| 金华市萤石矿区土壤氟污染评价 |
| 摘要点击 1712 全文点击 911 投稿时间：2014-12-13 修订日期：2015-03-11 |
| 查看HTML全文
查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 中文关键词 土壤 全氟 水溶态氟 地质累积指数 单因子指数 健康风险评价 |
| 英文关键词 soil total fluorine water-soluble fluorine geoaccumulation index single factor index health risk assessment |
|
| 中文摘要 |
| 对金华市萤石矿区村庄表层土进行了全氟(TF)、水溶态氟(WF)含量的测定. 利用单因子指数法、地质累积指数法和健康风险评估法进行了四个矿区和一个非矿区的土壤质量评价. 结果表明,供试土壤TF含量范围28.36~56052.39 mg ·kg-1,算术平均值8325.90 mg ·kg-1,几何均数为1555.94 mg ·kg-1,中位数为812.98 mg ·kg-1,变异系数为172.07%. 供试土壤WF含量变化范围在0.83~74.63 mg ·kg-1,算术均值为16.94 mg ·kg-1,几何均数为10.59 mg ·kg-1,中位值为10.17 mg ·kg-1,变异系数为100.10%. TF和WF含量远远高于全国地氟病发生区平均水平. 供试土壤氟污染受人为因素影响显著. 杨家、冷水坑、花街矿区土壤氟污染最为严重,大仁矿区次之,非矿区基本没有受到氟污染. 经口摄入土壤是最主要的暴露途径,参数敏感性分析表明儿童体重对危害商的影响最大,3种评价方法呈极显著正相关. |
| 英文摘要 |
| The contents of soil total fluorine (TF) and water-soluble fluorine (WF) were measured in fluorite ore areas located in Jinhua City. The single factor index, geoaccumulation index and health risk assessment were used to evaluate fluorine pollution in soil in four fluorite ore areas and one non-ore area, respectively. The results showed that the TF contents in soils were 28.36-56052.39 mg ·kg-1 with an arithmetic mean value of 8325.90 mg ·kg-1, a geometric mean of 1555.94 mg ·kg-1, and a median of 812.98 mg ·kg-1. The variation coefficient of TF was 172.07%. The soil WF contents ranged from 0.83 to 74.63 mg ·kg-1 with an arithmetic mean value of 16.94 mg ·kg-1, a geometric mean of 10.59 mg ·kg-1, and a median of 10.17 mg ·kg-1. The variation coefficient of WF was 100.10%. The soil TF and WF contents were far higher than the national average level of the local fluorine epidemic occurrence area. The fluoride pollution in soil was significantly affected by human factors. Soil fluorine pollution in Yangjia, Lengshuikeng and Huajie fluorite ore areas was the most serious, followed by Daren fluorite ore area, and in non-ore area there was almost no fluorine pollution. Oral ingestion of soils was the main exposure route. Sensitivity analysis of model parameters showed that children's weight exerted the largest influence over hazard quotient. Furthermore, a significant positive correlation was found among the three kinds of evaluation methods. |
|
|
|
