See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223592792

Calculating Pollution Indices by Heavy Metals in Ecological Geochemistry

Assessment and a Case Study in Parks of Beijing

Article  in  Journal of China University of Geosciences · June 2008

DOI: 10.1016/S1002-0705(08)60042-4

CITATIONS READS

313 17,427

5 authors, including:

Qingjie Gong Jun Deng

China University of Geosciences (Beijing) China University of Geosciences (Beijing)
63 PUBLICATIONS   1,676 CITATIONS    305 PUBLICATIONS   9,026 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Xiang Yunchuan Wang Qingfei

Yunnan University China University of Geosciences (Beijing)
7 PUBLICATIONS   315 CITATIONS    263 PUBLICATIONS   5,980 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Element behaviors during weathering View project

Paleomagnetism of the ore deposit View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Qingjie Gong on 22 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of China University of Geosciences, Vol. 19, No. 3, p. 230–241, June 2008 ISSN 1002-0705
Printed in China

Calculating Pollution Indices by Heavy Metals in

Ecological Geochemistry Assessment and a Case
Study in Parks of Beijing

Gong Qingjie* (龚庆杰), Deng Jun (邓军)

State Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral Resources, China University of Geosciences,
Beijing 100083, China
Xiang Yunchuan (向运川)
Development and Research Center of China Geological Survey, Beijing 100037, China
Wang Qingfei (王庆飞), Yang Liqiang (杨立强)
State Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral Resources, China University of Geosciences,
Beijing 100083, China

ABSTRACT: Pollution index is a powerful tool for ecological geochemistry assessment. The commonly
used pollution indices by heavy metals in soils and sediments were classified as two types of single index
and integrated index in an algorithm point of view. Four single indices of contamination factor (or
concentration factor), ecological risk factor, enrichment factor, and index of geo-accumulation were
illustrated, and the reference values for calculating single indices were distinguished into background
levels and threshold pollution values. Eight integrated indices were divided into two groups. One group
is suitable for the normal distribution single indices including the sum, average, weighted average,
vector modulus, and Nemerow pollution indices, and the other for log-normal distribution including the
product, root of product, and weighted power product pollution indices. Using background levels as
reference values, five contamination classes were divided, and the terminologies are suggested for the
single and integrated indices to unify the assessment results. Software of EGAPI was developed in a
single document interface to calculate the four single and eight integrated indices by heavy metals to
assess the quality of soil and sediment ecological geochemistry. Pollution indices by heavy metals of Cu,
Pb, and Zn in soils in parks of Beijing were calculated using EGAPI software, and these five
contamination classes and terminologies suggested in this study were evaluated and used. Results of
integrated indices of Cu, Pb, and Zn in soils indicated that the soil qualities are unpolluted as a whole
and varied from low polluted to unpolluted status from the center to the outskirts of Beijing City.
KEY WORDS: pollution indiex, heavy metals,
This article is supported by the Project of China Geological EGAPI software, soil assessment, parks of
Survey (No. 1212010610919) and the State Key Laboratory of Beijing.
Geological Processes and Mineral Resources (No.
GPMR200636). INTRODUCTION
*Corresponding author: qjiegong@cugb.edu.cn With the rapid industrialization and economic
development, heavy metals are continuing to be
Manuscript received December 30, 2007. introduced to soils and sediments via several pathways,
Manuscript accepted January 10, 2008. including fertilization, irrigation, rivers, runoff,
Calculating Pollution Indices by Heavy Metals in Ecological Geochemistry Assessment and a Case Study in Parks of Beijing 231

atmospheric deposition, and point sources, where indices to assess heavy metal contamination and
metals are produced as a result of metal mining, classified them into three types: (i) contamination
refining, and refinishing by products. Soils are usually indices, (ii) background enrichment indices, and (iii)
regarded as the ultimate sink for heavy metals ecological risk indices. In this article, we classified the
discharged into the environment (Banat et al., 2005), commonly used pollution indices into two types: (i)
and sediments can be sensitive indicators for single indices and (ii) integrated indices in an
monitoring contaminants in aquatic environments algorithm point of view.
(Pekey et al., 2004). Therefore the environmental
problem of soil and sediment pollution by heavy Single Indices
metals has received increasing attention in the last few Single indices are indicators used to calculate
decades in both developing and developed countries only one metal contamination, which include
throughout the world (Zhang et al., 2007). contamination factor, ecological risk factor,
With the development of ecological geochemistry enrichment factor, and index of geo-accumulation etc..
survey and exploration geochemistry survey, a great Only four methods were illustrated as follows.
deal of data related to heavy metal concentration in
soils and water sediments have been measured which Contamination factor
can be used to assess the quality of ecological A contamination factor (Cif) to describe the
geochemistry environment. Many calculation methods contamination of a given toxic substance in a lake or a
have been presented to assess the environmental sub-basin suggested by Håkanson (1980) is
quality, such as pollution index, principle component
C0i −1
analysis (Cheng et al., 2007), gray correlation, and C if =
Cni
fuzzy decision. Different calculation methods on the
where⎯Ci0–1 is the mean content of the substance i
basis of different algorithms might lead to discrepancy
from at least 5 sample sites, and Cin is the
on pollution assessment when they are used to assess
pre-industrial reference level for the substance. The
the quality of soil and/or sediment ecological
pre-industrial reference level determined from various
geochemistry. So it is of great importance to select a
European and American lakes is given in Table 1.
suitable method to assess soil and sediment quality for
decision making and spatial planning.
Table 1 Pre-industrial reference level (μg/g) and toxic-
Pollution index is a powerful tool for processing,
response factor by Håkanson (1980)
analyzing, and conveying raw environmental
information to decision makers, managers, technicians, Elements Hg Cd As Cu Pb Cr Zn
and the public (Caeiro et al., 2005). This article Pre-industrial 0.25 1.0 15 50 70 90 175
reference level
presents the results from the study of pollution indices Toxic-response 40 30 10 5 5 2 1
by heavy metals in ecological geochemistry factor
assessment. Three objectives are communicated. First,
the commonly used indices were divided into two The following terminologies are used to describe
types as single indices and integrated indices, and the contamination factor: Cif<1, low contamination
were illustrated. Then EGAPI software was developed factor; 1≤C i f <3, moderate contamination factors;
to calculate the two types of indices and was 3≤C i f <6, considerable contamination factors; and
illustrated for users. Finally, the soil pollution indices Cif≥6, very high contamination factor. Here, contamin-
by heavy metals in parks of Beijing were calculated ation factor (Cif) was expanded to be defined as
using EGAPI software to assess the quality of soil Cif =Ci/Cri (S1)
ecology.
which is also called concentration factor (Cabrera et
POLLUTION INDICES al., 1999), where Ci is the content of metal i instead of
Caeiro et al. (2005) analyzed the pollution mean content from at least 5 sample sites; Cri is the
232 Gong Qingjie, Deng Jun, Xiang Yunchuan, Wang Qingfei and Yang Liqiang
reference value, baseline level, or national criteria of
metal i. When the sediment quality guideline was
selected for the Cri, the concentration factor (CF) is
equal to the sediment quality guidelines such as effect
range low (ERL)/ effect range median (ERM), and
threshold effect level (TEL)/probable effect level (PEL)
(Roach, 2005; Pekey et al., 2004; Long and
MacDonald, 1998; Long et al., 1998, 1995).
Ecological risk factor
An ecological risk factor (Eri) to quantitatively
express the potential ecological risk of a given
contaminant also suggested by Håkanson (1980) is
Eri=Tri⋅ Cif (S2)
i
where Tr is the toxic-response factor for a given
substance, and Cif is the contamination factor. The Tri
values of heavy metals (including As) by Håkanson
(1980) are also given in Table 1. The following
terminologies are used to describe the risk factor:
Eri<40, low potential ecological risk; 40≤Eri<80,
moderate potential ecological risk; 80≤Eri<160,
considerable potential ecological risk; 160≤Eri<320,
high potential ecological risk; and Eri≥320, very high
ecological risk. Although the risk factor was originally
used as a diagnostic tool for the purpose of controlling
water pollution, it was successfully used for assessing
the quality of sediments and soils in environment by
heavy metals.
Enrichment factor
An element enrichment factor (EF) was initially
developed to speculate on the origin of elements in the
atmosphere, precipitation, or seawater (Duce et al.,
1975; Zoller et al., 1974), but it was progressively
extended to the study of soils, lake sediments, peat,
tailings, and other environmental materials (Reimann
and de Caritat, 2005). The formula to calculate EF is
EF=(Ci/Cie)S/(Ci/Cie)RS (S3)
where Ci is the content of element i in the sample of
interest or the selected reference sample, and Cie is
content of immobile element in the sample or the
selected reference sample. So (Ci/Cie)S is the heavy
metal to immobile element ratio in the samples of
interest, and (Ci/Cie)RS is the heavy metal to immobile
element ratio in the selected reference sample (Zhang
et al., 2007). The selected reference sample is usually
an average crust or a local background sample
(Chatterjee et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2005; Blaser et al.,
2000). The immobile element is often taken to be Al
(Chatterjee et al., 2007; Sutherland, 2000), Li, Sc, Zr
(Blaser et al., 2000) or Ti, and sometimes Fe (Zhang et
al., 2007) or Mn (Liu et al., 2005) has been used. Al
(for terrestrial sources) and Na (for oceanic sources)
have been used for the purpose of comparing the
chemical composition of atmospheric particulate
material collected at the South Pole to the composition
of the crust or the ocean (Reimann and de Caritat,
2005). According to Sutherland (2000), five contami-
nation categories are generally recognized on the basis
of the enrichment factor: EF<2, depletion to mineral
enrichment; 2≤EF<5, moderate enrichment; 5≤EF<20,
significant enrichment; 20≤EF<40, very high
enrichment; and EF>40, extremely high enrichment.
Index of geo-accumulation
An index of geo-accumulation (Igeo) was
originally defined by Müller in 1969, in order to
determine and define metal contamination in
sediments (Banat et al., 2005), by comparing current
concentrations with pre-industrial levels. It can be
calculated by the following equation
Igeo=log2[Ci/(1.5Cri)] (S4)
where Ci is the measured concentration of the
examined metal i in the sediment, and Cri is the
geochemical background concentration or reference
value of the metal i. Factor 1.5 is used because of
possible variations in background values for a given
metal in the environment as well as very small
anthropogenic influences. The geo-accumulation
index (Igeo) was distinguished into seven classes by
Müller (Buccolieri et al., 2006): Igeo≤0, class 0,
unpolluted; 0<Igeo≤1, class 1, from unpolluted to
moderately polluted; 1<Igeo≤2, class 2, moderately
polluted; 2<Igeo≤3, class 3, from moderately to
strongly polluted; 3<Igeo≤4, class 4, strongly polluted;
4<Igeo≤5, class 5, from strongly to extremely polluted;
and Igeo>5, class 6, extremely polluted.
Discussion
In equations (S1) to (S4), the reference value was
used to assess the degree of pollution, but it was not
uniform in values, such as the pre-industrial reference
Calculating Pollution Indices by Heavy Metals in Ecological Geochemistry Assessment and a Case Study in Parks of Beijing
level, the average crust level, the background level,
baseline, national criteria, threshold pollution value,
and Sediment Quality Guidelines (effect range low
and effect range medium), etc.. Using different
reference values will lead to discrepancy in
assessment.
In this study, the reference values were divided in
two kinds as background level and threshold pollution
value. The single pollution index value of >1.0
indicates that it is polluted when threshold value was
referred and unpolluted to some extent when
background level was referred.
The background levels were used in the above
four single indices by Håkanson (1980), Sutherland
(2000) and Buccolieri et al. (2006), but their
classifications of pollution classes were not consistent.
When the threshold pollution values were used to
calculate single indices, the terminologies on pollution
classes would be modified.
Integrated Indices
Integrated indices are indicators used to calculate
more than one metal contamination, which were based
on the single indices. Each kind of integrated index
might be composed by the above single indices
separately. According to algorithm, eight integrated
methods were illustrated as following.
Sum of pollution index
A sum of pollution index (PIsum) can be defined
as
m
PI sum = ∑ Pi (I1)
i =1
where Pi is the single pollution index of heavy metal i,
and m is the count of the heavy metal species. The
sum of pollution index was widely used in soil and
sediment quality assessment by heavy metals such as
the degree of contamination and the potential
ecological risk index (Kwon and Lee, 1998; Håkanson,
1980).
The degree of contamination (Cd) was originally
defined as the sum of all contamination factors
m
Cd = ∑ C if
i =1
where Cifis the single index of contamination factor,
and m is the count of the heavy metal species. For the
233
description of contamination degree, the following
terminologies have been used: Cd<m, low degree of
contamination; m≤Cd<2m, moderate degree of
contamination; 2m≤Cd<4m, considerable degree of
contamination; and Cd>4m, very high degree of
contamination (Caeiro et al., 2005; Pekey et al., 2004).
The potential ecological risk index (RI) was in
the same manner as degree of contamination defined
as the sum of the risk factors
m
RI = ∑ Er i
i =1
i
where Er is the single index of ecological risk factor,
and m is the count of the heavy metal species. The
following terminology was used for the potential
ecological risk index: RI<150, low ecological risk;
150≤RI<300, moderate ecological risk; 300≤RI<600,
considerable ecological risk; and RI>600, very high
ecological risk when the toxic-response factors were
used for the eight elements in Table 1 by Håkanson
(1980).
Average of pollution index
An average of pollution index (PIAvg) can be
defined as
1 m
PI Avg = ∑ Pi (I2)
m i =1
where Pi is the single pollution index of heavy metal i,
and m is the count of the heavy metal species. This
kind of pollution index was used by Bhattacharya et al.
(2006) to assess the quality of abandoned-mine-tailin-
gs environment. A PIAvg value of >1.0 indicates low
quality soil because of contamination.
Weighted average of pollution index
A weighted average of pollution index (PIwAvg)
can be defined as
m
PI wAvg = ∑ wi Pi (I3)
i =1
where Pi is the single pollution index of heavy metal i;
m is the count of the heavy metal species, and wi is the
weight of the Pi. Here, the condition Σwi=1 was not
necessary, so the “average” was just for the sake of
meaning in terminology.
An example of this type index is the new
pollution index (PIN) (Caeiro et al., 2005), which was
defined as
234 Gong Qingjie, Deng Jun, Xiang Yunchuan, Wang Qingfei and Yang Liqiang
m m
PIN = ∑Wi 2 Pi
i =1
where Pi is the concentration factor (CF) single
pollution index of heavy metal i; m is the count of the
heavy metal species, and Wi is the class of the heavy
metal i, whose value varies from 1 to 5 on the basis of
classified pollution classes. In other words, the
potential ecological risk index (RI) by Håkanson
(1980) was the weighted average pollution index on
the basis of contamination factor with the
toxic-response factor weights.
Product of pollution index
A product of pollution index (PIProd) can be
defined as
m
PI Prod = ∏ Pi (I4)
i =1
where Pi is the single pollution index of heavy metal i,
and m is the count of the heavy metal species.
Root of the product of pollution index
A root of the product of pollution index (PIrProd)
can be defined as
m
PI rProd = (∏ Pi )1/ m (I5)
i =1
where Pi is the single pollution index of heavy metal i,
and m is the count of the heavy metal species.
An example of this type index is the pollution
load index (PLI), which is based on the concentration
factor (CF) of each metal in the soil (Liu et al., 2005;
Cabrera et al., 1999). PLI was calculated as the mth
root of the product of the m single indices. The
pollution load index (PLI) provides a simple and
comparative means for assessing the level of heavy
metal pollution. Values of PLI=1 indicate heavy metal
loads close to the background level, and values above
1 indicate pollution (Cabrera et al., 1999). The metal
pollution index (MPI) used by Usero et al. (1996) is
also consistent with the form of equation (I5), but the
concentration of metal i was used rather than the
pollution index (Pi).
Weighted power product of pollution index
A weighted power product of pollution index
(PIwpProd) can be defined as
PI wpProd = ∏ Pi wi (I6)
i =1
where Pi is the single pollution index of heavy metal i;
m is the count of the heavy metal species, and wi is the
weight of the Pi.
Vector modulus of pollution index
A vector modulus of pollution index (PIvectorM)
can be defined as
1 m 2
PI vectorM = ∑ Pi
m i =1
(I7)
where Pi is the single pollution index of heavy metal i,
and m is the count of the heavy metal species.
Nemerow pollution index
A Nemerow pollution index (PINemerow) was
applied to assess the quality of soil environment
widely (Cheng et al., 2007) and was defined as
1 m
( ∑ Pi )2 + Pi max 2
m i =1
PI Nemerow = (I8)
2
where Pi is the single pollution index of heavy metal i;
Pimax is the maximum value of the single pollution
indices of all heavy metals, and m is the count of the
heavy metal species. The quality of soil environment
was classified into 5 grades from Nemerow pollution
index: PINemerow<0.7, safety domain; 0.7≤PINemerow<
1.0, precaution domain; 1.0≤PINemerow<2.0, slightly
polluted domain; 2.0≤PINemerow<3.0, moderately pollu-
ted domain; and PINemerow>3.0, seriously polluted
domain by Cheng et al. (2007). The reference values
used to calculate single index by Cheng et al. (2007)
were the pollution threshold values rather than the
baselines.
Discussion
The above eight integrated indices can be divided
into two groups. One group including equations (I1) to
(I3) and equations (I7) to (I8) is used for the single
indices, which yield a normal distribution, and the
other group including equations (I4) to (I6) is used for
the single indices, which yield a log-normal
distribution. Equations (I4) to (I6) can be viewed as
the geometric sum, geometric average, and weighted
geometric average similar to equations (I1) to (I3).
Because integrated indices are calculated on the
Calculating Pollution Indices by Heavy Metals in Ecological Geochemistry Assessment and a Case Study in Parks of Beijing 235

basis of single indices, terminologies on pollution
classes for single indices can also be used for the
integrated indices.
The terminologies suggested by Håkanson (1980)
for Cd and RI, and by Cheng et al. (2007) for PINemerow
are different from the terminologies for single indices,
which would also cause discrepancy on assessment by
using different grades and values for each grade.
Four grades were divided by Håkanson (1980)
without unpolluted grade on the contamination factor,
and the minimum classification level was 1, which led
to the moderate contamination for the pre-industrial
reference level. When the ecological risk factor was
considered, five grades were formed by Håkanson
(1980). Five grades were also recognized on the
enrichment factor by Sutherland (2000), and the
minimum classification level was 2. While seven
grades were distinguished by Müller (Buccolieri et al.,
2006), and the minimum classification level was 0, it
indicated a ration value of 1.5. These terminologies
for single indices are not consistent with the integrated
indices, such as the degree of contamination, potential
ecological risk index, and the Nemerow pollution
index.
In order to unify the assessment results, we
suggested using the background levels as the reference
values for calculating indices and five classes were
suitable to describe the degree of contamination. By
referring to the above classification, we listed 5-class
contamination degrees, and their terminologies for
soils and aquatic sediments in Table 2.

Table 2 Terminologies for contamination classes on single and integrated indices

Indices 1-unpolluted 2-low polluted 3-moderately polluted 4-strongly polluted 5-extremely polluted
Cf <2 2–4 4–16 16–32 >32
EF <2 2–4 4–16 16–32 >32
Er <2 Tr 2 Tr–4 Tr 4 Tr–16 Tr 16 Tr–32 Tr >32 Tr
Igeo <0.42 0.42–1.42 1.42–3.42 3.42–4.42 >4.42
Integrated (i) Terminologies on pollution classes for single indices can also be used for the integrated indices. (ii) The
indices values in terminologies would be multiplied by m (count of heavy metals) when the PIsum was used, and
powered by m for PIProd. (iii) When the PIwAvg and PIwpProd are used with the Σwi=1 condition,
terminologies can also be used like single indices. (iv) ΣTr or ΠTr would be used for the integrated indices
based on the single index of Er.

Using background level as reference value.

EGAPI contamination/concentration factor, ecological risk

On the basis of four single indices and eight
integrated indices presented above, we have
developed the EGAPI software to calculate soil and
sediment pollution index by heavy metals. EGAPI
represents the pollution indices in ecological
geochemistry assessment. The EGAPI software was
developed in visual studio environment using C#
language and was designed as a single document
interface (Fig. 1). The user interface includes three
parts: calculation methods, source data, and result
data.
factor, enrichment factor, and the index of
geo-accumulation. When the following [Read Index
Calculation Equation] was clicked, the equations
S1–S4 were presented to illustrate the algorithm.
Integrated indices include the sum (PIsum), average,
weighted average, product, root of the product,
weighted power product, vector modulus of pollution
index, and the Nemerow pollution index. When the
following [Read Index Calculation Equation] was
clicked, the equations (I1) to (I8) were presented to
illustrate the algorithm.

Calculation methods in EGAPI Source data in EGAPI

Calculation methods were divided into two types Source data in EGAPI were classified as source
as the above. Single indices include the data, reference data, coefficient data, and index weight
236 Gong Qingjie, Deng Jun, Xiang Yunchuan, Wang Qingfei and Yang Liqiang

data. are heavy metal contents with the first column as

Source data are the contents of heavy metals with
the specified format in a notepad text file (Fig. 2). In
the source data text file, the first line is two numbers:
rows and columns of the following data including
titles; the second line is the titles; and the following
sample names. When the single index of enrichment
factor was selected, the last column is the data of
immobile element (e.g., Mn in Fig. 2).
Reference data are the baseline, background level,
reference level, or criteria data of heavy metals for

Figure 1. User interface of EGAPI software.

7 5 8 2 7 2 4 2
Sample No. Cu Pb Zn Mn Cu 23.7 As 10 Cu 0.455
JingSh 57.9 82.3 86.7 552 Pb 24.1 Cd 30 Pb 0.455
DiTan 43.5 60.6 110.6 523 Zn 97.5 Cr 2 Zn 0.090
ZiZhuY 25.2 32.4 76.3 529 Cd 0.073 Cu 5 Mn 0.000
ChaoY 38.5 49.0 101.1 580 As 10.4 Hg 40
YuanMY 23.8 48.6 78.9 476 Cr 64.4 Pb 5
BaDaCh 23.5 27.8 60.4 562 Hg 0.05 Zn 1
Mn 685
Figure 2. Heavy metal contents of soils in parks of
Beijing in a text file. JingSh, DiTan, ZiZhuY, Figure 3. Metal background levels of soils in parks
ChaoY, YuanMY, and BaDaCh represent samples of Beijing (left), toxic-response factors by
from Jingshan Park, DiTan Park, Zizhuyuan Park, Håkanson (1980) (center) and single index weights
Chaoyang Park, Yuanmingyuan Park, and calculated according to toxic-response factors
Badachu Park, respectively. (right) in text files.
Calculating Pollution Indices by Heavy Metals in Ecological Geochemistry Assessment and a Case Study in Parks of Beijing 237

calculating single indices. Coefficient data are the
toxic-response factor for calculating the single index
of ecological risk factor (Er). Index weight data are
the weights of the single indices for calculating the
integrated indices when weighted methods (PIwAvg and
PIwpProd) were used. The three kinds of data are all
presented in a notepad text file with the same
specified format (Fig. 3). In this text file, the first line
is of two numbers: rows and columns of the following
data, and the following are cited data with only two
columns.
Result data in EGAPI
Result data in EGAPI were the calculated indices
results saved in a notepad text file with two styles:
only integrated indices (1) and single indices plus
integrated indices (2) (Fig. 4).
In the only integrated index saved text file (Fig. 4,
left), the first line is two numbers: rows and columns
of the following data including titles, and the second
line is the titles, and the following are data related to
indices with only two columns.
In the single and integrated indices saved text file
(Fig. 4, right), the first line is two numbers: rows and
columns of the following data including titles, and the
second line is the titles, and the following are the data
related to single plus integrated indices with the first
column as sample names.

7 2 7 5
Sample No. CF_PIsum Sample No. Cu Pb Zn CF_PIsum
JingSh 6.75 JingSh 2.44 3.41 0.89 6.75
DiTan 5.48 DiTan 1.84 2.51 1.13 5.48
ZiZhuY 3.19 ZiZhuY 1.06 1.34 0.78 3.19
ChaoY 4.69 ChaoY 1.62 2.03 1.04 4.69
YuanMY 3.83 YuanMY 1.00 2.02 0.81 3.83
BaDaCh 2.76 BaDaCh 0.99 1.15 0.62 2.76

Figure 4. Calculated integrated indices (left) and single plus integrated indices (right) results for the CF
index and PIsum index which is titled as CF_PIsum of soils in parks of Beijing based on Cu, Pb and Zn except
Mn.

A CASE STUDY IN PARKS OF BEIJING listed in Fig. 3 (left), which were from principles and
Data methods of techniques on environmental effect
Six parks were selected in this study according to
their locations in Beijing City (Fig. 5). They were
Jingshan Park in the city center, Ditan Park near the
second ring road, Zizhuyuan Park near the third ring
road, Chaoyang Park near the forth ring road,
Yuanmingyuan Park near the fifth ring road, and the
Badachu Park in the outer of the fifth ring road.
According to parks’ area, 5–9 soil samples were
collected with a depth of 10–15 cm in each park, each
sample consisted of four sub-samples around the
location determined by hand GPS. Heavy metal
contents were analyzed using atom absorption
spectrometry with an accuracy ΔlgC<0.03 and a Figure 5. Sample locations of parks of Beijing. •
precision RE%<10. Sample location, ☆ Tiananmen Square; ━ Main
The mean values of heavy metal contents in soils road. 1. Jingshan Park; 2. Ditan Park; 3.
of each park were given in Fig. 2. The metal Zizhuyuan Park; 4. Chaoyang Park; 5.
background values of soils in parks of Beijing were Yuanmingyuan Park; 6. Badachu Park.
238 Gong Qingjie, Deng Jun, Xiang Yunchuan, Wang Qingfei and Yang Liqiang

assessment by State Environmental Protection Agency,
the toxic-response factors by Håkanson (1980) in Fig.
3 (center), and the single index weights calculated
according to toxic-response factors by Håkanson
(1980) were also listed in Fig. 3 (right) using copper 5,
lead 5, and zinc 1 with the condition of Σwi=1. These
data were used to assess soil qualities in parks of
Beijing.
Results
The background values of metals in Beijing soil
were used as reference values to calculate single
indices. Mn was selected as an immobile element to
calculate the single index of enrichment factor like Liu
et al. (2005) and was ignored in other calculation
methods. Because the heavy metal contents of Cu, Pb,
and Zn in each park soils are within the same
magnitude and often were integrated using Cd or RI
methods, we think they are not a log-normal
distribution, and therefore, the integrated indices of
PIProd, PIrProd, and PIwpProd were not used. Only one of
PIsum and PIAvg was selected to calculate, and only
PIsum was selected to calculate the single index of
ecological risk factor (Er). The calculation results of
integrated indices were given in Table 3 and Fig. 6.

Table 3 Integrated indices by heavy metals in Beijing park soils and pollution classes

Park No. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sample No. JingSh DiTan ZiZhuY ChaoY YuanMY BaDaCh
Index/name Jingshan Ditan Zizhuyuan Chaoyang Yuanmingyuan Badachu
CF_PIAvg 2.25 1.83 1.06 1.56 1.28 0.92
CF_PIwAvg 2.75 2.08 1.17 1.76 1.45 1.03
CF_PIvectorM 2.48 1.91 1.09 1.62 1.38 0.95
CF_PINemerow 2.89 2.20 1.21 1.81 1.69 1.04
Er_PIsum 30.18 22.88 12.82 19.33 15.91 11.34
EF_PIAvg 2.79 2.39 1.38 1.85 1.84 1.12
EF_PIwAvg 3.41 2.73 1.51 2.08 2.08 1.26
EF_PIvectorM 3.08 2.51 1.41 1.91 1.99 1.16
EF_PINemerow 3.59 2.88 1.57 2.14 2.43 1.27
Igeo_PIAvg 0.38 0.21 -0.53 0.01 -0.35 -0.75
Igeo_PIwAvg 0.79 0.44 -0.38 0.20 -0.15 -0.56
Igeo_PIvectorM 0.91 0.52 0.62 0.4 0.66 0.84
Igeo_PINemerow 0.88 0.55 0.38 0.31 0.39 0.53

Discussion moderately/low polluted 1.42.

Divided values of contamination class
Integrated indices in Figs. 6a, 6c, and 6d were
calculated on the basis of single index of
contamination factor, enrichment factor, and
geo-accumulation index, respectively, and were
average, weighted average, vector modulus, and
Nemerow integrated methods such that the
terminologies on pollution classes for single indices
can also be used for the integrated indices according
to the rules in Table 2. In Figs. 6a and 6c, the divided
value of low polluted/unpolluted is 2 and the
moderate/low polluted is 4. In Fig. 6d, the divided
value of low polluted/unpolluted is 0.42 and the
Integrated index of sum in Fig. 6b was calculated
on the basis of the single index of ecological risk
factor. According the rules in Table 2, the divided
value of low polluted/unpolluted is 2ΣTr=2×(5+5+1)=
22 and the moderately/low polluted 4ΣTr=4×(5+5+1)=
44.
Because all the contamination classes calculated
in Table 3 were less than moderate, the divided value
of low polluted/unpolluted was drawn in a bold level
line in Figs. 6a–6d.
Difference of integrated pollution indices
In Fig. 6a and 6c, values of integrated indices in
Calculating Pollution Indices by Heavy Metals in Ecological Geochemistry Assessment and a Case Study in Parks of Beijing 239

Figure 6. Integrated pollution indices based on contamination factor (a), index of PIsum based on ecological
risk factor (b), indices based on enrichment factor (c), and indices based on enrichment factor (d) for soil
assessment in parks of Beijing.

each park were almost consistent not only in each
figure but also between Fig. 6a and 6c, which
indicates that pollution indices listed there are
consistent in fact. The values of Nemerow pollution
index in each park were slightly larger than the others,
which can be explained by comparing the algorithm
equations. In Fig. 6d, values of vector modulus were
the largest in each park. Values of Nemerow were
slightly larger than those of average and weighted
average and the latter two were almost consistent.
These differences were resulted from the single index
of geo-accumulation, which was calculated in a
logarithmic model. When some metal concentrations
were near the background level, calculated single
indices would be minus, so integrated index of vector
modulus would be larger than those on the basis of the
average algorithm, such as average, weight average,
and Nemerow methods. When the single index of
geo-accumulation was used to assess quality of soil
and sediment geochemistry, the integrated index of
vector modulus would be cautioned, which was no
longer used in the following discussion.
In Fig. 6c, the sum of integrated index on the
basis of single index of ecological risk factor is the
potential ecological risk index in fact.
In Table 3 and Figs. 6a–6d, values of integrated
indices in each park were almost classified into the
same contamination class except the integrated index
of vector modulus on the basis of the single index of
geo-accumulation. These results indicate that
terminologies and contamination classes in Table 2
suggested in this study are suitable for the assessment
of the quality of soil geochemistry although some
methods were developed for aquatic sediment.
Soil quality in parks of Beijing
In Jingshan Park all indices were classified into
the low polluted classes. In Ditan Park most index
values were near the divided value of low polluted to
unpolluted and some belonged to the low polluted
class, which indicates that the soil quality in Ditan
Park is from unpolluted to low polluted.
Integrated indices in other parks were in the
unpolluted range, which indicates the quality of the
soil in other parks is unpolluted.
On the park number sequence in Table 3 and Fig.
240 Gong Qingjie, Deng Jun, Xiang Yunchuan, Wang Qingfei and Yang Liqiang
6a–6d, the distance away from the city center is
increasing (Fig. 5), such as the Jingshan Park within
city center, Ditan Park near the second ring road,
Zizhuyuan Park near the third ring road, etc., while the
value of pollution index is decreasing except in the
Zizhuyuan Park with a minus anomaly (that is a much
lower value). These results indicate that it was from
center to the outskirts of Beijing City that park soil
qualities varied from low polluted to unpolluted.
CONCLUSIONS
The common used pollution indices can be
classified as two types of single indices and integrated
indices in an algorithm point of view. The reference
values for calculating single indices include two kinds
as background level and threshold pollution value.
Eight integrated indices were divided into two groups.
One group is suitable for the normal distribution
single indices, and the other for log-normal
distribution. In order to unify the assessment results,
five contamination classes were divided and the
terminologies are suggested in this study for the single
and integrated indices.
Software of EGAPI was developed to calculate
the single and integrated indices by heavy metals to
assess soil and sediment ecological geochemistry
quality.
Pollution indices by heavy metals of Cu, Pb and
Zn in Beijing park soils were calculated using EGAPI
software. Results indicate that soil qualities in most
parks were unpolluted and few low polluted. From
center to the outskirts of Beijing City, park soil
qualities varied from low polluted to unpolluted.
REFERENCES CITED
Banat, K. M., Howari, F. M., Al-Hamada, A. A., 2005. Heavy
Metals in Urban Soils of Central Jordan: Should We
Worry about Their Environmental Risks? Environmental
Research, 97: 258–273
Bhattacharya, A., Routh, J., Jacks, G., et al., 2006.
Environmental Assessment of Abandoned Mine Tailings in
Adak, Västerbotten District (Northern Sweden). Applied
Geochemistry, 21: 1760–1780
Blaser, P., Zimmermann, S., Luster, J., et al., 2000. Critical
Examination of Trace Element Enrichments and
Depletions in Soils: As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn in Swiss
Forest Soils. The Science of the Total Environment, 249:
257–280
Buccolieri, A., Buccolieri, G., Cardellicchio, N., et al., 2006.
Heavy Metals in Marine Sediments of Taranto Gulf
(Ionian Sea, Southern Italy). Marine Chemistry, 99:
227–235
Cabrera, F., Clemente, L., Barrientos, D. E., et al., 1999. Heavy
Metal Pollution of Soils Affected by the Guadiamar Toxic
Flood. The Science of the Total Environment, 242(1–3):
117–129
Caeiro, S., Costa, M. H., Ramos, T. B., 2005. Assessing Heavy
Metal Contamination in Sado Estuary Sediment: An Index
Analysis Approach. Ecological Indicators, 5: 151–169
Chatterjee, M., Silva, F. E. V., Sarkar, S. K., et al., 2007.
Distribution and Possible Source of Trace Elements in the
Sediment Cores of a Tropical Macrotidal Estuary and
Their Ecotoxicological Significance. Environment
International, 33: 346–356
Cheng, J. L., Shi, Z., Zhu, Y. W., 2007. Assessment and
Mapping of Environmental Quality in Agricultural Soils of
Zhejiang Province, China. Journal of Environmental
Sciences, 19: 50–54
Duce, R. A., Hoffmann, G. L., Zoller, W. H., 1975. Atmospheric
Trace Metals at Remote Northern and Southern
Hemisphere Sites: Pollution or Natural? Science, 187:
59–61
Håkanson, L., 1980. An Ecological Risk Index for Aquatic
Pollution Control: A Sedimentological Approach. Water
Research, 14: 975–1001
Kwon, Y. T., Lee, C. W., 1998. Application of Multiple
Ecological Risk Indices for the Evaluation of Heavy Metal
Contamination in a Coastal Dredging Area. The Science of
the Total Environment, 214: 203–210
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: 805–812
Long, E. R., Field, L. J., MacDonald, D. D., 1998. Predicting
Toxicity in Marine Sediments with Numerical Sediment
Quality Guidelines. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, 17: 714–727
Long, E. R., MacDonald, D. D., 1998. Perspective:
Recommended Uses of Empirically Derived, Sediment
Quality Guidelines for Marine and Estuarine Ecosystems.
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 4: 1019–1039
Long, E. R., MacDonald, D. D., Smith, S. L., et al., 1995.
 Calculating Pollution Indices by Heavy Metals in Ecological Geochemistry Assessment and a Case Study in Parks of Beijing
Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects within Ranges of
Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine
Sediments. Environmental Management, 19: 81–97
Pekey, H., Karakaş, D., Ayberk, S., et al., 2004. Ecological Risk
Assessment Using Trace Elements from Surface
Sediments of İzmit Bay (Northeastern Marmara Sea)
Turkey. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48: 946–953
Reimann, C., de Caritat, P., 2005. Distinguishing between
Natural and Anthropogenic Sources for Elements in the
Environment: Regional Geochemical Surveys versus
Enrichment Factors. The Science of the Total Environment,
337: 91–107
Roach, A. C., 2005. Assessment of Metals in Sediments from
Lake Macquarie, New South Wales, Australia, Using
Normalization Models and Sediment Quality Guidelines.
View publication stats
241
Marine Environmental Research, 59: 453–472
Sutherland, R. A., 2000. Bed Sediment-Associated Trace
Metals in an Urban Stream, Oahu, Hawaii. Environmental
Geology, 39: 611–627
Usero, J., González-Regalado, E., Gracia, I., 1996. Trace
Metals in the Bivalve Mollusc Chamelea Gallina from the
Atlantic Coast of Southern Spain. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 32(3): 305–310
Zhang, L. P., Ye, X., Feng, H., et al., 2007. Heavy Metal
Contamination in Western Xiamen Bay Sediments and Its
Vicinity, China. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54: 974–982
Zoller, W. H., Gladney, E. S., Duce, R. A., 1974. Atmospheric
Concentrations and Sources of Trace Metals at the South
Pole. Science, 183: 198–20