Open access

Introductory Chapter: How to Assess Metal Contamination in Soils?

Written By

Ismail M.M. Rahman and Zinnat A. Begum

Published: February 25th, 2019

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.84979

From the Edited Volume

Metals in Soil

Edited by Zinnat Ara Begum, Ismail M. M. Rahman and Hiroshi Hasegawa

Chapter metrics overview

921 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

1. Introduction

The average concentrations of metal or metalloid referred as metal(loid) hereafter, except those of radioisotopes or daughter nuclides and inert gases, have remained virtually unchanged in the earth’s crust despite the ups and downs in the overall distribution [1]. The total element content in the earth’s crust is dominated by O, Si, Al, Fe, Ca, Na, K, Mg, P, and Ti representing ≥99%, while the other elements in the periodic table comprised the remaining 1% and are termed as “trace elements” [2]. The abundances of naturally occurring metal(loid)s in the earth’s crust, also known as Clarke values, have been estimated by several researchers [3, 4, 5]. The Clarke values in different reports slightly varied because these are hypothetical concentrations as computed using assumed proportions of various crustal rock types [6]. The ore minerals, which contain significant contents of several metal(loid)s in their crystal structure, are listed in Table 1.

Ore minerals Associated metalloids
Argentite (Ag2S), PbS Ag, Au, Cu, Sb, Zn, Pb, Se, Te
Arsenopyrite (FeAsS), AsS As, Au, Ag, Sb, Hg, U, Bi, Mo, Sn, Cu
Barite (BaSO4) Ba, Pb, Zn
Sphalerite (ZnS) Cd, Zn, Pb, Cu
Cobaltite ((Co, Fe) AsS) Co, Fe, As, Sb, Cu, Ni, Ag, U
Chromite (Fe, Cr2O4) Cr, Ni, Co
Bornite (Cu5FeS4), chalcocite (Cu2S), chalcopyrite (CuFeS2) Cu, Zn, Pb, Cd, As, Se, Sb, Ni, Pt, Mo, Au, Te
Cinnabar (HgS) Hg, Sb, Se, Te, Ag, Zn, Pb, Mn
Pyrolusite (MnO2) Mn, Co, Ni, Zn, Pb
Molybdenite (MoS2) Mo, Cu, Re, W, Sn
Galena (PbS) Pb, Ag, Zn, Cu, Cd, Sb, Tl, Se, Te
Stibnite (Sb2S3) Sb, Ag, Au, Hg, As
Cassiterite (SnO2) Sn, Nb, Ta, W, Rb
Uraninite (UO2) U, V, As, Mo, Se, Pb, Cu, Co,
Vanadinite (Pb5(VO4)3Cl) V, U, Pb
Wolframite ((Fe, Mn) WO4) W, Mo, Sn, Nb
Sphalerite (ZnS), smithsonite (ZnCO3) Zn, Cd, Cu, Pb, As, Se, Sb, Ag, In

Table 1.

Common source of ore minerals of the metal(loid)s.

Source: Alloway [2].


The changes in both distribution and abundances of metal(loid)s in the ecosphere have become catastrophically high in recent decades presumably attributable to a wide range of anthropogenic inputs [2]. The anthropogenic emission of the toxic metal(loid)s into the atmosphere is estimated to be the one-to-three order of magnitude higher than the natural fluxes [7]. Soil, an ecosphere compartment, is the primary sink for metal(loid)s released into the environment by anthropogenic activities, which often persist for an indefinite period as most metal(loid)s resist the microbial or chemical degradation [8, 9]. Metal(loid)s are usually adsorbed by the organic, inorganic, or colloidal constituents of soil, e.g., humus, hydrous oxides, and hydroxides of Al, Fe, or Mn and Al, phyllosilicates, and some sparingly soluble calcium salts [10]. However, the anthropogenic contaminants such as ash, mine waste, demolition rubble, and so forth can serve as the parent material of a nonnatural soil type, namely, Anthrosols [2], which should have different metal accumulation characteristics than the natural pedogenic soils. The anthropogenic metal(loid)s in soils might have increased mobility than those from pedogenic or genic origins [11]. The metal(loid) contamination of soil is colorless, odorless, and barely noticeable as the environmental impact is not expeditious. The ecological damage due to the metal(loid)s triggered when the corresponding bioavailability is above the threshold or there is a change of environmental conditions [12, 13]. Moreover, the impact of contamination is enhanced when multiple metal(loid)s are involved rather than a single species [14]. The magnitude of metal(loid)s concentration in soils depends on the type of exposure and may be varied on different sites. The physicochemical characteristics and the distribution of metal(loid)s diversified based on the interaction with the soils and local transport mechanisms [15, 16]. The adverse effects on soils due to the accumulation of metal(loid)s are summarized in Table 2.

Agricultural effect Reduction of soil fertility
Reduction of nitrogen fixation
Increased erosion factor
Increasing soil loss
Increase nutrient deficiency
Reduction of crop yields
Imbalance in the soil biota (flora, fauna, microorganism)
Decrease of soil biodiversity
Industrial effect Transfer of dangerous chemicals
Ecological imbalance
Release of pollutant gases
Increased salinity
Urban effect Clogging of the drains
Soil deposits
Flooding areas
Health problems
Contamination of drinking water sources
Problems of waste management

Table 2.

Summary of adverse effects on soils due to the accumulation of metal(loid)s.

Source: Weissmannová and Pavlovský [50].


The environmental and geochemical changes of soils as a result of the intrusion of metal(loid)s not only affect the safety of living beings but also hamper the sustainable development due to the impact on the economic or political considerations [17]. Moreover, natural attenuation is often ineffective to eliminate the excess metal(loid)s from the soil, while the remediation process requires high cost and long duration in most instances [13]. Hence, it is necessary to estimate the variation in metal(loid) abundances of soils, which are susceptible to anthropogenic exposure, continuously or even periodically to avoid foreseeable mandatory soil cleanup requirements. The protocols for the assessment of metal(loid) contamination of soils will be discussed in the current chapter, preceded with a brief overview of the sources and toxicity impacts of metal(loid)s in soils.

Advertisement

2. Potentially toxic metal(loid)s

Metal(loid)s, which are ubiquitous in natural soil, and described to have influence on the physiological functions of living beings, e.g., plants, and other organisms, can be classified as nutritionally essential, nonessential with a possible beneficial effect, or nonessential with no beneficial effects [18] as listed in Table 3. The nonessential elements are potentially toxic even at deficient concentrations, while the essential ones can exert harmful impacts at elevated levels [19]. Metal(loid)s, those evoke health concerns, when accumulated in soils, exert chronic toxic effects on humans and other living beings usually via food-chain transfer. However, acute metal(loid) poisoning, even though rare, might also occur through ingestion, inhalation, or dermal contact. The toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics of metal(loid)s depend on several factors, e.g., route of exposure, dose, chemical speciation, solubility, and biotransformation, including the age, gender, and nutritional status of the exposed individuals [20]. Moreover, co-exposure to metal(loid)s mixtures may produce additive, antagonistic, or synergistic toxic effects, which could be more severe at both relatively high-dose and low-dose levels [21, 22].

Nutritionally essential metal(loid)s Metal(loid)s with possible beneficial effects Metal(loid)s with no known beneficial effects
Cobalt Boron Aluminum
Chromium(III) Nickel Antimony
Copper Silicon Arsenic
Iron Vanadium Barium
Manganese Beryllium
Molybdenum Cadmium
Selenium Lead
Zinc Mercury
Silver
Strontium
Thallium

Table 3.

Classification of metal(loid)s based on the health impact characteristics.

Source: Goyer et al. [18].


An analysis of published data indicates that As, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Hg are systemic toxicants among the metal(loid)s [20], which are known to induce adverse health effects in humans ranging from dermatological, gastrointestinal, neurologic, hematologic, immunologic, metabolic, nephrotic, developmental, and behavioral disorders to cancers [23, 24, 25]. The As, Cd, Cr, Pb, or Hg might also interfere metabolically with the nutritionally essential metal(loid)s, such as Fe, Ca, Cu, and Zn [26, 27]. The ecotoxicological considerations expanded the list of hazardous elements including a total of 11 metal(loid)s (As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Sb, Se, Tl, and V) [28]. The US-EPA priority pollutant list [29], however, included Ag, Be, Pb, and Zn in the list of toxic metal(loid)s and excluded Ba and V.

Advertisement

3. Assessment of soil contamination by metal(loid)s

A soil system is “contaminated” if any or more than a few of the toxic metal(loid) are present where it should not be or above the designated “background” concentrations [30, 31]. However, the definition of the term “background” is yet to be defined universally [6], and a selective list of definitions used to define the “background” conditions are listed in Table 4. A critical evaluation of “background” definitions [32] revealed that a precise global background value for an individual metal(loid) could not be proposed because there have been ups and downs in the overall natural distribution metal(loid)s in the ecosphere. Hence, it should be limited to specific geographic locations or regions and should be considered as a range instead of an absolute value to deal with the unavoidable environmental heterogenicity [32, 33, 34]. The regional “background” values of metal(loid)s represent either off-site or on-site reference locations. The off-site “background” values, as derived from real sample measurements [35, 36], often do not have sufficient metadata to validate the data accuracy [37] and also do not include the impact of transboundary atmospheric transport of metal(loid)s [38, 39]. The on-site “background” values usually represent buried fossil topsoils [40], dated peat bog samples [41], or deep soil layer from the same soil profile [42, 43]. However, the buried topsoils might subsequently be depleted by pedogenetic processes [44], and the properties of deep soil layers, e.g., organic matter content, bulk density, and so forth, are different from those of top soils [39, 45]. Clarke values are used as the representative “background” when regional off-site or on-site reference data is not available or cannot be obtained [6, 36]. Clarke values, even though used as an arbitrary off-site reference, does not sufficiently represent variations in element distributions in a regional or local context because of the lithologic discontinuities or pedogenic processes [34, 46]. The critical point is to select the correct “baseline” value to avoid mistaken identification of soil contamination that would create negative economic and social impacts. The strategies to avoid data bias in environmental monitoring of soil contamination are discussed by Desaules [37]. The distribution of geochemical data and related issues are focused in the works of Reimann and Filzmoser [47] and Reimann and de Caritat [45].

Definition Reference
The concentration of a metal(loid) reflecting natural processes uninfluenced by human activities [32]
The normal abundance of a metal(loid) in barren earth material [6, 53]
Geogeneous or pedogeneous average concentration of a metal(loid) in an examined soil [6, 54]

Table 4.

A selective list of definitions used to define “background” metal(loid) concentration in soils.

The methods used for soil contamination assessment include both statistical and geochemical methods, which are critically evaluated by several researchers, e.g., Desaules [39], Morrow et al. [48], D’Amore et al. [49], Weissmannová and Pavlovský [50], Cai et al. [51], Mizutani et al. [52], and so forth.

Advertisement

4. Conclusion

Metals in soil induce long-term risks to the ecosystems. Dynamics of metals in ecosphere can be assessed precisely using the information on the interactions of metals with environmental compartments. Evaluation of total metal content in soil and comparison with the “background” concentrations are the basic idea to deduce the anthropogenic inputs. However, there are differences in opinion regarding the test methods, definitions of “background,” or approaches in data interpretation for the assessment of soil contamination. Hence, it might require more time to unify the understanding of soil contamination with metals.

References

  1. 1. Kabata-Pendias A. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. 4th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2010
  2. 2. Alloway BJ. Sources of heavy metals and metalloids in soils. In: Alloway BJ, editor. Heavy Metals in Soils: Trace Metals and Metalloids in Soils and their Bioavailability. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2013. pp. 11-50
  3. 3. Hans Wedepohl K. The composition of the continental crust. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 1995;59:1217-1232
  4. 4. Tan L, Chi-lung Y. Abundance of chemical elements in the earth’s crust and its major tectonic units. International Geology Review. 1970;12:778-786
  5. 5. Taylor SR, McLennan SM. The geochemical evolution of the continental crust. Reviews of Geophysics. 1995;33:241-265
  6. 6. Wu J, Teng Y, Lu S, Wang Y, Jiao X. Evaluation of soil contamination indices in a mining area of Jiangxi, China. PLoS One. 2014;9:e112917
  7. 7. Sposito G, Page AL. Cycling of metal ions in the soil environment. In: Sigel H, Sigel A, editors. Metal Ions in Biological Systems. Circulation of Metals in the Environment. Vol. 18. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1984. pp. 287-332
  8. 8. Adriano DC. Trace Elements in Terrestrial Environments: Biogeochemistry, Bioavailability, and Risks of Metals. New York: Springer; 2001
  9. 9. Kirpichtchikova TA, Manceau A, Spadini L, Panfili F, Marcus MA, Jacquet T. Speciation and solubility of heavy metals in contaminated soil using X-ray microfluorescence, EXAFS spectroscopy, chemical extraction, and thermodynamic modeling. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 2006;70:2163-2190
  10. 10. Young SD. Chemistry of heavy metals and metalloids in soils. In: Alloway BJ, editor. Heavy Metals in Soils: Trace Metals and Metalloids in Soils and their Bioavailability. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2013. pp. 51-95
  11. 11. Chlopecka A, Bacon JR, Wilson MJ, Kay J. Forms of cadmium, lead, and zinc in contaminated soils from southwest Poland. Journal of Environmental Quality. 1996;25:69-79
  12. 12. Su C, Jiang L, Zhang W. A review on heavy metal contamination in the soil worldwide: Situation, impact and remediation techniques. Environmental Skeptics and Critics. 2014;3:24-38
  13. 13. Wood JM. Biological cycles for toxic elements in the environment. Science. 1974;183:1049-1052
  14. 14. Yongsheng Q. Study on the influences of combined pollution of heavy metals Cu and Pb on soil respiration. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences. 2008;36:1117-1128
  15. 15. Dermont G, Bergeron M, Mercier G, Richer-Laflèche M. Metal-contaminated soils: Remediation practices and treatment technologies. Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management. 2008;12:188-209
  16. 16. Dermont G, Bergeron M, Mercier G, Richer-Lafleche M. Soil washing for metal removal: A review of physical/chemical technologies and field applications. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2008;152:1-31
  17. 17. Alekseenko V, Alekseenko A. The abundances of chemical elements in urban soils. Journal of Geochemical Exploration. 2014;147:245-249
  18. 18. Goyer R, Golub M, Choudhury H, Hughes M, Kenyon E, Stifelman M. Issue paper on the human health effects of metals. Risk Assessment Forum. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2004
  19. 19. Alloway BJ. Heavy Metals in Soils: Trace Metals and Metalloids in Soils and their Bioavailability. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2013
  20. 20. Tchounwou PB, Yedjou CG, Patlolla AK, Sutton DJ. Heavy metal toxicity and the Environment. In: Luch A, editor. Molecular, Clinical and Environmental Toxicology: Volume 3: Environmental Toxicology. Basel: Springer Basel; 2012. pp. 133-164
  21. 21. Wang G, Fowler BA. Roles of biomarkers in evaluating interactions among mixtures of lead, cadmium and arsenic. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 2008;233:92-99
  22. 22. Nordberg GF, Jin T, Hong F, Zhang A, Buchet JP, Bernard A. Biomarkers of cadmium and arsenic interactions. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 2005;206:191-197
  23. 23. IARC. Report on the ‘Meeting of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group on beryllium, cadmium, mercury and exposures in the glass manufacturing industry’ Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health. 1993;19:360-363
  24. 24. Begum ZA, Rahman IMM, Hasegawa H. Soil Remediation with Green Chelants. Scholars’ Press. Germany: Saarbrücken; 2015
  25. 25. NTP (National Toxicology Program). “Report on carcinogens”. North Carolina: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Triangle Park; 2016
  26. 26. Alonso ML, Montaña FP, Miranda M, Castillo C, Hernández J, Benedito JL. Interactions between toxic (As, Cd, Hg and Pb) and nutritional essential (Ca, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Ni, Se, Zn) elements in the tissues of cattle from NW Spain. Biometals. 2004;17:389-397
  27. 27. Abdulla M, Chmielnicka J. New aspects on the distribution and metabolism of essential trace elements after dietary exposure to toxic metals. Biological Trace Element Research. 1989;23:25-53
  28. 28. Vodyanitskii YN. Contamination of soils with heavy metals and metalloids and its ecological hazard (analytic review). Eurasian Soil Science. 2013;46:793-801
  29. 29. US EPA. The Clean Water Act (Priority Pollutants: Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 423). Washington, D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency; 2012
  30. 30. US EPA. Terms of Environment: Glossary, Abbreviations, and Acronyms. Washington, D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency; 1997
  31. 31. Chapman PM. Adaptive monitoring based on ecosystem services. Science of the Total Environment. 2012;415:56-60
  32. 32. Reimann C, Filzmoser P, Garrett RG. Background and threshold: Critical comparison of methods of determination. Science of the Total Environment. 2005;346:1-16
  33. 33. Edelman T, de Bruin M. Background values of 32 elements in Dutch topsoils, determined with non-destructive neutron activation analysis. In: Assink JW, Van Den Brink WJ, editors. Contaminated Soil. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 1986. pp. 89-99
  34. 34. Anderson RH, Kravitz MJ. Evaluation of geochemical associations as a screening tool for identifying anthropogenic trace metal contamination. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2010;167:631-641
  35. 35. De Temmerman LO, Hoenig M, Scokart PO. Determination of “normal” levels and upper limit values of trace elements in soils. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenernährung und Bodenkunde. 1984;147:687-694
  36. 36. Ikem A, Campbell M, Nyirakabibi I, Garth J. Baseline concentrations of trace elements in residential soils from Southeastern Missouri. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2008;140:69-81
  37. 37. Desaules A. The role of metadata and strategies to detect and control temporal data bias in environmental monitoring of soil contamination. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2012;184:7023-7039
  38. 38. Bindler R, Brännvall M-L, Renberg I, Emteryd O, Grip H. Natural lead concentrations in pristine boreal forest soils and past pollution trends: A reference for critical load models. Environmental Science & Technology. 1999;33:3362-3367
  39. 39. Desaules A. Critical evaluation of soil contamination assessment methods for trace metals. Science of the Total Environment. 2012;426:120-131
  40. 40. Elberling B, Breuning-madsen H, Hinge H, Asmund G. Heavy metals in 3300-year-old agricultural soils used to assess present soil contamination. European Journal of Soil Science. 2010;61:74-83
  41. 41. Shotyk W, Blaser P, Grünig A, Cheburkin AK. A new approach for quantifying cumulative, anthropogenic, atmospheric lead deposition using peat cores from bogs: Pb in eight Swiss peat bog profiles. Science of the Total Environment. 2000;249:281-295
  42. 42. Blaser P, Zimmermann S, Luster J, Shotyk W. Critical examination of trace element enrichments and depletions in soils: As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn in Swiss forest soils. Science of the Total Environment. 2000;249:257-280
  43. 43. Bourennane H, Douay F, Sterckeman T, Villanneau E, Ciesielski H, King D, et al. Mapping of anthropogenic trace elements inputs in agricultural topsoil from Northern France using enrichment factors. Geoderma. 2010;157:165-174
  44. 44. ISO. ISO 19258: 2005 (Soil quality—Guidance on the determination of background values). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2005
  45. 45. Reimann C, de Caritat P. Distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic sources for elements in the environment: Regional geochemical surveys versus enrichment factors. Science of the Total Environment. 2005;337:91-107
  46. 46. Salminen R, Gregorauskien V. Considerations regarding the definition of a geochemical baseline of elements in the surficial materials in areas differing in basic geology. Applied Geochemistry. 2000;15:647-653
  47. 47. Reimann C, Filzmoser P. Normal and lognormal data distribution in geochemistry: Death of a myth. Consequences for the statistical treatment of geochemical and environmental data. Environmental Geology. 2000;39:1001-1014
  48. 48. Morrow DA, Gintautas PA, Weiss AD, Piwoni MD, Bricks RM. Metals Speciation in Soils: A Review of Methodologies (Technical Report IRRP-96-5). Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 1996
  49. 49. D’Amore JJ, Al-Abed SR, Scheckel KG, Ryan JA. Methods for speciation of metals in soils. Journal of Environmental Quality. 2005;34:1707-1745
  50. 50. Weissmannová HD, Pavlovský J. Indices of soil contamination by heavy metals—Methodology of calculation for pollution assessment (minireview). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2017;189:616
  51. 51. Cai C, Xiong B, Zhang Y, Li X, Nunes LM. Critical comparison of soil pollution indices for assessing contamination with toxic metals. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 2015;226:352
  52. 52. Mizutani S, Ikegami M, Sakanakura H, Kanjo Y. Test methods for the evaluation of heavy metals in contaminated soil. In: Hasegawa H, Rahman IMM, Rahman MA, editors. Environmental Remediation Technologies for Metal-Contaminated Soils. Tokyo: Springer Japan; 2016. pp. 67-97
  53. 53. Hawkes HE, Webb JS. Geochemistry in Mineral Exploration. New York: Haper & Row; 1962
  54. 54. ISO. ISO 11074: 2015 (Soil quality—Vocabulary). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2015

Written By

Ismail M.M. Rahman and Zinnat A. Begum

Published: February 25th, 2019