The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.130
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multiple methods for the identification of heavy metal sources in cropland soils from a resource-based region

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
55
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 191 publications
(60 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
4
55
1
Order By: Relevance
“…On the basis of a strong explanatory ability and low Q value (0.1), three main factors were selected, as shown in Figure 4. The results show that using the analytical value could meet the needs of the simulation results (Dong et al 2018). As (45.5%), Cr (59.8%), Cu (59.3%) and Pb (54.6%) had higher loads on factor 1.…”
Section: Correlation Analysismentioning
confidence: 90%
“…On the basis of a strong explanatory ability and low Q value (0.1), three main factors were selected, as shown in Figure 4. The results show that using the analytical value could meet the needs of the simulation results (Dong et al 2018). As (45.5%), Cr (59.8%), Cu (59.3%) and Pb (54.6%) had higher loads on factor 1.…”
Section: Correlation Analysismentioning
confidence: 90%
“…where C i is the concentration measurement of a certain heavy metal element, C i n is the local soil background value of the element, C i f is the pollution factor of the metal, C d is the sum of pollution factor of individual metals, E i f is the potential ecological risk index of a single metal element, and T i f is the toxicity response factor of each heavy metal. Xu et al [41] reported that the obtained toxicity response factors of six heavy metals are as follows: As (10), Hg (40), Cu (5), Ni (5), Pb (5), and Cd (30). PER is the sum of the potential comprehensive ecological risk index.…”
Section: Potential Ecological Risk Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such model has been frequently applied to the study of soil heavy metal in recent years. The model can recognize pollution sources by analyzing pollution content in the receptors and then calculating the contribution rate of each source [27][28][29][30][31][32]. Positive matrix factorization (PMF) models are calculated by the source profile and contribution rate, and the fitting is preferable at low content points.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is suitable for determining the spatial distribution of regional pollution, whereas multivariate statistical analysis (MSA) is only suitable for describing the overall pollution status of the study area. Therefore, researchers often combine GIS and MSA for soil pollution source analyses [21]. MSA generally includes principal component analysis (PCA), correlation coefficient analysis (CCA), and cluster analysis (CA), all of which can be used to identify heavy metal sources in urban topsoil [22], soil [23], and dust [11,15].…”
Section: Multivariate Statistical Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%