生态环境学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (6): 976-985.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2026.06.014
周家豪1,2(
), 张沛1,2, 彭煜文1,2, 钟松雄3, 邹建平1,2, 侯冬梅1,2,*(
)
收稿日期:2025-10-31
修回日期:2026-03-29
接受日期:2026-05-12
出版日期:2026-06-18
发布日期:2026-06-08
通讯作者:
* 侯冬梅,E-mail: 作者简介:周家豪(2003年生),男,硕士研究生,主要从事流域重金属迁移转化机理研究。E-mail: jiahaozz03@163.com
基金资助:
ZHOU Jiahao1,2(
), ZHANG Pei1,2, PENG Yuwen1,2, ZHONG Songxiong3, ZOU Jianping1,2, HOU Dongmei1,2,*(
)
Received:2025-10-31
Revised:2026-03-29
Accepted:2026-05-12
Online:2026-06-18
Published:2026-06-08
摘要:
矿区开采导致赣江流域水质和生态环境面临着严重挑战,其中重金属污染问题尤为突出,亟待解决。精准预测流域重金属的质量浓度及主控因子是污染治理的关键所在。本研究系统收集了赣江流域内1000组环境因子及重金属质量浓度数据,采用线性回归(LR)、决策树(DT)、随机森林(RF)、极限梯度提升(XGBoost)以及支持向量机(SVM)5种不同的机器学习算法对该流域重金属的质量浓度进行了预测,并通过Shapley可加性解释分析法识别其污染主控因子。结果显示,1)不同模型对重金属质量浓度预测的精准度存在较大差异,RF模型对As的预测性能最优,测试集R2为0.963,σRMSE与σMAE分别为0.244和0.126;SVM模型对Cd与Pb的预测效果最佳,其中Cd测试集R2为0.981,σRMSE与σMAE分别为0.163和0.0983;Pb测试集R2为0.971,σRMSE与σMAE分别为0.301和0.155;2)特征重要性及相关性分析表明,TOC是影响Cd质量浓度的主控因子,与Cd呈正相关关系(p<0.001);As质量浓度主要受Mg影响,但二者无显著相关性(p>0.05);Pb则主要受pH影响,且两者呈正相关(p<0.001)。通过机器学习方法明确了赣江流域典型重金属污染的主控因子,为该区域的环境监测、污染控制及生态可持续发展提供了科学参考。
中图分类号:
周家豪, 张沛, 彭煜文, 钟松雄, 邹建平, 侯冬梅. 基于机器学习识别赣江流域重金属污染主控因素[J]. 生态环境学报, 2026, 35(6): 976-985.
ZHOU Jiahao, ZHANG Pei, PENG Yuwen, ZHONG Songxiong, ZOU Jianping, HOU Dongmei. Machine Learning Supported Determination for the Main Controlling Factors of Heavy Metal Pollution in the Ganjiang River[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2026, 35(6): 976-985.
| 算法模型 | 主要参数设置 |
|---|---|
| DT | tree_depth (range=c (2, 5));min_n (range=c (2, 10)); cost_complexity (range=c (−5, −1)) |
| RF | mtry (range=c (2, 10));min_n (range=c (5, 10)) |
| XGB | Mtry (range=c (2, 8));min_n(range=c (5, 10));tree_depth (range=c (1, 3));learn_rate (range=c (−3, −1));loss_reduction (range=c (−3, 0));sample_prop (range=c (0.8, 1)) |
| SVM | cost=2^ (−3, −2);rbf_sigma=10^ (−3, 0);svm_margin= c (0, 0.2) |
表1 模型参数设置
Table 1 The key parameters of models
| 算法模型 | 主要参数设置 |
|---|---|
| DT | tree_depth (range=c (2, 5));min_n (range=c (2, 10)); cost_complexity (range=c (−5, −1)) |
| RF | mtry (range=c (2, 10));min_n (range=c (5, 10)) |
| XGB | Mtry (range=c (2, 8));min_n(range=c (5, 10));tree_depth (range=c (1, 3));learn_rate (range=c (−3, −1));loss_reduction (range=c (−3, 0));sample_prop (range=c (0.8, 1)) |
| SVM | cost=2^ (−3, −2);rbf_sigma=10^ (−3, 0);svm_margin= c (0, 0.2) |
| 数据描述 | pH | ORP/mV | ρ(DO)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(TOC)/(mg·L−1) | EC/(μS·cm−1) | ρ(TN)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(TP)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(SO42‒)/(mg·L−1) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 最大值 | 9.64 | 523.98 | 64.5 | 99.42 | 23760 | 7.918 | 0.98 | 18.4747 | |||||
| 最小值 | 1.95 | −40.53 | 0.4759 | 0.45 | 72 | 0.024 | 0.00197 | 0.8516 | |||||
| 平均值 | 5.91 | 195.96 | 17.73 | 24.56 | 4219 | 1.009 | 0.22 | 5.8935 | |||||
| SD | 1.62 | 76.19 | 10.20 | 15.39 | 9899 | 1.12 | 0.18 | 3.9097 | |||||
| CV | 41% | 39% | 58% | 63% | 119% | 111% | 83% | 66% | |||||
| GB 3838—2002(Ⅳ) | 6-9 | - | ≥3 | - | - | ≤1.5 | ≤0.3 | ≤250 | |||||
| 数据描述 | ρ(K)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Al)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Cr)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Co)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Ni)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Mg)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Mn)/(mg·L−1) | ||||||
| 最大值 | 47.49 | 1.20 | 0.5149 | 0.02303 | 0.01384 | 29.98 | 10.6311 | ||||||
| 最小值 | 0.67611 | 0.00337 | 0.00372 | 0.000016 | 0.000022 | 0.06363 | 0.01146 | ||||||
| 平均值 | 10.14 | 0.273 | 0.0449 | 0.002366 | 0.002904 | 1.8924 | 0.8109 | ||||||
| SD | 6.27 | 0.2448 | 0.0351 | 0.002629 | 0.001850 | 2.6631 | 1.0400 | ||||||
| CV | 70% | 90% | 78% | 111% | 64% | 141% | 128% | ||||||
| GB 3838—2002 (Ⅳ) | - | - | ≤0.05 | ≤1.0 | ≤0.02 | - | 0.1 | ||||||
| 数据描述 | ρ(Fe)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Cu)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Zn)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Hg)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Cd)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Pb)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(As)/(mg·L−1) | ||||||
| 最大值 | 1.285 | 0.4769 | 0.2939 | 0.00404 | 0.02419 | 0.6899 | 0.2327 | ||||||
| 最小值 | 0.02858 | 0.003187 | 0.0044 | 0.000007 | 0.00003 | 0.00026 | 0.0004 | ||||||
| 平均值 | 0.3036 | 0.04756 | 0.05834 | 0.000247 | 0.002729 | 0.04755 | 0.0465 | ||||||
| SD | 0.2140 | 0.04188 | 0.04808 | 0.000414 | 0.003545 | 0.05553 | 0.0362 | ||||||
| CV | 70% | 88% | 82% | 167% | 130% | 117% | 78% | ||||||
| GB 3838—2002 (Ⅳ) | ≤0.3 | ≤1.0 | ≤2.0 | ≤0.001 | ≤0.005 | ≤0.05 | ≤0.1 | ||||||
表2 数据集整体描述
Table 2 The overall description of the dataset
| 数据描述 | pH | ORP/mV | ρ(DO)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(TOC)/(mg·L−1) | EC/(μS·cm−1) | ρ(TN)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(TP)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(SO42‒)/(mg·L−1) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 最大值 | 9.64 | 523.98 | 64.5 | 99.42 | 23760 | 7.918 | 0.98 | 18.4747 | |||||
| 最小值 | 1.95 | −40.53 | 0.4759 | 0.45 | 72 | 0.024 | 0.00197 | 0.8516 | |||||
| 平均值 | 5.91 | 195.96 | 17.73 | 24.56 | 4219 | 1.009 | 0.22 | 5.8935 | |||||
| SD | 1.62 | 76.19 | 10.20 | 15.39 | 9899 | 1.12 | 0.18 | 3.9097 | |||||
| CV | 41% | 39% | 58% | 63% | 119% | 111% | 83% | 66% | |||||
| GB 3838—2002(Ⅳ) | 6-9 | - | ≥3 | - | - | ≤1.5 | ≤0.3 | ≤250 | |||||
| 数据描述 | ρ(K)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Al)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Cr)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Co)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Ni)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Mg)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Mn)/(mg·L−1) | ||||||
| 最大值 | 47.49 | 1.20 | 0.5149 | 0.02303 | 0.01384 | 29.98 | 10.6311 | ||||||
| 最小值 | 0.67611 | 0.00337 | 0.00372 | 0.000016 | 0.000022 | 0.06363 | 0.01146 | ||||||
| 平均值 | 10.14 | 0.273 | 0.0449 | 0.002366 | 0.002904 | 1.8924 | 0.8109 | ||||||
| SD | 6.27 | 0.2448 | 0.0351 | 0.002629 | 0.001850 | 2.6631 | 1.0400 | ||||||
| CV | 70% | 90% | 78% | 111% | 64% | 141% | 128% | ||||||
| GB 3838—2002 (Ⅳ) | - | - | ≤0.05 | ≤1.0 | ≤0.02 | - | 0.1 | ||||||
| 数据描述 | ρ(Fe)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Cu)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Zn)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Hg)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Cd)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(Pb)/(mg·L−1) | ρ(As)/(mg·L−1) | ||||||
| 最大值 | 1.285 | 0.4769 | 0.2939 | 0.00404 | 0.02419 | 0.6899 | 0.2327 | ||||||
| 最小值 | 0.02858 | 0.003187 | 0.0044 | 0.000007 | 0.00003 | 0.00026 | 0.0004 | ||||||
| 平均值 | 0.3036 | 0.04756 | 0.05834 | 0.000247 | 0.002729 | 0.04755 | 0.0465 | ||||||
| SD | 0.2140 | 0.04188 | 0.04808 | 0.000414 | 0.003545 | 0.05553 | 0.0362 | ||||||
| CV | 70% | 88% | 82% | 167% | 130% | 117% | 78% | ||||||
| GB 3838—2002 (Ⅳ) | ≤0.3 | ≤1.0 | ≤2.0 | ≤0.001 | ≤0.005 | ≤0.05 | ≤0.1 | ||||||
| 重金属 | 机器学习模型 | R2 | σRMSE | σMAE | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 训练集 | 测试集 | 训练集 | 测试集 | 训练集 | 测试集 | ||||
| Cd | LR | 0.334 | 0.395 | 0.790 | 0.892 | 0.574 | 0.596 | ||
| DT | 0.824 | 0.829 | 0.406 | 0.470 | 0.289 | 0.314 | |||
| RF | 0.994 | 0.979 | 0.0999 | 0.223 | 0.0531 | 0.126 | |||
| XGBoost | 0.927 | 0.889 | 0.285 | 0.409 | 0.190 | 0.262 | |||
| SVM | 0.996 | 0.981 | 0.0641 | 0.163 | 0.0602 | 0.0983 | |||
| As | LR | 0.464 | 0.369 | 0.856 | 0.926 | 0.641 | 0.695 | ||
| DT | 0.809 | 0.689 | 0.511 | 0.648 | 0.339 | 0.422 | |||
| RF | 0.995 | 0.963 | 0.0910 | 0.244 | 0.0490 | 0.126 | |||
| XGBoost | 0.925 | 0.882 | 0.332 | 0.496 | 0.209 | 0.294 | |||
| SVM | 0.996 | 0.948 | 0.0830 | 0.269 | 0.0763 | 0.139 | |||
| Pb | LR | 0.585 | 0.504 | 1.03 | 1.11 | 0.657 | 0.711 | ||
| DT | 0.871 | 0.569 | 0.573 | 1.03 | 0.401 | 0.534 | |||
| RF | 0.997 | 0.948 | 0.106 | 0.424 | 0.0440 | 0.136 | |||
| XGBoost | 0.859 | 0.793 | 0.778 | 0.934 | 0.464 | 0.496 | |||
| SVM | 0.996 | 0.971 | 0.106 | 0.309 | 0.0997 | 0.155 | |||
表3 5种模型训练集和测试集性能对比结果
Table 3 The model performances of five machine learning models in training and testing sets
| 重金属 | 机器学习模型 | R2 | σRMSE | σMAE | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 训练集 | 测试集 | 训练集 | 测试集 | 训练集 | 测试集 | ||||
| Cd | LR | 0.334 | 0.395 | 0.790 | 0.892 | 0.574 | 0.596 | ||
| DT | 0.824 | 0.829 | 0.406 | 0.470 | 0.289 | 0.314 | |||
| RF | 0.994 | 0.979 | 0.0999 | 0.223 | 0.0531 | 0.126 | |||
| XGBoost | 0.927 | 0.889 | 0.285 | 0.409 | 0.190 | 0.262 | |||
| SVM | 0.996 | 0.981 | 0.0641 | 0.163 | 0.0602 | 0.0983 | |||
| As | LR | 0.464 | 0.369 | 0.856 | 0.926 | 0.641 | 0.695 | ||
| DT | 0.809 | 0.689 | 0.511 | 0.648 | 0.339 | 0.422 | |||
| RF | 0.995 | 0.963 | 0.0910 | 0.244 | 0.0490 | 0.126 | |||
| XGBoost | 0.925 | 0.882 | 0.332 | 0.496 | 0.209 | 0.294 | |||
| SVM | 0.996 | 0.948 | 0.0830 | 0.269 | 0.0763 | 0.139 | |||
| Pb | LR | 0.585 | 0.504 | 1.03 | 1.11 | 0.657 | 0.711 | ||
| DT | 0.871 | 0.569 | 0.573 | 1.03 | 0.401 | 0.534 | |||
| RF | 0.997 | 0.948 | 0.106 | 0.424 | 0.0440 | 0.136 | |||
| XGBoost | 0.859 | 0.793 | 0.778 | 0.934 | 0.464 | 0.496 | |||
| SVM | 0.996 | 0.971 | 0.106 | 0.309 | 0.0997 | 0.155 | |||
| [1] |
BENIWAL M, SINGH A, KUMAR N, 2023. Forecasting long-term stock prices of global indices: A forward-validating Genetic Algorithm optimization approach for Support Vector Regression[J]. Applied Soft Computing, 145: 110566.
DOI URL |
| [2] |
CHEN M S, DING S M, LI C, et al., 2021. High cadmium pollution from sediments in a eutrophic lake caused by dissolved organic matter complexation and reduction of manganese oxide[J]. Water Research, 190: 116711.
DOI URL |
| [3] |
CHEN T, CHANG Q R, LIU J, et al., 2016. Identification of soil heavy metal sources and improvement in spatial mapping based on soil spectral information: A case study in northwest China[J]. Science of The Total Environment, 565: 155-164.
DOI URL |
| [4] |
CHENG X Y, ZHANG Y T, YAN S R, et al., 2025. Accurate prediction of pollution and health risks of iodinated X-ray contrast media in Taihu Lake with machine learning and revealing key environmental factors[J]. Water Research, 272: 122999.
DOI URL |
| [5] |
HAN Z Y, WANG J Y, LIAO X Y, et al., 2025. Accurate prediction of spatial distribution of soil heavy metal in complex mining terrain using an improved machine learning method[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 491: 137994.
DOI URL |
| [6] |
OPISO E M, SATO T, MORIMOTO K, et al., 2010. Incorporation of arsenic during the formation of Mg-bearing minerals at alkaline condition[J]. Minerals Engineering, 23(3): 230-237.
DOI URL |
| [7] |
PASCUA C, CHARNOCK J, POLYA D A, et al., 2005. Arsenic-bearing smectite from the geothermal environment[J]. Mineralogical Magazine, 69(5): 897-906.
DOI URL |
| [8] |
PROSHAD R, RAHIM A M, RAHMAN M, et al., 2024. Utilizing machine learning to evaluate heavy metal pollution in the world’s largest mangrove forest[J]. The Science of the Total Environment, 951: 175746.
DOI URL |
| [9] |
SAUVÉ S, MCBRIDE M, HENDERSHOT W, 1998. Soil Solution Speciation of Lead(II): Effects of Organic Matter and pH[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 62(3): 618-621.
DOI URL |
| [10] |
SUGITA H, OGUMA T, HARA J, et al., 2023. Removal of arsenate from contaminated water via combined addition of magnesium-based and calcium-based adsorbents[J]. Sustainability, 15(5): 4689.
DOI URL |
| [11] |
WANG S W, LOU T L, ZHANG C, et al., 2020. Prediction of heavy metal content in multivariate chaotic time series based on LSTM[J]. Desalination and Water Treatment, 197: 249-260.
DOI URL |
| [12] |
WU J, HUANG C M, 2025. Machine learning-supported determination for site-specific natural background values of soil heavy metals[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 487: 137276.
DOI URL |
| [13] |
ZENG J W, LIU K, WENG C H, et al., 2025. Predicting the fate and source of groundwater PFAS in the Pearl River Delta Region based on machine learning[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 59(37): 19978-19991.
DOI URL |
| [14] | 陈伟胜, 石晴, 张智珂, 等, 2025. 土壤重金属源汇定量解析与风险可持续管控[J/OL]. 中国环境科学, 1-20 [2025-10-18]. https://doi.org/10.19674/j.cnki.issn1000-6923.20251010.006. |
| CHEN W S, SHI Q, ZHANG Z K, et al., 2025. Quantitative analysis of source-sink dynamics and sustainable risk control system for heavy metal in soil[J/OL]. China Environmental Science, 1-20 [2025-10-18]. https://doi.org/10.19674/j.cnki.issn1000-6923.20251010.006. | |
| [15] | 陈亚松, 刘家雯, 赵云鹏, 等, 2025. 基于机器学习的人工湿地出水水质预测与关键影响因素分析[J/OL]. 中国环境科学, 1-17 [2025-10-18]. https://doi.org/10.19674/j.cnki.issn1000-6923.20250205.005. |
| CHEN Y S, LIU J W, ZHAO Y P, et al., 2025. Prediction of Effluent Water Quality in Constructed Wetlands and Analysis of Key Influencing Factors Based on Machine Learning[J/OL]. China Environmental Science, 1-17 [2025-10-18]. https://doi.org/10.19674/j.cnki.issn1000-6923.20250205.005. | |
| [16] | 胡秀芝, 宋毅, 王天雨, 等, 2024. 腐殖质活性组分对土壤镉有效性的调控效应与水稻安全临界阈值[J]. 环境科学, 45(1): 439-449. |
|
HU X Z, SONG Y, WANG T Y, et al., 2024. Regulation effects of active components of humus on soil cadmium availability and safe critical threshold of rice[J]. Environmental Science, 45(1): 439-449.
DOI URL |
|
| [17] | 李传琼, 王鹏, 陈波, 等, 2018. 鄱阳湖流域赣江水系溶解态金属元素空间分布特征及污染来源[J]. 湖泊科学, 30(1): 139-149. |
|
LI C Q, WANG P, CHEN B, et al., 2018. Spatial distribution characteristics and pollution sources of dissolved metal elements in the Ganjiang River system of the Poyang Lake Basin[J]. Journal of Lake Sciences, 30(1): 139-149.
DOI URL |
|
| [18] | 刘春湘, 2020. pH对铅生物有效性的影响研究进展[J]. 土壤科学, 8(1): 23-28. |
|
LIU C X, 2020. Research Progress in the Effect of pH on Pb Bioavailability[J]. Hans Journal of Soil Science, 8(1): 23-28.
DOI URL |
|
| [19] | 马杰, 李名升, 封雪, 2025. 基于机器学习算法和受体模型联用的土壤重金属溯源解析[J]. 环境科学, 46(8): 5229-5236. |
| MA J, LI M S, FENG X, 2025. Source apportionment of heavy metals in soils based on machine learning algorithms and receptor model[J]. Environmental Science, 46(8): 5229-5236. | |
| [20] | 马嘉宝, 刘斯文, 王博, 等, 2025. 环境修复过程中溶解性有机质对镉环境行为影响研究进展[J]. 岩矿测试, 44(3): 516-529. |
| MA J B, LIU S W, WANG B, et al., 2025. Research progress on the effects of dissolved organic matter on the environmental behavior of cadmium during environmental remediation[J]. Rock and Mineral Analysis, 44(3): 516-529. | |
| [21] |
孟畅, 红梅, 李斐, 2025. 高光谱敏感波段筛选与机器学习协同提升土壤重金属预测精度[J]. 生态环境学报, 34(6): 950-960.
DOI |
| MENG C, HONG M, LI F, 2025. Collaborative enhancement of soil heavy metal prediction accuracy using hyperspectral sensitive band selection and machine learning[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 34(6): 950-960. | |
| [22] | 邵金秋, 温其谦, 阎秀兰, 等, 2019. 天然含铁矿物对砷的吸附效果及机制[J]. 环境科学, 40(9): 4072-4080. |
| SHAO J Q, WEN Q Q, YAN X L, et al., 2019. Adsorption and mechanism of arsenic by natural iron-containing minerals[J]. Environmental Science, 40(9): 4072-4080. | |
| [23] | 汪立, 樊后宝, 张晏维, 等, 2025. 基于可解释集成机器学习的土壤表层pH值空间分布预测及影响因素[J/OL]. 环境科学, 1-21 [2025-10-18]. |
| WANG L, FAN H B, ZHANG Y W, et al., 2025. Spatial distribution prediction and influencing factors of soil surface pH based on interpretable ensemble machine learning[J/OL]. Environmental Science, 1-21 [2025-10-18]. | |
| [24] | 王思梦, 李文, 谢如梅, 等, 2025. 赣江南昌段沉积物重金属和放射性元素污染磁性诊断研究[J]. 环境污染与防治, 47(4): 87-94. |
| WANG S M, LI W, XIE R M, et al., 2025. Responses of magnetic properties to heavy metal and radioactive elements pollution recorded by river sediments from Nanchang Section of Ganjiang River[J]. Environmental Pollution and Control, 47(4): 87-94. | |
| [25] |
文妮, 王重洋, 陈星达, 等, 2024. 基于机器学习模型的沿海城市河网水系氨氮质量浓度高分辨率遥感估算[J]. 生态环境学报, 33(11): 1737-1747.
DOI |
| WEN N, WANG C Y, CHEN X D, et al., 2024. High-resolution remote sensing estimation of ammonia nitrogen concentrations in coastal urban river networks based on machine learning models[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 33(11): 1737-1747. | |
| [26] | 袁霜, 2023. 铜矿区排土场生态恢复工程实施效果评价[J]. 有色金属(矿山部分), 75(6): 102-105. |
| YUAN S, 2023. Evaluation of implementation effect of ecological restoration project in copper mine dump[J]. Nonferrous Metals (Mining Section), 75(6): 102-105. | |
| [27] | 钟翔, 熊秋林, 聂运菊, 等, 2025. 鄱阳湖丰水期湖区水体重金属分布特征及人体健康风险[J/OL]. 湖泊科学, 1-12 [2025-10-18]. |
| ZHONG X, XIONG Q L, NIE Y J, et al., 2025. Distribution characteristics and human health risks of heavy metals in summer Lake Poyang[J/OL]. Journal of Lake Sciences, 1-12 [2025-10-18]. | |
| [28] | 张晗, 陈昱, 吕占禄, 等, 2021. 沟塘水质及其周边浅层地下水PAHs的风险评价[J]. 中国环境科学, 41(8): 3808-3815. |
| ZHANG H, CHEN Y, LÜ Z L, et al., 2021. Risk assessment of PAHs in ditch pond water and its surrounding shallow groundwater[J]. China Environmental Science, 41(8): 3808-3815. | |
| [29] | 张文影, 彭树青, 韩璐, 等, 2025. 云南赤水河流域某硫磺冶炼矿区地下水重金属污染与人体健康风险评估[J]. 环境工程学报, 19(9): 2190-2198. |
| ZHANG W Y, PENG S Q, HAN L, et al., 2025. Heavy metal contamination in groundwater and human health risk assessment at a sulfur-smelting mining area in the Chishui river basin, Yunnan[J]. Chinese Journal of Environmental Engineering, 19(9): 2190-2198. | |
| [30] | 赵庆圆, 李小明, 杨麒, 等, 2018. 磷酸盐、腐殖酸与粉煤灰联合钝化处理模拟铅镉污染土壤[J]. 环境科学, 39(1): 389-398. |
| ZHAO Q Y, LI X M, YANG Q, et al., 2018. Combined passivation of simulated lead and cadmium contaminated soil by phosphate, humic acid and fly ash[J]. Environmental Science, 39(1): 389-398. | |
| [31] | 国家环境保护总局, 国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 2002. 地表水环境质量标准:GB3838—2002[S]. 修订版. 北京: 中国环境科学出版社: 1-9. |
| State Environmental Protection Administration, General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, 2002. Environmental quality standards for surface water: GB 3838—2002[S]. Rev. ed. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press: 1-9. |
| [1] | 魏龙毅, 林亲铁, 刘煜欣, 万家豪, 姚丽敏, 钟松雄. 广州某地质高背景地块土壤砷污染特征及成因分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2026, 35(5): 819-830. |
| [2] | 张煜坤, 陈懂懂, 李奇, 贺福全, 张莉, 赵亮. 基于多元统计分析和PMF模型的土壤重金属源解析——以三江源为例[J]. 生态环境学报, 2026, 35(3): 458-468. |
| [3] | 韩存亮, 邓一荣, 常春英, 林龙勇, 程胜, 李俊春. 基于风险管控的土壤重金属高背景特征识别方法探讨[J]. 生态环境学报, 2026, 35(2): 278-288. |
| [4] | 史广宇, 沈新怡. 共热解技术对污泥中重金属的固定及资源化利用研究进展[J]. 生态环境学报, 2026, 35(2): 323-332. |
| [5] | 吴璇, 余佳丽, 陈笔, 娄云剀, 何敏, 苗芃, 杨帆, 唐涛. 基于胁迫-响应关系的赤水河氮磷生态承载力研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2026, 35(1): 134-146. |
| [6] | 赵文琪, 张佳华, 张鹏, 白林燕, 姚凤梅. 植被物候监测技术与遥感反演方法研究进展[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(9): 1473-1482. |
| [7] | 孟洁, 朱星宇, 徐明月, 荣凌云, 吴川福, 汪群慧. 腐熟牛粪沼渣对模拟含氨臭气的去除效能及建模分析研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(6): 922-930. |
| [8] | 孟畅, 红梅, 李斐. 高光谱敏感波段筛选与机器学习协同提升土壤重金属预测精度[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(6): 950-960. |
| [9] | 刘鸿林, 赵方凯, 杨磊, 沈琳钧, 杨恺丰, 李敏, 陈利顶. 城市公园土壤重金属污染及影响因素研究——以宁波市为例[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(5): 773-783. |
| [10] | 陈岩, 石成龙, 李璞君, 肖江, 陈光才. 含重金属林木生物质与骨粉共水热液相产物:解析及应用潜力初步评价[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(4): 642-652. |
| [11] | 陈琳, 兰冠宇, 徐妍, 李雪, 毛雪飞. 氢键有机框架材料在环境污染物吸附和检测中的研究进展[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(3): 474-483. |
| [12] | 王斌, 曾兆荷, 董璐, 岳林. 内梅罗指数法在地下水水质评价中的修正探讨与实践效果[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(2): 293-301. |
| [13] | 张传华, 刘力, 代杰, 李曼曼, 张凤太, 邓凌. 基于土壤重金属污染和累积性评价的耕地环境质量类别划分与风险管控[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(2): 311-320. |
| [14] | 吴小令, 杜衍红, 窦飞, 高双全, 王向琴. 生物炭和腐殖质治理重金属污染菜地的定位试验研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(12): 1952-1961. |
| [15] | 王永梅, 袁雨珍, 王梓成, 李志丰, 高双全, 刘传平, 杜衍红. 生物炭协同化肥减量对重金属污染土壤甜玉米安全生产的长期效应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(12): 1962-1973. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||