• 观点与争鸣 •

### 潜在生态风险指数法应用中的一些问题

1. 1. 黄河中下游数字地理技术教育部重点实验室（河南大学）,开封 475004
2. 河南大学环境与规划国家级实验教学示范中心,开封 475004
3. 同济大学环境科学与工程学院,上海 200092
• 收稿日期:2019-07-28 修回日期:2020-04-27 出版日期:2020-06-20 发布日期:2020-08-20
• 作者简介:马建华（1958-）,男,河南清丰人,教授,博士生导师,研究方向为土壤污染防治研究。E-mail: vyhorse@163.com
• 基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(41807358);国家自然科学基金项目(U1804110);河南省重大科技专项(181100310600)

### Some problems in the application of potential ecological risk index

MA Jianhua1,2, HAN Changxu3, JIANG Yuling1,2

1. 1. Key Laboratory of Geospatial Technology for the Middle and Lower Yellow River Regions (Henan University), Ministry of Education, Kaifeng 475004, China
2. National Demonstration Center for Environmental and Planning, Henan University, Kaifeng 475004, China
3. College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
• Received:2019-07-28 Revised:2020-04-27 Online:2020-06-20 Published:2020-08-20

Abstract:

Through reviewing 2323 papers on the potential ecological risk index (RI) proposed by Håkanson during 2001-2018, especially focusing on 203 papers published in some famous journals at home and abroad since 2008, the following problems were found: (1) Håkanson's RI is an ecological risk assessment method based on the theory of water environment sedimentology. Therefore it is not suitable to be applied to soil, especially not to water solute, atmospheric particulate matter, surface dust, plant or crop, etc. However, 49.29% of the 2323 papers have misplaced evaluation objects. (2) The grading criteria of potential ecological risk factor (Er) and RI proposed by Håkanson can not be mechanically copied. So, it should be adjusted according to the specific types and quantities of pollutants studied. The limit value of the first level of Er should be the maximum value of toxic coefficient (Stmax) of all the evaluated pollutants, and the limit value of the first level of RI can be obtained by ∑St i×1.13 with ten integers. However, most of the studies ignored the types and quantities of the pollutants, and copied indiscriminatingly the Er and RI classification criteria of Håkanson, which led to incorrect conclusions. The papers used the incorrect criteria of Er and RI, taking up 49.01% and 61.40% of the 203 papers, respectively. Although some researchers had adjusted the RI classification criteria according to the types and quantities of pollutants, only 23.81% of the papers are correct. (3) When only single ecological risk of Hg or comprehensive ecological risk of multiple heavy metals including Hg are evaluated, the St Hg can not be replaced by Tr Hg.