Introduction
Materials and methodology
The study area
Sampling and analysis
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics
Element | Valid N
| Mean | Maximum | Minimum | Std. dev. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pb | 120 | 127.62 | 1124.40 | 15.04 | 158.02 |
Ni | 120 | 27.02 | 88.70 | 6.40 | 12.58 |
Se | 120 | 1.08 | 4.80 | 0.1 | 0.81 |
Mo | 120 | 7.08 | 39.80 | 0.35 | 8.11 |
Zn | 120 | 252.23 | 2652.50 | 44.30 | 318.90 |
Methods for estimating background and baseline concentration
Background values from average crustal concentrations
Element | Average continental crustb
| Average continental shalea
| Average soil samples |
---|---|---|---|
Se | 0.4 | 0.5 | 1.08 |
Pb | 14.8 | 20 | 127 |
Ni | 40 | 68 | 27 |
Mo | 2 | 3 | 7.1 |
Zn | 65 | 95 | 252 |
Results and discussion
Determination of assessment criteria of soil risk
Contamination factor (CF)
Baseline | Contamination Factor | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Se | Zn | Ni | Mo | Pb | |
CF (average continental crust) | 2.70 | 4.06 | 1.48 | 3.93 | 4.01 |
CF (background) | 0.98 | 3.82 | 1.80 | 4.53 | 3.85 |
Concentration (mg/kg) | |||||
Average continental crust | 0.4 | 65 | 40 | 2 | 14.8 |
Background | 1.1 | 66 | 15 | 1.03 | 31 |
Pollution load index (PLI)
Enrichment factor (EF)
Element | CF | EF | Classification of concentration factor |
i
geo
| Intense pollution of the area on the basis of I
geo
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Se | 0.98 | 1.51 | No concentration | <0 | No contamination |
Zn | 3.82 | 2.88 | Medium (avg.) concentration | 0.32 | Uncontaminated–low contamination |
Ni | 1.80 | 0.58 | Low concentration | <0 | No contamination |
Mo | 4.53 | 2.02 | High concentration | 0.14 | Uncontaminated–low contamination |
Pb | 3.85 | 6.98 | Medium (avg.) concentration | 1.47 | Low contamination |
Geoaccumulation index (Igeo)
FDAHP methodology
Establishment of comparison matrixes
Importance | Definition | Explantation |
---|---|---|
1 | Equal importance | Two factors contribute equally to the objective |
3 | Somewhat more important | Experience and judgement slightly favor one over the other |
5 | Much more important | Experience and judgement strongly favor one over the other |
7 | Very much more important | Experience and judgement very strongly favor one over the other. Its importance is demonstrated in practice |
9 | Absolutely more important | The evidence favoring one over the other is of the highest possible validity |
2, 4, 6, 8 | Intermediate values | When compromise is needed |
Establishing the major comparison matrix
Risk assessment using FDAHP and SAW methodology
Risk assessment criteria | Total weight |
---|---|
Contamination factor | 0.191 |
Average concentration | 0.257 |
Enrichment factor | 0.236 |
Geoaccumulation index | 0.316 |
SAW technique
-
Evaluating the effect of changes in one element of the decision-making matrix on the final score of alternatives in the SAW technique.
-
Studying the effect of simultaneously changes in the weight of one attribute and one element of decision-making matrix on the final score of alternatives in the SAW technique.
-
Applying this type of sensitivity analysis for other techniques of MADM such as PROMETHEE and AHP.
Risk | Score | Rank |
---|---|---|
Pb | 0.47 | 2 |
Ni | 0.63 | 1 |
Se | 0.11 | 5 |
Mo | 0.38 | 3 |
Zn | 0.14 | 4 |