http://pubs.acs.

org/journal/acsodf Article

Evaluation of Heavy Metal Contamination in Soil Samples around

Rampal, Bangladesh
Md. Shohel Parvez,* Sayma Nawshin, Sadiya Sultana, Md. Solaiman Hossain, Md. Harunor Rashid Khan,
Md. Ahasan Habib, Zarin Tasnim Nijhum, and Rahat Khan

Cite This: ACS Omega 2023, 8, 15990−15999 Read Online

ACCESS
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

Metrics & More Article Recommendations

ABSTRACT: Rising soil pollution has recently emerged as a

significant global issue as a result of increased industrialization,
Downloaded via 60.243.213.49 on January 18, 2025 at 15:25:00 (UTC).

urbanization, and inadequate waste management. In Rampal

Upazila, soil contamination with heavy metals resulted in a
significant deterioration of quality of life and life expectancy, so the
study’s goal is to appraise the level of heavy metal contamination in
soil samples. Inductively coupled plasma−optical emission
spectrometry was used to identify 13 heavy metals (Al, Na, Cr,
Co, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Ca, Zn, and K) from 17 soil samples
that were collected at random from Rampal. Enrichment factor
(EF), geo-accumulation index (Igeo), contamination factor (CF),
pollution load index, elemental fractionation, and potential
ecological risk analysis were used to evaluate the level of pollution
and sources of metal. The average concentration of heavy metals implies that they are below in the permissible limit except for Pb.
Environmental indices also showed the same result for Pb. The ecological risk index (RI) for six elements�Mn, Zn, Cr, Fe, Cu, and
Pb�is 26.575. For investigating the behavior and origin of elements, multivariate statistical analysis was also applied. From the EF,
Na, Cr, Fe, and Mg are in the anthropogenic region, and Al, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni, Ca, K, and Zn are minorly polluted, but Pb is highly
contaminated in the Rampal area. The geo-accumulation index exhibits that Pb is slightly contaminated but others are not, while CF
shows no contamination in this region. From the ecological RI, the value which is below 150 is called uncontaminated, which
indicates that our studied area is ecologically free. There are various classifications of heavy metal contamination in the study area.
Therefore, regular monitoring of soil pollution is required, and the public awareness needs to be raised to ensure a safe environment.

■ INTRODUCTION
Bangladesh is a developing nation in the third world. In the past
Due to their occurrence in the environmental matrix in trace (10
mg kg−1) or ultra-trace (1 g/kg) amounts, heavy metals are also
two to four decades, industrialization and urbanization have known as trace elements.19 There are both organic and artificial
become widespread in Bangladesh.1−4 However, environmental sources of heavy metal pollution.20−22 One of the biggest
protection plans and the application of environmental laws are ecological issues both globally and in Bangladesh is heavy metal
still being developed.5 Because of this, a lot of untreated or poisoning of the soil, air, and water. The main source of heavy
ineffectively treated industrial effluents, sewage from cities, and metal exposure for both humans and animals is food chain
agricultural runoff are contaminating soil, water, air, and contamination.15,23 Even though several heavy metals, like iron
sediments.6−8 In numerous ways, such as through mining, (hemoglobin, myoglobin), cobalt (co-enzyme), zinc (in
excessive wastewater and fertilizer use in agricultural fields, and enzymes), and others, perform important physiological roles
atmospheric deposition from automobiles and factories, they are at minute concentrations, having too much of these can be
being polluted with heavy metals and trace elements.9−11 harmful to your health. The central neurological system (Co,
Trace elements affect people, plants, and other animals in Cu, Cr, Ni), the kidneys, the liver (Pb, Cd, Cu), the skin, the
both beneficial and bad ways.12−14 But if ingested in large
quantities over an extended period of time, all trace elements are Received: December 12, 2022
deadly. Due to their non-biodegradability and lengthy biological Accepted: February 28, 2023
half-lives, trace elements are extremely toxic.15 The overall Published: April 27, 2023
amount and eco-toxicity of trace elements remain in soils for a
very long time after introduction because they cannot be broken
down in the soil by microbial or chemical deterioration.16−18
© 2023 The Authors. Published by
American Chemical Society https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c07681
15990 ACS Omega 2023, 8, 15990−15999
ACS Omega http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf Article

Figure 1. Location of Rampal Upazila (Bangladesh, left) and distribution of soil sampling points (right).

bones, the teeth (Ni, Cd, Cu, Cr), and so forth are all affected by soil as a key element. For the evaluation of upcoming pollution
heavy metals in addition to their carcinogenic and toxic problems, a substantial number of industrial establishments are
effects.24−31 expected to be built at Rampal in addition to the coal-based
The value of the heavy metal can be determined using a power station. The majority of earlier research has focused on
variety of techniques, including atomic absorption spectroscopy the river bed sediments in and around Rampal.6,40−43
(AAS), flame AAS, electrothermal AAS, X-ray fluorescence Various studies have been conducted around Rampal and
spectrometry, inductively coupled plasma atomic emission Sundarban regions. Most of the studies show that the regions are
spectrometry (ICP−AES), and ICP mass spectrometry (ICP− in aquatic mobilization of heavy metals (As, Rb, Sb, Cs, and W)
OES). Because of its quick, multi-element analysis, broad linear and some naturally occurring radionuclides.6,38 Elemental
dynamic range (up to 5 or 6 orders of magnitude), and high abundances, anionic concentrations, and physicochemical
precision value, ICP−OES is the most efficient among all (0.5− parameters show that almost all of the elements (heavy metal,
5%). The capacity to examine more elements simultaneously trace element, and REE) are below the permissible limit of
with lower detection limits for the trace elements under study is WHO that shows that these regions are free from pollu-
this method’s key benefit. tion.6,40,42 But recent activates like ship/cargo accident, building
Solids, liquids, and gases can all be analyzed with ICP− coal-based power plant, and recent urbanization will add heavy
OES.32−34 Numerous studies have been conducted utilizing the metals to the environmental constituents like soil and water.
ICP−OES method to identify the chemical elements in soil, General people, children, and pregnant women can be affected
water, river sediments, vegetables, dried fruits, and so forth.35 A by heavy metals through water, soil, and air easily.
group of scientists used ICP−OES to measure the number of The major goals of this research are to (1) evaluate the
trace elements (Ba, Pb, Cd, Mn, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Sr, and Fe) concentration of heavy metals in the Rampal area; (2) assess the
in various dried fruit samples, while some other measure the quality of cultivated soil using the contamination factor (CF),
levels of Al, Ni, Co, Mn, Cr, Pb, As, and Cd in agricultural soil Igeo, enrichment factor (EF), and correlation; as well as (3)
and well water samples.12,36 ICP−OES was used by Durkan to establish a database concerning the level of heavy metal
analyze the trace element concentrations of diverse wild edible contamination for future use.9
mushroom species from the Buyuk Menders River Basin of
Turkey.37
Bangladesh is undergoing rapid industrialization with
gradually evolving environmental legislation, just like other
■ MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Area. Rampal is an Upazila in the Bagerhat district of
emerging nations throughout the world. The greatest mangrove Bangladesh. It is only 14 km far from the world’s largest
forest is in Rampal, a southern region of Bangladesh, where a mangrove forest, the Sundarbans.38 Rampal Upazila (Bagerhat
coal-fired power plant has been planned to be developed.38,39 district) is 291.22 square km in size, located between 22°30′ and
The environment surrounding the power plant location includes 22°41′ north latitudes and 89°32′ and 89°48′ east longitudes.
15991 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c07681
ACS Omega 2023, 8, 15990−15999
ACS Omega http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf Article

Bagerhat Sadar and Fakirhat Upazilas border it on the north, environmental factors. When heavy metals are present in the
Mongla and Morrelganj on the south, Morrelganj and Bagerhat soil, they pass via the plants and eventually reach the human
Sadar on the east, and Batiaghata and Dacope on the west. Pasur, body. Plant and animal metabolisms are eventually affected.
Rupsha, Mongla, Daudkhali, and Ghasiakhali rivers run through Base-line data is important for figuring out how much of each
this Upazila. After passing through the Sundarbans, these rivers element is present in soil samples in terms of environmental
flow into the Bay of Bengal.6 indices like the geo-accumulation index, EF, CF, and pollution
Rampal has a population of 178,503 people. Agriculture load index (PLI).49,50 As background data for our study, we
accounts for 52.41% of the income, followed by non-agricultural looked at the elemental abundances of the upper continental
workers with 7.71%, industry with 0.79%, commerce with crust (UCC: Rudnick and Gao 201451).
20.71%, transport and communication with 3.64%, services with
5.26%, construction with 1.33%, religious services with 0.24%,
rent and remittances with 0.16%, and others with 7.75%.
■ ENRICHMENT FACTOR
As recommended by Sinex and Helz,52 EF was used to

■ SAMPLE COLLECTION
Metals first enter the environment through the surface soils,
determine the level of contamination and to comprehend the
dispersion of the elements of anthropogenic origin from the
locations as determined by the individual elements in soil
where they tend to build up over time.44 Most of the time, these samples. In order to compute EF, the following equation may be
pollutants contaminate the top 0−40 cm of the soil.45 This used
means that if these pollutants were measured at this depth, there
could be a lot of them.46 ( ) Cn
C Ref
Sample
Seventeen composite samples of topsoil were taken from the E=
land around the Rampal Power Station (Figure 1). The sampling
points were selected randomly based on agriculture and the
( ) Cn
C Ref
Background (1)
residence of general people and around a newly located coal- where Cn is the concentration of any element or metal and CRef
based power plant. Most of the sites were selected around the is the concentration of a reference element or metal in the
power plant to identify the present situation of environment and examined environment. There are various elements (Al, Ca, Sc,
predict the future. The second most selected sites were the ones Ti, Mn, Fe, Sr, and Zr) that can be used as the reference
where agricultural land predominated because food is the materials for calculating the EF.40,50,87−89 In our research, iron
principle way for the heavy metal to enter into the body. Rest of (Fe) was chosen as the reference element for its geochemical
the sites were based on habitation and educational institution normalization and for following reasons:
playground. The soil samples were selected because mostly
heavy metal pollution occurs through soil. First, we put on hand • Its geochemistry is comparable to that of numerous trace
gloves to avoid contamination. Then, we dug the soil up with a metals;
medium-sized knife and picked them up with a stainless steel • It is associated with fine solid surfaces;
shovel. Then, we put them in a plastic bag with a zipper. The • Its natural concentration is typically uniform.53
samples were each given a unique identification number that was The EF values close to unity indicate crusted origin
carefully chosen based on their positions.38 Each sample (comparable to those of UCC) of the metals, those less than
weighed between 0.5 and 1 kg. 1.0 suggest a possible mobilization or depletion of metals,
whereas EF > 1 indicates that the element is of anthropogenic
■ SAMPLE PROCESSING AND DIGESTION
After the sample was collected, it was processed further into a
origin.54 Therefore, EF values of 1−2 are considered slightly
contaminated; on the contrary, 2−5 is moderately contami-
powder form by being ground. A 5:1:1 triacid mixture was nated, 5−20 is severely contaminated, and 20−40 is highly
created for each of the sample analysis by first mixing together contaminated.55
70% HNO 3 (Merck, Germany), 70% H 2 SO 4 (Merck,
Germany), and 65% HClO4 (Merck, Germany). A triacid
mixture of 15 mL was added to each beaker, which already
■ GEO-ACCUMULATION INDEX (IGEO)
Hakanson suggested that Igeo could be used to measure the
contained 1 g of the dried material. At a temperature of 80 °C, amount of heavy metal pollution in both land and water
each combination was allowed to digest until a clear solution was environments.56 The following equation can be used to describe
formed. In order to conduct an analysis of heavy metals, the the geo-accumulation index (Igeo)57
digested samples were first allowed to cool, then filtered, and ij cn yz
then diluted to a volume of 50 mL using deionized water (RCI Igeo = Log 2jjj zz
j 1.5 × Bn zz
Labscan Limited).22 An inductively coupled plasma-optical k { (2)
emission spectrometer was used in order to determine the where Cn represents the measured concentration of metal n and
concentrations of several heavy metals (including Mn, Fe, Cu, Bn represents the geochemical background concentration of
Zn, Pb, and Cd) that were present in the digested metal n. Due to lithospheric influences, the background matrix
solution.9,34,47,48 correction factor is 1.5. The geo-accumulation index has seven

■ ENVIRONMENTAL INDICES
Soil samples from the area of Rampal Power Station were
classes or grades as follows: Igeo = 0: class 0 (practically
uncontaminated); Igeo ≤ 0: class 1 (uncontaminated to
moderately contaminated); 0 < Igeo < 1: class 2 (moderately
analyzed for heavy metals and trace elements. Analytical contaminated); 1 < Igeo < 2: class 3 (moderately to heavily
techniques such as ICP−OES were used to determine the contaminated); 2 < Igeo < 3: class 4 (heavily contaminated); 3 <
presence of elements such as Al and Ca as well as Fe and Mg. Igeo < 4: class 5 (heavily to extremely contaminated); 4 < Igeo < 5:
Cultivation challenges and ecological imbalance are increased by class 6 (extremely contaminated); 5 < Igeo: class 6 is an open
15992 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c07681
ACS Omega 2023, 8, 15990−15999
ACS Omega http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf Article

Table 1. Explicatory Statistics of Elemental Abundances (mg kg−1, Otherwise Specified) in Soil Samples from the Sampling Site
along with UCC, Adjacent River Sediments, Previous Studies, Shale, and World Soil Median
this study adjacent study
Sela40 river Rampal- world67
mean SD RSD Poshur42 river (Mean) Mongla6 soil
(n = 17) (n = 17) (%) median min max UCC51 (mean) (n = 7) (n = 15) (n = 9) shale67 median
Al (%) 8.55 1.05 12.29 8.36 7.05 10.23 8.15 7.77 7.36 9.55 8.8 7.10
Na (%) 1.13 0.35 31.30 1.15 0.82 1.55 2.43 1.11 0.92 0.6 5.00
Cr 27.63 9.06 32.80 26.65 12.80 40.90 92.0 72.5 67.0 93.0 90.0 70.0
Co 11.73 1.92 16.35 11.25 7.70 15.20 17.3 14.9 13.9 18.1 19.0 8.00
Cu 23.75 6.07 25.57 22.43 12.15 35.75 28.0 22.3 15.2 39.0 30.0
Fe (%) 4.25 0.38 8.97 4.11 3.80 5.26 3.92 4.16 3.81 4.68 4.80 4.00
Mg (%) 2.29 0.55 23.94 2.38 1.12 2.92 46.7
Mn 426.36 74.63 17.50 421.25 319.85 650.25 775 649 634 676 850 1000
Ni 26.91 5.11 19.00 26.10 18.40 37.05 47.0 28.6 68.0 50.0
Pb 51.11 16.56 32.40 46.85 27.00 99.45 17.0 15.8 25.3 23.0 35.0
Ca (%) 1.26 0.85 67.11 1.20 0.30 2.80 2.57 1.95 1.31 1.60 1.50
Zn 48.58 13.71 28.22 48.30 6.70 74.60 67.0 69.8 67.7 104 120 90.0
K (%) 1.67 0.40 24.06 1.72 1.03 2.22 2.32 2.52 3.10 2.50 1.40

class and comprises all values of the index higher than that of
class 5. The elemental concentrations in class 6 may be 100-fold
■ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Explicatory statistics (mean, SD, RSD, median, max., min.) of 13
greater than the geochemical background value.53,58
elements (Al, Na, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Ca, Zn, and

■ POLLUTION LOAD INDEX

This empirical index offers a quick, straightforward method for
K) from 17 sampling sites determined by ICP−OES are listed in
Table 1.6,9,66
The literature data for some parts of the studied area (Rampal
determining the degree of heavy metal contamination. The CFs Mongla: Khan et al.6), nearby river sediments (Poshur river:
of the particular heavy metals at a sample site are used to Hossain et al.42), relatively far-off river sediments (Sela river:
construct the PLI, which is defined as follows56 Islam et al.40), as well as the elemental abundances of the upper
continental crust (UCC: Rudnick and Gao51), world soil
(Samle concentration)Sample (Cn)Sample
CF = = median (Bowen67), and shale (Bowen67) are included along
(Sample concentration)Background (Cn)Background with the descriptive statistics of elemental abundances of this
(3) study. Depictions of Rampal soil samples do no indicate a wide
59 spatial variation with those of the Rampal-Mongla part, Poshur
According to Zhao et al., environmental pollution may be river, and Sela river except Pb. With the exception of Al, Fe, and
classified as low (CF < 1), moderate (CF: 1−3), considerable Zn, mean concentrations in soils are systematically lower than
(CF: 3−6), or high (CF > 6). Using Tomlinson et al.60 and those of UCC. The concentrations of almost all elements are
Shomar et al.,61 PLI can be written as follows lower than those found in shale; however, Na is an exception. It
PLI = (CF1 × CF2 × CF3 × ... × CFn) (4) has been seen that Pb concentrations are higher among all of the
specimen. However, Al, K, Fe, and Co concentrations are higher
where CF = contamination factors, n = total number of CFs, than all of them in the case of the world soil median.
Cmetal = metal concentration in polluted elements, and Heavy metals have densities, atomic weights, or atomic
Cbackgroundvalue = background value of that metal. numbers that are higher than 5 gm/cm−3.68 These metals are not
For geological samples, a PLI value over 1 implies ongoing very common in the Earth’s crust, but they are used in a lot of
degradation, whereas a PLI value below 1 suggests just baseline everyday things. Heavy metal pollution is a result of human
levels of pollutants.62 activity, which is the main cause of pollution. It is mostly caused
by mining metal, smelting, foundries, and other metal-based
■ POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISK INDEX
Potential ecological risk index (RI) is used to figure out how
industries as well as the leaching of metals from places like
landfills, waste dumps, excrement, and animal and chicken
much the soil sample is polluted.63 Hakanson56 came up with manure.69 Some heavy metals are very important to how the
the following equations to figure out the RI body works. Hemoglobin in red blood cells cannot work without
iron. Copper, manganese, zinc, cobalt, and chromium are all
RI = Er = (Tr· CF) (5)
needed as cofactors or prosthetic groups for enzymes. If a person
does not get enough of these metals in their diet, they can get
where Er is the potential ecological risk factor for heavy metals, sick. On the other hand, Pb is not needed for life, so it is
Tr is the biological toxic metal response factor, and CF is the considered to be a harmful element in nature.
single element CF. We can classify the potential ecological risk Elemental Contamination Level. For assessing the
factor as low risk (Er < 40), considerable risk (80 < Er < 160), contamination level, different environmental indices, for
high risk (160 < Er < 320), and very high risk (Er > 320),6,64 example, EF, geo-accumulation index (Igeo), CF, and PLI are
while the potential ecological RI can be categorized as low risk introduced. Among all indices, the first three are element and
(RI < 150), moderate risk (150 < RI < 300), considerable risk sampling point specific while PLI is the geometric mean of
(300 < RI < 600), and very high risk (RI > 600).65 elemental CFs and illustrates immense contamination scenar-
15993 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c07681
ACS Omega 2023, 8, 15990−15999
ACS Omega http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf Article

Table 2. Mean Value of EF, Geo-Accumulation Index (Igeo), and CF of the Collected Soil Samples from Rampal
Al Na Cr Co Cu Fe Mg Mn Ni Pb Ca Zn K
EF 0.98 0.43 0.27 0.62 0.78 1.00 0.05 0.51 0.53 2.76 0.46 0.67 0.66
Igeo −0.53 −1.72 −2.40 −1.16 −0.17 −0.47 −4.98 −1.47 −1.41 0.94 −1.99 −1.16 −1.10
CF 1.05 0.47 0.30 0.68 0.85 1.09 0.05 0.55 0.57 3.01 0.49 0.73 0.72

Figure 2. PLI for specific sampling points for specific elements.

Table 3. Pearson Correlation Matrix for Element Data of the Sediment Samples
Al Na Cr Co Cu Fe Mg Mn Ni Pb Ca Zn K
Al 1.00
Na −0.23 1.00
Cr −0.07 0.07 1.00
Co −0.31 0.13 0.833b 1.00
Cu −0.28 0.12 0.854b 0.920b 1.00
Fe −0.27 −0.02 0.707b 0.747b 0.791b 1.00
Mg 0.06 −0.505a −0.04 −0.18 −0.12 −0.14 1.00
Mn −0.25 0.07 0.44 0.679b 0.626b 0.32 0.03 1.00
Ni −0.02 0.13 0.703b 0.608b 0.709b 0.28 0.16 0.750b 1.00
Pb −0.26 0.13 0.625b 0.779b 0.718b 0.37 0.05 0.816b 0.761b 1.00
Ca 0.486a −0.18 −0.08 −0.18 −0.30 −0.25 −0.15 −0.41 −0.33 −0.08 1.00
Zn 0.21 −0.22 0.39 0.47 0.47 0.36 0.41 0.499a 0.47 0.609b 0.06 1.00
K −0.27 0.515a 0.598a 0.592a 0.539a 0.507a −0.43 0.48 0.45 0.570a −0.04 0.08 1.00
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). bCorrelation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

io.56,60 Using the EF, one may estimate the concentration of Typically, geo-accumulation index measures the heavy metal
heavy metals in the environment. The EF values for Al, Na, Cr, contamination status of soil. In our studied area, Igeo values range
Co, Cu, Mg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Ca, Zn, and K were in the range 0.657− from −5.967 Mg (S-16) to 1.963 Pb (S-6). All elements show
1.218, 0.309−0.608, 0.144−0.441, 0.459−0.791, 0.448−1.023, negative values except Pb, where all 17 sampling sites show
0.018−0.061, 0.366−0.701, 0.376−0.697, 1.638−4.886, 0.109− positive values for Igeo. 12 sampling sites are polluted by
1.085, 0.094−0.930, and 0.429−0.898, respectively (Table 2). uncontaminated to mildly contaminated materials, while 5 sites
The lowest and highest EF values are for Mg in S-16 and Pb in S- (S-4, S-5, S-6, S-13, and S-16) are moderately contaminated by
6, respectively. The order of average EF for heavy metals in the Pb. Table 2 reflects the average Igeo values of all elements in
soil is Pb > Cu > Al > Zn > K > Co > Ni > Fe > Mn > Ca > Na > sampling sites. Igeo values show that the area is unpolluted by
Cr > Mg. measured amounts of all elements but is contaminated by Pb
If the EF value reaches 2, soil contamination is caused by
since it naturally occurs in the Earth’s crust and as a result of
human activities. In this study, the EF values were greater than 2,
mining, burning fossil fuels, and manufacturing. The Igeo mean
indicating that the concentration of heavy metals in the soil may
values for heavy metals followed an ascending order: Pb > Cu >
have been caused by human activities rather than by natural
processes. Nevertheless, the EF values for most of the elements Fe > Al > K > Co > Zn > Ni > Mn > Na > Ca > Cr > Mg.
like Na, Cr, Co, Mg, Mn, Ni, Zn, and K were less than 1, CF has been used to figure out how much heavy metals are in
indicating that they were in an anthropogenic region. soil samples. Values range from 0.024 Mg (S-16) to 5.850 Pb (S-
Conversely, few soil samples exhibited EF values of less than 2 6), and most of the elements show contamination less than 1,
for Al (S-3, S-5, S-7, S-9, S-11 and S-13), Cu (S-6 and S-14), and while some of them (Al, Fe, Cu, and Pb) show more than 1.
Ca (S-7 and S-13), which were not a serious contamination Based on these results, 80% of the total area is not polluted and
concern because they are very close to 1. In contrast, the Rampal 20% is only slightly polluted. Table 2 shows the heavy metal CF
area is significantly contaminated with Pb because its EF value is values of the soil samples.
between 2 and 5, and the mean value is 2.763. These results To assess the severity of the pollution and its variance across
indicated that 86% of the overall area was not polluted, 6% of this the sites, a different CF PLI was generated from the top six (Pb,
area was moderately polluted, and 8% of this area was extremely Fe, Al, Cu, Zn, and Co) CFs across all sites employed. According
polluted. to Figure 2, the results vary from 0.735 (S-2) to 1.392 (S-6) and
15994 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c07681
ACS Omega 2023, 8, 15990−15999
ACS Omega http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf Article

the mean value of the studied area is 1.047 ± 0.161 (RSD Table 4. Potential Ecological RI and RI of the Studied Heavy
15.38%). Metals
The overall results exhibit that most of the sites (S-1, S-2, S-3,
toxic response contamination Er SD
S-4, S-7, S-10, and S-12) are low contaminated except some sites elements factor, Tr factor, CF (n = 17) (n = 17) RI
(S-5, S-6, S-8, S-9, S-11, S-13, S-14, S-15, S-16, and S-17) that are
Mn 1 0.550 0.550 0.10 32.83
low to moderately contaminated. Rampal is a low to moderately
Zn 1 0.725 0.725 0.20
polluted location, as shown by the mean value (PLI = 1.045), Cr 2 0.300 0.600 0.20
and we should be cautious of this in the future. Ni 5 0.572 2.862 0.54
Elemental Fractionation/Correlation Analysis. In order Fe 5 0.566 2.830 0.49
to account for possible sources of origin of hazardous metals and Cu 5 1.373 6.865 1.08
establish a relationship among elements, multivariate statistical Co 5 0.678 3.390 0.55
analysis is a congenial technique.40,53,70−72,86 In our study, Pb 5 3.007 15.035 4.87
Pearson’s correlation matrix was employed to interpret the
impression of studied variables on the concentration of tress
elements (Table 3). The coefficient values (r) and strength of
correlation can be categorized as follows: (i) very weak > S-15 > S-8 > S-4 > S-9 > S-17 > S-12 > S-11 > S-1 > S-10 > S-2
correlation (r = 0.0−0.2), (ii) slightly significant correlation (r > S-7 > and S-3 that ranges from 52.45 to 20.36, and the mean
= 0.2−0.4), (iii) moderate correlation (r = 0.4−0.6), (iv) strong value is 32.83 ± 7.21 (Table 4). So we can say that due to heavy
correlation (r = 0.6−0.8), and (v) very strong correlation (r =
metals Mn, Zn, Cr, Ni, Fe, Cu, Co, and Pb, our studied area is
0.8−1.0). The positive correlation among Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn,
quite ecologically risk free.
Ni, Pb, Zn, and K were observed, while no correlation was
In recent years, there has been a significant emphasis on lead
significant between Al, Na, and Mg. A majority of elements
exhibit very poor or negative correlations with Ca because of the contamination because the metal is harmful to humans and
presence of carbonates.73 Table3 shows a very strong correlation animals. Lead enters the human or animal metabolic system by
among Cr−Co (0.833), Cr−Cu (0.854), Co−Cu (0.920), and food or soil dust ingestion.80 The average daily lead intake for
Mn−Pb (0.816); strong correlation within Cr−Fe (0.707), Cr− adults in the United Kingdom is estimated to be 1.6 μgm from
Ni (0.703), Cr−Pb (0.625), Co−Fe (0.747), Co−Mn (0.679), air, 20 μgm from water, and 28 μgm from food. Pb is considered
Co−Ni (0.608), Co−Pb (0.779), Cu−Fe (0.791), Cu−Mn a trace nutrient in the human body; however, exposure to larger
(0.626), Cu−Ni(0.709), Cu−Pb (0.718), Mn−Ni (0.750), Ni− concentrations of this metal may interfere with the body’s
Pb (0.761), and Pb−Zn (0.609); and moderate correlation in metabolic activities. Due to their low solubility, lead and its
Al−Ca (0.486), Na−K(0.515), Cr−K (0.598), Co−K (0.592), compounds accumulate readily in soil. In this investigation, the
Cu−K (0.539), Fe−K (0.507), Mg−Zn (0.410), Mn−Zn average Pb concentration exceeded the allowed limit (50 mg
(0.499), Mn−K (0.480), Ni−Zn (0.470), Ni−K (0.450), and kg−1).81 The average Pb values at sampling locations S-4, S-5, S-
Pb−K (0.570). 6, S-13, and S-16 were 53.9, 62.2, 99.5, 78.9, and 56.2 mg kg−1,
A strong correlation among the observed metals indicates that which were above the acceptable limit. The growing amounts of
they are from a common source/origin in the investigated Pb in the soil samples have been attributed to cement factory, oil
region. Table3shows a positive correlation between Cr and Co, refinery, and so forth, as well as to leaded gasoline, external lead-
Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb, and K, which indicates that they have a similar based paint, and industrial sources. Pb was discovered to have
source and they have serious health hazards when they are the greatest average concentration relative to other heavy metals.
injected into the human body by Cr(VI).74,75 A strong This investigation demonstrated that the average Cu content at
correlation of Co with Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, K, Pb, and Cr and Cu all sites was below the safe limit of 30 mg kg−1.81 However, the
with Cr, Co, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, and K indicates that the K, Pb, Ni, average Cu concentrations at sampling locations S-6, S-14, and
Mn, Fe, and Cr orientations were controlled by identical factors S-16 were marginally above the acceptable limit at 34.30, 31.95,
such as cobalt chloride, Cu2+, Mn oxide, clay minerals, and 35.75 mg kg−1, respectively. The present investigation
anthropogenic activities, industrial pollution, agricultural revealed that the mean concentrations of Zn and Fe at these
activities, and so forth.31,76,77 Mn also possesses a correlation sampling locations were 48.58 mg kg−1 and 4.25%, which were
among Ni, Pb, Zn, Co, and Cu because of rocks, fertilizers, below the acceptable limit (100 mg kg−1 and 40.0%).81 Copper
pollution, and so forth. A majority of elements exhibit very poor
is a necessary element for human survival, but excessive exposure
or negative correlation with Mg, Al, Na, Fe, and Ca, which
can result in anemia, liver and kidney damage, and stomach and
indicates different geochemical behaviors and external input
operating.78,84 intestinal distress. The average concentrations of Co and Cr
Potential Ecological Risk Analysis. In order to analyze the were below the acceptable limit (47 and 47 mg kg−1) at 11.7 and
soil quality of an ecosystem and to determine the extent to which 27.6 mg kg−1, respectively.81 The human body requires a small
the soil is contaminated with a variety of different heavy metals, quantity of nickel to manufacture red blood cells, but excessive
an ecological risk assessment of soil is utilized.79 For proper amounts can be somewhat poisonous. In addition, this
calculation, the toxic response factors for Mn, Zn, Cr, Ni, Fe, Cu, investigation revealed that the average Ni concentration was
Co, and Pb are 1, 1, 2, 5, 5, 5, 5, and 5, respectively. The range of 26.9 mg kg−1, which was below the allowed value (30 mg kg−1),
Er values for the locations we analyzed is 0.10 (for Zn in S-2) to with the exception of sampling sites S-5, S-6, S-13, and S-14,
29.25, with Pb > Cu > Co > Ni > Fe > Zn > Cr > Mn (for Pb in S- which had concentrations of 32.95, 37.05, 33.05, and 35.85 mg
6). To enumerate the potential risk, Table 4 displays the RI kg−1, respectively. Different soil pollution indices (CF, EF, Igeo,
values for the sampling location which elicit that the environ- RI/PERIF) acquired in this study were compared with other
ment of our studied area is pollution free. Also, in the case of the studies conducted in different parts of the world and are
sampling site, the RI is ordered as S-6 > S-13 > S-16 > S-5 > S-14 displayed in Table 5.
15995 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c07681
ACS Omega 2023, 8, 15990−15999
ACS Omega http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf Article

Table 5. Comparison of Soil Pollution Indices with Other Similar Studies

parameters Al Na Cr Co Cu Fe Mg Mn Ni Pb Ca Zn K ref
CF 1.73 3.67 4.79 10.3 4.57 3.48 53
Igeo 0.34 1.27 1.63 2.60 1.50 1.16
EF 1.06 2.20 2.85 6.24 2.80 2.09
CF 0.44 1.57 1.64 1.08 82
Igeo −1.8 0.06 0.12 −0.5
ER/PERIF 0.89 7.87 8.19 1.08
CF 4.9 0.2 0.20 0.10 83
Igeo 0.50 0.04 0.02 0.001 0.03 0.01
EF 33 45 35.0 49 57.0 45.0
ER/PERIF 9.7 0.80 0.80 0.10
CF 1.17 0.38 1.01 1.05 2.13 1.19 0.87 5.84 0.51 1.55 1.34 6
Igeo −0.4 −2.0 −0.6 −0.5 −1.5 −0.3 −0.8 −0.04 −1.3 0.04 −0.2
EF 0.97 0.33 0.85 0.88 0.48 1.00 0.74 1.30 0.57 1.30 1.12
CF 0.54 0.10 0.30 0.12 0.48 9
Igeo −1.9 −4.3 −2.3 −1.6 −1.2
EF 6.10 1.00 3.45 6.54 8.75
ER/PERIF 2.71 0.49 0.30 0.61 0.48
Igeo −0.2 −0.5 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 −0.2 −0.3 −0.1 −0.1 42
EF 0.48 0.83 0.91 1.12 0.89 0.80 1.10 1.14
CF 1.05 0.47 0.30 0.68 0.85 1.09 0.05 0.55 0.57 3.01 0.49 0.73 0.72 this study
Igeo −0.5 −1.7 −2.4 −1.2 −0.2 −0.5 −5.0 −1.5 −1.4 0.9 −2.0 −1.2 −1.1
EF 0.98 0.43 0.27 0.62 0.78 1.00 0.05 0.51 0.53 2.8 0.46 0.67 0.66
ER/PERIF 0.60 3.39 6.87 2.83 0.55 2.86 15.04 0.72

■ CONCLUSIONS
Bangladesh is currently plagued by all forms of pollution,
industrial pollution, agricultural activities, acid rain,
vehicle exhaust, vehicle battery acid, and so forth.
including soil degradation, noise pollution, air pollution, and • Our study location is ecologically risk-free, and
water pollution. The excessive use of chemical fertilizers, comparisons from many research studies near Rampal
increasing salinity, the use of topsoil in brick kilns, industrial show that the majority of values are extremely close. It
pollution, deforestation, petroleum lead air pollution, and the establishes the reliability of experimental results.
deposits of electronic and medical waste in the soil are the main
causes of the declining soil health. Our research indicates that, From all of the indices, it is clear that our studied area is
with the exception of two or three elements, the level of heavy potentially polluted with Pb, which may be caused by mining, Pb
metals in the soil samples is below allowable levels. The research acid batteries, vehicle exhausts, industries and paints, agricul-
area is linked to varying degrees of heavy metal contamination, tural activities like farming, and so forth. In this instance,
according to the analysis of various pollution indices (EF, CF, government action is required to stop soil pollution in several
PLI, Igeo, and RI). To ascertain the quality that would influence Bangladeshi regions. Additionally, it is important to make people
economic, social, and environmental decisions such as land use, aware of this problem. To maintain a safe environment,
agriculture, and ecology, a geochemical analysis of soil samples Bangladesh must also enforce the use of effluent treatment
in Rampal Upazila in the Bagerhat district was conducted.85 facilities in industrial regions, increasing the awareness among
From our experimental data, the present environmental status of general people.
the studied area can be summarized as follows:
• Except Al, Co, Fe, and Pb, all the heavy metal
concentrations are lower than the world soil median,
■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
adjacent river, and UCC. Some sampling locations (S-4, Md. Shohel Parvez − Physics Discipline, Khulna University,
S-5, S-6, S-13, and S-16) suffer Pb pollution, while Khulna 9208, Bangladesh; orcid.org/0000-0002-6605-
location S-6 has internecine Pb pollution. 9780; Email: [email protected],
• According to the EF and PLI, 80−86% of the area is [email protected]
pollution free, with the exception of Pb in the case of the
Authors
geo-accumulation index, where all elements have negative
values. All indices show a little bit Pb pollution in the Sayma Nawshin − Physics Discipline, Khulna University,
study area. Khulna 9208, Bangladesh
Sadiya Sultana − Physics Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna
• In terms of CF, some of the regions of our study area are 9208, Bangladesh
polluted with Pb, and all other remaining places and Md. Solaiman Hossain − Physics Discipline, Khulna University,
elements are not polluted. The following list shows how Khulna 9208, Bangladesh
the mean CF values for heavy metals went up: Mg < Cr < Md. Harunor Rashid Khan − Physics Discipline, Khulna
Na < Ca < Mn < Ni < Co < K < Zn < Cu < Al < Fe < Pb. University, Khulna 9208, Bangladesh
• Inter-elemental correlation reflects that the orientation of Md. Ahasan Habib − Physics Discipline, Khulna University,
elements is controlled by mining activities, minerals, Khulna 9208, Bangladesh
15996 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c07681
ACS Omega 2023, 8, 15990−15999
ACS Omega http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf Article

Zarin Tasnim Nijhum − Physics Discipline, Khulna University, (8) Islam, M. S.; Ahmed, M. K.; Raknuzzaman, M.; Habibullah-Al-
Khulna 9208, Bangladesh Mamun, M.; Islam, M. K. Heavy metal pollution in surface water and
Rahat Khan − Reactor and Neutron Physics Division, Institute of sediment: A preliminary assessment of an urban river in a developing
Nuclear Science and Technology, Bangladesh Atomic Energy country. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 48, 282−291.
(9) Rayhan Khan, M. A.; Ara, M. H.; Dhar, P. K. Assessment of heavy
Commission, Savar, Dhaka 1349, Bangladesh
metals concentrations in the soil of Mongla industrial area, Bangladesh.
Complete contact information is available at: Environ. Health Eng. Manage. 2019, 6, 191−202.
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c07681 (10) Mandre, M. Heavy metals uptake and accumulation by the hybrid
aspen in alkalised Soil. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 2014, 225, 1808.
Author Contributions (11) Fernández-Caliani, J. C.; Barba-Brioso, C.; González, I.; Galán, E.
Heavy metal pollution in soils around the abandoned mine sites of the
M.S.P. was involved in conceptualization, sample preparation,
Iberian Pyrite Belt (Southwest Spain). Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 2009, 200,
study design, data analysis, result interpretation, manuscript 211−226.
preparation, writing, reviewing, creating image, and editing. (12) Elsheikh, M. A. A.; Hassan Mahmoud, M.; Momen, H.; Momen,
S.N., S.S., and M.S.H. helped in sample preparation, data A. A. Determination of selected toxic trace elements in agricultural soil
analysis, manuscript writing, and editing. M.H.R.K., M.A.H., and and wells water samples by ICP-OES. Orient. J. Chem. 2017, 33, 2263−
Z.T.N. helped in reviewing the manuscript. R.K. assisted in 2270.
experimental work, data analysis, result preparation, and (13) Pandey, B.; Agrawal, M.; Singh, S. Ecological risk assessment of
manuscript reviewing. All authors reviewed the final manuscript soil contamination by trace elements around coal mining area. J. Soils
and approved submission. Sediments 2016, 16, 159−168.
(14) Bermudez, G. M. A.; Moreno, M.; Invernizzi, R.; Plá, R.; Pignata,
Funding M. L. Evaluating top soil trace element pollution in the vicinity of a
The research was funded by the Research and Innovation Centre cement plant and a former open-cast uranium mine in central
of Khulna University, Khulna-9208, Bangladesh Argentina. J. Soils Sediments 2010, 10, 1308−1323.
Notes (15) Ahmad, J. U.; Goni, M. A. Heavy metal contamination in water,
soil, and vegetables of the industrial areas in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
The authors declare no competing financial interest. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010, 166, 347−357.
The data sets used in this study are available for sharing on (16) Muszyńska, E.; Labudda, M. Dual role of metallic trace elements
request to the corresponding author. in stress biology-from negative to beneficial impact on plants. Int. J. Mol.
Sci. 2019, 20, 3117.
■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to Palash Kumar Dhar for his suggestions of this
(17) Horváth, A.; Szű cs, P.; Bidló, A. Soil condition and pollution in
urban soils: evaluation of the soil quality in a Hungarian town. J. Soils
Sediments 2015, 15, 1825−1835.
article and technical help on the project. We are also very (18) Burton, K. W.; John, E. A study of heavy metal contamination in
grateful to the central laboratory of Khulna University for the Rhondda Fawr, South Wales. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 1977, 7, 45−68.
helping and supporting necessary laboratory facilities. The (19) Hezbullah, M.; Sultana, S.; Chakraborty, S. R.; Patwary, M. I.
authors are grateful to Mahmud Uz Zaman for helping to create Heavy metal contamination of food in a developing country like
a site map with the help of Google map (Figure 1). The images Bangladesh: An emerging threat to food safety. J. Toxicol. Environ.
used in the graphical abstract are created by M.S.P., the Health Sci. 2016, 8, 797297A59192.
corresponding author of this article, except the crop image that is (20) Raikwar, M. K.; Kumar, P.; Singh, M.; Singh, A. Toxic effect of
a free domain image. heavy metals in livestock health. Vet. World 2008, 1, 28−30.
(21) Papp, Z.; Dezső , Z.; Daróczy, S. Significant radioactive

■ REFERENCES
(1) Sadorsky, P. Do urbanization and industrialization affect energy
contamination of soil around a coal-fired thermal power plant. J.
Environ. Radioact. 2002, 59, 191−205.
(22) Zhang, Q.; Wang, C. Natural and Human Factors Affect the
intensity in developing countries? Energy Econ. 2013, 37, 52−59. Distribution of Soil Heavy Metal Pollution: a Review. Water, Air, Soil
(2) Cohen, B. Urbanization in developing countries: Current trends, Pollut. 2020, 231, 350.
future projections, and key challenges for sustainability. Technol. Soc. (23) Lu, X.; Gu, A.; Huang, C.; Wei, Y.; Xu, M.; Yin, H.; Hu, X.
2006, 28, 63−80. Assessments of heavy metal pollution of a farmland in an urban area
(3) Cohen, B. Urban growth in developing countries: A review of based on the Environmental Geochemical Baselines. J. Soils Sediments
current trends and a caution regarding existing forecasts. World Dev. 2021, 21, 2659−2671.
2004, 32, 23−51. (24) Järup, L. Hazards of heavy metal contamination. Br. Med. Bull.
(4) Narula, R.; Dunning, J. H. Industrial development, globalization 2003, 68, 167−182.
and multinational enterprises: New realities for developing countries. (25) World Health Organization. Methyl Mercury, Environmental
Oxf. Dev. Stud. 2000, 28, 141−167. Health Criteria. vol 101 World Health Organization Geneva, 1990.
(5) Pargal, S.; Wheeler, S. Informal regulation of industrial pollution in https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/38082/
developing countries: evidence from Indonesia. J. Polit. Econ. 1996, 104, 9241571012_eng.pdf.
1314−1327. (26) World Health Organization. Inorganic Mercury, Environmental
(6) Khan, R.; Parvez, M. S.; Jolly, Y. N.; Haydar, M. A.; Alam, M. F.; Health Criteria. vol 118 World Health Organization Geneva, 1991.
Khatun, M. A.; Sarker, M. M. R.; Habib, M. A.; Tamim, U.; Das, S.; http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/40626/IPCS_
Sultana, S.; Islam, M. A.; Naher, K.; Paul, D.; Akter, S.; Khan, M. H. R.; EHC_118.pdf?sequence=1.
Nahid, F.; Huque, R.; Rajib, M.; Hossain, S. M. Elemental abundances, (27) World Health Organization. Cadmium, Environmental Health
natural radioactivity and physicochemical records of a southern part of Criteria. vol 134 World Health Organization Geneva, 1992. https://apps.
Bangladesh: Implication for assessing the environmental geochemistry. who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/38998/9241571349-eng.
Environ. Nanotechnol., Monit. Manage. 2019, 12, 100225. pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
(7) Sekabira, K.; Origa, H. O.; Basamba, T. A.; Mutumba, G.; (28) World Health Organization. Lead, Environmental Health Criteria.
Kakudidi, E. Assessment of heavy metal pollution in the urban stream vol 165 World Health Organization Geneva, 1995. https://apps.who.int/
sediments and its tributaries. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 7, 435− iris/bitstream/handle/10665/37241/9241571659-eng.pdf?sequence=
446. 1.

15997 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c07681
ACS Omega 2023, 8, 15990−15999
ACS Omega http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf Article

(29) Gazi, E.; Kirilmaz, B.; Simsek, H. Y.; Sacar, M. Pp-143 Giant Left (48) Khan, K. F. Application, principle and operation of ICP-OES in
Atrial Myxoma Presenting with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation and pharmaceutical analysis. Pharma Innovation J. 2019, 8, 281−282.
Syncope. Int. J. Cardiol. 2012, 155, S149. (49) Khan, R.; Rouf, M. A.; Das, S.; Tamim, U.; Naher, K.; Podder, J.;
(30) Gomez-Caminero, A.; Howe, P.; Hughes, M.; Kenyon, E.; Lewis, Hossain, S. M. Spatial and multi-layered assessment of heavy metals in
D. R.; Moore, M.; Ng, J.; Aitio, A.; Becking, G. Environmental Health the sand of Cox’s-Bazar beach of Bangladesh. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2017,
Criteria 224. Arsenic and Arsenic Compounds, 2nd ed.; World Health 16, 171−180.
Organization, 2001, pp 1−66. (50) Tamim, U.; Khan, R.; Jolly, Y. N.; Fatema, K.; Das, S.; Naher, K.;
(31) Hanson, P. J.; Evans, D. W.; Colby, D. R.; Zdanowicz, V. S. Islam, M. A.; Islam, S. M. A.; Hossain, S. M. Elemental distribution of
Assessment of elemental contamination in estuarine and coastal metals in urban river sediments near an industrial effluent source.
environments based on geochemical and statistical modeling of Chemosphere 2016, 155, 509−518.
sediments. Mar. Environ. Res. 1993, 36, 237−266. (51) Rudnick, R. L.; Gao, S. Composition of the Continental Crust.
(32) Olesik, J. W. Elemental Analysis Using ICP-OES and ICP/MS. Treatise Geochem. 2003, 3, 1−64.
Anal. Chem. 1991, 63, 12A−21A. (52) Sinex, S. A.; Helz, G. R. Regional geochemistry of trace elements
(33) Savić, S.; Petrović, S.; Petronijević, M.; Cvetanović, A.; in Chesapeake Bay sediments. Environ. Geol. 1981, 3, 315−323.
Petronijević, Ž . Determination of the mineral content of spices by (53) Bhuiyan, M. A. H.; Parvez, L.; Islam, M. A.; Dampare, S. B.;
ICP-OES. Adv. Technol. 2019, 8, 27−32. Suzuki, S. Heavy metal pollution of coal mine-affected agricultural soils
(34) Sharma, I. ICP-OES: An advance tool in biological research. J. in the northern part of Bangladesh. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 173, 384−
Environ. Biol. 2020, 02, 027−033. 392.
(35) Botes, P. J.; Van Staden, J. F. Investigation of trace element (54) Szefer, P.; Szefer, K.; Glasby, G. P.; Pempkowiak, J.; Kaliszan, R.
mobility in river sediments using ICP-OES. Water SA 2005, 31, 183− Heavy-metal pollution in superficial sediments from the southern Baltic
191. Sea off Poland. J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part A: Environ. Sci. Eng. Toxic
(36) Altundag, H.; Tuzen, M. Comparison of dry, wet and microwave Hazard. Subst. Controlr 1996, 31, 2723−2754.
digestion methods for the multi element determination in some dried (55) Birch, G. F.; Olmos, M. A. Sediment-bound heavy metals as
fruit samples by ICP-OES. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2011, 49, 2800−2807. indicators of human influence and biological risk in coastal water
(37) Durkan, N.; Ugulu, I.; Unver, M. C.; Dogan, Y.; Baslar, S. bodies. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2008, 65, 1407−1413.
Concentrations of trace elements aluminum, boron, cobalt and tin in (56) Hakanson, L. An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution
various wild edible mushroom species from Buyuk Menderes River control. a sedimentological approach. Water Res. 1980, 14, 975−1001.
Basin of Turkey by ICP-OES. Trace Elem. Electrolytes 2011, 28, 242− (57) Abrahim, G. M. S.; Parker, R. J. Assessment of heavy metal
248. enrichment factors and the degree of contamination in marine
(38) Khan, R.; Parvez, M. S.; Tamim, U.; Das, S.; Islam, M. A.; Naher,
sediments from Tamaki Estuary, Auckland, New Zealand. Environ.
K.; Khan, M. H. R.; Nahid, F.; Hossain, S. M. Assessment of rare earth
Monit. Assess. 2007, 136, 227−238.
elements, Th and U profile of a site for a potential coal based power (58) Ma, X.; Zuo, H.; Tian, M.; Zhang, L.; Meng, J.; Zhou, X.; Min, N.;
plant by instrumental neutron activation analysis. Radiochim. Acta
Chang, X.; Liu, Y. Assessment of heavy metals contamination in
2018, 106, 515−524.
sediments from three adjacent regions of the Yellow river using metal
(39) Jiang, X.; Lu, W. X.; Zhao, H. Q.; Yang, Q. C.; Yang, Z. P.
chemical fractions and multivariate analysis techniques. Chemosphere
Potential ecological risk assessment and prediction of soil heavy-metal
2016, 144, 264−272.
pollution around coal gangue dump. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2014,
(59) Zhao, S.; Feng, C.; Yang, Y.; Niu, J.; Shen, Z. Risk assessment of
14, 1599−1610.
(40) Islam, M. A.; Al-mamun, A.; Hossain, F.; Quraishi, S. B.; Naher, sedimentary metals in the Yangtze Estuary: New evidence of the
K.; Khan, R.; Das, S.; Tamim, U.; Hossain, S. M.; Nahid, F. relationships between two typical index methods. J. Hazard. Mater.
Contamination and ecological risk assessment of trace elements in 2012, 241−242, 164−172.
sediments of the rivers of Sundarban mangrove forest, Bangladesh. Mar. (60) Tomlinson, D. L.; Wilson, J. G.; Harris, C. R.; Jeffrey, D. W.
Pollut. Bull. 2017, 124, 356−366. Problems in the assessment of heavy-metal levels in estuaries and the
(41) Shil, S. C.; Islam, M. S.; Irin, A.; Tusher, T. R.; Hoq, M. E. Heavy formation of a pollution index. Helgol. Mar. Res. 1980, 33, 566−575.
metal contamination in water and sediments of Passur river near the (61) Shomar, B.; Kalavrouziotis, I. K.; Koukoulakis, P. H.; Yahya, A.
Sundarbans mangrove of Bangladesh. J. Environ. Sci. Nat. Resour. 2017, Soil pollution indices under the effect of sludge. Water, Air, Soil Pollut.
10, 15−19. 2013, 224, 1436.
(42) Hossain, F.; Islam, M. A.; Al-Mamun, A.; Naher, K.; Khan, R.; (62) Mohiuddin, K. M.; Ogawa, Y.; Zakir, H. M.; Otomo, K.;
Das, S.; Tamim, U.; Hossain, S. M.; Nahid, F.; Isalm, M. A. Assessment Shikazono, N. Heavy metals contamination in water and sediments of
of trace contaminants in sediments of the Poshur river nearby Mongla an urban river in a developing country. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011,
port of Bangladesh. Nucl. Sci. Appl. 2016, 25, 7−11. 8, 723−736.
(43) Rahman, M. M.; Chongling, Y.; Islam, K. S.; Haoliang, L. A brief (63) Zhou, J.; Feng, K.; Pei, Z.; Lu, M. Pollution assessment and
review on pollution and ecotoxicologic effects on Sundarbans spatial variation of soil heavy metals in Lixia river region of eastern
mangrove ecosystem in Bangladesh. Int. J. Environ. Eng. 2009, 1, China. J. Soils Sediments 2016, 16, 748−755.
369−383. (64) Maanan, M.; Saddik, M.; Maanan, M.; Chaibi, M.; Assobhei, O.;
(44) Abechi, E. S.; Okunola, O.; Zubairu, S. M. J.; Usman, A. A.; Zourarah, B. Environmental and ecological risk assessment of heavy
Apene, E. Evaluation of heavy metals in roadside soils of major streets in metals in sediments of Nador lagoon, Morocco. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 48,
Jos metropolis, Nigeria. J. Environ. Chem. Ecotoxicol. 2010, 2, 98−102. 616−626.
(45) Krishna, A. K.; Govil, P. K. Soil contamination due to heavy (65) Fu, J.; Zhao, C.; Luo, Y.; Liu, C.; Kyzas, G. Z.; Luo, Y.; Zhao, D.;
metals from an industrial area of Surat, Gujarat, Western India. Environ. An, S.; Zhu, H. Heavy metals in surface sediments of the Jialu River,
Monit. Assess. 2007, 124, 263−275. China: their relations to environmental factors. J. Hazard. Mater. 2014,
(46) Ogunmodede, O. T.; Adewole, E.; Ojo, A. A. Quantitative 270, 102−109.
changes in soil properties and plant uptake of metals on municipal solid (66) Abija, F. A.; Abam, T. K. S. Application of geoaccumulation and
waste dumpsite in Nigeria. Int. Lett. Chem., Phys. Astron. 2015, 52, 152− pollution load indices in the assessment of heavy metal contamination
162. in sediments of the Forcados River and adjoining soils, Western Niger
(47) He, M.; Hu, B.; Chen, B.; Jiang, Z. Inductively coupled plasma Delta. J. Geosci. Environ. Res. 2018, 1, 35−51.
optical emission spectrometry for rare earth elements analysis. Phys. Sci. (67) Bowen, H. J. M. Environmental Chemistry of the Elements;
Rev. 2017, 2, 1−37. Academic Press: New York, 1979, pp 275−316.

15998 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c07681
ACS Omega 2023, 8, 15990−15999
ACS Omega http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf Article

(68) Malakootian, M.; Mortazavi, M. S.; Ahmadi, A. Heavy metals (87) Ć ujić, M.; Dragović, S.; D̵ ord̵ević, M.; Dragović, M.; Gajić, B.
bioaccumulation in fish of southern Iran and risk assessment of fish Reprint of “Environmental assessment of heavy metals around the
consumption. Environ. Health Eng. Manage. 2016, 3, 61−68. largest coal fired power plant in Serbia”. CATENA 2017, 148, 26.
(69) Briffa, J.; Sinagra, E.; Blundell, R. Heavy metal pollution in the (88) Yaylalı-Abanuz, G. Heavy metal contamination of surface soil
environment and their toxicological effects on humans. Heliyon 2020, 6, around Gebze industrial area, Turkey. Microchem. J. 2011, 99, 82.
No. e04691. (89) Ö zkul, C. Heavy metal contamination in soils around the
(70) Joseph, F.; Hair, R. L.; Tatham, R. E.; Black, A. W. Multivariate Tunçbilek Thermal Power Plant (Kütahya, Turkey). Environ. Monit.
Data Analysis, 5th ed.; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1998. Assess. 2016, 188, 284.
(71) Dhar, P. K.; Tonu, N. T.; Dey, S. K.; Chakrabarty, S.; Uddin, M.
N.; Haque, M. R. Health risk assessment and comparative studies on
some fish species cultured in traditional and biofloc fish farms. Biol.
Trace Elem. Res. 2022, DOI: 10.1007/s12011-022-03386-1.
(72) Gkaragkouni, A.; Sergiou, S.; Geraga, M.; Papaefthymiou, H.;
Christodoulou, D.; Papatheodorou, G. Heavy metal distribution,
sources and contamination assessment in polluted marine sediments:
Keratsini Outfall Sewer area, Saronikos Gulf, Greece. Water. Water, Air,
Soil Pollut. 2021, 232, 477.
(73) Datta, D. K.; Subramanian, V. Distribution and fractionation of
heavy metals in the surface sediments of the Ganges-Brahmaputra-
Meghna river system in the Bengal basin. Environ. Geol. 1998, 36, 93−
101.
(74) Wyszkowski, M.; Radziemska, M. The effect of chromium
content in soil on the concentration of some mineral elements in plants.
Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2009, 18, 1039−1045.
(75) Ahmad, T.; Ahmad, K.; Khan, Z. I.; Munir, Z.; Khalofah, A.; Al-
Qthanin, R. N.; Alsubeie, M. S.; Alamri, S.; Hashem, M.; Farooq, S.;
Maqbool, M.; Hashim, S.; Wang, Y. Chromium accumulation in soil,
water and forage samples in automobile emission area. Saudi J. Biol. Sci.
2021, 28, 3517−3522.
(76) Alagarsamy, R. Distribution and seasonal variation of trace
elements in surface sediments of the Mandovi estuary, west coast of
India. Estuarine, Coastal Shelf Sci. 2006, 67, 333−339.
(77) Tariq, S. R.; Shah, M. H.; Shaheen, N.; Jaffar, M.; Khalique, A.
Statistical source identification of metals in groundwater exposed to
industrial contamination. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2008, 138, 159−165.
(78) Ray, A. K.; Tripathy, S. C.; Patra, S.; Sarma, V. V. Assessment of
Godavari estuarine mangrove ecosystem through trace element studies.
Environ. Int. 2006, 32, 219−223.
(79) Aboubakar, A.; Douaik, A.; Mewouo, Y. C. M.; Madong, R. C. B.
A.; Dahchour, A.; El Hajjaji, S. E. Determination of background values
and assessment of pollution and ecological risk of heavy metals in urban
agricultural soils of Yaoundé, Cameroon. J. Soils Sediments 2021, 21,
1437−1454.
(80) Yaylalı-Abanuz, G. Heavy metal contamination of surface soil
around Gebze industrial area, Turkey. Microchem. J. 2011, 99, 82−92.
(81) Sultana, M. S.; Jolly, Y. N.; Yeasmin, S.; Islam, A.; Satter, S.;
Tareq, S. M. Transfer of heavy metals and radionuclides from soil to
vegetables and plants in Bangladesh. Soil Remediation and Plants:
Prospects; Academic Press, 2015.
(82) Banu, Z.; Chowdhury, M. S. A.; Hossain, M. D.; Nakagami, K.
Contamination and ecological risk assessment of heavy metal in the
sediment of Turag river, Bangladesh: an index analysis approach. J.
Water Resour. Prot. 2013, 5, 239−248.
(83) Ali, Z.; Malik, R. N.; Shinwari, Z. K.; Qadir, A. Enrichment, risk
assessment, and statistical apportionment of heavy metals in tannery-
affected areas. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 12, 537−550.
(84) Lee, H.; Kim, H.; Noh, H.; Byun, Y. J.; Chung, H.; Kim, J. Source
identification and assessment of heavy metal contamination in urban
soils based on cluster analysis and multiple pollution indices. J. Soils
Sediments 2021, 21, 1947−1961.
(85) Odukoya, A. M.; Akande, O. Metal contamination assessment in
the urban stream sediments and tributaries of coastal area southwest
Nigeria. Chin. J. Geochem. 2015, 34, 431−446.
(86) Marina, P.; Snežana, M.; Maja, N.; Miroslava, M. Determination
of heavy metal concentration and correlation analysis of turbidity: a
case study of the Zlot Source (Bor, Serbia). Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 2020,
231, 98.

15999 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c07681
ACS Omega 2023, 8, 15990−15999