Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 34, pp 34595–34609 | Cite as

Mercury and arsenic in the surface peat soils of the Changbai Mountains, northeastern China: distribution, environmental controls, sources, and ecological risk assessment

  • Jia Liu
  • Zucheng Wang
  • Hongyan ZhaoEmail author
  • Matthew Peros
  • Qiannan Yang
  • Shasha Liu
  • Hongkai Li
  • Shengzhong Wang
  • Zhaojun Bu
Research Article


The potential toxic risk of mercury (Hg) and arsenic (As) in the soils of mining regions and other artificially disturbed lands receives considerable research attention. However, limited investigation has been conducted into the surface soils of natural globally distributed ecosystems, for example peatlands. In this study, we examine the distribution, controlling factors, sources, and potential ecological risks of Hg and As in 96 samples from 42 peatlands in the Changbai Mountains of northeastern China. The results showed that average concentrations (dry weight) of Hg and As at the samples sites were 169.1 ± 0.1 µg kg–1 and 13.0 ± 7.7 mg kg−1, respectively. The distribution of Hg is largely determined by latitude and altitude, while As is controlled more by pH, total organic carbon (TOC), and ratio of TOC and nitrogen (C/N) at the regional scale. Variations in TOC, C/N ratio, and redox conditions contribute to determining the distribution of Hg, while TOC and redox conditions mainly affected the distribution of Arsenic at the local scale. Mercury mostly comes from regional atmospheric wet deposition, whereas elevated concentrations of As are related to local anthropogenic activities. Overall, Hg and As in the peatlands of the Changbai Mountains pose a moderate level of potential risk to ecological health.


Arsenic Changbai Mountains Ecological risk Mercury Peatland Regional scale Spatial distribution Surface soils 



The authors would like to thank Xing’an Wang, Ming Wang, Zhiwei Xu, Chuantao Song, Sipeng Zhang, Hanxiang Liu, Fangyuan Chen, Zheng Han, Chenxi Duan, Xiaokang Zhou, Xuanqi Zhao, Yiwen Cao, and Cong Xu for their help in the fieldwork and Xinhua Zhou, Na Xu, Yanmin Dong, Jingjing Sun, Yangyang Xia, Guangyuan Xu, and Jicheng Ma for their assistance during the laboratory chemical analysis. We thank Elaine Monaghan, BSc(Econ), from Edanz Group ( for editing a draft of this manuscript.

Funding information

This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41471165, 41401544), National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFC0500407), Education Department of Jilin Province (No. 2016506), and Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture Wetland Conservation & Development Center (No. 2017220101000913).

Supplementary material

11356_2018_3380_MOESM1_ESM.docx (25 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 24 kb)


  1. Allan M, Le Roux G, De Vleeschouwer F, Bindler R, Blaauw M, Piotrowska N, Sikorski J, Fagel N (2013) High-resolution reconstruction of atmospheric deposition of trace metals and metalloids since AD 1400 recorded by ombrotrophic peat cores in Hautes-Fagnes, Belgium. Environ Pollut 178:381–394Google Scholar
  2. Andersson A (1979) Mercury in soils. In: Nriagu JO (ed) The biogeochemistry of mercury in the environment. Elsevier, North-Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam, pp 79–122Google Scholar
  3. Bao KS, Shen J, Wang GP, Sapkota A, Mclaughlin N (2016) Estimates of recent Hg pollution in Northeast China using peat profiles from Great Hinggan Mountains. Environ Earth Sci 75:536Google Scholar
  4. Berg T, Fjeld E, Steinnes E (2006) Atmospheric mercury in Norway: contributions from different sources. Sci Total Environ 368:3–9Google Scholar
  5. Biester H, Martinez-Cortizas A, Birkenstock S, Kilian R (2003) Effect of peat decomposition and mass loss on historic mercury records in peat bogs from Patagonia. Environ Sci Technol 37:32–39Google Scholar
  6. Biester H, Knorr KH, Schellekens J, Basler A, Hermanns YM (2014) Comparison of different methods to determine the degree of peat decomposition in peat bogs. Biogeosci 11:2691–2707Google Scholar
  7. Blais JM, Kimpe LE, McMahon D, Keatley BE, Mallory ML, Douglas MSV, Smol JP (2005) Arctic seabirds transport marine-derived contaminants. Science 309:445Google Scholar
  8. Blodau C, Fulda B, Bauer M, Knorr KH (2008) Arsenic speciation and turnover in intact organic soil mesocosms during experimental drought and rewetting. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 72:3991–4007Google Scholar
  9. Bostick BC, Fendorf S (2003) Arsenite sorption on troilite (FeS) and pyrite (FeS2). Geochim Cosmochim Acta 67:909–921Google Scholar
  10. Bourg AC (1998) Speciation of heavy metals in soil and groundwater and implication of their natural and provoked mobility. In: Salomons W, Förstner U, Mader P (eds) Heavy metals, problems and solutions. Springer, Berlin, pp 19–31Google Scholar
  11. Brown PA, Gill S, Allen SJ (2000) Metal removal from wastewater using peat. Water Res 34:3907–3916Google Scholar
  12. Buffle J (1988) Complexation reactions in aquatic systems: an analytical approach. Ellis Horwood, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  13. Buttafuoco G, Tarvainen T, Jarva J, Guagliardi I (2016) Spatial variability and trigger values of arsenic in the surface urban soils of the cities of Tampere and Lahti, Finland. Environ Earth Sci 75:896Google Scholar
  14. Cai Y, Carbrera JC, Geogiadis M, Jayachandran K (2002) Assessment of arsenic mobility in the soils of some golf courses in South Florida. Sci Total Environ 291:123–134Google Scholar
  15. Chen M, Lu WX, Hou ZY, Zhang Y, Jiang X, Wu JC (2017) Heavy metal pollution in soil associated with a large-scale cyanidation gold mining region in southeast of Jilin, China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:3084–3096Google Scholar
  16. Coleman-Wasik JK, Engstrom DR, Mitchell CPJ, Swain EB, Monson BA, Balogh SJ, Jeremiason JD, Branfireun BA, Kolka RK, Almendinger JE (2015) The effects of hydrologic fluctuation and sulfate regeneration on mercury cycling in an experimental peatland. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 120:1697–1715Google Scholar
  17. Ding FH, He ZL, Liu SX, Zhang SH, Zhao FL, Li QF, Stoffella PJ (2017) Heavy metals in composts of China: historical changes, regional variation, and potential impact on soil quality. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:3194–3209Google Scholar
  18. Enrico M, Roux GL, Marusczak N, Heimbürger LE, Claustres A, Fu XW, Sun RY, Sonke JE (2016) Atmospheric mercury transfer to peat bogs dominated by gaseous elemental mercury dry deposition. Environ Sci Technol 50:2405–2412Google Scholar
  19. Fitzgerald WF, Engstrom DR, Mason RP, Nater EA (1998) The case for atmospheric mercury contamination in remote areas. Environ Sci Technol 32:1–7Google Scholar
  20. Gallego JLR, Ortiz JE, Sierra C, Torres T, Llamas JF (2013) Multivariate study of trace element distribution in the geological record of Roñanzas Peat Bog (Asturias, N. Spain). Paleoenvironmental evolution and human activities over the last 8000 cal yr BP. Sci Total Environ 454–455:16–29Google Scholar
  21. Galloway ME, Branfireun BA (2004) Mercury dynamics of a temperate forested wetland. Sci Total Environ 325:239–254Google Scholar
  22. Givelet N, Roos-Barraclougha F, Shotyk W (2003) Predominant anthropogenic sources and rates of atmospheric mercury accumulation in southern Ontario recorded by peat cores from three bogs: comparison with natural “background” values (past 8000 years). J Environ Monit 5:935–949Google Scholar
  23. Golovatskaya EA, Lyapina EE (2009) Distribution of total mercury in peat soil profiles in west Siberia. Contemp Probl Ecol 2:156–161Google Scholar
  24. González ZI, Krachler M, Cheburkin AK, Shotyk W (2006) Spatial distribution of natural enrichments of arsenic, selenium, and uranium in a minerotrophic peatland, Gola di Lago, Canton Ticino, Switzerland. Environ Sci Technol 40:6568–6574Google Scholar
  25. Grigal DF (2003) Mercury sequestration in forests and peatlands: a review. J Environ Qual 32:393–405Google Scholar
  26. Grimaldi C, Grimaldi M, Guedron S (2008) Mercury distribution in tropical soil profiles related to origin of mercury and soil processes. Sci Total Environ 401:121–129Google Scholar
  27. Håkanson L (1980) An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control. A sedimentological approach. Water Res 14:975–1001Google Scholar
  28. Håkanson L, Nilsson Å, Andersson T (1990) Mercury in the Swedish mor layer—linkages to mercury deposition and sources of emission. Water Air Soil Pollut 50:155–174Google Scholar
  29. Hansson SV, Kaste JM, Olid C, Bindler R (2014) Incorporation of radiometric tracers in peat and implications for estimating accumulation rates. Sci Total Environ 493:170–177Google Scholar
  30. Harvey CF, Swartz CH, Badruzzaman ABM et al (2002) Arsenic mobility and groundwater extraction in Bangladesh. Science 298:1602–1606Google Scholar
  31. Huang JH, Matzner E (2006) Dynamics of organic and inorganic arsenic in the solution phase of an acidic fen in Germany. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 70:2023–2033Google Scholar
  32. Islam S, Ahmed K, Masunaga S (2015) Potential ecological risk of hazardous elements in different land-use urban soils of Bangladesh. Sci Total Environ 512:94–102Google Scholar
  33. Jia L, Wang GP, Liu JS (2006) Distribution and implications of the elements of peat profiles in the Jinbei bog of the Changbai Mountains. Wetland Sci 3:187–192 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  34. Johnson DW, Lindberg SE (1995) The biogeochemical cycling of hg in forests: alternative methods for quantifying total deposition and soil emission. Water Air Soil Pollut 80:1069–1077Google Scholar
  35. Ke X, Gui SF, Huang H, Zhang HJ, Wang CY, Guo W (2017) Ecological risk assessment and source identification for heavy metals in surface sediment from the Liaohe River protected area, China. Chemosphere 175:473–481Google Scholar
  36. Kolka RK, Nater EA, Grigal DF, Verry ES (1999) Atmospheric inputs of mercury and organic carbon into a forested upland/bog watershed. Water Air Soil Pollut 113:273–294Google Scholar
  37. Kuhry P, Vitt DH (1996) Fossil carbon/nitrogen ratios as a measure of peat decomposition. Ecology 11(1):271–275Google Scholar
  38. Lamborg CH, Fitzgerald WF, O’Donnell J, Torgersen T (2002) A non-steady-state compartmental model of global-scale mercury biogeochemistry with interhemispheric atmospheric gradients. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 66(7):1105–1118Google Scholar
  39. Langner P, Mikutta C, Suess E, Marcus MA, Kretzschmar R (2013) Spatial distribution and speciation of arsenic in peat studied with microfocused X-ray fluorescence spectrometry and X-ray absorption spectroscopy. Environ Sci Technol 17:9706–9714Google Scholar
  40. Li J, Wu YY (1991) Historical changes of soil metal background values in select areas of China. Water Air Soil Pollut 57–58:755–761Google Scholar
  41. Li F, Zhang JD, Jiang W, Liu CY, Zhang ZM, Zhang CD, Zeng GM (2017) Spatial health risk assessment and hierarchical risk management for mercury in soils from a typical contaminated site, China. Environ Geochem Health 39:923–934Google Scholar
  42. Lin CY, Li PZ, Cheng HG, Ouyang W (2015a) Vertical distribution of lead and mercury in the wetland argialbolls of the Sanjiang plain in northeastern China. PLoS One 4:e0124294Google Scholar
  43. Lin CY, Wang J, Cheng HG, Ouyang W (2015b) Arsenic profile distribution of the wetland argialbolls in the Sanjiang plain of northeastern China. Sci Rep 5:10766Google Scholar
  44. Liu RH, Wang QC, Lv XG, Fang FM, Wang Y (2003) Distribution and speciation of mercury in the peat bog of Xiaoxing’an Mountain, northeastern China. Environ Pollut 124:39–46Google Scholar
  45. Loon LV, Mader E, Scott SL (2000) Reduction of the aqueous mercuric ion by sulfite: UV spectrum of HgSO3 and its intramolecular redox reaction. J Phys Chem A 104:1621–1626Google Scholar
  46. Lv JS, Liu Y, Zhang ZL, Dai JR, Dai B, Zhu YC (2015) Identifying the origins and spatial distributions of heavy metals in soils of Ju country (Eastern China) using multivariate and geostatistical approach. J Soils Sediments 15:163–178Google Scholar
  47. Martínez CE, Yáňez C, Yoon S, Bruns MA (2007) Biogeochemistry of metalliferous peats: sulfur speciation and depth distributions of dsrAB genes and Cd, Fe, Mn, S, and Zn in soil cores. Environ Sci Technol 41(15):5323–5329Google Scholar
  48. Martínez-Cortizas A, Pontevedra-Pombal X, García-Rodeja E, Novoa-Munoz JC, Shotyk W (1999) Mercury in a Spanish peat bog: archive of climate change and atmospheric metal deposition. Science 284:939–942Google Scholar
  49. Martínez-Cortizas A, Biester H, Mighall T, Bindler R (2007) Climate-driven enrichment of pollutants in peatlands. Biogeosci 4:905–911Google Scholar
  50. Masscheleyn PH, Delaune RD, Patrick WH (1991) Effect of redox potential and pH on arsenic speciation and solubility in a contaminated soil. Environ Sci Technol 25:1414–1419Google Scholar
  51. Meyer M, Schröder W, Pesch R (2015) Multivariate association of regional factors with heavy metal concentrations in moss and natural surface soil sampled across Norway between 1990 and 2010. J Soils Sediments 15:410–422Google Scholar
  52. Mierle G, Ingram R (1991) The role of humic substances in the mobilization of mercury from watersheds. Water Air Soil Pollut 56:349–357Google Scholar
  53. Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China (2013) Soil and sediment: determination of mercury, arsenic, selenium, bismuth, antimony, microwave dissolution/atomic fluorescence spectrometry, HJ 680–2013 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  54. Mok WM, Wai CM (1994) Mobilization of arsenic in contaminated river waters. In: Nriagu JO (ed) Arsenic in the environment. Part I: cycling and characterization. Wiley, New York, pp 99–117Google Scholar
  55. NISCAS (Nanjing Institute of Soil at Chinese Academy of Science) (1977) Physicochemical analyses of soil. Shanghai Science and Technology Press, Shanghai (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  56. Novak M, Pacherova P (2008) Mobility of trace metals in pore waters of two central European peat bogs. Sci Total Environ 394:331–337Google Scholar
  57. O’Driscoll NJ, Rencz A, Lean DRS (2005) The biogeochemistry and fate of mercury in the environment. Met Ions Biol Syst 43:221–238Google Scholar
  58. Obrist D (2012) Mercury distribution across 14 U.S. forests. Part II: patterns of methyl mercury concentrations and areal mass of total and methyl mercury. Environ Sci Technol 46:5921–5930Google Scholar
  59. Obrist D, Johnson DW, Lindberg SE, Luo Y, Hararuk O, Bracho R, Battles JJ, Dail DB, Edmonds RL, Monson RK, Ollinger SV, Pallardy SG, Pregitzer KS, Todd DE (2011) Mercury distribution across 14 U.S. forests. Part I: spatial patterns of concentrations in biomass, litter, and soils. Environ Sci Technol 45:3974–3981Google Scholar
  60. Orru H, Orru M (2006) Sources and distribution of trace elements in Estonian peat. Glob Planet Chang 53:249–258Google Scholar
  61. Outridge PM, Rausch N, Percival JB, Shotyk W, McNeely R (2011) Comparison of mercury and zinc profiles in peat and lake sediment archives with historical changes in emissions from the Flin Flon metal smelter, Manitoba, Canada. Sci Total Environ 409:548–563Google Scholar
  62. Pacyna JM, Pacyna EG, Steenhuisen F, Wilson S (2003) Mapping 1995 global anthropogenic emissions of mercury. Atmos Environ 37:109–117Google Scholar
  63. Palmer K, Ronkanen AK, Kløve B (2015) Efficient removal of arsenic, antimony and nickel from mine wastewaters in Northern treatment peatlands and potential risks in their long-term use. Ecol Eng 75:350–364Google Scholar
  64. Pettersson C, Bishop K, Lee Y, Allard B (1995) Relations between organic carbon and methylmercury in humic rich surface waters from Svartberget catchment in northern Sweden. Water Air Soil Pollut 80:971–979Google Scholar
  65. Reed BE (1998) Wastewater treatment, heavy metals. In: Smith T (ed) Environmental encyclopedia. Wiley, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  66. Rothwell JJ, Taylor KG, Allott THE, Evans MG, Daniels SM, Allott TEH (2009) Arsenic retention and release in ombrotrophic peatlands. Sci Total Environ 407:1405–1417Google Scholar
  67. Rothwell JJ, Taylor KG, Chenery SRN, Cundy AB, Evans MG, Allott THE (2010) Storage and behavior of As, Sb, Pb, and Cu in ombrotrophic peat bogs under contrasting water table conditions. Environ Sci Technol 44:8497–8502Google Scholar
  68. Rothwell JJ, Taylor KG, Evans MG, Allott TFH (2011) Contrasting controls on arsenic and lead budgets for a degraded peatland catchment in Northern England. Environ Pollut 159:3129–3133Google Scholar
  69. Schuster E (1991) The behavior of mercury in the soil with special emphasis on complexation and adsorption processes—a review of the literature. Water Air Soil Pollut 56:667–680Google Scholar
  70. Seigneur C, Lohman K, Vijayaraghavan K, Shia RL (2003) Contributions of global and regional sources to mercury deposition in New York State. Environ Pollut 123:365–373Google Scholar
  71. Shao JJ, Liu CB, Zhang QH, Fu JJ, Yang RQ, Shi JB, Cai Y, Jiang GB (2017) Characterization and speciation of mercury in mosses and lichens from the high-altitude Tibetan Plateau. Environ Geochem Health 39:475–482Google Scholar
  72. Shotyk W (1996) Natural and anthropogenic enrichments of As, Cu, Pb, Sb, and Zn in ombrotrophic versus minerotrophic peat bog profiles, Jura Mountains, Switzerland. Water Air Soil Pollut 90(3–4):375–405Google Scholar
  73. Shotyk W, Goodsite ME, Roos-Barraclough F, Frei R, Heinemeier J, Asmund G, Lohse C, Hansen TS (2003) Anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric Hg, Pb and As accumulation recorded by peat cores from southern Greenland and Denmark dated using the 14C “bomb pulse curve”. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 67:3991–4011Google Scholar
  74. Simpson SL, Batley GE (2009) Predicting metal toxicity in sediments: a critique of current approaches. Integr Environ Assess Manag 3:18–31Google Scholar
  75. Skyllberg U, Xia K, Bloom PR, Nater EA, Bleam WF (2000) Binding of mercury(II) to reduced sulfur in soil organic matter along upland-peat soil transects. J Environ Qual 29(3):855–865Google Scholar
  76. Smedley PL, Kinniburgh DG (2002) A review of the source, behaviour and distribution of arsenic in natural waters. Appl Geochem 17:517–568Google Scholar
  77. Soltani N, Keshavarzi B, Moore F, Tavakol T, Lahijanzadeh AR, Jaafarzadeh N, Kermani M (2015) Ecological and human health hazards of heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in road dust of Isfahan metropolis, Iran. Sci Total Environ 505:712–723Google Scholar
  78. Song Y, Song C, Meng H, Swarzenski CM, Wang X, Tan W (2017) Nitrogen additions affect litter quality and soil biochemical properties in a peatland of Northeast China. Ecol Eng 100:175–185Google Scholar
  79. St. Louis VL, Rudd JWM, Kelly CA, Beaty KG, Bloom NS, Flett RJ (1994) Importance of wetlands as sources of methyl mercury to boreal forest ecosystems. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:1065–1076Google Scholar
  80. Stankwitz C, Kaste JM, Friedland AJ (2012) Threshold increases in soil lead and mercury from tropospheric deposition across an elevational gradient. Environ Sci Technol 46:8061–8068Google Scholar
  81. Tang SL, Huang ZW, Liu J, Yang ZC, Lin QH (2012) Atmospheric mercury deposition recorded in an ombrotrophic peat core from Xiaoxing’an Mountain, Northeast China. Environ Res 118:145–148Google Scholar
  82. Tufano KT, Reyes CW, Saltikov C, Fendorf S (2008) Reductive processes controlling arsenic retention: revealing the relative importance of iron and arsenic reduction. Environ Sci Technol 42:8283–8289Google Scholar
  83. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Workshop on the fate, transport, and transformation of mercury in aquatic and terrestrial environments. EPA-625/R-02/005. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  84. Ukonmaanaho L, Nieminen TM, Rausch N, Shotyk W (2004) Heavy metal and arsenic profiles in ombrogenous peat cores from four differently loaded areas in Finland. Water Air Soil Pollut 158:277–294Google Scholar
  85. Wan Q, Feng XB, Lu JL, Zheng W, Song XJ, Han SJ, Xu H (2009a) Atmospheric mercury in Changbai Mountain area, northeastern China I. The Seasonal distribution pattern of total gaseous mercury and its potential sources. Environ Res 109(3):201–206Google Scholar
  86. Wan Q, Feng XB, Lu JL, Zheng W, Song XJ, Li P, Han SJ, Xu H (2009b) Atmospheric mercury in Changbai Mountain area, northeastern China II. The distribution of reactive gaseous mercury and particulate mercury and mercury deposition fluxes. Environ Res 109(6):721–727Google Scholar
  87. Wang SL, Mulligan CN (2006) Effect of natural organic matter on arsenic release from soils and sediments into groundwater. Environ Geochem Health 28:197–214Google Scholar
  88. Wang SF, Xing DH, Wei ZQ, Jia YF (2013) Spatial and seasonal variations in soil and river water mercury in a boreal forest, Changbai Mountain, northeastern China. Geoderma 206:123–132Google Scholar
  89. Wang QY, Zhang JB, Xin XL, Zhao BZ, Ma DH, Zhang HL (2016) The accumulation and transfer of arsenic and mercury in the soil under a long-term fertilization treatment. J Soils Sediments 16:427–437Google Scholar
  90. Xia K, Skyllberg UL, Bleam WF, Bloom PR, Nater EA, Helmke PA (1999) X-ray absorption spectroscopic evidence for the complexation of Hg(II) by reduced sulfur in soil humic substances. Environ Sci Technol 33:257–261Google Scholar
  91. Xu N, Dong YM, Zhao HY, Liu SS, Li HK, Wang M, Cao YW, Wang SZ, Meng XM (2016) Trophic status of the mires in Changbai Mountains, northeast China. The 15th International Peat Congress 149–153Google Scholar
  92. Zaccone C, Cocozza C, Cheburkin AK, Shotyk W, Miano TM (2008) Distribution of As, Cr, Ni, Rb, Ti and Zr between peat and its humic fraction along an undisturbed ombrotrophic bog profile (NW Switzerland). Appl Geochem 23:25–33Google Scholar
  93. Zaccone C, Santoro A, Cocozza C, Terzano R, Shotyk W, Miano TM (2009) Comparison of Hg concentrations in ombrotrophic peat and corresponding humic acids, and implications for the use of bogs as archives of atmospheric Hg deposition. Geoderma 148:399–404Google Scholar
  94. Zaccone C, Lobianco D, Raber G, D'Orazio V, Shotyk W, Miano TM, Francesconi K (2018) Methylated arsenic species throughout a 4-m deep core from a free-floating peat island. Sci Total Environ 621:67–74Google Scholar
  95. Zhang H, Yin RS, Feng XB, Sommar J, Anderson CWN, Sapkota A, Fu XW, Larssen T (2013) Atmospheric mercury inputs in montane soils increase with elevation: evidence from mercury isotope signatures. Sci Rep 3(3322):1–8Google Scholar
  96. Zhang Y, Liu YY, Niu ZG, Jin SP (2017) Ecological risk assessment of toxic organic pollutant and heavy metals in water and sediment from a landscape lake in Tianjin City, China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:12301–11211Google Scholar
  97. Zhao KL, Liu XM, Zhang WW, Xu JM, Wang F (2011) Spatial dependence and bioavailability of metal fractions in paddy fields on metal concentrations in rice grain at a regional scale. J Soils Sediments 11:1165–1177Google Scholar
  98. Zoumis T, Schmidt A, Grigorova L, Calmano W (2001) Contaminants in sediments: remobilisation and demobilisation. Sci Total Environ 266:195–202Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Wetland Ecology and Vegetation RestorationNortheast Normal UniversityChangchunChina
  2. 2.Institute for Peat & Mire ResearchNortheast Normal UniversityChangchunChina
  3. 3.Key Laboratory of Vegetation Ecology, Ministry of EducationNortheast Normal UniversityChangchunChina
  4. 4.Department of Environment and GeographyBishop’s UniversitySherbrookeCanada

Personalised recommendations