Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
An Experimental Study Focusing on the Filling Process and Consolidation Characteristics of Geotextile Tubes Filled with Fine-Grained Tungsten Tailings
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Practices in Manufacturing SMEs: The Importance of Technological Collaboration between Supply Chain Partners
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comprehensive Analysis and Environmental Risk Assessment of Benzotriazoles in Airport Stormwater: A HS-SPME-GC × GC-TOF-MS-Based Procedure as a Tool for Sustainable Airport Runoff Water Management
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 12
10.3390/su16125271
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Soil Heavy Metal(loid) Pollution Evaluation, Risk Assessment, and Source Analysis of a Mineral Processing Plant

by
Wenping Luo
1,2,
Pingtang Wei
3,*,
Yan Zhang
1,2,* and
Chengshuai Sun
1,2
1
Faculty of Land Resources Engineering, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming 650093, China
2
South-West Institute of Geological Survey, Geological Survey Center for Nonferrous Metals Resources, Kunming 650093, China
3
Kunming Geological Exploration Institute of China Metallurgical Geology Bureau, Kunming 650024, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(12), 5271; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125271
Submission received: 6 May 2024 / Revised: 17 June 2024 / Accepted: 18 June 2024 / Published: 20 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Assessing the Adverse Effects of Anthropogenic Pollution and Ecological Risk Assessment)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Map of study area.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Box plots of heavy metal(loid) contents in the soil of construction land in the study area.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Spatial distribution of soil heavy metal(loid)s in the study area.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Spatial distribution plots of heavy metal(loid)s in soils based on principal components analysis—(1), cluster analysis of soil heavy metals—(2).</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Yunnan Province is rich in mineral resources. Early mining, processing, metallurgy, and other mining activities produce three industrial wastes (waste water, waste gas, and waste residue) causing environmental pollution. Considering the legacy site of a mineral processing plant in Yunnan as the research object, 21 sampling points in the study area and 12 control sampling points in the periphery were set up to determine the contents of the heavy metal(loid)s As, Hg, Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Cr in the soil. The spatial distribution of heavy metal(loid)s was interpolated and analyzed using Arcmap10.8, and combined with the single-factor index, Nemero Comprehensive Pollution Index, and the health risk assessment method for the heavy metal(loid) pollution status and health risk of the soil were evaluated. The soil in the study area was acidic, with the largest average value of elemental As and the largest percentages of control and screening values. The results of the single-factor and Nemero composite pollution index showed the following trend: As > Pb > Cd > Cu > Ni > Hg. Cd, Cu, and Pb mainly originate from mining and metallurgy and Hg from the combustion of fossil fuels, while soil-forming substrates are the main sources of Ni. Pollution by As was the most prominent element, whereas pollution by Cd, Cu, and Pb in some areas also cannot be ignored to prevent negative impacts on residents. It is recommended to remediate and treat the soil on site for public events; therefore, this study fills the gap in studying potential ecological risks, human health risk assessments, and sources of exposure (oral ingestion, respiratory ingestion, dermal contact).

1. Introduction

Heavy metal(loid)s have received widespread attention owing to their cumulative, non-degradable, persistent, and toxic characteristics [1,2], As, Pb, Hg, Cr, and Cd are included in China’s List of Priority Controlled Chemicals (First Batch) and China’s List of Toxic and Hazardous Air Pollutants (2018) [3,4,5].
Heavy metal(loid) pollution is characterized by regional concentrations that accumulate during long-term mineral extraction, processing, and industrialization [6,7,8]. At the same time, mining activities are considered one of the most dangerous sources of environmental pollution. High concentrations of heavy metal(loid)s are manifested in river sediments around mines [9], soil, and the atmosphere, and the sources are mainly the weathering of nearby bedrock and ore-rich zones [10], leachate discharges from the processing of ores [11], mining dust emissions [12], and emissions from industrial operations and vehicles [13].
Heavy metal(loid)s pose the greatest threat among inorganic pollutants, and their enrichment poses a serious threat to human health, as well as the environment [14]. Site contamination has been described as a “chemical time bomb” [15], and contaminated sites are also known as “brownfield sites”. Identifying the extent of contamination and the sources of heavy metal(loid)s at a contaminated site is a prerequisite for initiating any remediation work. Therefore, it is important to highlight the sources of contamination and identify the exposure threats to humans and their associated ecology. The (Igeo), Contamination factor (CF), Contamination Degree (CD), Enrichment Factor (EF) Pollution Load Index (PLI), and PERI are valuable tools for assessing the levels of HM contamination and ecological risk in the soil. The methods of heavy metal(loid) source resolution have also gradually increased with the continuous improvements in research, and soil pollutant traceability is mainly categorized into qualitative source identification (principal component analysis and factor analysis) and quantitative source resolution (isotope tracer method and chemical mass balance method) [16].
Various approaches have been explored for soil remediation. Among them, the treatment of tailings, as one of the most hazardous solid wastes, is getting more and more attention, and the previous generations have managed the tailings through effective methods with obvious results. The use of Portland cement increased the geotechnical stability of treated Chromite Ore Processing Residue [17], cement and bentonite [18], rice husk ashes (RHAs) and highly active pozzolanic solid waste [19], mechanical activation of tailings [20,21], iron/biochar composites [22], modified amorphous calcium phosphate prepared with phosphogypsum waste [23], and micro and vermicompost-assisted phytoextractors [24].
Since the 12th–14th Five-Year Plan, China has been committed to preventing and treating heavy metal(loid) pollution and has issued a series of policy documents related to this initiative to maintain the safety of the ecological environment and protect human health [25,26,27,28]. Although the prevention and control of heavy metal(loid) pollution in China has been effectively controlled, the historical legacy of heavy metal(loid) pollution is still increasingly prominent, posing a potential threat to ecological and environmental safety, as well as human health; therefore, heavy metal(loid) pollution treatment and remediation has a long way to go.
The Yunnan Province is known as the “Kingdom of Nonferrous Metals” because of its abundant mineral resources [29]. However, while driving regional economic development, the surrounding soil ecological environment is adversely affected by wastewater, exhaust gas, and slag produced by mining activities, such as extraction and smelting [30]. Scholars have studied soil and groundwater pollution in and around the mining areas in Yunnan Province [31,32,33,34], while a few of them have also studied heavy metal(loid) pollution caused by smelting factories [35,36,37], and found that there are different degrees of pollution in the region. However, information on the pollution of mineral processing plants is still very limited, and the long-term accumulation of heavy metal(loid)s exceeding the environmental carrying capacity will have adverse effects on human beings. Therefore, it is particularly important to determine the characteristics of heavy metal(loid) pollution in the soil, its ecological risk, and its source identification [38,39].
At the same time, the status of soil heavy metal(loid) contamination at the historical legacy site affected by the mineral processing plant and the health risks of the contaminated soil to the residents of the study area are unclear. The study area is relatively sensitive and has a high environmental risk. However, research on the spatial distribution of soil heavy metal(loid) contamination and the associated health risks is limited. The objectives of this study were (1) to identify the spatial distribution characteristics and possible sources of heavy metal(loid)s, (2) assess the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks of heavy metal(loid)s through multiple exposure pathways in soils, and (3) provide mathematical support for the restoration of historical sites, which is of great significance for the sustainable development of legacy sites.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Overview of the Study Area

The study area was located in the southeastern part of the Wenshan Prefecture and belongs to the peak landscape of the karst plateau in southeastern Yunnan. The study area was the legacy site of a mineral processing plant in Yunnan (Figure 1), covering an area of approximately 24,738.4 m2, with an overall arrangement along the northeast-southwest direction. The beneficiation plant was built in 1998 and shut down in 2013. The production process was a comprehensive heavy flotation process that mainly focused on washing the tin, zinc, and copper ores. Village 1 was located directly east of the site, with a straight-line distance of 760 m; Village 2 was located southwest of the site, with a straight-line distance of 805 m, and a small number of residents lived around the site. The site’s former historical production area included a residue deposit, raw ore yard, workshop, staff dormitory, dewatering tank, sedimentation tank, and analysis laboratory. The southwest corner of the factory area was originally part of the Workshop and Residue deposit and is now occupied by the Timber mill. The strata in the area are Quaternary fill layer (Q4ml), Quaternary alluvial layer (Q4al+pl), Middle Cambrian Tianpeng Formation (Є2t) [40], and the lithology is mainly moderately weathered graywacke, strongly weathered muddy siltstone, and Quaternary sediments. The land-use types around the site were mainly woodland and farmland, and the soil types were mainly red, yellow, and yellow-red. No treatment measures were taken at the site, and waste residues were randomly accumulated in the plant. The plant had not been dismantled, and the residual waste and waste slag had seriously contaminated the soil and groundwater in and around the site through rainfall washout, groundwater migration, soil exposure, and air migration.

2.2. Sample Collection and Analysis

Thirty-three soil monitoring points (12 control samples) and 199 samples (12 control samples) were collected from the study area. Heavy metal(loid) samples were analyzed and tested at the Testing Center of the Kunming Geological Survey Institute of the General Administration of Metallurgical Geology of China GAMC, which has CMA and CNAS qualification certifications.
According to China’s “Technical Specification for Soil Environmental Monitoring” (HJ/T166-2004) [41], each batch of samples is measured with a quality-controlled parallel double sample, with the use of national-level standards for the accuracy control of soil sample testing and analysis and quality control. The blank standard addition recovery rate was set within 90–110%, the sample standard addition recovery rate was 70–130%, the relative deviation of parallel samples in the laboratory was controlled at 20%, the absolute deviation of pH is 10% (0.1 pH), and all analytical test results fell within the permissible range, qualified, and were reliable. Specific detection and analysis methods were used, like the following: As and Hg, atomic fluorescence spectrometry; Cr, atomic absorption spectrometry; and Cd, Cu, Ni, and Pb, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry.
(1)
Location program
This investigation adopted the principle of strictness based on China’s Technical Guidelines for Soil Environment Investigation and Assessment of Construction Land [42], combined with a detailed investigation stage of pollution identification and preliminary screening of suspected contaminated areas. The systematic distribution method combined with the professional judgment method of distribution, according to a grid of not more than 40 m × 40 m, divided the site into several monitoring units that were sampled in the center of each monitoring unit, and the number of soil sampling points was not less than one for every 400 m2 for key areas and not less than one for every 1600 m2 for other areas, with a total of 21 soil sampling boreholes arranged. Twenty-one soil sampling boreholes were used, five in the raw ore yard, seven in the workshop, five in the timber mill, two in the staff dormitory, and two in the Residue Deposit. Owing to the thin soil layer, the sampling depth of each sampling point was based on actual geological conditions to determine the maximum sampling depth. The sampling depth range was selected to be 1–10.5 m, and the number of samples for each monitoring point was 6–13.
(2)
Soil control point layout
According to China’s Technical Guidelines for Site Environmental Investigation (HJ 25.1-2014) [43], three soil control monitoring points were established at equal intervals along the four vertical axes in the external area of the site (undisturbed by humans), and 12 soil control monitoring points were established to collect samples from 0 to 20 cm. GPS was used to locate the samples in the field, and a Sampling Record Sheet was filled out to record the environmental conditions around the sampling points in detail.
(3)
Solid waste samples
Following China’s General Rules for Sampling Solid Chemical Products (GB/T6679-2003) [44] Technical Specification for Sampling and Sampling of Industrial Solid Wastes (HJ/T20-1998) [45], using the seriously polluted building (structure) area for zoning sampling, workshop, analysis laboratory, staff dormitory, sedimentation tank, raw ore yard, and timber mill (random sampling of the top 2 cm of buildings), one sample was taken from each places, and a total of six samples were collected.
The waste residues stockpiled at the site were mainly in the raw ore yard, and waste residue deposits were not being protected. The surrounding environment contained varying degrees of potential pollution. Five samples were collected, four from the raw ore yard and one from the residual deposit.

2.3. Human Health Risk Assessment Methods

According to the health risk assessment model published by the USEPA, three routes of oral intake, dermal contact, and respiratory intake of soil particulate matter were selected [46] to evaluate the health risks to adults and children, and specific reference values were derived from the standard values of the China’s Technical Guidelines for the Risk Assessment of Construction Land Use (HJ25.3-2019) [47] and related domestic and international studies [48,49,50]. The average daily exposure of the human body to soil heavy metal(loid)s was calculated as follows:
ADDiing = Ci × (Ring × EF × ED/BW × AT) × 10−6
ADDiinh = Ci × (Rinh × EF × ED/PEF × BW × AT)
ADDiderm = Ci × (SA × SL × ABF × EF × ED/BW × AT) × 10−6
where Ci is the concentration of heavy metal(loid)s in soil (mg·kg−1), ADDiing is oral ingestion, ADDiinh is respiratory inhalation, ADDiderm is dermal contact, Ring is daily soil ingestion (mg·d−1), Rinh is daily soil inhalation (m3·d−1), EF is exposure frequency (d·a−1), ED is exposure duration (a), BW is mean body weight (kg), AT is mean exposure time (d), SA is skin exposure area (cm2), SL is skin adhesion factor (mg· (cm2·d)−1), ABF is skin adsorption factor (unitless), and PEF is particulate emission factor (m3·kg−1). Specific reference values are shown in Table 1 below.
The hazard quotient (HQ) and cancer risk (CR) represent the non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risks associated with exposure to individual heavy metal(loid)s, respectively, where HQ < 1 indicates no non-carcinogenic health risk, and vice versa [51]. Referring to the U.S. Superfund Risk Evaluation Guidelines, a total carcinogenic risk (TCR) < 10−6 does not pose a carcinogenic risk to humans, and when the TCR > 10−4, it is considered to pose an unacceptable carcinogenic risk, and the range of acceptable carcinogenic risk is 10−6 ≤ TCR ≤ 10−4 [52].
HI = ∑ HQ i = ∑ ( ADD iing RfD iing + ADD iinh RfD iinh + ADD iderm RfD iderm )
CRn = ADDiing × SFiing + ADDiinh × SFiinh + ADDiderm × SFiderm
where: SFij and RfDij are the carcinogenicity slope factor and the reference dose of heavy metal(loid) element i corresponding to the j pathway, as shown in Table 2 [53].

2.4. Ecological Risk Evaluation Methods and Standards

In this soil pollution evaluation, the screening value in China’s Soil Environmental Quality Soil Pollution Risk Control Standard for Construction Land (GB 36600-2018) [54] was selected as the evaluation standard, which was combined with the single-factor index and Nemero Comprehensive Pollution Index to evaluate the soil heavy metal(loid) contamination status and the comprehensive degree of contamination in the study area [45].
(1)
Single-factor indices
The calculation formula is as follows:
Pi = Ci/Si
where Ci is the measured value of heavy metal(loid) content in soil, Si is the limited standard of heavy metal(loid) pollution in soil(screening value), and the standard relationship of heavy metal(loid)s pollution level division is as follows: P ≤ 1, no pollution; 1 < P ≤ 2, light pollution; 2 < P ≤ 3, moderate pollution; P > 3, heavy pollution.
(2)
Nemero Composite Pollution Index Method
This refers to the combined effect of a variety of pollutants and more serious pollutants, focusing on the pollutants that cause serious environmental pollution and is calculated using the following formula [45]:
P N = p iave 2 + p imax 2 2
Piave is the average value of the single-factor pollution index, Pimax is the maximum value of all single-factor pollution indices, and the heavy metal(loid) pollution level is divided according to the following ranges: PN ≤ 0.7, no pollution; 0.7 < PN ≤ 1, not yet polluted (cordon sanitaire); 1 < PN ≤ 2, mildly polluted; 2 < PN ≤ 3, moderately polluted; PN > 3, heavily polluted.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Characteristics of Soil Heavy Metal(loid) Content

The heavy metal(loid) content in the study area is shown in Figure 2 and Table 3 (the data were logarithmically (ln) processed to maintain the aesthetics of the graph, considering the large difference in the data while making the graph. The distribution range and characteristics of the soil content of the six heavy metal(loid)s in the legacy site of the processing plant were compared and analyzed with respect to the screening value of the risk of soil contamination of China’s construction land and the control value (GB 36600-2018). As far as the average value is concerned, the average value of the As element was the largest, and the main exceeding heavy metal(loid)s were As, Cd, and Pb. The distribution of Hg, Cu, Ni, and Pb content was relatively concentrated, while the distribution of As and Cd was relatively scattered. An anomaly appeared in the box plot corresponding to the content of Pb, which was the object of focus in the later stage, and the biotoxicity of As and Pb was higher; certain control measures need to be taken to reduce the harm of As and Pb to the environment and human health based on the study’s results.
The characteristics of the heavy metal(loid) content of the soil in the study area have been shown in Table 3 (Cr was below the detection limit (0.01); therefore it is not listed in the table). Sampling and analysis of the surrounding undisturbed soil showed that the pH of the study area was 6.6, which was lower than that of the control point, indicating that the soil in the study area was acidic because of the long-term impact of mineral-processing operations. Except for Hg and Ni, the contents of the rest of the heavy metal(loid) elements in the study area were much higher than the contents of the control points, indicating that they were greatly affected by anthropogenic activities. The mean values of the soil heavy metal(loid) As, Hg, Cd, Cu, Ni, and Pb contents were 120.122, 0.707, 97.541, 6.869, 0.806, and 7.066 times higher than the background values in Yunnan Province [55] and 230.234, 1.079, 269.164, 15.364, 1.376, and 12.208 times higher than the background values of the soil in the whole country [56]; in general, As and Cd showed significant enrichment, as they had the highest exceedance rate of screening and control values. The spatial coefficients of variation of the six heavy metal(loid) elements were in the following order from the largest to the smallest: Pb > Cd > As> Cu > Hg > Ni. The magnitude of the coefficients of variation were related to the source of soil heavy metal(loid)s. The smaller the coefficient of variation, the more the dominant natural sources and the larger the coefficient of variation, the greater the anthropogenic influence [57].

3.2. Characterization of Heavy Metal(loid) Content in Solid Waste

3.2.1. Characterization of Building (Structure) Content

The main contaminant in the buildings (structures) at the site was As, with the highest concentration of 683 mg/kg (sedimentation tank G-1) (Table 4). Areas, such as analysis laboratories, workshops, sedimentation tanks, and dewatering tanks, have relatively high As contents because of long-term direct contact during the production process.
Acid leaching toxicity analysis of the buildings (structures) (Table 4) and building (structures) samples did not exceed the concentration limits listed in China’s Hazardous Waste Identification Standards Leaching Toxicity Identification (GB 5085.3-2007) [58]. It was determined that the buildings (structures) within the site did not contain hazardous wastes. The on-site samples from the buildings (structures) met the standards for Class I general industrial solid waste.

3.2.2. Characteristics of Waste Slag Content

The heavy metal(loid) elements As, Cu, and Pb were higher in the waste slag samples, and those in the original ore dumps (G1, G2, G3, and G4) were higher than those in the waste slag dumps (G5).
When acid leaching toxicity tests were performed on waste slag, the heavy metal(loid) contents of the samples from both the raw ore dump and waste slag dump were higher than the standard limit value of China’s Hazardous Waste Identification Standards for Leaching Toxicity Identification (GB 5085.3-2007). The main factors that exceeded the raw ore dump were As (max. 7.12 times) and Cd (max. 3.49 times), and the exceeding factor for the waste slag dump was As (1.23 times).

3.3. Spatial Distribution Characteristics of Soil Heavy Metal(loid)s

Using ArcMAP10.8 statistical analysis, the inverse distance-weighted interpolation analysis of the six elements was used to interpolate the spatial distribution of the six soil heavy metal(loid) pollution characteristics (Figure 3); the six heavy metal(loid) distribution patterns were obvious, and the distribution was more concentrated. As, Cd, and Cu had similar distribution patterns, with the high-value points located in the southeast and northeast (timber mill, workshop, and residue deposit), and the high value of Pb was located in the workshop, Hg was mainly located in the southwest (timber mill), and Ni was mainly located in the workshop. The index of the red points in the southeast was significantly higher than that of the other points, indicating that beneficiation activities may influence the content. There is a risk of leakage of raw materials, waste residue during the workshop’s production process, and residue deposits. The timber mill was part of the workshop, and the residue was deposited in the early days. In contrast, the heavy metal(loid)s in the waste residue and wastewater directly entered the soil environment through soil infiltration and rainwater washing, resulting in a high heavy metal(loid) content [59]. This is consistent with previous findings, mainly related to ore processing, such as leachate discharge and tailings accumulation [60,61,62].

3.4. Soil Pollution Risk Evaluation

(1) Soil heavy metal(loid) pollution soil heavy metal(loid) single factor evaluation results and Nemero comprehensive pollution index results are shown in Table 5, which shows that the pollution degree of the As element sampling points in the study area from non-pollution to heavy pollution were distributed, of which non-pollution (39.04%) and heavy pollution (44.39%) accounted for the ratio of equal strength and, at the same time, indicates that the As element should be the object of key concern. Cd and Pb were also distributed in the light and heavy pollution ranges, indicating that Cd and Pb cannot be ignored. Mercury, copper, and nickel were not found to be polluting. Cd and Pb were also distributed in mild-to-severe pollution, indicating that Cd and Pb should not be neglected, whereas Hg, Cu, and Ni were not found to be polluting. The Nemero Composite Pollution Index also showed that the order of heavy metal(loid) pollution in the region was As > Pb > Cd > Cu > Ni > Hg, which was consistent with the single-factor index.
(2) Soil heavy metal(loid) health risk. ① Through exposure assessment analysis (Table 6), non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic three pathways average daily intake of different heavy metal(loid)s had the order of As > Cu > Pb > Ni > Cd > Hg, in addition to the element Hg; the daily intake and total daily intake of non-carcinogenic oral intake, dermal contact, carcinogenicity of a single pathway of all the heavy metal(loid) elements are manifested in the children higher than in the adults. Non-carcinogenic adult respiratory intake of all the heavy metal(loid)s was higher than that of children. The average daily intake of non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic adults and children by different routes was ranked as ADDinh < ADDderm < ADDing, and the oral intake was much higher than the respiratory intake.
Health risk assessment: The health risk assessment combines human health and environmental pollution and the odds of harmful factors adversely affecting human health to assess the risk of changes in human health from exposure factors [63], health risk assessments, and a quantitative study of the magnitude of the risk of pollutants in the human body to produce effects.
Health risk evaluation Indices (Table 7). The order of carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks by different routes were CRing > CRderm > CRinh and HQing > HQderm > HQinh for adults and children, respectively, suggesting that oral intake was the main route. The order of carcinogenic risk in adults and children was As > Cd > Ni > Pb > Hg. The order of non-carcinogenic risk was As > Pb > Cd > Cu > Ni > Hg. In terms of the mean value, the oral route of As posed a carcinogenic risk, while the oral route of Cd and Ni and the dermal route of As and Ni were in the acceptable range, and the dermal route of Cd posed no carcinogenic risk; the oral route of As, Cd, and Ni posed no carcinogenic risk, the dermal route of Cd posed no carcinogenic risk, and the dermal route of Cd posed no carcinogenic risk. As, Cd, and Ni respiratory inhalation did not pose a carcinogenic risk to the human body; in addition, we can also find in the table that the As and Cd elemental adults and children oral intake pathway was part of the sampling point of the carcinogenic risk; for Hg and Pb, all exposure pathways were less than 10−6, and they do not pose a carcinogenic risk to the human body, and the oral intake pathway and dermal exposure pathway of the maximum value are located in the range of 10−6–10−4, belonging to the carcinogenicity risk of the human body. The maximum values for the oral and dermal routes of exposure were 10−6–10−4, which were within the acceptable ranges.
As is a high-risk element, the mean values of the oral route for children is approximately seven times higher than that for adults. These values were greater than 1, indicating that the effects of As on children via the oral route were more pronounced. The maximum values of Cd, Cu, and Pb in the oral route for children, Cd in the dermal route, and Pb in the oral routes for adults and children were all greater than 1, indicating that they pose a non-carcinogenic risk to the human body. The maximum values of Hg and Ni in the different exposure routes were all less than 1, and that of Ni was less than 1 for the different exposure routes, indicating that they did not pose a significant risk to human health.

3.5. Analysis of Heavy Metal Sources

Heavy metal(loid)s exist in the soil during natural formation and are usually harmless to the soil. However, under the influence of human activities, heavy metal(loid)s continue to accumulate in the soil such that the heavy metal(loid) content is much higher than the natural background value [64], posing a serious threat to the ecosystem and human health [65]. A Comprehensive characterization of the heavy metal(loid) content in the soil and the solid waste, single factor index, Nemero pollution index, and health risk assessment revealed that the main pollution factors in the study area were As, Cd, Pb, and Cu, which were greatly affected by human influence (Table 3). Simultaneously, identifying the sources of soil heavy metal(loid)s in the study area is particularly important for the subsequent management of the study area. Correlation analysis is an important means of identifying the sources of soil heavy metal(loid)s [66,67]; Pearson correlation coefficients of heavy metal(loid) elements in the soil are shown in Table 8, where p < 0.01. As was highly significantly and positively correlated with Cd, Cu, and Pb, Cd was with Cu, and Pb, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Cu, and Cu was with Pb, whereas Hg and Ni did not significantly correlate with the remaining elements, indicating other sources of Hg and Ni.
Principal component analysis is an important means of discriminating heavy metal(loid)s in soil [68,69]; using the software IBM SPASS 25 to carry out the Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) test for the elemental content, the KMO value was 0.779, indicating that the test data have the conditions for factor analysis. Simultaneously, the maximum variance method was used to rotate the factor-loading matrix (Table 9). The cumulative contribution rate of the three principal component factors was 93.19%, with the first principal component factor (PC1) contributing approximately 56.37%, on which As, Cd, Cu, and Pb had the highest scores, and the second principal component factor (PC2) contributed approximately 18.61%, with the highest score on PC2.The third principal component factor, PC3, contributed approximately 18.22%, and Ni scored the highest on PC3. The distribution of the elements in Figure 4 is highly similar to that of the elemental components, with high scores for PC1, PC2, and PC3 indicating that they have similar origins or characteristics. The results of the cluster analysis show that at a distance of 5–10, it can also be categorized into three classes (Figure 4-(2)).
Comprehensive correlation analysis, principal component analysis, and cluster analysis showed that the heavy metal(loid)s in the study area could be divided into three categories: (PC1) As, Cd, Cu, Pb, As, Cd, Cu, and Pb contents in the soils of the beneficiation plant were much larger than the control point and the background value of the soils in Yunnan Province. The coefficients of variation were all greater than 1, indicating that it is subject to anthropogenic factors, and the study area belongs to the typical nonferrous metal area with a long history of mining and smelting. As, Cd, Cu, and Pb pollution is related to the abandoned ore, slag, and tailings pile in the mining area [70,71,72]; at the same time, the deposits in the study area are polymetallic deposits of tin, zinc, and copper, etc. [73], and As, Cd, Cu, Pb, and so on are the mineralizing elements of the deposits in the area [74,75,76]; for the second category (PC2) Hg, the Hg content in the study area is higher than that in the control point, close to the Yunnan Province background value. The coefficient of variation was greater than 1, indicating that the anthropogenic factors had a significant influence. Previous studies have found that the combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, causes the accumulation of Hg in the soil [77,78], and it is hypothesized that PC2 originates from fossil fuels. In the third category (PC3) Ni, the content of Ni in the study area is lower than the content of the unperturbed content of the surrounding area, as well as the background value of the soils in Yunnan Province, and the coefficient of variation is less than 1 (Table 3), indicating that anthropogenic factors have not significantly influenced Ni; this indicates that Ni was not affected by anthropogenic factors, which is consistent with previous studies [79,80], and PC3 represents the source of the soil-forming parent material.

3.6. Risk Prevention and Control

According to the future planning of the site as a construction site, which belongs to a class of land, the exposure pathway of pollutants needs to be considered for its impact on human health and environmental health risks [81], while the site has complex hydrogeological conditions, the source of heavy metal(loid)s in the soil is mainly caused by waste gas and waste water discharges, waste residue stockpiling, or improper disposal. On the one hand, the remediation needs to be combined with the actual situation of the site, such as the site’s hydrogeological conditions, the degree of contamination, and the multi-metal synchronous curing/stabilizing materials, and soil-groundwater synergistic remediation techniques can be used to remediate the site [82]; on the other hand, there are still residents in the vicinity of the site, and the remediation process is a long-term process. The public also needs to be encouraged to participate and to understand the site in depth in order to avoid the risk, so as to protect the public’s health.

4. Conclusions

(1)
The average value of soil pH in the sample points of the study area is 6.56, and the whole is acidic; the average value of Hg and Ni elements is lower than the content of the control points and the background value of the soil in Yunnan Province and higher than the national background value of the soil; the average content of As, Cd, Pb, and Cu is significantly higher than the background value of the soil in Yunnan Province, which indicates that there is a certain degree of enrichment of them in the soil of the study area; the coefficients of variation for As, Cd, Pb, and Cu are all greater than 1, which may be affected by human activities; the main exceeding heavy metal(loid)s are As, Cd, and Pb, and at the same time, the main pollution factors in solid waste are As, Cd, Pb, and Cu.
(2)
Pollution in the study area was mainly distributed in the southeast, and the spatial distribution of most heavy metal(loid)s was concentrated in lumber mills, factories, and waste dumps in the study area.
(3)
The evaluation results of the single-factor and Nemero composite pollution indices were consistent as follows: As > Pb > Cd > Cu > Ni > Hg. The proportion of the heavy pollution degree of the single-factor index was As > Cd > Pb > Hg = Cu = Ni.
(4)
For the exposure assessment analysis, non-carcinogenic, and carcinogenic average daily intake of different heavy metal(loid)s, it is in the order of As > Cu > Pb > Ni > Cd > Hg, with the different pathways for ADDinh < ADDderm < ADDing, and for the health risk evaluation, adults and children in the order of different pathways for cancer risk are CRing > CRderm > CRinh. The order of non-cancer risk is HQing > HQderm > HQinh. The carcinogenic risk of element As is the largest, and the carcinogenic risk of Cd, Ni, and Pb in some sampling points is within the acceptable range. Hg does not pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.
(5)
The sources of soil heavy metal(loid)s in the study area can be divided into three categories: As, Cd, Cu, and Pb, which are mainly derived from mineral extraction and metallurgy; Hg is related to the combustion of fossil fuels, and soil-forming matrices are the main sources of Ni.
In summary, As elemental pollution is the most prominent, while the pollution status of Cd, Cu, and Pb in some areas should not be ignored, and the overall pollution level was relatively low; however, timely measures are still needed to prevent the further accumulation of heavy metal(loid)s. Plots with high heavy metal(loid) contents need to be monitored for a long time, and waste treatment needs to be scientific.
However, this study has potential limitations. Only a basic pollution evaluation, health risk evaluation, and source analysis were performed, and there is a lack of content prediction.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.Z. and W.L.; methodology, Y.Z. and W.L.; software, W.L.; validation, Y.Z.; formal analysis, W.L. and Y.Z.; investigation, P.W., W.L. and C.S.; resources, Y.Z. and P.W.; data curation, P.W., W.L. and C.S.; writing—original draft preparation, W.L.; writing—review and editing, Y.Z., P.W. and W.L.; visualization, W.L.; supervision, Y.Z. and P.W.; project administration, Y.Z. and P.W.; funding acquisition, Y.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ten Thousand Talent Program of Yunnan Province (grant no. YNWR-QNBJ-2019-157), the projects of the YM Lab (2011), and the Innovation Team of the Yunnan Province (2008 and 2012).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset used in this study is not publicly available because of the data privacy agreements with the Kunming Geological Exploration Institute of the China Metallurgical Geology Bureau. This information can be obtained from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Zhang, Y.X.; Song, B.; Pang, R.; Zhou, L. Risk assessment of lead intake via food among residents in the mining areas of Nandan County China. Environ. Geochem. Health 2020, 42, 3841–3850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Fang, B.; Xiao, T.W.; Su, N.N.; Xia, Y.; Shen, Z.G.; Cui, J. Research progress on cadmium uptake and its transport and accumulation in various organs of rice. Chin. J. Rice Sci. 2021, 35, 225–237. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China. Priority Control Chemicals List (First Batch). China Environment Yearbook 2017. Available online: https://www.mee.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/bgg/201712/t20171229_428832.htm (accessed on 1 February 2024).
  4. Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China. List of Toxic and Harmful Water Pollutants (First Batch). China Environment Yearbook 2019. Available online: https://www.mee.gov.cn/xxgk2018/xxgk/xxgk01/201907/t20190729_712633.html (accessed on 1 February 2024).
  5. Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China. List of Toxic and Harmful Air Pollutants (2018). China Environment Yearbook 2019. Available online: https://www.mee.gov.cn/xxgk2018/xxgk/xxgk01/201901/t20190131_691779.html (accessed on 1 February 2024).
  6. Abdelaziz, S.; Anis, C.; Chiraz, A.B.; Amine, M.H.; Ferid, D.; Fredj, C. Evaluation of pollution by heavy metals of an abandoned Pb-Zn mine in northern Tunisia using sequential fractionation and geostatistical mapping. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 43942–43957. [Google Scholar]
  7. Simatupang, A.C.; Santhaweesuk, K.; Strezov, V.; Pongkiatkul, P.; Boontanon, N.; Jindal, R.; Boontanon, K.S. Health risk assessment of soil contamination with heavy metals in a child care center co-located in vicinity to small scale industrial area: Case study of Thailand. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2024, 9, 100727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Skrobala, V.; Popovych, V.; Tyndyk, O.; Voloshchyshyn, A. Chemical pollution peculiarities of the Nadiya mine rock dumps in the Chervonohrad Mining District, Ukraine. Min. Miner. Depos. 2022, 16, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Asma, Y.; Rim, A.B. Environmental Contamination and Health Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals in the Stream Sediments of Oued Kasseb (Northerwest of Tunisia) in the Vicinity of Abandoned Pb-Zn Mine. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2024, 235, 230. [Google Scholar]
  10. Said, M.; Rizwan, U. Spatial distribution of heavy metals contamination in sediments of alpine lakes and potential risk indices, Northern Pakistan. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2024, 104, 1610–1623. [Google Scholar]
  11. Parisa, P.; Samad, A.; Soroush, M.; David, C. Using multivariate statistical analysis in assessment of surface water quality and identification of heavy metal pollution sources in Sarough watershed, NW of Iran. Min. Miner. Depos. 2021, 193, 564. [Google Scholar]
  12. Račić, N.; Malvić, T. Relation between air and soil pollution based on statistical analysis and interpolation of Nickel (Ni) and Lead (Pb): Case study of Zagreb, Croatia. Min. Miner. Depos. 2023, 17, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Franklin, N.O.; Jude, O.Q.; Sandra, V.A.; Obed, F.F.; Collins, O.; Samuel, K.D.; Anthony, Y.K. Determination of threshold values and heavy metal pollution assessment of soils in an industrial area in Ghana. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2024, 196, 546. [Google Scholar]
  14. Priyajit, S.; Kumar, A.M.; Somnath, K.; Somnath, K.; Patitapaban, M.; Kadari, R. Health risk assessment and hydrogeochemical modelling of groundwater due to heavy metals contaminants at Basundhara coal mining region, India. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2024, 104, 735–754. [Google Scholar]
  15. Zhang, L.Y.; Ji, Y.F.; Ma, J.Z.; Qiao, P.; Shang, X.F.; Zhou, J.Q. Research on environmental hazards and management countermeasures of contaminated sites in China. China Environ. Prot. Ind. 2015, 147, 46–48. [Google Scholar]
  16. Liu, H.B.; Qu, M.K.; Zhang, J.L.; Kang, J.F.; Zhao, Y.C.; Huang, B. Research Progress of Source Analysis Technology for Soil Pollutants. Environ. Monit. Forewarning 2021, 13, 1–6+19. [Google Scholar]
  17. Jagupilla, C.S.; Wazne, M.; Moon, H.D. Assessment of ferrous chloride and Portland cement for the remediation of chromite ore processing residue. Chemosphere 2015, 136, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Barati, S.; Tabatabaie Shourijeh, P.; Samani, N.; Asadi, S. Stabilization of iron ore tailings with cement and bentonite: A case study on Golgohar mine. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2020, 79, 4151–4166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, H.J.; Ju, C.X.; Zhou, M.; Chen, J.A.; Dong, Y.Q.; Hou, H.B. Sustainable and efficient stabilization/solidification of Pb, Cr, and Cd in lead-zinc tailings by using highly reactive pozzolanic solid waste. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 306, 11447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Alieh, S.; Ahmad, J.Z.; Mehdi, M.; Ahmad, K.D. Mechanical activation for sulfidic tailings treatment by tailings: Environmental aspects and cement consumption reduction. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2023, 19, e02632. [Google Scholar]
  21. Golik, V.I.; Klyuev, R.V.; Martyushev, N.V.; Zyukin, D.A.; Karlina, A.I. Prospects for Return of Valuable Components Lost in Tailings of Light Metals Ore Processing. Metallurgist 2023, 67, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Su, Z.J.; Zhang, Y.M.; Xu, H.W.; Xu, W.M.; Liu, C.; Rui, S.; Tuo, Y.F.; He, X.H.; Xiang, P. Preparation and applications of iron/biochar composites in remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils: Current status and further perspectives. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2024, 35, 103671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhao, Z.R.; Dong, Z.T.; Wang, F.H.; Wang, F.Y.; Xia, M.Z. Innovative strategy of turning waste into treasure: High-efficiency adsorption of heavy metals pollutants by modified amorphous calcium phosphate prepared with phosphogypsum waste. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2024, 12, 112994. [Google Scholar]
  24. Aransiola, A.S.; Josiah, J.U.I.; Abioye, P.O.; Bala, D.J.F.; Rivadeneira-Mendoza, B.; Prasad, R.; Luque, R.; Rodríguez-Díaz, M.J.; Maddela, R.N. Micro and vermicompost assisted remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils using phytoextractors. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2024, 9, 100755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. State Council of the People’s Republic of the China. The State Council on the Comprehensive Prevention and Control of Heavy Metal Pollution ‘Twelfth Five-Year Plan’ Approval. 2011. Available online: https://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2011/2/244257.shtm (accessed on 1 February 2024).
  26. State Council of the People’s Republic of the China. Action Plan for Soil Pollution Control. 2016. Available online: https://www.mohrss.gov.cn/SYrlzyhshbzb/dongtaixinwen/shizhengyaowen/201606/t20160601_241077.html (accessed on 1 February 2024).
  27. Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China. Opinions on Strengthening Pollution Prevention and Control in Heavy Metal-Related Industries. 2018. Available online: https://www.mee.gov.cn/ywgz/gtfwyhxpgl/zjshjgl/201904/t20190410_699166.shtml (accessed on 1 February 2024).
  28. Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China. Opinions on Further Strengthening the Prevention and Control of Heavy Metal Pollution. Resour. Regen. 2022, 236, 54–57. [Google Scholar]
  29. Wu, Y.J. To make the ‘nonferrous metal kingdom’ more ‘nonferrous’—China Copper Co., Ltd. ‘Central Enterprises Entering Yunnan’ Development Documentary. China Nonferrous Met. 2022, 50–51. [Google Scholar]
  30. Liu, G.N.; Wang, J.; Liu, X.; Li, X.S.; Ren, Y.Q.; Wang, J.; Dong, L.M. Partitioning and geochemical fractions of heavy metals from geogenic and anthropogenic sources in various soil particle size fractions. Geoderma 2018, 312, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y.X.; Song, B.; Wu, Y.; Zhou, Z.Y. Heavy metal enrichment characteristics and application potential of dominant plants in Lanping lead-zinc mining area, Yunnan. Environ. Sci. 2020, 41, 4210–4217. [Google Scholar]
  32. Chen, W.D.; Zhu, K.; Yao, W.W.; Huang, Z.X.; He, Z.W. Evaluation of heavy metal pollution in soil of Xuejiping copper mining area in Yunnan. Plateau Sci. Res. 2021, 5, 5–12+26. [Google Scholar]
  33. Liu, Y.; He, C.H.; Niu, X.K.; Zhang, D.; Pan, B. Health risk assessment of soil heavy metals in a small watershed of a mining area in Yunnan. Environ. Sci. 2022, 43, 936–945. [Google Scholar]
  34. Liu, Y.; Liu, M.Q.; Wang, L.; Yin, A.J.; Huang, Z.L.; Yao, D.D.; Dai, W.; Wang, L.; Wang, H. Evaluation of heavy metal pollution in farmland soil around an abandoned silicon plant in Yunnan. J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 2022, 41, 785–793. [Google Scholar]
  35. Yin, B.K.; Huang, M.H.; Li, G.M.; Zhang, D.L.; Chen, L. Heavy metal pollution and ecological risk assessment of farmland soil around a smelter in Yunnan. Nonferrous Met. Eng. 2017, 7, 92–96. [Google Scholar]
  36. Song, S.M. Application of Efficient Treatment of High-Salinity Wastewater Containing Heavy Metals in a Lead-Zinc Smelter in Yunnan. Master’s Thesis, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  37. Guo, W. Experimental Study on Leaching Remediation of Heavy Metal Contaminated Soil in an Abandoned Non-Ferrous Metal Smelter in Yunnan. Master’s Thesis, China University of Geosciences, Beijing, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  38. Zhang, Y.X.; Song, B.; Zhou, Z.Y. Pollution assessment and source apportionment of heavy metals in soil from lead: Zinc mining areas of south China. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2023, 11, 109320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dey, S.; Tripathy, B.; Kumar, M.S.; Das, P.A. Ecotoxicological consequences of manganese mining pollutants and their biological remediation. Environ. Chem. Ecotoxicol. 2023, 5, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhu, Y.Z. Indium Accumulation State and Distribution Pattern in the Zinc-Tin Deposits of Dulong, Southeast Yunnan. Master’s Thesis, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  41. HJ/T 166-2004; General Administration of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China. Technical Specification for Soil Environmental Monitoring. China Environment Press: Beijing, China, 2004.
  42. Ministry of Ecological and Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China. Technical Guide for Investigation and Evaluation of Soil Environment in Construction Land; China Environment Press: Beijing, China, 2017.
  43. HJ 25.1-2014; Ministry of Ecological and Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China. Technical Guidelines for Site Environmental Investigation. China Environment Press: Beijing, China, 2014.
  44. GB/T6679-2003; China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Federation; General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China. General Principles for Sampling of Solid Chemical Products. China Environment Press: Beijing, China, 2004.
  45. HJ/T20-1998; General Administration of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China. Technical Specification for Sampling and Sample Preparation of Industrial Solid Waste. China Environment Press: Beijing, China, 1998.
  46. Liu, T.; Liu, C.P.; Deng, J.; Kang, P.Y.; Wang, K.K.; Zhao, Y.Y. Ecological health risk assessment of soil heavy metals in eastern Yinan County, Shandong Province. Geol. China 2022, 49, 1497–1508. [Google Scholar]
  47. HJ 25.3-2019; Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China. Technical guidelines for risk assessment of soil contamination of land for Construction. China Environment Press: Beijing, China, 2019.
  48. USEPA. Exposure Factors Handbook; Environment Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
  49. USEPA. Regional Screening Levels (RSLs)-Generic Tables [EB/OL]; Environment Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
  50. Cheng, X.M.; Sun, B.B.; Wu, C.; He, L.; Zeng, D.M.; Zhao, C. Heavy metal content characteristics and health risks of farmland soils in typical pyrite mining areas in central Zhejiang. Environ. Sci. 2022, 43, 442–453. [Google Scholar]
  51. Rohra, H.; Tiwari, R.; Khandelwal, N.; Taneja, A. Mass distribution and health risk assessment of size segregated particulate in varied indoor microenvironments of Agra, India—A case study. Urban Clim. 2018, 24, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rehman, I.U.; Ishaq, M.; Ali, L.; Khan, S.; Ahmad, I.; Din, I.U.; Ullah, H. Enrichment, spatial distribution of potential ecological and human health risk assessment via toxic metals in soil and surface water ingestion in the vicinity of Sewakht mines, district Chitral, Northern Pakistan. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 154, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Tao, H.; Zhang, X.H.; Wang, Y.J.; Wang, Y.J.; Tao, E.Z.; Wang, F. Distribution characteristics of surface dust heavy metal pollution and health risk evaluation in Yinchuan City. Environ. Chem. 2022, 41, 2573–2585. [Google Scholar]
  54. GB36600-2018; Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China. Soil Environmental Quality—Risk Control Standard for Soil Contamination of Development Land (Trial). China Environmental Science Press: Beijing, China, 2018.
  55. China National Environmental Monitoring Centre. Background Value of Soil Elements in China; China Environmental Science Press: Beijing, China, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  56. Wei, F.S.; Chen, J.S.; Wu, Y.Y.; Zheng, C.J. Background Values of Soil Environment in China. Environ. Sci. 1991, 12, 1220. [Google Scholar]
  57. Li, X.Y.; Mao, Y.; Chen, Z.L.; Liu, W.J.; Cheng, C.; Shi, M.M.; Xu, A.; Su, Y.W.; Hu, T.P.; Qi, S.H.; et al. Characteristics and Health Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals in PM 2.5 Under Winter Haze Conditions in Central China: A Case Study of Huanggang, Hubei Province. Environ. Sci. 2021, 42, 4593–4601. [Google Scholar]
  58. GB 5085.3-2007; General Administration of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China. General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China. Hazardous Waste Identification Standard Diffuse Toxicity Identification. China Environmental Science Press: Beijing, China, 2007.
  59. Li, H.J.; Yang, Y.J.; Lv, H.M. Process research and application of indium recovery from intermediate slag of indium smelting. World Nonferrous Met. 2018, 30–31. [Google Scholar]
  60. Abraham, M.R.; Susan, T.B. Water contamination with heavy metals and trace elements from Kilembe copper mine and tailing sites in Western Uganda; implications for domestic water quality. Chemosphere 2017, 169, 281–287. [Google Scholar]
  61. Al-Hwaiti, S.M.; Brumsack, J.H.; Schnetger, B. Heavy metal contamination and health risk assessment in waste mine water dewatering using phosphate beneficiation processes in Jordan. Environ. Earth Sci. 2018, 77, 661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kadriu, S.; Sadiku, M.; Kelmend, M.; Sadriu, E. Studying the heavy metals concentration in discharged water from the Trepça Mine and flotation, Kosovo. Min. Miner. Depos. 2020, 14, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Giri, S.; Singh, A.K. Risk assessment, statistical source identification and seasonal fluctuation of dissolved metals in the Subarnarekha River, India. J. Hazard. Mater. 2014, 265, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Muhammad, S. Evaluation of heavy metals in water and sediments, pollution, and risk indices of Naltar Lakes, Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 30, 28217–28226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Li, L.M.; Wu, J.; Lu, J.; Min, X.Y.; Xu, J.; Yang, L. Distribution, pollution, bioaccumulation, and ecological risks of trace elements in soils of the northeastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Ecotox. Environ. Safe 2018, 166, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Song, Y.; Wang, H.; Ji, J.T.; Du, Y.L. Characteristics of heavy metal contamination in the soil of a legacy site of a zinc sand smelter evaluation. Environ. Earth Sci. 2023, 82, 521. [Google Scholar]
  67. Wang, Y.; Xin, C.L.; Yu, S.; Xue, H.L.; Zeng, P.; Sun, P.A.; Liu, F. Soil heavy metal content, source and potential ecological risk assessment in hilly areas of southern China. Environ. Sci. 2022, 43, 4756–4766. [Google Scholar]
  68. Xie, S.C.; Lam, T.; Xing, A.; Chen, C.; Meng, C.; Wang, S.P.; Xu, M.M.; Hong, M. Spatial distribution and ecological risk of heavy metals and their source apportionment in soils from a typical mining area, Inner Mongolia, China. J. Arid. Land 2023, 15, 1196–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chen, Y.F.; Guo, J.; Guo, S.Y.; Chen, J.X.; Li, T.; Ma, S.; Chen, H.L. Evaluation and source analysis of heavy metal pollution in surface water of Wunan River in Changzhou. Acta Sci. Circumstantiae 2024, 44, 157–166. [Google Scholar]
  70. Wei, X.D.; Zhou, Y.T.; Jiang, Y.J.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Zhang, C.S.; Liu, J.; Zhou, Y.C.; Yin, M.L.; Wang, J.; Shen, N.P.; et al. Health risks of metal(lloid)s in maize (Zea mays L.) in an artisanal zinc smelting zone and source fingerprinting by lead isotope. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 742, 140321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhao, X.Q.; Huang, J.; Zhu, X.Y.; Chai, J.C.; Ji, X.L. Ecological effects of heavy metal pollution on soil microbial community structure and diversity on both sides of a river around a mining area. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 17, 5680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Cao, J.; Xie, C.Y.; Hou, Z.R. Ecological evaluation of heavy metal pollution in the soil of Pb-Zn mines. Ecotoxicology 2022, 31, 259–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Tao, Z.H.; Su, H.; Wei, W.B.; Dao, X.Q. Structural evolution and ore-controlling of north-south faults in Dulong mining area, southeastern Yunnan. Acta Mineral. Sin. 2016, 36, 497–502. [Google Scholar]
  74. Ye, L.; Bao, T.; Liu, Y.P.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, X.J.; He, F.; Wang, D.P.; Lan, J.B. Metallogenic stage and ore-forming fluid of Dulong tin-zinc polymetallic deposit in Yunnan. Acta Mineral. Sin. 2016, 36, 503–509. [Google Scholar]
  75. Xu, J.; Cook, J.N.; Ciobanu, L.C.; Li, X.F.; Kontonikas-Charos, A.; Gilbert, S.; Lv, Y.H. Indium distribution in sphalerite from sulfide–oxide–silicate skarn assemblages: A case study of the Dulong Zn–Sn–In deposit, Southwest China. Min. Depos. 2020, 56, 307–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Liu, S.Y.; Liu, Y.P.; Ye, L.; Wang, D.P. LA-ICPMS trace element composition of pyrite from the Dulong super-large tin-zinc polymetallic deposit in southeastern Yunnan. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2021, 37, 1196–1212. [Google Scholar]
  77. Wang, Q.L.; Song, Y.T.; Wang, C.W.; Xu, R.T.; Peng, M.; Zhou, Y.L.; Han, W. Source analysis and spatial distribution of soil heavy metals in western Yunnan. China Environ. Sci. 2021, 41, 3693–3703. [Google Scholar]
  78. Chen, H.; Wang, Y.; Wang, S. Source apportionment and pollution assessment of heavy metals in farmland soil around Tongshan mining area. Environ. Sci. 2022, 43, 2719–2731. [Google Scholar]
  79. Cai, L.M.; Wang, Q.S.; Wen, H.H.; Luo, J.; Wang, s. Heavy metals in agricultural soils from a typical township in Guangdong Province, China: Occurrences and spatial distribution. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safe 2019, 168, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Xia, Z.S.; Bai, Y.R.; Wang, Y.Q.; Gao, X.L.; Ruan, X.H.; Zhong, Y.X. Spatial distribution and source apportionment of soil heavy metals in small watersheds in mountainous areas of southern Ningxia based on PMF model. Environ. Sci. 2022, 43, 432–441. [Google Scholar]
  81. Tang, J.C.; Wang, M.; Wang, F.; Sun, Q.; Zhou, Q.X. Eco-toxicity of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil. J. Environ. Sci. 2011, 23, 845–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Zeng, J.Q.; Gao, W.Y.; Li, X.; Li, C.X.; Tang, L.; Ke, W.S.; Luo, X.H.; Xue, S.G. Research progress on heavy metal pollution characteristics and remediation of non-ferrous smelting sites. Chin. J. Nonferrous Met. 2023, 33, 3440–3461. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 16 05271 g001
Figure 1. Map of study area.
Figure 1. Map of study area.
Sustainability 16 05271 g001
Sustainability 16 05271 g002
Figure 2. Box plots of heavy metal(loid) contents in the soil of construction land in the study area.
Figure 2. Box plots of heavy metal(loid) contents in the soil of construction land in the study area.
Sustainability 16 05271 g002
Sustainability 16 05271 g003
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of soil heavy metal(loid)s in the study area.
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of soil heavy metal(loid)s in the study area.
Sustainability 16 05271 g003
Sustainability 16 05271 g004
Figure 4. Spatial distribution plots of heavy metal(loid)s in soils based on principal components analysis—(1), cluster analysis of soil heavy metals—(2).
Figure 4. Spatial distribution plots of heavy metal(loid)s in soils based on principal components analysis—(1), cluster analysis of soil heavy metals—(2).
Sustainability 16 05271 g004
Table 1. Values of relevant parameters in human health risk assessment.
Table 1. Values of relevant parameters in human health risk assessment.
ParametersReference Value
ChildAdult
Ring (mg·d−1)200100
EF(d·a−1)350350
ED (a)624
BW (kg)15.956.8
AT (d)25,550 (carcinogenic)25,550 (carcinogenic)
2190 (non-carcinogenic)8760 (non-carcinogenic)
Rinh (m3·d−1)7.514.5
PEF (m3·kg−1)1.36 × 1091.36 × 109
SL (mg·(cm2·d) −1)0.20.07
SA (cm2)28005700
ABF (zero dimension)0.01 (carcinogenic)0.01 (carcinogenic)
0.001 (non-carcinogenic)0.001 (non-carcinogenic)
Table 2. Reference dose and carcinogenicity slope factor for heavy metal(loid)s in different exposure pathways.
Table 2. Reference dose and carcinogenicity slope factor for heavy metal(loid)s in different exposure pathways.
Heavy Metal(loid)RfD/(mg·(kg·d)−1)SF/(kg·d)·mg−1)
Oral IntakeInhalationSkin ExposureOral IntakeInhalationSkin Exposure
Cu4.00 × 10−24.02 × 10−21.20 × 10−2---
Zn3.00 × 10−13.00 × 10−16.00 × 10−2---
Cr3.00 × 10−32.86 × 10−56.00 × 10−50.542.0020.00
Ni2.00 × 10−22.06 × 10−25.40 × 10−31.700.8442.50
Pb3.50 × 10−33.52 × 10−35.25 × 10−48.5 × 10−34.2 × 10−21.7 × 10−2
Cd1.00 × 10−31.00 × 10−51.00 × 10−56.106.306.10
As3.00 × 10−41.23 × 10−41.23 × 10−41.5015.103.66
Hg3.00 × 10−48.57 × 10−52.10 × 10−50.00030.00033 × 10−7
Table 3. Concentration distribution of heavy metal(loid)s in the study area(mg·kg−1).
Table 3. Concentration distribution of heavy metal(loid)s in the study area(mg·kg−1).
ParameterizationpHAsHgCdCuNiPb
Sample point of a study areaMin2.7002.0900.0020.0103.5003.2304.240
Max8.90021,764.0000.364414.0005101.000113.00015,007.000
Ave6.5452210.2480.04121.264318.03834.267286.881
Median7.29105.0000.0192.09064.80037.70063.400
Comparison pointMin5.4901.2800.0060.01010.70043.2005.910
Max7.88052.2000.0880.880192.00063.20045.800
Ave6.83323.2820.0370.17752.98351.67528.131
Median6.9519.150.0280.1239.5549.927.8
SD 4931.6240.06348.047558.12519.4341389.251
CV 2.3731.5212.4031.8480.5505.121
Background value for Yunnan Province 18.4000.0580.21846.30042.50040.600
K1 120.1220.70797.5416.8690.8067.066
Soil background value for China 9.6000.0380.07920.70024.90023.500
K2 230.2341.079269.16515.3641.37612.208
Screening value (% exceedance) 13.3709.63002.14
Control value (% exceedance) 47.5901.07001.07
Note: K1 and K2 represent the ratio of the average value of the study area to the background value of Yunnan Province and the ratio of the average value to the background value of the whole country, respectively; the exceedance rate is calculated by comparing the control value of the screening value of the risk of soil contamination of construction land and is expressed as a percentage.
Table 4. Solid waste content characteristics.
Table 4. Solid waste content characteristics.
ItemAsHgCrCdCuNiPb
Buildingsmg·kg−1Staff dormitory78.80.007<2.001.0834.730.638.9
Timber mill89.20.006<2.000.3743.654.750.7
Analysis laboratory6340.021<2.002.7385.733.042.2
Workshop3440.013<2.003.7214040.2103
Residue deposit47.50.010<2.000.8117.22.7315.9
Sedimentation tank 6830.017<2.0012.218812.450.9
Acid leaching toxicity (mg·L−1)Standard limit value50.15110055
Staff dormitory0.0925 <0.00002<0.004<0.00120.0125<0.0038<0.0042
Timber mill1.339 <0.00002<0.004<0.0012<0.0025<0.0038<0.0042
Analysis laboratory0.0947 <0.000020.005 <0.0012<0.0025<0.0038<0.0042
Workshop0.0205 <0.000020.005 <0.00120.0089<0.0038<0.0042
Residue deposit0.0019 <0.000020.006 <0.0012<0.0025<0.0038<0.0042
Slag mg·kg−1G196850.016<216.94266.84326
G226,8030.015<272.9175017357
G317,9950.012<236.192812294
G423,0100.011<271151817.7325
G588090.006<21.681171.37230
Acid leaching toxicity (μg·L−1)Standard limit value500010050001000100,00050005000
G135,584<0.02<0.00483220,05325910.6
G221,946<0.02<0.004349457,7367327.5
G316,425<0.02<0.004182636,85351117.6
G49450<0.02<0.004260826,77954632.1
G56172<0.02<0.004129248121.8<4.2
Table 5. Comprehensive pollution index evaluation of heavy metal(loid)s in soil.
Table 5. Comprehensive pollution index evaluation of heavy metal(loid)s in soil.
ItemParameterizationAsHgCdCuNiPb
Single-factor index (percentage of each sample, %)Uncontaminated39.03710089.305100100 96.791
Light pollution12.29909.091002.139
medium pollution4.278 00.535000
High pollution44.38501.070001.070
Single-factor exponential distribution valuesMax362.7330.0106.3690.2830.12618.759
Min0.0355.3 × 10−50.00020.00020.0040.005
Avg36.8370.0010.3270.0180.0380.359
PN 257.810 0.007 4.510 0.2010.090 13.327
Pollution degree High pollution Uncontaminated High pollution Uncontaminated Uncontaminated High pollution
Table 6. Average daily exposure to non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic heavy metal(loid)s in soil.
Table 6. Average daily exposure to non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic heavy metal(loid)s in soil.
Heavy Metal(loid)ADDingADDinhADDdermADD
AdultChildAdultChildAdultChildAdultChild
Non-carcinogenicAs0.00370.02673.98 × 10−77.35 × 10−71.49 × 10−57.46 × 10−53.75 × 10−32.67 × 10−2
Hg6.99 × 10−84.99 × 10−77.45 × 10−121.38 × 10−112.79 × 10−101.40 × 10−97.02 × 10−85.01 × 10−7
Cd3.59 × 10−50.00033.83 × 10−97.07 × 10−91.43 × 10−77.18 × 10−73.60 × 10−52.57 × 10−4
Cu0.00050.00385.72 × 10−81.06 × 10−72.14 × 10−61.07 × 10−55.39 × 10−43.85 × 10−3
Ni5.96 × 10−50.00046.17 × 10−91.14 × 10−82.31 × 10−71.16 × 10−65.99 × 10−54.14 × 10−4
Pb0.00050.00355.16 × 10−89.54 × 10−81.93 × 10−69.69 × 10−64.86 × 10−43.47 × 10−3
ADD0.00480.03465.17 × 10−79.55 × 10−71.93 × 10−59.70 × 10−54.87 × 10−33.47 × 10−2
CarcinogenicAs0.00130.00231.36 × 10−76.30 × 10−85.10 × 10−56.40 × 10−51.33 × 10−32.35 × 10−3
Hg2.40 × 10−84.28 × 10−82.55 × 10−121.18 × 10−129.56 × 10−101.20 × 10−92.49 × 10−84.40 × 10−8
Cd1.23 × 10−52.20 × 10−51.31 × 10−96.06 × 10−104.91 × 10−76.16 × 10−71.28 × 10−52.26 × 10−5
Cu0.00020.00031.96 × 10−89.07 × 10−97.34 × 10−69.21 × 10−61.91 × 10−43.38 × 10−4
Ni1.98 × 10−53.54 × 10−52.11 × 10−99.77 × 10−107.91 × 10−79.92 × 10−72.06 × 10−53.64 × 10−5
Pb0.00020.00031.77 × 10−88.18 × 10−96.63 × 10−68.30 × 10−61.73 × 10−43.05 × 10−4
ADD0.00170.00301.77 × 10−78.18 × 10−86.63 × 10−58.31 × 10−51.73 × 10−33.05 × 10−3
Table 7. Carcinogenic health risk index of heavy metal(loid)s in the soil.
Table 7. Carcinogenic health risk index of heavy metal(loid)s in the soil.
Heavy Metal(loid)CRingCRinhCRdermTCR
AdultChildAdultChildAdultChildAdultChild
CarcinogenicAsMin1.81 × 10−63.24 × 10−61.95 × 10−99.00 × 10−101.77 × 10−72.21 × 10−71.99 × 10−63.46 × 10−6
Max0.01890.03382.03 × 10−59.37 × 10−60.00180.00230.02080.0361
Avg0.00190.00342.06 × 10−69.51 × 10−70.00020.00020.00210.0037
HgMin3.47 × 10−136.20 × 10−133.70 × 10−171.71 × 10−171.39 × 10−171.74 × 10−173.47 × 10−136.20 × 10−13
Max6.32 × 10−111.13 × 10−106.74 × 10−153.11 × 10−152.52 × 10−153.16 × 10−156.32 × 10−111.13 × 10−10
Avg7.19 × 10−121.28 × 10−117.66 × 10−163.54 × 10−162.87 × 10−163.59 × 10−167.19 × 10−121.28 × 10−11
CdMin3.53 × 10−86.31 × 10−83.89 × 10−121.80 × 10−121.41 × 10−91.77 × 10−93.67 × 10−86.48 × 10−8
Max0.00150.00261.61 × 10−77.44 × 10−85.83 × 10−57.31 × 10−50.00150.0027
Avg7.51 × 10−50.00018.27 × 10−93.82 × 10−93.00 × 10−63.75 × 10−67.80 × 10−50.0001
CuMin------
Max------
Avg------
NiMin3.18 × 10−65.68 × 10−61.67 × 10−107.73 × 10−113.17 × 10−63.97 × 10−63.97 × 10−69.65 × 10−6
Max0.00010.00025.86 × 10−92.71 × 10−90.00010.00010.00010.0003
Avg3.37 × 10−56.02 × 10−51.78 × 10−98.21 × 10−103.36 × 10−54.35 × 10−54.21 × 10−50.0001
PbMin2.09 × 10−83.73 × 10−81.10 × 10−115.08 × 10−121.66 × 10−92.09 × 10−92.25 × 10−83.94 × 10−8
Max7.38 × 10−50.00013.89 × 10−81.80 × 10−85.89 × 10−67.39 × 10−67.98 × 10−50.0001
Avg1.41 × 10−62.52 × 10−67.44 × 10−103.43 × 10−101.13 × 10−71.41 × 10−71.52 × 10−62.66 × 10−6
Heavy metal(loid)HQingHQinhHQd × 10rmHI
AdultChildAdultChildAdultChildAdultChild
Non-carcinogenicAsMin0.01180.08401.14 × 10−45.65 × 10−67.01 × 10−50.00060.01190.0846
Max122.4741875.03521.19190.05881.19195.9759124.8579881.0699
Avg12.437988.86440.12100.00600.11380.606912.672889.4773
HgMin1.13 × 10−58.04 × 10−54.20 × 10−97.76 × 10−96.42 × 10−73.22 × 10−61.19 × 10−58.36 × 10−5
Max0.00200.01467.64 × 10−71.41 × 10−60.00010.00060.00220.0152
Avg0.00020.00178.69 × 10−81.61 × 10−71.33 × 10−56.66 × 10−50.00020.0017
CdMin1.69 × 10−50.00011.80 × 10−73.33 × 10−76.74 × 10−63.38 × 10−52.38 × 10−50.0002
Max0.69894.99350.00750.01380.27891.39820.98526.4055
Avg0.03590.25650.00040.00070.01430.07180.05060.3290
CuMin0.00010.00111.57 × 10−82.90 × 10−81.96 × 10−69.85 × 10−60.00010.0011
Max0.21531.53822.28 × 10−54.22 × 10−50.00290.01440.21821.5526
Avg0.01340.09591.42 × 10−62.63 × 10−60.00020.00090.01360.0968
NiMin0.00030.00192.82 × 10−85.21 × 10−84.03 × 10−62.02 × 10−50.00030.0020
Max0.00950.06819.87 × 10−71.82 × 10−60.00010.00070.00970.0689
Avg0.00300.02072.99 × 10−75.53 × 10−74.27 × 10−50.00020.00300.0209
PbMin0.00200.01462.17 × 10−74.01 × 10−75.44 × 10−50.00030.00210.0149
Max7.238651.71710.00080.00140.19250.96547.431952.6839
Avg0.13840.98861.47 × 10−52.71 × 10−50.00370.01850.14211.0071
Note: “-” indicates that these data are not available.
Table 8. Pearson correlation coefficients.
Table 8. Pearson correlation coefficients.
AsHgCdCuNiPb
As1
Hg0.1221
Cd0.893 **0.153 *1
Cu0.902 **0.1010.899 **1
Ni−0.471 **0.214 **−0.493 **−0.367 **1
Pb0.759 **0.376 **0.760 **0.777 **−0.309 **1
Note: * indicates a significant correlation in the two-sided test (0.05); ** indicates a significant correlation in the 0.01 level (two-sided test).
Table 9. Principal component analysis results of soil heavy metal(loid) element contents.
Table 9. Principal component analysis results of soil heavy metal(loid) element contents.
ElementComponent
PC1PC2PC3
Eigenvalue3.3821.1161.093
Variance (%)56.37218.60518.216
As0.9250.038−0.243
Hg0.1060.9770.123
Cd0.9110.078−0.280
Cu0.968−0.004−0.103
Ni−0.2680.1290.954
Pb0.8220.372−0.142
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Luo, W.; Wei, P.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, C. Soil Heavy Metal(loid) Pollution Evaluation, Risk Assessment, and Source Analysis of a Mineral Processing Plant. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5271. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125271

AMA Style

Luo W, Wei P, Zhang Y, Sun C. Soil Heavy Metal(loid) Pollution Evaluation, Risk Assessment, and Source Analysis of a Mineral Processing Plant. Sustainability. 2024; 16(12):5271. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125271

Chicago/Turabian Style

Luo, Wenping, Pingtang Wei, Yan Zhang, and Chengshuai Sun. 2024. "Soil Heavy Metal(loid) Pollution Evaluation, Risk Assessment, and Source Analysis of a Mineral Processing Plant" Sustainability 16, no. 12: 5271. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125271

APA Style

Luo, W., Wei, P., Zhang, Y., & Sun, C. (2024). Soil Heavy Metal(loid) Pollution Evaluation, Risk Assessment, and Source Analysis of a Mineral Processing Plant. Sustainability, 16(12), 5271. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125271

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop