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

net/publication/301317827

Ecological Risk Assessment of Heavy Metal

Pollution in Surface Sediment of Mahakam
Delta, East Kalimantan

Article · December 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.proenv.2016.03.110

CITATIONS READS

2 131

4 authors, including:

Hefni Effendi Mujizat Kawaroe

Bogor Agricultural University Bogor Agricultural University
55 PUBLICATIONS 61 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dea Fauzia Lestari

Bogor Agricultural University
7 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

OGFICE 2016 (Biogas) View project

GAME 2016 (Microplastic) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hefni Effendi on 07 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Environmental Sciences 33 (2016) 574 – 582

The 2nd International Symposium on LAPAN-IPB Satellite for Food Security and Environmental
Monitoring 2015, LISAT-FSEM 2015

Ecological risk assessment of heavy metal pollution in surface

sediment of Mahakam Delta, East Kalimantan
Hefni Effendia,*, Mujizat Kawaroeb, Mursalina, Dea Fauzia Lestaria
a
Center for Environmental Research, Bogor Agricultural University, PPLH Building 2nd-4th Floor, Jl. Lingkar Akademik, Dramaga, Bogor
16680, Indonesia
b
Department of Marine Science and Technology, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Bogor Agricultural University, Dramaga, Bogor
16680, Indonesia

Abstract

Spreading heavy metals in the water column may subsequently be accumulated in sediment because of low solubility then
become sensitivity indicator for aquatic organism. Ecological risk is assessed through the heavy metals concentration in the
surface sediment. Sediment samples were grabbed from 20 stations in Mahakam Delta. Hakanson method was used to identify
ecological potential risk of heavy metals pollution. The results showed that Zn (70.63 mg/kg), Cr (4.93 mg/kg), Cd (0.11 mg/kg)
and Ni (33.48 mg/kg) exceeded Threshold Effect Level. Furthermore Ni exceeded Probable Effect Level. Ecological potential
risk of heavy metals sequence was Pb>As>Cd>Ni>Zn>Cr>Cu. The criteria of ecological risk on Pb and as were considerable risk
(‫ܧ‬௥௜ Pb: 52.18 and ‫ܧ‬௥௜ As: 50.00 and the others were low risk. Moreover, the potential ecological risk sequence of study were
ST18> ST3> ST8> ST1> ST7> ST6> ST11> ST20> ST19> ST4> ST16> ST5> ST9> ST15> ST2> ST13> ST14> ST17> ST10>
ST12. The criteria of ST 18, ST 3, ST 8, ST 1 and ST 7 belonged to considerable risk, ST 12 was low risk and others location
were medium risk. Heavy metals input in Mahakam Delta are possibly caused by human activities such as industrial, mining,
household activities, and from natural process by erosion and natural water flow.
© 2016
© 2016TheTheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier B.V.B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of LISAT-FSEM2015.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of LISAT-FSEM2015
Keywords: ecological risk assessment; heavy metal; surface sediment; Mahakam Delta

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +62-821-1434-0924.

E-mail address: hefni_effendi@yahoo.com.

1878-0296 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of LISAT-FSEM2015
doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2016.03.110
 Hefni Effendi et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 33 (2016) 574 – 582 575

1. Introduction

Sediments have an important role as a habitat for aquatic organisms to grow, evolve and establish in the
ecological system. Sediment contamination is one of indicators for the prediction of potential ecological risks in
aquatic systems. Circulation of pollutants in the water then will be accumulated through the settling process into
sediment, therefore sediment may be regarded as one of the pollutant storage. Heavy metals have low solubility
properties, absorbed and accumulated on the bottom sediments [1-3]. Sediment contamination occurs at wetlands,
rivers, lakes, dams, harbor area, and in other water environments [4]. Generally, sediment contamination of heavy
metal pollution can be affected by several factors including the pipeline construction, wastewater treatment and
disposal, runoff, mining, industrial activity, etc. Such factors also have a risk to aquatic ecological system.
Mahakam Delta is an area characterized by sediment disposition from Mahakam River flow along the 770 km and
Makassar Strait [5]. Fine sand and mud are dominant sediment substrate in the delta front area of Mahakam Delta,
while silt, clay, and thin sand layer sediment are dominant in prodelta area [6, 7]. Besides having a fairly high
biodiversity, this area also has a wealth of material resource so there are several mining activities operating in this
area. The aim of this study was to identify the concentration of heavy metals in surface of sediments, to assess the
ecological risk potential of heavy metal pollution in Mahakam Delta. Furthermore, to identify the source of heavy
metal contaminants through a combination of multivariate statistical analysis.

2. Methods

2.1. Sampling location

As much as 20 sampling points in Mahakam Delta area were selected (Fig. 1). Sediment samples were grabbed
using Ekman grab.

Fig. 1. Sampling location in Mahakam Delta.

576 Hefni Effendi et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 33 (2016) 574 – 582

2.2. Sample analysis

Sediment samples were analyzed at Laboratory of Aquatic Environment Productivity, Faculty of Fisheries and
Marine Science, Bogor Agricultural University, that has been accredited by KAN (National Accreditation
Committee) based on ISO 17025 [8].

2.3. Data analysis

x Heavy metal concentration

The effect of heavy metals toxicity on sediment referred to heavy metal quality assessment based on Consensus-
Based Sediment Quality Guidelines [9]. Assessment was carried out by comparing Threshold Effect Level (TEL)
and Probable Effect Level (PEL) with heavy metals concentration. TEL is a threshold where the concentration of
heavy metals causes adverse biological effects, occurring rarely. While PEL is the threshold where adverse
biological effects are expected to occur frequently.
x Ecological risk potential index
Ecological risk potential assessment of heavy metals referred to Hakanson method [10] with the following
formula:
୬
ୱ୧ (1)
୤୧ ൌ  ୧ Ǣ୰୧ ൌ  ୤୧ š୤୧ Ǣ ‹ ൌ ෍ ୰୧
୰
୧ୀଵ

୤୧ : Contamination level of heavy metal; ୱ୧ : Concentration of heavy metal on sediment; ୰୧ : Reference value of
heavy metal in study location; ୰୧ : Ecological risk potential of heavy metal; ୤୧ : Toxicity response factor of heavy
metal; ERi (Risk Index): Ecological risk potential of environment. The factor scores on each of heavy metals
according Hakanson approach [10] were: As (10), Cd (30), Cr (2), Cu (5), Pb (5), Ni (5), and Zn (1). Then, the
criteria for ecological potential risk of heavy metals and environment were presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Potential ecological risk value and criteria [11].

Ecological risk criteria for heavy
‫ܧ‬௥௜ ERi Ecological risk criteria of environment
metal
‫ܧ‬௥௜ ൏ ͵Ͳ Low Risk ERi < 100 Low Risk
͵Ͳ ൏ ‫ܧ‬௥௜ ൏ ͷͲ Moderate Risk 100 < ERi < 150 Moderate Risk
ͷͲ ൏ ‫ܧ‬௥௜ ൏ ͳͲͲ Considerable Risk 150 < ERi < 200 Considerable Risk
ͳͲͲ ൏ ‫ܧ‬௥௜ ൏ ͳͷͲ Very High Risk 200 < ERi < 300 Very High Risk
‫ܧ‬௥௜ ൐ ͳͷͲ Disastrous Risk ERi > 300 Disastrous Risk

3. Results

3.1. Heavy metal concentration in surface sediment of Mahakam Delta

Identification of heavy metals in surface sediments of Mahakam Delta area was performed on 7 parameters,
namely As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni and Zn. Based on reference, heavy metals reduction values are
Cu>Ni>Zn>Cr>Cd>Pb>As [12]. In this study, average concentration of heavy metals decreased in order of
Zn>Ni>Cr>Cu>Pb>As>Cd. In some locations that represent the upper area of delta plain, heavy metal
concentrations decreased in the order of Zn>Ni>Cr>Pb>Cu>As>Cd. It seems similar in south and north area of
Mahakam Delta. In the center area of delta (inter-distributary zone), heavy metals concentration decreased in order
of Zn> Cr> Ni> Cu> Pb> As> Cd.
Several identified heavy metals have higher concentration than Threshold Effect Level (TEL) such as Zn, Ni, Cr,
and Cd. In addition, Ni also has higher average concentration than Probable Effect Level (PEL) [9] (Fig. 2). The
 Hefni Effendi et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 33 (2016) 574 – 582 577

concentration of each Zn, Ni, Cr, and Cd are 70.63 mg/kg, 33.48 mg/kg, 4.93 mg/kg, and 0.11 mg/kg of TEL,
respectively. Difference concentration of Ni is 20.48 mg/kg of PEL [9].
Zinc (Zn) is a quite important material for enzyme and protein production [13, 14]. In the natural distribution, ±
0.0005% to 0.02% of Zn is contained on the earth's crust [15]. The concentration of Zn ranged from 81.93 mg/kg to
285.34 mg/kg with the average of 190.63 mg/kg and higher than TEL (120 mg/kg) [9]. The high value of Zn is
possibly caused by industrial activities and mining wastewater input [16, 17]. Zinc tends to be found in only trace
amounts of unpolluted surface water and groundwater. Nevertheless, it is often found in domestic supplies as a
result of iron piping corrosion, tanks and disinfection of brass fittings [18].

Fig. 2. Average heavy metal concentration in surface sediment.

In the waters, Nickel (Ni) is found in the colloids form. Nickel Nitrate, Chloride and Nickel Ammonium Sulfate
are soluble nickel salts in the water. Ni is formed by insoluble hydrolyze mineral. The content in the nature is around
75mg/kg [19, 20]. Nickel concentration in freshwater ranged 0.001 mg/l to 0.003 mg/l. Nickel pollution might
source from metallurgical industry, chemical industry, metal plating, waste incineration, and oil burning. Research
area is the mining sites of coal, oil, and gas so that the concentration of Ni in the site is more likely from the
contribution of mining industry.
Chromium (Cr), a heavy metal found in solid or mineral form and less than the other elements. The natural
source of Cr is rock mineral erosion, flow by water and settles in the sediment through absorbed process. The influx
of Cr can be also from coal and petroleum burning or mobilization. The particles of Cr in the air layer from burning
process sink to water surface by the rain. Human activities such as discharge industrial and household waste are
non-natural source of Cr [20].
Cadmium (Cd) is one type of harmful heavy metal for human blood vessels and may accumulate in vital organs,
especially in liver and kidney. In low concentration, Cd effects on disturbances in emphysema, lung and renal
tubular chronic disease [21]. Cadmium usually mixes with other heavy metals such as Zn and Sn, for example in
mining process Cd concentration is around 0.2-0.4%. At certain concentrations (0.005-0.15 ppm), this heavy metal
causes lethal for aquatic biota such as Crustacean. However, these heavy metals can be minimized by mangrove
ecosystem. The mangrove roots absorb and bind heavy metals in the waters. The research area was in mangrove
ecosystem, hence it can decrease effect of Cd pollution. Some reports also mentioned that mangrove may reduce the
content of Cd [21]. Heavy metals measurements in the Mahakam Delta are compared with heavy metal at some
countries in the world (Table 2).
578 Hefni Effendi et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 33 (2016) 574 – 582

3.2. Ecological risk potential assessment

Potential ecological risk assessment is used to identify ecological risk level of heavy metals in Mahakam Delta
surface sediments. The assessment calculates pollutant factors, risk potential of heavy metal, and ecological risk
potential. Based on the analysis, the order of heavy metal ecological risk potential were Pb>As>Cd>Ni>Zn>Cr>Cu.
Both Pb and As were categorized to quite high ecological risk criteria (considerable risk) with ‫ܧ‬௥௜ value of 52.18 and
50.00. Whilst other heavy metals had low ecological risk criteria (low risk) (Fig 3). Toxicity factor for both heavy
metals (Pb/As:5/10) are higher than that of others, except for Cd. Consequently, Pb and As may cause significant
ecological effect on the sediment surface.

Table 2. Heavy metal concentration in different sediment [24].

Heavy Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)

No Name of the lake References
As Cd Cr Cu Pb Ni Zn
1 Yilong lake, China - 0.76 86.73 31.40 53.19 35.99 86.82 Bai et al. [1]
2 East lake, Wuhan, China - - - 54.8 40.3 - 138 Yang et al. [25]
3 Texoma lake, USA 2.00 30.00 38.00 10.00 - - Yin et al. [26]
4 Balaton lake, Hungary 0.1-0.7 5.7-66 0.7-36 2.4-160 4.4-55 13-150 Nguyen et al. [27]
Songkhla lake, Southern
5 0.1-2.4 - 1.8-125 8.2-131 2.5-21.9 5.4-562 Pradit et al. [28]
Thailand
0.02-
6 Laguna lake, Philippines - 9.7-18.7 17-23 9.7-18.7 10.3-18.3 Pradit et al. [28]
0.09
14.7- 14.6- 16.1-
7 Manchar lake, Pakistan 4.9-9.7 15.6-29.7 53.9-154 Arain et al. [29]
26.8 20.9 26.6
8 Taihu lake, China 0.94 56.2 36.7 51.8 - - Yin et al. [26]
9 Hazar lake, Turkey - 17-79 10-64 <DL 38-130 46-210 Ozmen et al. [30]
10 Chaohu lake, China 0.92 80.1 38.6 44.7 94.9 - Zheng et al. [31]
Victoria lake, Tanzania, Kishe and Machiwa
11 2.5 11.0 21.6 29.6 - 36.4
Africa [32]
Kishe and Machiwe
12 Kariba lake, Zimbabwe 0.06 29.3 16.1 9.4 - 42.4
[32]
13 Hussainsagar lake, India - 40-60 - 40-60 170-210 - Rao et al. [33]
Puttaiah and Kirain
14 Jannapura lake, India 1.9 - 89.75 0.20 40.05 0.034
[34]
Prinju and Narayana
15 Vembanad lake, India 1-4 - 47 - 64 259
[35]
16 Veeranam lake, India 0.81 88.20 94.12 30.06 63.61 180.08 Suresh et al. [3]
Mahakam Delta,
17 2.00 1.07 47.31 27.66 27.59 57.24 186.61 Present study
Indonesia

The average ecological risk potential was categorized to moderate risk viewed from overall perspective study.
The considerable risk occurred in ST18, ST3, ST 8, ST1, and ST7, while low risk existed in ST12. ST 1, and ST 3
representing heavy metals existence in the upper delta. ST 7 and ST 8 represent heavy metals existence in the center
delta, while ST18 represents heavy metal existences in the south delta. Ecological risk potential value of all
sampling stations showed ST18 > ST3 > ST8 > ST1 > ST7 > ST6 > ST11 > ST20 > ST19 > ST4 > ST16 > ST5 >
ST9 > ST15 > ST2 > ST13 > ST14 > ST17 > ST10 > ST12 (Fig. 4). These locations constituted high vessel
mobilization and the oil and gas industry as well as coal transportation.
The respectively ‫ܧ‬௥௜ contribution to the ecological risk assessment of Pb and As was 39.42%, and 37.68%. While
the contribution of Cd, Ni, Zn, Cr, and Cu to ecological risk assessment was 7.17%, 6.77%, 4.71%, 2.84% and
1.40%, respectively. Based on comprehensive ecological risk index of the heavy metals, the average ERi value of
seven investigated heavy metals pointed out that 3.7% were low ecological risk, 66.3% were moderate ecological
risk, and 30.0% were considerable ecological risk. Consequently, Pb and As may cause significant ecological effect
 Hefni Effendi et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 33 (2016) 574 – 582 579

in the sediment surface.

3.3. Multivariate statistical analysis

x Correlation matrix
Correlation analysis is one measure to find out the link among heavy metals in the study area. Correlation among
the heavy metals can provide information on the sources and pathways of heavy metal pollution [22]. The results of
correlation analysis of heavy metals in the study area are presented in Table 3.

Fig. 3. Risk potential of individual heavy metal concentration.

Fig. 4. Ecological risk assessment of heavy metal concentration of sampling location.

There is no correlation between heavy metals with the exception of Cu and Zn which have a positive correlation.
A high correlation coefficient between heavy metals showed heavy metal having a common source, mutually
dependent and identical behavior during the transport process. No correlation among heavy metals indicated that
observed heavy metals were not controlled by a single factor, but controlled by a combination of phase
geochemistry of the heavy metal content [23, 24].
Among observed heavy metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni and Zn) only Cd and Pb sufficiently correlated with the
580 Hefni Effendi et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 33 (2016) 574 – 582

ERi. This shows that the possibility of both heavy metals in the sediment causing ecological risks was quite high.

Table 3. Correlation coefficient among heavy metal in surface sediment.

As Cd Cr Cu Pb Ni Zn ERi
As 1.00
Cd -0.02 1.00
Cr 0.01 0.38 1.00
Cu 0.12 0.10 0.20 1.00
Pb 0.12 0.15 -0.14 -0.25 1.00
Ni -0.13 0.11 0.32 0.24 0.16 1.00
Zn 0.05 0.28 0.14 0.75 -0.28 0.21 1.000
ERi 0.12 0.57 0.13 0.30 0.70 0.37 0.44 1.00

x Factor analysis
Factor analysis was applied to the 7 variable heavy metals, resulting in three factors with eigenvalues greater than
1. The total variance of the third factor is equal to 69.53%. The first factor was explained by 32.23% of the total
variance, and describes the strong relationship of Cu and Zn (0.90-0.91), but does not explain the strong relationship
with ERi (0.32). The second factor was equal to 22.26% of the total variance, explaining the strong relationship
between Cd and Pb (0.50-0.88) with ERi (0.92). Furthermore, the third factor was equal to 15.04% of the total
variance explaining strong relationship for Ni and Cr (0.56-0.73), but does not explain the strong relationship with
ERi (0.15). The factor analysis was a multivariate analysis applied to strengthen correlation analysis among the
indicator of variables (Table 3). The results of visualization of analysis factor are presented in Fig. 5.

Factor Loadings, Factor 1 vs. Factor 2 Factor Loadings, Factor 1 vs. Factor 3
Rotation: Varimax normalized Rotation: Varimax normalized
Extraction: Principal components Extraction: Principal components
1.0 0.8 Cr
ERi
Pb
0.6 Ni
0.8 Cd

0.4

0.6
Cd 0.2 ERi Zn
Cu
Factor 2

Factor 3

0.4 0.0
Ni Pb
As
-0.2
0.2
Zn
-0.4
Cr Cu
0.0 As
-0.6

-0.2 -0.8
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Factor 1 Factor 1

Fig. 5. Factor analysis for heavy metals in surface sediment of Mahakam Delta.

4. Conclusions

Heavy metals concentrations in surface sediment of Delta Mahakam such as Zn, Ni, Cr, and Cd exceeded
Threshold Effect Level (TEL), and Ni exceeded Probable Effect Level (PEL). Several heavy metals were
categorized to considerable risk criteria, but most of them were categorized to low risk. The average of ecological
risk potential was categorized to moderate risk viewed from overall perspective study. Heavy metal input in
Mahakam Delta are possibly caused by human activities such as industry, mining, household activities, and also
from natural process by erosion and natural water flow.
 Hefni Effendi et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 33 (2016) 574 – 582 581

References

1. Bai JH, Cui BS, Chen B, Zhang KJ, Deng W, Gao HF, Xiao R. Spatial distribution and ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in surface
sediments from a typical plateau lake wetland, China. Ecological Modelling 2011;222:301–30.
2. Caeiro S, Costa MN, Ramos TB, Fernandes F, Silveira N, Coimbra A, Medeiros G, Painho M. Assessing heavy metal contamination in Sado
Estuary sediment: an index analysis approach. Ecological Indicators 2005;5:151–69.
3. Suresh G, Sutharsan P, Ramasamy V, Venkatachalapathy R. Assessment of spatial distribution and potential ecological risk of the heavy
metals in relation to granulometric contents of Veeranam lake sediments, India. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 2012a;84:117–24.
4. US EPA. Contaminated sediment remediation guidance for hazardous waste sites. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA-540-R-05-012. OSWER 2005;9355:1-85.
5. Sidik AS. The changes of mangrove ecosystem in Mahakam Delta, Indonesia: a complex social- environmental pattern of linkages in
resources utilization. The South China Sea Conference. 2008 November 25-29. Samarinda: Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science,
Mulawarman University; 2008.
6. Allen GP, Chambers JLC. Sedimentation in the modern and Miocene Mahakam Delta. Jakarta: Indonesian Petroleum Association; 1998.
7. Gastaldo RA. Peat or no peat: Why do the Rajang and Mahakam Deltas differ? International Journal of Coal Geology 2010;83:162–72.
8. [APHA] American Public Health Association. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 19th Ed. Washington DC:
APHA; 1995.
9. CBSQG. Consensus-based sediment quality guidelines, recommendations for use & application interim guidance. Developed by the
Contaminated Sediment Standing Team. WT-732; 2003:40 p.
10. Hakanson L. An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control, a sedimentological approach. Water Research 1980;14:975–1001.
11. Gan JL, Jia XP, Lin Q, Li CH, Wang ZH, Zhou GJ, Wang XP, Cai WG, Lu XY. A primary study on ecological risk caused by the heavy
metals in coastal sediments. J. Fish. China 2000;24:533–8. In Chinese.
12. Total E&P Indonesia. RKL RPL Tambahan eksplorasi minyak dan gas bumi di wilayah kontrak Mahakam. Kutai: Total E&P Indonesia;
2007. In Bahasa.
13. Valle BL. Zinc biochemistry and physiology and their arrangements. In: Williams, R.J.P., Silva, J.R.R.F.D. (Eds.). New trends in
bioinorganic chemistry. London: Academic Press; 1978:11-57.
14. Dalia MS, Salem A, Khaled A, El Nemr A, El-Sikaily A. Comprehensive risk assessment of heavy metals in surface sediments along the
Egyptian Red Sea coast. Alexandria: Environmental Division, National Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries, Kayet Bey; 2014. Available
online 18 December 2014.
15. Irwin RJ, Mouwerik MV, Stevens L, Seese MD, Basham W. Environmental contaminants encyclopedia: zinc entry. Fort Collins, CO:
National Park Service, Water Resources Division; 1997. Available at http://www.Nature.nps.gov/hazardssafety/ toxic/zinc.pdf.
16. Cameron RE. Guide to site and soil description for hazardous waste site characterization. Metals 1992;1. Las Vegas: Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
17. Mulligan CN, Yong RN, Gibbs BF. Remediation technologies for metal contaminated soils and groundwater: an evaluation. Eng. Geol.
2001;60:193-207.
18. Mane PC, Kadam DD, Chaudhari RD. Accumulation of heavy metal ions in water, sediment and aquatic weeds: a case study of Sudha Dam,
Bhokar, India. Advances in Applied Science Research 2013;4(50):394-400.
19. Moore JW. Inorganic contaminants of surface water: research and monitoring priorities. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1991:334p.
20. Yudo S. Kondisi pencemaran logam berat di perairan sungai DKI Jakarta. JAI 2006;2(1). In Bahasa.
21. Salahuddin, Fandeli C, Sugiharto E. Kajian pencemaran lingkungan di Tambak Udang Delta Mahakam. Jurnal Tekno Sains 2012;2(1):32-
47. In Bahasa.
22. Li F, Huang J, Zeng G, Yuan X, Li X, Liang J, Wang X, Tang X, Bai B. Spatial risk assessment and source identification of heavy metal in
surface sediment from the Dongting Lake, Middle China. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 2013;132:75-83.
23. Suresh G, Ramasamy V, Meenakshisundaram V, Venkatachalapathy R, Ponnu-samy V. Influence of mineralogical and heavy metal
composition on natural radionuclide contents in the river sediments. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 2011;69:1466–74.
24. Suresh G, Sutharsan P, Ramasamy V, Venkatachalapathy R. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 2012b;84:117-24.
25. Yang ZP, Lu WX, Long YQ, Bao XH, Yang QC. Assessment of heavy metals contamination in urban topsoil from Changchun City, China,
J. Geochem. Explor. 2011;108:27–38.
26. Yin H, Gao Y, Fan C. Distribution, sources and ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in surface sediments from Lake Taihu, China.
Environ. Res. Lett. 2011;6:044012.
27. Nguyen H, Leermakers M, Osan J, Tfrfk S, Baeyens W. Heavy metals in Lake Balaton: water column, suspended matter, sediment and biota.
Science Of the Total Environment 2005;340:213–30.
28. Pradit S, Wattayakorn G, Angsupanich S, Leemaker M, Baeyens W. Distribution of trace elements in sediments and biota of Songkhla Lake,
southern Thailand. Water Air Soil Pollution 2010;206:155-74.
29. Arain MB, Kazi TG, Jamali MK, Jalbani N, Afridi HI, Baig JA. Speciation of heavy metals in sediment by conventional, ultrasound and
microwave assisted single extraction methods: a comparison with modified sequential extraction procedure. J. Hazard Mater. 2008;154:998-
1006.
30. Özmen H, KülahçÕ F, ÇukurovalÕ A, Do÷ru M. Concentrations of heavy metal and radioactivity in surface water and sediment of Hazar lake
(ElazÕ÷, Turkey). Chemosphere 2004;55:401–8.
582 Hefni Effendi et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 33 (2016) 574 – 582

31. Zheng LG, Liu GJ, Kang Y, Yang RK. Some potential hazardous trace elements contamination and their ecological risk in sediment of
western Chaohu Lake, China Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010;166:379–86.
32. Kishe MA, Machiwa JF. Distribution of heavy metals in sediments of Mwanza Gulf of Lake Victoria, Tanzania. Environ. Int. 2003;28:619-
25.
33. Rao VVS, Gurunadha, Jain CK, Prakash BA, Kumar KM. Heavy metal speciation study of sediments in Hussainsagar Lake, Greater
Hyderabad, India. In: Proceedings of Taal 2007. The 12th Lake Conference; 2008:2098–104.
34. Puttaiah ET, Kiran BH. Heavy metal transport in a Sewage Fed Lake of Karnataka, India. In: Proceedings of Taal 2007. The 12th Lake
Conference; 2008:347–54.
35. Prinju CP, Narayana AC. Spatial and temporal variability of trace element contents in tropical lagoon, southwest coast of India:
environmental implications. J. Coas. Res. Special Issue 2006;39:1053–7.

View publication stats