地理研究 ›› 2020, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (6): 1233-1241.doi: 10.11821/dlyj020190632

• 观点与争鸣 •    下一篇

潜在生态风险指数法应用中的一些问题

马建华1,2, 韩昌序3, 姜玉玲1,2   

  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

摘要:

收集2001—2018年有关Håkanson潜在生态风险指数法应用论文2323篇,重点分析2008年以来发表在国内外著名期刊上的论文203篇,发现存在以下问题:① Håkanson潜在生态风险指数是基于水环境沉积学理论建立的一种生态风险评价方法,不适合土壤潜在生态风险或污染评价,更不能被应用于水相溶质、大气颗粒物、地表灰尘、植物或作物等介质的生态风险或污染评价,但现实研究中评价对象错位的论文占2323篇论文的49.29%。② 不能生搬硬套Håkanson潜在生态风险系数(Er)和潜在生态风险指数(RI)分级标准,必须根据具体参评污染物的种类和数量进行调整。Er第一级界限值应为所有参评污染物毒性系数(St)的最大值,RI第一级界限值可用∑St i×1.13并取十位整数得到。但是多数研究罔顾其参评污染物的种类和数量,照搬Håkanson的ErRI分级标准而出现错误的论文分别占203篇论文的45.32%和61.08%;虽然有些学者对RI分级标准进行了调整,但调整正确的论文只占23.81%。③ 只评价Hg单项生态风险或包括Hg在内的多个重金属综合生态风险时,不能用St Hg代替其毒性响应系数(Tr Hg)。

关键词: 潜在生态风险系数, 潜在生态风险指数, 评价对象, 分级标准

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.

Key words: potential ecological risk factor, potential ecological risk index, evaluated subject, grade criterion