008.Spatial interpolation and image-integrative geostatistical prediction of mosquito
vectors for arboviral surveillance. Geocarto International,23(4):311-325.
Acosta,J.A.,Gabarrón,M.,Faz A., et al. 2015.Influence of population density on the concentration and speciation of
metals in the soil and street dust from urban areas. Chemosphere.134:328-337.
Adio S.O., Omar M.H., Asif M., et al.,2017. Arsenic and Selenium removal from water using Biosynthesized
Nanoscale zero-valent iron: A factorial design analysis. Process Safety & Environmental Protection, 107.
Buat, Menard,P., Chesselet,R., 1979.Variable influence of the atmospheric flux on the tracemental chemistry of
oceanic suspended matter .Earth and Planetary Science letters.42-399-411.
Bao S D (Edt), 2000. Chemical analysis of agricultural soil,China Agriculture Press (3rd Edition), Beijing,
ISBN:9787109066441
Burgos P., Madejón E., Pérez-De-Mora A., et al.,2006. Spatial variability of the chemical characteristics of a
trace-element-contaminated soil before and after remediation. Geoderma,130(1–2):157-175.
Bhunia,G.S.,Shit,P.K., Maiti,R.,2016.Comparison of GIS-based interpolation methods for spatial distribution of soil
organic carbon (SOC) . Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences.
Chabukdhara M., Nema A.K.,2013. Heavy metals assessment in urban soil around industrial clusters in Ghaziabad,
India: probabilistic health risk approach.. Ecotoxicology & Environmental Safety, 2013, 87(1):57.
Dlamini,P., Chaplot,V.,2012.On the interpolation of volumetric water content in research catchments . Physics &
Chemistry of the Earth Parts A/b/c.s 50-52(2): 165-174.
Ferguson,R.B.,1996.Comparison of Kriging and Inverse-Distance Methods for Mapping Soil Parameters . Soil
Science Society of America Journal. 60(4): 1237-1247.
Fernández J.,A., Carballeira A.,2001. Evaluation of contamination, by different elements, in terrestrial mosses.
Archives of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology, 40(4):461-8.
Fu S W., Jing S C., Yan Y W., 1991. Study on the background value of soil environment in China,12(4):12-19
Fu C. A., Guo J. S., Pan J., et al.,2009. Potential ecological risk assessment of heavy metal pollution in sediments of
the Yangtze River within the Wanzhou section, China. Biological Trace Element Research, 129(1-3):270-277.
Fan W., Bai Z., Li H., et al.,2011. Potential ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in reclaimed soils.
Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering. 27(1):348-354.
Fan,L.Q.,Chen,F.H.,Fan,Y.L.,2012.Comprehensive assessment of soil environmental quality with improved grey
clustering method：A case study of soil heavy metals pollution . Journal of Agricultural Science &
Applications.1(3):67-73.
Fang Z.Q.,2016.Pollution Characteristics of Heavy Metal in Soil from Lead and Zinc mine and its Stabilization
Study. China University of Mining & Technology, Beijing.
Feng S.,Renmei L., Amjad Ali, et al.,2017. Spatial distribution and risk assessment of heavy metals in soil near a
Pb/Zn smelter in Feng County, China. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 254–262.
G. Müller,1969.Index of geoaccumulation in sediments of the Rhine River.2(3): 109-118.
Gupta V. K., Ali I., Saleh T.A., et al.,2012. Chemical treatment technologies for waste-water recycling—an
overview. Rsc Advances, 2(16):6380-6388.
Gong,G.,Mattevada,S., O’Bryant,S.E.,2014.Comparison of the accuracy of kriging and IDW interpolations in
estimating groundwater arsenic concentrations in Texas. Environmental Research.130(24):59-69.
Hakanson L.,1980. An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control.a sedimentological approach . Water
Research. 14(8):975-1001.
Hernandez,L.,Probst,A.,Probst,J.L.,et al.,2003. Heavy metal distribution in some French forest soils: evidence for
atmospheric contamination. . Science of the Total Environment.312(1-3):195-219.
Huang X. X., Zhu X. F., Tang L., 2012. Pollution characteristics and their comparative study of heavy metals in the
gold and iron mine soil of the upstream area of Miyun Reservoir, Beijing. Acta Scientiae

13
 Circumstantiae ,32(6):1520-1528.
Hu Y., Liu X., Bai J., et al.,2013. Assessing heavy metal pollution in the surface soils of a region that had undergone
three decades of intense industrialization and urbanization. Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
20(9):6150.
Jian-Hua M. A, Wang X.Y, Hou Q, et al., 2011.Pollution and potential ecological risk of heavy metals in surface
dust on urban kindergartens. Geographical Research, 30(3):486-495.
Jie L., Chunting F., et al.,2017.Spatial distribution and source identification of heavy metals in surface soils in a
typical coal mine city, Lianyuan, China . Environmental Pollution.
Kravchenko,A., Bullock,D.G.A.,1999.Comparative study of interpolation methods for mapping soil properties .
Agronomy Journal,91(3):393-400.
Kowalska,J., Mazurek,R., Gasiorek,M., et al.,2016.Soil pollution indices conditioned by medieval metallurgical
activity - A case study from Krakow (Poland), Environmental Pollution.218:1023-1036.
Laslett,G.M.,Mcbratney, A.B.,Pahl,P.J.,et al.,1987.Comparison of several spatial prediction methods for soil pH .
European Journal of Soil Science.38(2):325-341.
Liu,W.H., Zhao,J.Z.,Ouyang,Z.Y., et al.,2005. Impacts of sewage irrigation on heavy metal distribution and
contamination in Beijing, China . Environment International, 31(6):805-812.
Lianfang L.I., Zeng X., Guoxue L.I. et al.,2007. Heavy metal pollution of Wenyu River sediment and
its risk assessment. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae.
Li Z., Ma Z., van der Kuijp T.J., et al.,2014. A review of soil heavy metal pollution from mines in China: pollution
and health risk assessment. Science of the Total Environment, 468-469:843.
Li L., Cui J., Liu J., et al.,2016. Extensive study of potential harmful elements (Ag, As, Hg, Sb, and Se) in surface
sediments of the Bohai Sea, China: Sources and environmental risks. Environmental Pollution, 219:432.
Li K., Gu Y., Li M., et al.,2017.Spatial analysis, source identification and risk assessment of heavy metals in a coal
mining area in Henan, Central China. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation.
Meng,Y.L.,Hua,J.H.,Xin,D.L.,et al.,2015.Potential ecological risk assessment of heavy metal pollution in urban soil
of Kaifeng,China .Environment Science, 3:1037-1044.
Mcshane,L.M., Meier,K.L., 1997.Wassermann E M. A comparison of spatial prediction techniques for an
exploratory analysis of human cortical motor representations, Statistics in Medicine. 16(12):1337-1355.
Manta,D.S., Angelone,M., Bellanca A, et al., 2002. Heavy metals in urban soils: a case study from the city of
Palermo (Sicily), Italy, Science of the Total Environment, ,300(1-3):229-243.
Milillo,T.M., Jr,G.J.,2008.Spatial analysis of time of flight-secondary ion mass spectrometric images by ordinary
kriging and inverse distance weighted interpolation techniques.. Analytical Chemistry.80(13):4896-905.
Nemerow,N.L.,1974.Scientific Stream Pollution Analysis// Scientific stream pollution analysis /. Scripta Book
Co.
Onkal-Engin,G., Demir,I., Hiz,H.,2004.Assessment of urban air quality in Istanbul using fuzzy synthetic
evaluation , Atmospheric Environment, 38(23):3809-3815.
Panagopoulos,T., Jesus,J., Antunes,M.D.C., et al.,2006. Analysis of spatial interpolation for optimising management
of a salinized field cultivated with lettuce, European Journal of Agronomy, 24(1):1-10.
Peng H., Liu Y., Li J., et al.,2007. An ecological risk assessment for heavy metals of the lead-zinc ore tailings,
3(2):217-224.
Qing X., Shu H L.,2008. Heavy metal pollution of surface soil and its evaluation of potential ecological risk :a case
study of differenct functional areas in Baotou City. Journal of Natural Disasters.17( 6) : 6-12
Qian D., Gong C., Yong W, et al.,2016. Effects of natural factors on the spatial distribution of heavy metals in soils
surrounding mining regions. Science of the Total Environment,578(2017)577-585
Mazurek,R.,Kowalska,J.,Gasiorek,M., et al.,2016.Assessment of heavy metals contamination in surface layers of
Roztocze National Park forest soils (SE Poland) by indices of pollution . Chemosphere
Shepard,D.,1968.A two-dimensional interpolation function for irregularly-spaced data// ACM National

14
 Conference. ACM, 517-524.
Spokas,K.,Graff,C.,Morcet,M.,et al.,2003.Implications of the spatial variability of landfill emission rates on
geospatial analyses. .Waste Management. 23(7):599-607.
Sun C., Bi C., Chen Z., et al.,2010. Assessment on environmental quality of heavy metals in agricultural soils of
Chongming Island, Shanghai City. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 20(1):135-147.
Saleh T. A., Agarwal S., Gupta V. K.,2011. Synthesis of MWCNT/MnO 2, and their application for simultaneous
oxidation of arsenite and sorption of arsenate. Applied Catalysis B Environmental, 106(1–2):46-53.
Suresh G., Sutharsan P., Ramasamy V., et al.,2012. Assessment of spatial distribution and potential ecological risk
of the heavy metals in relation to granulometric contents of Veeranam lake sediments, India. Ecotoxicology
& Environmental Safety, 84(10):117-124.
Saleh T.A.,2015a. Mercury sorption by silica/carbon nanotubes and silica/activated carbon: A comparison study.
Aqua, 64(8):892-903.
Saleh T. A.,2015b. Nanocomposite of carbon nanotubes/silica nanoparticles and their use for adsorption of Pb(II):
from surface properties to sorption mechanism. Desalination & Water Treatment, 57(23):1-15.
Saleh T. A.,2015c. Isotherm, kinetic, and thermodynamic studies on Hg(II) adsorption from aqueous solution by
silica- multiwall carbon nanotubes. Environmental Science & Pollution Research, 22(21):16721-16731.
Saleh T. A.,2015d. Applying Nanotechnology to the Desulfurization Process in Petroleum Engineering.IGI,
ISBN-13: 978-1466695450
Sani H. A., Ahmad M. B., Hussein M. Z., et al.,2017. Nanocomposite of ZnO with montmorillonite for removal of
lead and copper ions from aqueous solutions. Process Safety & Environmental Protection,109:97-105.
Wartenberg,D.,Coogan,P.,1991. Estimating exposure using kriging: a simulation study . Environmental Health
Perspectives. 94(94):75-82.
Weber,D.D., Englund,E.J.,1992.Evaluation and comparison of spatial interpolators II . Mathematical
Geology.24(4):381-391
Wuana R. A., Okieimen F. E.,2011. Heavy Metals in Contaminated Soils: A Review of Sources, Chemistry, Risks
and Best Available Strategies for Remediation. Isrn Ecology, 2011(2090-4614).
Xiao,X.G.,Qiang,C.L.,Zhou,Z.Z.,2011.Evaluation method of heavy metal pollution in soil .Chines Journal of
Ecology. 30(5):889-896
Xie,Y., Chen,T.B., Mei,L., et al.,2011.Spatial distribution of soil heavy metal pollution estimated by different
interpolation methods: Accuracy and uncertainty analysis . Chemosphere.82(3):468-476.
Min,X.,Xin,B.Z.,Bao,J.Z.,2013. Study on accumulation of heavy metal in typical fluvo aquic soil of Huanghuaihai
plain(China) based on GIS .Acta Pedologica Sinica.50(4):684-692.
Yang,G., Shao,C., Ju,M.,2014. Heavy Metal Contamination Assessment and Partition for Industrial and Mining
Gathering Areas . International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health.11(7):7286-7303.
Yan,W., Mahmood,Q., Peng,D., et al.,2015.The spatial distribution pattern of heavy metals and risk assessment of
moso bamboo forest soil around lead–zinc mine in Southeastern China . Soil & Tillage Research.153:120-130.
Zhou,Y., Michalak,A.M.,2009.Characterizing attribute distributions in water sediments by geostatistical
downscaling. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(24):9267-73.
Zheng,Z.,Q,Shi,J.,N.,et al.,2008.Calculation of Heavy Metals' Toxicity Coefficient in the Evaluation of Potential
Ecological Risk Index. Environmental Science & Technology,1003-6504(2008)02-0112-04
Zhao H., Xia B., Fan C., et al.,2012. Human health risk from soil heavy metal contamination under different land
uses near Dabaoshan Mine, Southern China.. Science of the Total Environment, s 417–418(7385):45-54.
Zang F., Wang S., Nan Z., et al.,2017.Accumulation, spatio-temporal distribution, and risk assessment of heavy
metals in the soil-corn system around a polymetallic mining area from the Loess Plateau, northwest China.
Geoderma, 305:188-196.

15
16
Fig. 1. A regional depiction of Suxian District sampling locations

17
18
Fig.2 The distribution of As(left) and Cu(right) contents in soil

19
Fig.2. The distribution of Hg(left) and Pb(right) contents in soil

20
Fig.2. The distribution of Zn contents in soil

21
22
Fig.3Single-factor ecological risk index of As(left) and Cu(right) in soil

23
24
Fig.3Single-factor ecological risk index of Hg(left) and Pb(right) in soil

Fig.3. Single-factor ecological risk index of Zn in soil

25
Fig.4. Total potential ecological risk index of the Suxian District (Revision Evaluation Criteria)

26
Fig.5. The Hakanson total potential ecological risk index of Suxian District

27
Tab.1. Comparison of Hakanson classification standard in this study in E and RI grading standards

Ei Hakanson <40 40-80 80-160 160-320 >=320

This research <40 40-80 80-160 160-320 >=320
RI i Hakanson <150 150-300 300-600 >=600 —
This research <70 70-140 140-280 280-560 —>=560
Ecological risk level slight moderate strong quite strong extremely strong

28
 Tab.2. Pollution of soil with heavy metals

Mean Standard Scale Swew- Kurt- Coefficient Background Two levels Index The
deviation
value (mg/Kg) -ness -osis of value of of Nem-

(mg/Kg) variation % (mg/Kg) environment single -erow

qualit factor Index

standard

(mg/Kg)

As 78.70 98.70 1.31~547.17 2.61 6.92 125.00 14.00 40.00 5.62

Cu 37.96 54.36 3.01~611.46 7.72 78.11 143.00 26.00 150.00 10.41

Hg 0.31 0.24 0.02~1.28 0.71 0.70 77.00 0.096 0.30 1.46 11.60

Pb 160.19 265.33 0.29~2566.7 5.42 42.71 166.00 27.00 250.00 5.93

Zn 202.79 201.56 22.02~1686. 3.63 20.22 99.00 94.40 200.00 2.14

* can be referened in paper(Fu S W et al.,,1991)

29
 Tab. 3. Potential ecological risk status of As in each village/town

level 1 level 2 level 3 level 4 level 5

(slight) (moderate) ( stong) (quite strong) (extremely strong)

Township Area ㎡ % Area ㎡ % Area ㎡ % Area ㎡ % Area ㎡ %

Liao
1612.30 2.28 582.81 2.00
Wangping
Gang Jiao 996.98 1.41 2348.97 8.06 346.13 2.89
Qi Fengdu 2002.84 2.83 1242.53 4.27
Tai Ping 2588.60 3.66 2.96 0.01
Wu Lipai 6822.07 9.65 106.50 0.37
Ma Touling 550.26 0.78 3579.66 12.29 562.10 4.70 349.09 4.81
He Yeping 4819.23 6.82 2218.80 7.62 159.76 1.33
Xu Jiadong 4413.93 6.24 1136.03 3.90 5.92 0.05
Qiao Kou 8987.62 12.71 745.52 2.56 174.55 1.46
Bai Ludong 251.46 0.36 3121.11 10.71 739.60 6.18
Bai Lutang 402.34 0.57 4819.23 16.54 4848.82 40.50 3121.11 42.93 29.58 1.00
Tang Xi 2597.48 3.67 5262.99 18.06 2479.14 20.70 3242.41 44.59
Su
165.67 0.23
Xianling
Nan Ta 109.46 0.15
Ao Shang 7567.59 10.70 1251.40 4.29 325.42 2.72 130.17 1.79
Liang Tian 10700.50 15.13 2387.43 8.19 2322.34 19.39 417.13 5.73
Da
7307.25 10.33 112.42 0.39
Kuishang
Deng
4523.39 6.40 82.84 0.28
Jiatang
Liao
4271.93 6.04 124.25 0.43
Jiawan
Total 70690.94 59.37 29125.44 24.46 11963.77 10.05 7259.92 6.10 29.58 0.02

Note: %(except the “Total” colume) represents the proportion of the area for a certain risk level to the total area of the same risk

level;The % in the “Total” colume represents the proportion of area for a certain risk level to the total area in research zone.

30
 Tab. 4. Potential ecological risk status of Hg in each village/town

level 1 level 2 level 3 level 4 level 5

(slight) (moderate) ( stong) (quite strong) (extremely strong)

Township Area ㎡ % Area ㎡ % Area ㎡ % Area ㎡ % Area ㎡ %

iao
38.46 0.75 641.98 4.42 1514.7 2.26
Wangping
Gang Jiao 38.46 0.75 3121.11 21.49 532.51 0.80
Qi Fengdu 411.22 8.01 295.84 2.04 502.93 0.75 2032.42 6.46 2.96 0.28
Tai Ping 88.75 1.73 147.92 1.02 1849.00 2.76 505.89 1.61
Wu Lipai 201.17 3.92 322.47 2.22 1118.28 1.67 5135.78 16.32 150.88 14.06
Ma Touling 153.84 3.00 269.21 1.85 2141.88 3.20 2476.18 7.87
He Yeping 207.09 4.03 491.09 3.38 4848.82 7.25 1650.79 5.25
Xu Jiadong 224.84 4.38 597.60 4.11 3159.57 4.72 1573.87 5.00
Qiao Kou 124.25 2.42 301.76 2.08 4132.88 6.18 4644.69 14.76 704.10 65.38
Bai Ludong 106.50 2.07 307.67 2.12 3124.07 4.67 573.93 1.82
Bai Lutang 372.76 7.25 1529.49 10.52 8946.20 13.37 2372.64 7.54
Tang Xi 461.51 8.98 1470.32 10.12 9694.68 14.49 1955.50 6.21
Su
165.67 3.22
Xianling
Nan Ta 2.96 0.06 2.96 0.02 53.2512 0.08 50.29 0.16
Ao Shang 227.80 4.43 541.39 3.72 4946.44 7.39 3396.24 10.79 162.71 15.02
Liang Tian 204.13 3.97 431.93 2.97 4067.80 6.08 2665.52 8.47 50.29 4.64
Da 11026.0
606.47 11.79 1922.96 13.23 16.48 2272.05 7.22
Kuishang 0
Deng
458.55 8.91 1067.98 7.35 2973.19 4.44 106.50 0.34
Jiatang
Liao
1035.44 20.11 1059.11 7.28 2245.43 3.36 56.21 0.18
Jiawan
14522.7 66877.6 31468.5
Total 5129.86 4.31 12.20 56.17 26.43 1070.93 0.90
7 3 0

Note: %(except the “Total” colume) represents the proportion of the area for a certain risk level to the total area of the same risk

level;The % in the “Total” colume represents the proportion of area for a certain risk level to the total area in research zone.

31
 Tab.5. Potential ecological risk status of Hg in each village/town

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

(slight) (moderate) ( stong) (quite strong) (extremely strong)

Township Area ㎡ % Area ㎡ % Area ㎡ % Area ㎡ % Area ㎡ %

Liao
2195.13 2.30
Wangping
Gang Jiao 3635.87 3.81 56.21 0.39

Qi Fengdu 2890.36 3.03 355.01 2.49

Tai Ping 2591.56 2.71

Wu Lipai 6928.57 7.25
Ma Touling 4526.35 4.74 514.76 3.61
He Yeping 5943.43 6.22 1254.36 8.79
Xu Jiadong 5555.88 5.82
Qiao Kou 8600.07 9.00 639.01 4.48 656.77 7.25 11.83 5.97
Bai Ludong 3609.25 3.78 502.93 3.52
30.4
Bai Lutang 5783.67 6.05 4337.01 3008.69 33.20 82.84 41.37 8.88 33.33
0
28.8
Tang Xi 6431.56 6.73 4115.13 3035.32 33.49
4
Su Xianling 165.67 0.17
Nan Ta 109.46 0.11
Ao Shang 8517.23 8.92 541.39 3.79 215.96 2.38
Liang Tian 7419.67 7.77
13.6
Da Kuishang 11617.60 12.16 1943.67 2144.84 23.65 103.54 50.21 17.75 66.67
2
Deng Jiatang 4606.23 4.82
Liao Jiawan 4396.18 4.60
14259.4 11.9
Total 95523.74 80.23 9061.58 7.61 198.21 0.17 26.63 0.02
8 8

Note: %(except the “Total” colume) represents the proportion of the area for a certain risk level to the total area of the same risk

level;The % in the “Total” colume represents the proportion of area for a certain risk level to the total area in research zone.

32
 Tab.6. Total potential ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in different towns

Note Level 1 level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

:%(e (slight) (moderate) ( stong) (quite strong) (extremely strong)
xcep Township Area % Area % Area % Area % Area %
t the Liao
692.27 24.84 1502.87 9.89
“Tot Wangping

al” Gang Jiao 79.88 0.53 3464.29 4.42 147.92 0.68

Qi Fengdu 91.71 3.29 313.59 2.06 2493.93 3.18 346.13 1.59

colu
Tai Ping 44.38 1.59 260.34 1.71 2286.84 2.92
me)
Wu Lipai 106.50 3.82 461.51 3.03 5322.16 6.79 1038.40 4.76
repre
Ma Touling 23.67 0.85 295.84 1.95 3106.32 3.96 1615.29 7.40
sents He Yeping 260.34 1.71 6830.95 8.72 106.50 0.49

the Xu Jiadong 91.71 3.28 967.40 6.36 4372.52 5.58 124.25 0.57
Qiao Kou 147.92 5.29 707.06 4.65 6964.07 8.89 1928.88 8.83 159.75 17.82
prop
Bai Ludong 100.59 0.66 3748.29 4.78 263.30 1.21
ortio
Bai Lutang 11.83 0.42 387.55 2.55 6896.03 8.80 5390.20 24.68 535.47 59.60
n of Tang Xi 8.88 0.32 775.10 5.09 6925.61 8.84 5872.42 26.89

the Su Xianling 165.67 0.21

Nan Ta 5.92 0.21 76.92 0.51 26.63 0.03
area
Ao Shang 82.84 2.96 1147.86 7.54 6718.53 8.57 1304.65 5.97 20.71 2.29
for a
Liang Tian 201.17 7.18 1020.65 6.71 5810.30 7.41 387.55 1.77
certa Da
633.10 22.59 2772.02 18.21 8937.33 11.40 3304.53 15.13 180.46 19.95
in Kuishang
Deng
risk 236.67 8.44 2159.63 14.19 2209.92 2.82
Jiatang
level
Liao Jiawan 408.26 14.56 1914.08 12.58 2073.84 2.65
to 2786.8 78353.2 21830.0
Total 2.34 15203.21 12.77 65.80 18.33 896.39 0.75
the 1 2 3

total area of the same risk level;The % in the “Total” colume represents the proportion of area for a certain risk level to the total area in

research zone.

33
 Tab.7. The significant remediation village and level for As high pollution risk

Pollution Name of
remediation level townships Name of villages

Tang Xi Heng Long, Ma Wulong, Shang He, Shi Hu

level 2 (quite Bai Lutang Dong Po, Shi Zhuyuan, Bai Lutang, Xiang Shanping, Jin
strong ecological Tiancun
risk) Ma Touling Ban Zilou
Da Tai Pingtou, Liang Sanping
Kuishang
level 2(strong Tang Xi Xiao Xi, Zhu Dui, Guan Shan
ecological risk) Bai Lutang Guan Shandong, Xia Baishui, Ping Tian, Yang Xi
Bai Ludong Suo Shiqiao, Long Menchi
Gang JIao Yun Feng

Tab.8. The area for different risk levels before and after adjusting the evaluation range

Area proportion Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

（%） (extremely strong)
(slight) (moderate) (strong) (quite strong)

Before 17.92 66.28 15.43 0.37 —

adjustment
After 2.34 12.77 65.80 18.33 0.75
adjustment
Increase/ —86.90% —80.73% +76.55% +97.98%
decrease rate

34
 Tab.9. The single sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test

As Hg Cu Pb Zn
N 166 166 166 166 166
Mean value 77.97 37.65 0.32 156.89 199.97
Normal
standard 97.67 53.61 0.25 262.01 199.21
parametera,b
deviation
Absolute 0.31 0.27 0.11 0.28 0.22
value
The
Positive 0.31 0.26 0.07 0.25 0.22
most extreme
value
difference
Negative -0.23 -0.27 -0.11 -0.28 -0.19
value
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 3.96 3.41 1.36 3.54 2.82
Asymptotic significance 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00
(bilateral)

a. The distribution of the test is normal distribution.

b.Based on the calculation of the data.

35