ارزیابی خطر بوم‏ شناختی عناصر سمّی در خاک سطحی برای برخی از گروه‏ های جانوری (مطالعۀ موردی: استان گلستان)

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه محیط‏زیست، دانشکدۀ منابع‏طبیعی و علوم زمین، دانشگاه کاشان

2 گروه خاک‏شناسی، دانشکدۀ کشاورزی، دانشگاه صنعتی شاهرود

3 گروه زمین‏ شناسی، دانشکدۀ علوم، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

4 گروه محیط‏زیست، دانشکدۀ منابع‏ طبیعی و علوم زمین، دانشگاه کاشان

چکیده

روش‏های ارزیابی خطر بوم‏شناختی متعددی طی دهه‏های گذشته در سراسر جهان به‌منظور ارزیابی آثار آلاینده‏ها بر پذیرنده‏های مختلف مانند گونه‏های مختلف حیات ‏وحش توسعه ‏یافته‏اند‌ اما تا کنون چنین روش‏هایی به‌ندرت برای تعیین خطرهای بالقوۀ بوم‏شناختی در ایران استفاده ‏شده‏اند. بنابراین، در این مطالعه یکی از این روش‏ها (Eco-SSLs) به‌منظور تعیین خطر بوم‏شناختی برای گروه‏های مختلف حیات ‏وحش استفاده می‏شود. به همین منظور 216 نمونه خاک سطحی (‌عمق 0‌ـ 30 سانتی‌متر) از سطح استان گلستان در شمال ایران با توجه به نقشه‏های خاک‏شناسی، زمین‏شناسی، کاربری اراضی، و نیز توزیع منابع آلاینده شامل موقعیت معادن، صنایع، شبکۀ جاده‏های اصلی، محل‏های دفن زباله، زمین‏های کشاورزی جمع‏آوری شد و برای تعیین غلظت کل آرسنیک، کادمیوم، مس، منگنز و روی هضم شد. کریجینگ معمولی برای تخمین غلظت فلزات استفاده شد. سپس نقشه‏های غلظت عناصر به‌منظور تهیۀ نقشۀ خطر بوم‏شناختی فلزات سنگین بر‌اساس روش Eco-SSLs سازمان حفاظت از محیط‏ زیست امریکا به‌منظور ارزیابی خطرهای بوم‏شناختی این فلزات برای گیاهان، بی‏مهرگان و مهره‏داران استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد که غلظت میانگین آرسنیک، کادمیوم، مس، منگنز و روی در خاک گلستان به‌ترتیب عبارت‏اند از : 1/9، 12/0، 42/24، 31/700 و 08/82 میلی‏گرم بر کیلوگرم است، که بیشتر از غلظت‏های پایه در استان هستند و میانگین غلظت‏ها کمتر از سطوح بالقوه اثرگذار‌ند. در میان عناصر، منگنز و روی خطر بوم‏شناختی بیشتری نسبت به سایر عناصر داشتند. ارزیابی خطر بوم‏شناختی نشان داد که استان گلستان خطر بوم‏شناختی جدی ندارد. اگرچه نقشه‏های خطر مبتنی بر روش Eco-SSLs نشان داد که حیات ‏وحش ممکن است تا حدودی در خطر باشند، کارایی روش Eco-SSLs مورد تردید است و اگرچه این روش استاندارد علمی خوبی دارد، به نظر می‏رسد قبل از استفاده در ایران به اصلاح نیاز دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Ecological risk assessment of toxic elements in the soil for some animal groups (Case Study: Golestan Province)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Rouhollah Mirzaei 1
  • Hadi Ghorbani 2
  • Naser Hafezi Moghaddas 3
  • Neda Ravankhah 4
1 Department of Environment, Faculty of Natural Resources and Earth Sciences, University of Kashan, Iran
2 Department of Soil Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran
3 Department of Geology, Faculty of Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran
4 Department of Environment, Faculty of Natural Resources and Earth Sciences, University of Kashan, Iran
چکیده [English]

Numerous ecological risk assessment methodologies have been developed over the last twenty years around the world for evaluating effects of pollutant on receptors such as different wildlife species. But so far such methods have only rarely been used to determine potential ecological risks in Iran. Therefore in this study we used one of these methodologies (Eco-SSLs) to determine ecological risk for some different wildlife groups. To this end, considering soil maps, geology, land use, and distribution of pollutant sources, including the location of mines, industry, main roads, hazardous waste sites, agricultural lands, 216 surface Soil samples (0-30 cm) were collected from Golestan province, north of Iran were subjected to a total digestion technique and analyzed for As, Cd, Cu, Mn and Zn. ordinary kriging was used to predict soil concentrations. Metal concentrations maps were then used to Map ecological risk of HMs based on the USEPA’s Eco-SSLs to assess their ecological risks posed by these heavy metals for plants, invertebrates and vertebrates groups. The results showed that the average concentrations of As, Cd, Cu, Mn and Zn in soil of Golestan were up to 9.10, 0.12, 24.42, 700.31and 82.08 mg/kg, respectively, which are much higher than their natural background values. Results showed that the mean concentrations of these heavy metals were lower than potential effect levels. Among the metals, Mn and Zn showed a higher ecological risk than the others. Ecological risk further indicated that Golestan was not suffering from serious metal contamination based on Eco-SSLs methodology. Generally Maps of risk based on the USEPA’s Eco-SSLs (for plants, invertebrates and vertebrates) showing that wildlife may be partly at risk but that the relevance of Eco-SSL values is questionable and the present study found that, although this methodology was of a high scientific standard, but it seems it would need modification before its using in Iran.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • toxic elements
  • Ecological risk assessment
  • Ecotoxicology
  • Golestan province

 

Allard, P., Fairbrother, A., Hope, B. K., Hull, R. N., Johnson, M. S., Kapustka, L. A., Mann, G., MacDonald, B., Sample, B. E., 2009. Recommendations for the development and application of wildlife toxicity reference values. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 6, 28-37

 

Baird, D. J., Rubach, M. N., Van den Brink, P. J., 2008.Trait-based ecological risk assessment (TERA): The new frontier. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 4, 2-3

 

Baird, D. J., Van den Brink, P. J., 2007. Using biological traits to predict species response to toxic substances. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 67, 296-301

 

Brix, K.V., Keithly, J., Santore, R.C., DeForest, D. K., Tobiason, S., 2010.Ecological risk assessment of zinc from storm water runoff to an aquatic ecosystem. Science of the Total Environment 408, 1824-1832

 

Buekers, J., Steen Redeker, E., Smolders, E., 2009. Lead toxicity to wildlife: derivation of a critical blood concentration for wildlife monitoring based on literature data. Science of the Total Environment 407, 3431-3438

 

Cambardella, C. A., Moorman, T. B., Novak, J. M., Parkin, T. B., Karlen, D. L., Turco, R. F., Konopka, A. E., 1994. Field-scale variability of soil properties in Central Iowa soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58, 1501-1511

 

Chow, T. E., Karen, F. G., Hodgson, M. E., Wilson, M. D., 2005. Habitat and exposure modeling for ecological risk assessment: A case study for the raccoon on the Savannah River site. Ecological Modelling 189, 151-167

 

Cormont, A., Baveco, J. M., Van den Brink, N. M., 2005. Effects of spatial foraging behaviour on risks of contaminants for wildlife. Breaking ecotoxicological restraints in spatial planning (BERISP): the development of a spatially explicit risk assessment. Alterra, Wageningen UR, Wageningen, Netherlands, Report no. 1369, 97p

 

De Lange, H. J., Lahr, J., Van der Pol, J. J. C., Wessels, Y., Faber, J. H., 2009. Ecological vulnerability in wildlife. An expert judgment and multi-criteria analysis tool using ecological traits to assess relative impact of pollutants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 28, 2233-2240

 

Esmaili-Sari, A., 2003. Pollution, Health and Environmental Standards. Naghshe Mehr Publication, Tehran, 735p (in Persian)

 

Fritsch, C., Cosson, R. P., Coeurdassier, M., Raoul, F., Giraudoux, P., Crini, N., de Vaufleury, A., Scheifler, R., 2010. Responses of wild small mammals to a pollution gradient: host factors influence metal and metallothionein levels. Environmental Pollution 158, 827-840

 

Hafezi Moghaddas, N., Hajizadeh Namaghi, H., Ghorbani, H., Dahrazma, B., 2013. The effects of agricultural practice and land-use on the distribution and origin of some potentially toxic metals in the soils of Golestan Province, Iran. Environmental Earth Sciences 68,487-497

 

ISO, 2008. Soil quality – requirements and guidance for the selection and application of methods for the assessment of bioavailability of contaminants in soil and soil materials. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, ISO 17 402, 35p

 

Lahr, J., Kooistra, L., 2010. Environmental risk mapping. State of the art and communication aspects. Science of the Total Environment 408, 3899-3907

 

Lahr, J., Münier, B., De Lange, H. J., Faber, J. F., Sørensen, P. B., 2010. Wildlife vulnerability and risk maps for combined pollutants. Science of the Total Environment 408, 3891-3898

 

Macedo-Sousa, J. A., Soares, A. M. V. M., Tarazona, J. V., 2009. A conceptual model for assessing risks in a Mediterranean Natura 2000 Network site. Science of the Total Environment 407, 1224-1231

 

Mehaffey, M., Tankersley, R., Miller, J. L., Smith, E., 2009. Evaluating habitat vulnerability to hazardous air pollutants in the southeastern United States. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 5 (1), 150-157

 

Mirzaei, R., Esmaili-Sari, A., Ghorbani, H., Hafezi Moghaddas, N., Hemami, M. R., Rezaei, H. R., 2013. Predicting the spatial distribution of Cd, As, Cr and Cu in topsoil of Golestan Province. Environmental Researches 4(7), 35-44(in Persian)

 

Rattner, B. A., Ackerson, B. K., 2008. Potential environmental contaminant risks to avian species at important bird areas in the northeastern United States. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 4 (3), 344-357

 

Regan, H. M., Sample, B. E., Ferson, S., 2002. Comparison of deterministic and probabilistic calculation of ecological soil screening levels. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21, 882-890

 

Sánchez-Bayo, F., Baskaran, S., Kennedy, I. R., 2002. Ecological relative risk (EcoRR): Another approach for risk assessment of pesticides. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 91, 37-57

 

Scott, M., Jamie, G., Suski, C., Salice, J., 2010. Ecological risk of anthropogenic pollutants to reptiles: Evaluating assumptions of sensitivity and exposure. Environmental Pollution 158, 3596-3606

 

Shore, R. F., Rattner, B. A. (Eds.), 2001. Ecotoxicology of Wild Mammals. John Wiley & Sons, London, UK. 752p

 

 

USEPA, 2005a. Ecological soil screening levels for Cadmium. Washington DC, USA, 236p

 

USEPA, 2005b. Ecological soil screening levels for Lead. Washington DC, USA, 242p

 

USEPA, 2005c. Ecological soil screening levels for Zinc. Washington DC, USA, 242p

 

USEPA, 2005d. Guidance for developing ecological soil screening levels. Washington DC, USA, 85p

 

Wang, M., Bai,Y., Chen,W., Markert, B., Peng, C., Ouyang, Z., 2012. A GIS technology based potential eco-risk assessment of metals in urban soils in Beijing, China. Environmental Pollution 161, 235-242

 

Xie, Y., Chen, T., Lei, M., Yang, J., Guo, Q., Song, B., Zhou, X., 2011. Spatial distribution of soil heavy metal pollution estimated by different interpolation methods: Accuracy and uncertainty analysis. Chemosphere 82, 468-476

 

Yuan, G., Sun, T., Han, P., Li, J., Lang, X., 2014. Source identification and ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in topsoil using environmental geochemical mapping: Typical urban renewal area in Beijing, China. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 136, 40-47

 

Zhang, X.Y., Sui, Y.Y., Zhang, X.D., Herbert, K. S. J., 2007. Spatial variability of nutrient properties in black soil of northeast China. Pedosphere 17, 19-29