Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Sep 3;15(9):e0238513. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238513

Source apportionment of potentially toxic elements in soils using APCS/MLR, PMF and geostatistics in a typical industrial and mining city in Eastern China

Cao Jianfei 1, Li Chunfang 1,#, Zhang Lixia 2,#, Wu Quanyuan 1,*, Lv Jianshu 1
Editor: Andrés Rodríguez-Seijo3
PMCID: PMC7470422  PMID: 32881956

Abstract

Source apportionment of potentially toxic elements in soils is a critical step for devising soil sustainable management strategies. However, misjudgment or imprecision can occur when traditional statistical methods are applied to identify and apportion the sources. The main objective of the study was to develop a robust approach composed of the absolute principal component score/multiple linear regression (APCS/MLR) receptor model, positive matrix factorization (PMF) receptor model and geostatistics to identify and apportion sources of soil potentially toxic elements in typical industrial and mining city, eastern China. APCS/MLR and PMF were applied to provide robust factors with contribution rates. The geostatistics coupled with the variography and kriging methods was used to present factors derived from these two receptor models. The results indicated that mean concentrations of As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb and Zn exceeded the local background levels. Based on multivariate receptor models and geostatistics, we determined four sources of eight potentially toxic elements including natural source (parent material), agricultural practices, pollutant emissions (industrial, mining and traffic) and the atmospheric deposition of coal combustion, which accounted for 68%, 12%, 12% and 9% of the observed potentially toxic element concentrations, respectively. This study provides a reliable and robust approach for potentially toxic elements source apportionment in this particular industrial and mining city with a clear potential for future application in other regions.

Introduction

In recent years, soil potentially toxic element pollution has been a worldwide environmental problem and has attracted much attention due to cumulative toxicity and persistence [13]. Especially in the eastern coastal areas of China, intensive human activities have led to the enrichment of potentially toxic elements in soils, threatening food safety and human health [4]. The concentration of soil potentially toxic elements is subjected to natural background levels and human inputs [5]. The former arises from the weathering of geological parent rocks [1, 6]. Human input pathways include mining, waste disposal, sewage irrigation, vehicle exhaust emissions, atmospheric deposition, fertilizer and pesticide application, among other human activities [7, 8].

Source apportionment can contribute to determining the enrichment of potentially toxic elements from natural sources and complex human activities, and identify the contribution rate of each source. This analysis is crucial for devising soil sustainable management strategies so as to prevent or reduce potentially toxic element pollution. Among the methods involved in source apportionment, qualitative and quantitative analyses are commonly used. Multivariate statistical analyses belong to the former, i.e., principal component analysis (PCA) and factor analysis (FA), which have been widely used to assess pollution status and identify the sources of potentially toxic elements in soils [912]. These methods can determine the most significant factors by reducing dimensions and explaining potential sources of pollution. However, quantitative analysis cannot be achieved with the above methods. In this case, receptor models have been applied to quantify the sources of soil potentially toxic elements, i.e., chemical mass balance (CMB), absolute principal component score/multiple linear regression (APCS/MLR) and positive matrix factorization (PMF) [1316]. CMB is a basic receptor model and requires both the concentration of potentially toxic elements and the input of source profiles. APCS/MLR and PMF are more efficient than CMB because they do not require source profiles [17, 18]. APCS/MLR evolved from PCA, and source contributions are obtained through carrying out the regressions between potentially toxic element contents and APCS. PMF uses experimental uncertainties in the data matrix and decomposes a data matrix into factor contributions and factor profiles under the non-negative constraint [15]. Due to theoretical differences, the results from receptor models differ, and each variable represents a source. To provide robust factors and better interpret the sources, previous studies have commonly applied multiple receptor models simultaneously based on the same datasets [19, 20]. These factor analysis methods still contain shortcomings, e.g. explore pollution sources based on previous knowledge, which may result in misjudgment or imprecision.

The spatial correlations between sampling points contain important information for interpret the potential soil potentially toxic element pollution source. There are two main groups of interpolation techniques: deterministic (polynomial, inverse distance weighted, and radial) and geostatistical (ordinary kriging, simple kriging, universal kriging, probability kriging, indicator kriging and disjunctive kriging) [21]. Because the geostatistical method coupled with the variography and kriging methods could quantify the spatial autocorrelation among measured points and account for the spatial configuration of the sample points around the prediction location, they have been widely used to provide insights into the spatial correlations of soil properties [2226]. The spatial continuous variations, including structural spatial variations and random spatial variations, are calculated in the variogram. Kriged maps can characterize the hotspots and outlines. Previous studies have successfully used the spatial variation and spatial distribution of potentially toxic elements in soils to identify risk areas, which have been superimposed with land use maps to predict potentially toxic element pollution sources [2729]. However, prior studies have rarely explored the spatial variation information of factor variables and the superposition information of kriged maps that form factor variables and potentially toxic elements, which contain important information for source apportionment. Therefore, this approach is expected to effectively integrate the multivariate receptor models and geostatistics for source apportionment and reduce the misjudgment and inaccuracy error.

In our study, we chose the northern plain of Longkou in Eastern China, as a typical region, where human activities are intensive due to the rapid development of industry and mining. Potentially toxic elements of As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb and Zn in 138 surface soil samples were collected [30]. Based on the proposed approach composed of APCS/MLR, PMF and geostatistics, our specific objectives were to (1) provide robust source factors with contribution rates using multivariate receptor models, including APCS/MLR and PMF, (2) apply geostatistics to present those source factors to provide more objective and useful information in source apportionment, and (3) identify and apportion sources of soil potentially toxic elements in typical industrial and mining cities.

Material and methods

Study area

Longkou is a typical industrial and mining city in eastern China [31]. The research was conducted in the northern plain of Longkou City (37°34'35"N—37°44´49"N, 120°13´4"E—120°40´47"E), which covers an area of 500 km2 (Fig 1). The study areas are priority areas in which industries have rapidly developed under the support of state policies. The multitude of emission sources have made this a typical area for verifying source apportionment models [32]. The area is characterized by mineral resource exploitation, including coal, gold mine and lead zinc mining, and the abundant natural resources have promoted the development of preliminary industrial enterprises, such as iron-making plants, paper mills and electroplating factories [33]. There is approximately 300 km2 of agricultural land in this area, mainly wheat and maize planting in the west, apple and grape orchards in the east, and vegetable planting areas in the north (Fig 2). This study area has a temperate monsoon climate with an average annual temperature of 12°C and a mean annual precipitation of 600 mm. Parent material are composed of marine sediments in the western of study area, bordered by alluvium and moorstone in the southeastern region (Fig 3). A water shortage problem has emerged in Longkou [31]. Untreated water from industrial activities was used to irrigate farmland over the period of a decade until a sewage disposal apparatus was built in 2002; presently, agricultural activities use the disposed water [31].

Fig 1. Geographical location of the study area with sampling sites.

Fig 1

(The map was generated using free, open access data sources from the National Geomatics Center of China).

Fig 2. The maps of land use types in the study area.

Fig 2

(The land used map was generated by interpreting free Landsat images).

Fig 3. The maps of parent materials in the study area.

Fig 3

(The parent materials map was generated using free, open access data sources from the Geological survey development research center of China).

No specific permissions were required for these locations and activities in the field sampling and we confirmed that the field studies did not involve any threat to endangered or protected species.

Soil sampling and chemical analysis

A total of 138 soil samples were collected in the summer of 2017 based on the grid layout sample point method [2729]. Sample sites were selected according to a sampling density of less than 2 km based on Landsat images, and each sample consisted of a mixture of five subsamples collected from five spots across an area of approximately 30 m2. Each soil sampling site was first classified based on land use types including 33 for industrial and mining use, 34 for grain crop use, 24 for orchard use, 12 for vegetable use, 22 for residential use, and 13 near to roads. If the designed site was unavailable for sampling (such as if it contained a building), an alternative location was selected as close to the original as possible to find natural soils. All subsamples were collected at a depth of 0–20 cm using a stainless-steel shovel. At each sampling site, an approximate 1kg of the soil sample were mixed thoroughly in a polyethylene bag. After air-drying, the collected soils samples were sieved to 2 mm, and ground to powder that could pass through a 0.149-mm mesh for physical-chemical analysis. The geographical locations of the sampling points were recorded by a GPS receiver, as shown in Fig 1.

In the laboratory, soil pH values were measured by a pH meter in a 1:2.5 soil–water suspension, and organic matter (SOM) contents were analyzed using oil bath-K2CrO7 titration [34]. HSO4-HNO3-HF was used to digest the soil for analyzing the As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb and Zn contents. The Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn contents were analyzed using a flame atomic absorption spectrophotometer (240 AA Agilent, USA), Cd contents were determined using a graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AA-7000 Shimadzu, Japan), and As and Hg concentrations were determined with an atomic fluorescence spectrophotometer (AFS230E Haiguang Analytical Instrument Co., Beijing, China). For details on the measurements, please refer to the related literature [34]. A standard reference material obtained from the Center for National Standard Reference Material of China (http://www.biobw.com/), was used for quality control. The recovery rate and standard reference material were examined under strict monitoring, and the chemical analysis process followed the standard for geochemical evaluation of land quality (DZ/T0295–2016) in China. The limit of recovery was 94%~106%.

Source apportionment method

The source apportionment method framework is show in Fig 4, which integrates APCS/MLR, PMF and geostatistics. APCS/MLR and PMF were simultaneously applied to the potentially toxic element concentration dataset to provide more factors with contribution rates. The geostatistics were applied to present those factors. The spatial variant structure of those factor variables was used to preliminarily determine which factors belonged to natural sources or anthropogenic sources. The spatial distribution characteristics of the factors and eight potentially toxic elements were mapped via ordinary kriging and were superposed on the auxiliary environmental data (such as land use types and parent materials) to locate the potential sources.

Fig 4. Source apportionment method.

Fig 4

APCS-MLR receptor model

The APCS-MLR receptor model applies two mathematical methods, i.e., a combination of a multiple linear regression model (MLR) and the absolute principal component scores (APCS) [35]. This model was calculated using SPSS 22.0 software (IBM Inc., USA). The first procedure normalizes the raw data as follows:

Zij=CijC¯σi (1)

where Zij is the content after normalization, Cij is the content of the ith sample of the jth element, and Cj and σj represent the respective average content and standard deviation of the jth element, respectively.

Then, a comparison sample (Z0)i with a content of 0 was inserted, and normalization was conducted as follows:

(Z0)i=0Ci¯σi=Ci¯σi (2)

The APCS for the factors are estimated by subtracting the factor scores of Z0 from the factor scores of true samples. The apportionment to Cj can be evaluated via MLR as follows:

Ci=b0i+p=1n(APCSpbpi) (3)

where b0i is the constant term in the MLR and bpi is the regression coefficient for the pth source of the ith element. The adjusted score of the pth factor is APCSp, and the average contribution of the pth source to Ci can be interpreted as APCSpbpi.

Positive matrix factorization model

PMF is a method that decomposes the elemental content matrix into a factor contribution matrix and a factor component spectrum matrix [36] and is performed with the US-EPA PMF 5.0 model. First, the original elemental matrix X nm with the order n*m can be described as

Enm=Xnmj=1pGnpFpm (4)

where G(n*p) and F(p*m) represent the matrices of the factor contribution and factor profile, respectively, and E(n*m) is the matrix of the residual error.

Furthermore, the objective function Q is the diagnostic index of model performance, and the Q value from the model result must be close to the reference value. Q can be expressed as follows:

Q=i=1mj=1n(Eij/σij)2 (5)

where Eij is the residual error of the ith element of the jth sample, σij is the uncertainty of the ith element of the jth sample, and all values in the above calculation process are dimensionless. Finally, the uncertainty (U) is determined using the EPA PMF 5.0 User Guide (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). If all elemental contents are greater than the method detection limit (MDL), the uncertainty calculation is performed as follows:

U=(ErrorFraction×concentration)2+(0.5×MDL)2 (6)

Geostatistical method

Geostatistics was used to analyze the spatial correlation of the APCS, PMF-factors and eight potentially toxic elements and to minimize the estimation error in source identification. Three structure variance theoretical models of three structures (spherical, Gaussian and exponential) were employed to measure the degree of spatial variability. The determination coefficient (R2) and residual sum of squares (RSS) were used to evaluate the optimal structure variation model. The nugget value (C0), sill value (C0+C) and variable range (A) were the main parameter of variation model. The nugget effect (C0/C0+C) was used to distinguish between regional factors (natural factors) and nonregional factors (human factors) for heavy metal enrichments. There are three classes for the C0/C0+C values, strong spatial autocorrelation (C0/C0+C ≤ 0.25), moderate spatial autocorrelation (0.25 < C0/C0+C< 0.75), and weak spatial autocorrelation (0.75≤ C0/C0+C) [37]. The variable range (A) represents the range of spatial autocorrelation under a certain observation scale. The estimation process of the structure variance model was performed with GS+ 7.0 (R Development Core Team). Ordinary kriging (OK) was used for interpolation and characterizing hotspots and outlines of hazardous areas, which was implemented using ArcGIS 10.1 (ESRI Inc., USA).

Results

Description of potentially toxic elements

The descriptive statistics of the soil potentially toxic element contents in the study area are shown in Table 1. The mean soil pH value ranged from 6.26 to 7.88, with a mean value of 7.0. The soil organic matter (SOM) content ranged from 5.46 g kg-1 to 42.22 g kg-1, with a mean value of 24.94 g kg-1, and these values were higher than the background values [38]. Overall, the average potentially toxic element contents in all samples were below level II of the Environmental Quality Standard for Soils (EQSS) of China [39] but exceeded the corresponding background values [38]. In particular, Cd, Cu and Hg were 1.81, 1.80 and 1.63 times higher than the background values, respectively, suggesting that the topsoil, which is affected by human activities, was enriched by these potentially toxic elements. Compared with the surrounding cities with developed industry and mining, such as Rizhao [27], Guangrao [28] and Ju County [29], it was found that the average value of potentially toxic elements in soils had the above similar characteristics as in Longkou, and Cd and Hg were also considered to be the most risky. To further evaluate the enrichment degree of potentially toxic elements, the index of geo-accumulation (Igeo) was calculated using Muller’s equation [40], which indicated that the soil ranged from not contaminated to moderately contaminated with respect to Cd, Cu, and Hg, which were ranked as Cd>Hg>Cu, and the soil was not contaminated with the other elements.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of potentially toxic elements in the study area (n = 138, units in mg kg-1).

Species Min Max median percentile 25 percentile 75 Mean S.D. C.V.(%) Skewness Background Igeo EQSS
As 3.63 10.26 7.98 6.73 8.97 7.96 1.47 18.51 0.34 6.30 -0.25 30
Cd 0.049 0.42 0.23 0.13 0.37 0.20 0.11 56.00 9.91 0.11 0.28 0.30
Cr 46.7 96.83 61.08 50.10 64.8 61.10 10.58 17.32 0.23 56.20 -0.46 200
Cu 20.34 50.86 35.35 21.73 43.78 35.30 16.60 47.02 6.61 19.60 0.26 100
Hg 0.025 0.064 0.048 0.038 0.057 0.049 0.02 42.86 2.55 0.03 0.12 0.50
Ni 19.18 47.6 26.62 22.91 31.79 26.59 5.26 19.78 0.38 23.50 -0.41 50
Pb 15.75 63.92 35.13 28.90 50.36 35.08 13.37 38.11 8.20 25.40 -0.12 300
Zn 53.99 104.32 77.85 60.11 91.57 77.89 14.05 18.04 1.02 56.10 -0.11 250
PH 6.26 7.88 7.00 6.68 7.38 7.00 0.35 5.00 0.37 - - -
SOM (g kg-1) 5.46 42.22 14.99 8.86. 18.25 14.94 5.04 33.73 1.44 13.00 - -

The coefficient of variation (C.V.) is a dimensionless expression of the standard deviation and can better reflect fluctuations in potentially toxic element contents [41]. The highest C.V. was found for Pb followed by Cr and Cd, which indicates high variations of these metals in the soil, and exhibited the following order: Cd > Cu > Hg > Pb > Ni > As > Zn > Cr. The skewness of the studied potentially toxic elements exhibited the following order: Cd > Pb > Cu > Hg > Zn>Ni>As>Cr. Overall, Cd, Pb, Cu, Hg and Zn were found to be higher than one which indicates right handed skewness. It suggest that these soil metals may be affected by human factors [42].

Source factors of soil potentially toxic elements

The potentially toxic element contents in the soil samples were analyzed by PCA (Table 2). The first four factors were extracted, which explained 79.60% of the total variance. The first factor (F1) accounted for 27.15% of the total variance and showed strongly positive loadings of Cr and Ni and a moderate loading of As. F2 explained approximately 18.94% of the total variation and had a highly positive loading of Cu and a moderate loading of Zn. F3 explained 17.64% of the total variance and had a highly positive loading of Pb and a moderate loading of Cd. F4 accounted for 15.88% of the total variance and a highly positive loading of Hg.

Table 2. Factors loadings of potentially toxic elements in soils.

F1 F2 F3 F4
Cr 0.923 -0.075 0.168 -0.004
Cu -0.103 0.894 0.06 -0.098
Ni 0.916 -0.055 0.036 -0.156
Pb 0.137 -0.005 0.925 0.139
Zn 0.137 0.772 0.002 0.272
Cd 0.267 0.123 0.683 -0.483
As 0.67 0.288 0.269 0.188
Hg 0.005 0.13 0.019 0.924
Variance contribution rate/% 27.145 18.938 17.635 15.876
Accumulated Variance Contribution Rate/% 27.145 46.083 63.718 79.594

The contributions of different factors were calculated using the APCS/MLR receptor model (Table 3). The accuracy of APCS/MLR was assessed via the R2 and predicted/observed values. The R2 parameters varied between 0.60 and 0.89, and the predicted/observed values ranged from 0.91 to 1.14, indicating that the APCS-MLR model had high accuracy. F1 primarily contributed to As, Cr and Ni with values of 71%, 98% and 96%, respectively. F2 dominated Cu (29%) and Zn (38%). F3 explained the 57% of Cd and 34% of Pb variations, and the six other potentially toxic elements had positive values. F4 explained 39% of Hg. However, the APCS exhibited a component that was not accounted for, i.e., the intercepts of the regressions, which ranged from -12% to 15%. The mean of the eight potentially toxic elements represented four factors, and the contributions of the four factors to potentially toxic element pollution in the study area were 67%, 11%, 16% and 6%.

Table 3. Contribution rate of each factor to potentially toxic elements derived from APCS/MLR and PMF.

APCS/MLR PMF
Ratio R2 F1 F2 F3 F4 Unidentified Ratio R2 F1 F2 F3 F4
As 0.91 0.60 0.71 0.13 0.08 0.20 -0.12 1.06 0.81 0.81 0.07 0.05 0.07
Cd 1.00 0.78 0.28 0.13 0.57 -0.13 0.15 1.05 0.96 0.36 0.14 0.46 0.04
Cr 1.03 0.87 0.98 -0.09 0.18 -0.01 -0.06 0.93 0.60 0.94 0.02 0.02 0.02
Cu 1.14 0.82 0.67 0.29 0.06 -0.10 0.08 0.97 0.86 0.57 0.32 0.04 0.07
Hg 0.94 0.87 0.58 0.13 0.02 0.39 -0.12 1.07 0.75 0.60 0.01 0.01 0.38
Ni 1.07 0.86 0.96 -0.05 0.04 -0.06 0.11 1.01 0.98 0.92 0.02 0.03 0.03
Pb 0.96 0.89 0.55 -0.01 0.34 0.14 -0.02 1.12 0.51 0.57 0.1 0.27 0.06
Zn 1.11 0.68 0.63 0.38 0.01 0.08 -0.10 0.98 0.73 0.63 0.28 0.07 0.02
Mean - - 0.67 0.11 0.16 0.06 -0.01 - - 0.68 0.12 0.12 0.09

In the PMF model, the number of optimal factors was determined to be four through training experiments, which is consistent with the APCS/MLR results. The results of the PMF model are shown in Table 4, and the Q (robust) value was 12723.8. All potentially toxic elements in the PMF model had a high correlation, with R2> 0.51 and 0.93 < Ratio (Predicted/Observed) < 1.12. Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni and Zn had the highest correlations in F1, which dominated the contribution and presented values ranging from 51% to 94%. Cu had the highest concentration in F2 and accounted for 32%, and Zn represented 28% of the content related to F2. F3 influenced Cd (46%) and contributed to Pb with values of 28%. F4 had the strongest contribution to Hg (38%). The mean of the eight potentially toxic elements represented four factors, and the contributions of the four factors to potentially toxic element pollution in the study area were 68%, 12%, 12% and 9%. Overall, the grouping of potentially toxic elements from the APCS and PMF models were similar and exhibited comparable factor contribution rates.

Table 4. Optimal variation function model of the source factors and soil potentially toxic elements.

Model Nugget(C0) Sill (C0+C) Proportion C0/(C0+C) Range (A)/m RSS R2
Lg APCS1 Exponential 0.008 0.039 0.210 6790 0.024 0.620
Lg APCS2 Spherical 0.051 0.105 0.486 7872 0.037 0.763
Lg APCS3 Exponential 0.068 0.108 0.627 6930 0.071 0.728
Lg APCS4 Exponential 0.048 0.106 0.453 5115 0.020 0.587
Lg PMF-F1 Exponential 0.012 0.005 0.240 4643 0.020 0.568
Lg PMF-F2 Spherical 0.042 0.074 0.569 9492 0.011 0.812
Lg PMF-F3 Exponential 0.055 0.076 0.720 7800 0.042 0.617
Lg PMF-F4 Exponential 0.041 0.082 0.500 5974 0.002 0.783
Lg As Exponential 0.022 0.106 0.207 8768 0.013 0.728
Lg Cd Spherical 0.073 0.105 0.700 7852 0.002 0.780
Lg Cu Spherical 0.045 0.069 0.652 9796 0.011 0.642
Lg Cr Exponential 0.033 0.282 0.117 5947 0.012 0.590
Lg Hg Exponential 0.022 0.037 0.595 7567 0.056 0.683
Lg Ni Spherical 0.011 0.085 0.129 4967 0.002 0.783
Lg Pb Exponential 0.065 0.131 0.495 7200 0.042 0.647
Lg Zn Spherical 0.032 0.098 0.327 6860 0.003 0.576

Spatial variant structures of factors and potentially toxic elements

To perform the statistical analysis more efficiently, the variables were log-transformed. After data transformation, their skewness were reduced and the variable distributions approximate the normal distribution. The different optimal variogram models of APCS, PMF-factors and potentially toxic elements are shown in Table 4. The RSS and R2 of all the optimal variogram optimal models varied among 0.011 and 0.071, 0.576 and 0.812, indicating that the fitting results were satifactory. The C0/(C0+C) values of APCS1, PMF-F1, As, Cr and Ni were less than 0.25, which showed a strong spatial auto correlation and may have been indicative of natural factors. Other variables, with C0/(C0+C) values between 0.25 and 0.75, showed moderate spatial auto correlation and may represent human activity factors. The spatial variability of potentially toxic elements based on C0/(C0+C) was similar to the statistical results presented in Section 3,1, which exhibit an order of Cd> Cu> Hg> Pb> Zn> Ni>As>Cr. The A of the variables ranged from 4630 m to 9796 m, which was larger than the actual sampling interval and better represented the spatial variant structure of the potentially toxic elements.

Spatial distribution characteristics of factors and potentially toxic elements

The kriged maps of APCS, PMF-factors and potentially toxic elements are shown in Figs 5 and 6, which were used to delineate the hotspots and outlines of hazardous areas. In Fig 5, the spatial distributions of APCS were similar to the overall trend of the corresponding PMF-factor, but the second factor had local differences, in which the spatial distribution of APCS2 had one more hotspot than PMF-F2. The spatial distributions of potentially toxic elements and those factors were clearly correlated, and this association was consistent with the results of the receptor model analysis (in section 3.2). Furthermore, those kriged maps were superposed on the auxiliary environmental data (land use types and parent materials) to locate the potential sources. As, Cr and Ni exhibited similar spatial distribution patterns to APCS1 and PMF-F1 and were characterized by higher values in the southeastern region, which was similar to the parent materials (Fig 3). The outlines of higher values of APCS2, PMF-F2, Cu and Zn were in accordance with the types of farmland (Fig 2). The common distribution characteristics of APCS3 and Pb were similar to human activity areas, including mining districts, industrial areas and traffic areas. PMF-F3 and Cd had higher values in the southern part close to the urban and industrial areas (Fig 2). The higher values of APCS4, PMF-F4 and Hg covered most of the study areas.

Fig 5. Kriged interpolation of the APCS and PMF factors.

Fig 5

(The interpolated map plotted with the optimal ordinary kriged interpolation model).

Fig 6. Kriged interpolation of the concentration of potentially toxic elements.

Fig 6

(The interpolated map plotted with the optimal ordinary kriged interpolation model).

Discussion

Identification of the potentially toxic element source in soils

Source interpretation of the first factor

Cr, Ni and As had high and positive loading values in F1 based on the APCS/MLR and PMF modeling results. The mean values of Cr, Ni, and As were close to the respective background values, and the Igeo value was negative, indicating that these three elements were less affected by human activities. F1 had a strong spatial autocorrelation that represented a natural factor [37, 43]. Martin et al. [44] studied potentially toxic element concentrations in topsoils in the Ebro basin and suggested that the grouping of Cr and Ni with other potentially toxic elements by multivariate analysis was generally regarded as the influence of natural source factors, which is consistent with the results of Nanos and Rodríguez Martin [45] for the Duero River basin, Lv et al. [27] for Ju County, Jiang et al. [46] for Changshu and Lv and Liu [6] for Boshan.

The results of the geostatistical analysis also show that the spatial patterns of F1 were consistent with the distribution of parent materials (Fig 5), with higher values in southeastern soils originating from granite. A soil with granite parent material, with a pH that is mainly neutral to acidic (Table 1), typically exhibits a poor toxic buffering capacity against potentially toxic element pollutants and is more likely to be enriched [47, 48]. Therefore, we confirmed that As Cr and Ni were classed into a lithological sources by the parent materials, and F1 represented a natural factor.

Source interpretation of the second factor

Cu and Zn were highly related to F2 in the APCS/MLR and PMF results, and 68% and 38% of the respective variation was explained via PMF modeling (Table 3). The hotspots of APCS2, PMF-F2, Cu and Zn coincided with the spatial distribution of agricultural land types including grain crop land, orchard land and vegetable land. Agricultural chemical fertilizers are an important source of Cu and Zn enrichment, and phosphorus fertilizer is present in the highest amount in all inorganic fertilizers [4952]. Cu and Zn are often used as additives in livestock diets to control scours [53].The amount of fertilizer applied to vegetable land is 5–10 times higher than that applied to other cultivated land [54]. Northern hotspots of F1 were shown to coincide with the vegetable boundary. A total of 1.9 thousand tons of chemical pesticides are used on the study area each year [55]. Cu-based fungicides (CuSO4·Cu(OH)2·Ca(OH)2·H2O) are widely used to control pests and diseases, and the eastern hotspots of Cu were consistent with orchard-growing areas.

The results from previous studies conducted by Jiang et al. [47] in Jiangsu, Guan et al. [56] in the Hexi Corridor and Hu et al. [3] in a peri-urban area of Nanjing also showed that enrichment of Cu and Zn in agricultural soil were mainly associated with livestock manure, chemical fertilizers and pesticides in agricultural soils. Therefore, we confirmed that F2 represented agricultural practices.

Source interpretation of the third factor

F3 was strongly related to Pb and Cd and exhibited had high spatial variability (Tables 1 and 4). The hotspots of the F3 kriged maps were distributed in areas, including mining districts, industrial areas and urban areas. There are 65 heavy industrial enterprises and 115 light industrial enterprises in the region, including electric power plants, paper mills, and electroplating [55]. Cd is the main raw material in the electroplating industry because of its anticorrosive effect on acid and is also widely used in the production of dyes and power generation. The long-term production and operation of these industries will lead to the enrichment of Cd in the surrounding soil. There are seven mining areas in the study area with an annual coal output of 6.7 million tons [55]. The wastewater produced in the long-term mining process carries a certain amount of Pb into cropland [57]. Moreover, the combustion of petroleum and the use of catalysts in industrial production and transportation are the major sources of Pb [58, 59]. In summer, F3 represented industrial, mining and traffic emissions.

Source interpretation of the fourth factor

F4 was dominated exclusively by Hg in the APCS/MLR and PMF modeling results. Most of the values of the kriged map were higher than the background values, suggesting that the enrichment of Hg was related to atmospheric deposition [1, 60]. Moreover, the distribution of hotspot areas was similar to that of industrial land. Many researchers have noted that coal burning is the most important source of Hg [61, 62]. Due to its high volatility, Hg rapidly migrates in gaseous and granular forms through dry and wet deposition [6265]. In the study area, most of the power for industrial activities comes from coal combustion and oil burning, and energy-intensive industries such as the metallurgical and chemical industry account for 70% of industrial production [55]. Long-term industrial production led to the migration of Hg through exhaust emissions, thus resulting in the enrichment of Hg in soil. Therefore, we confirmed that F4 represented atmospheric deposition of coal combustion.

Source contributions of soil potentially toxic elements

The source contributions of potentially toxic elements are presented in Table 3. In total, the solutions of the APCS/MLR results explained approximately 101% of all the sources, and PMF resolved 100% of the sources contributing to potentially toxic elements. In the APCS/MLR results, 67% of the potentially toxic elements originated from soil parent material, 11% of the potentially toxic elements originated agricultural practices, 16% of the potentially toxic elements originated from industrial, mining and traffic emissions, and only 6% of the total potentially toxic element contents were attributed to atmospheric deposition. In the PMF results, the largest source was from soil parent material (68%), followed by industrial, mining and traffic emissions (12%), agricultural practices (12%) and atmospheric deposition (9%). By comparing the results of the two models, the difference in the source contributions ranged from 1% to 4%, indicating that the source apportionment results were robust.

Regarding the potentially toxic elements, PMF provided more rational source contributions than the APCS/MLR results because APCS/MLR had negative and unidentified contributions. Based on the PMF modeling, As, Cr and Ni were mainly affected by soil parent material with contributions greater than 81%. Cu and Zn were dominated by soil parent material with contributions of 57.0% and 63%, respectively, but agricultural practices also accounted for 32% of Cu and 28% of Zn. Cd was mainly explained by soil industrial, mining and traffic emissions, with a value of 46% and soil parent material also accounted for 36% of Cd. Pb was controlled by soil parent material and industrial, mining and traffic emissions, with values of 57% and 27%. The Zn concentration (63%) was associated with parent materials, and it was also influenced by agricultural practices (28%). Hg was explained by soil parent material and atmospheric deposition from coal combustion, with values of 60% and 38%.

At the Chinese scale, Hg dramatically declined due to strict control of atmospheric Hg emission in China since 2010 [66]. Moreover, inputs of all the heavy metals from fertilizers decreased, because of the stricter fertilizer management and modernized fertilizer production technologies [66, 67]. Heavy metals are more likely to be enriched from fertilizers and sewage irrigation sources in North China, where water is scarce, than in the South China [67]. In provinces with high GDP (Guangdong, Jiangsu, Henan, and Shandong provinces), industrial and traffic activities sources contributed more heavy metals in soil, mainly Pb and Cd [68, 69]. In general, the source of soil potentially toxic element in the study area is similar to that in China as a whole. The law of the People’s Republic of China on the prevention and control of soil pollution was came into effect on January 1, 2019, it constitute a new comprehensive control system of soil pollution. In the future, local governments can develop more effective soil pollution control strategies based on studies of the quantitative sources of potentially toxic element.

Conclusions

This study provides a reliable and robust approach for potentially toxic elements source apportionment in this particular industrial and mining city with a clear potential. A robust approach composed of APCS/MLR and PMF with geostatistics was proposed to identify the apportion sources of soil potentially toxic elements in the typical industrial and mining city of Longkou in Eastern China.

According to the local background levels of potentially toxic element contents, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, Cd, As and Hg had different levels of accumulation. Based on different theoretical foundations, APCS/MLR and PMF provided similar four factors. The representation of the results derived from the multivariate receptor models by geostatistics made the source apportionment analysis more robust and accurate because the representation information was correlated with the auxiliary environment data (land use types and parent materials). Spatial variation analysis revealed that the first factor was dominated by natural sources and the other factors were affected by anthropogenic sources. The spatial distribution of the factors and potentially toxic elements located the potential sources, including the natural sources caused by parent materials, agricultural practices, pollutant emissions (industrial, mining and traffic) and atmosphere deposition of coal combustion. Although PMF and APCS/MLR had similar source contributions for potentially toxic elements, PMF with positive values was more precise for source apportionment than APCS/MLR. Based on PMF, a total of eight potentially toxic elements explained 68%, 12%, 12% and 9% of the observed potentially toxic element concentrations. In addition, this research idea can be applied to other research areas.

Supporting information

S1 Table. The concentration of heavy metals in 138 topsoil samples.

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41371395), the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2017BD011), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2017M622256) and the Key Technology Research and Development Program of Shandong (2017CXGC304, 2019GSF109034). The founders play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript。.

References

  • 1.Alloway BJ. Heavy metals in soils. Dordrecht: Springer; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Tóth G, Hermann T, Da Silva MR, Montanarella L. Heavy metals in agricultural soils of the European Union with implications for food safety. Environ Int. 2016; 88:299–309. 10.1016/j.envint.2015.12.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hu WY, Wang HF, Dong LR, Huang B, Borggaard OK, Hans HCB, et al. Source identification of heavy metals in peri-urban agricultural soils of southeast China: an integrated approach. Environ Pollut. 2018; 237:650–61. 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.070 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Huang Y, Li TQ, Wu CX, He ZL, Japenga J, Deng MH, et al. An integrated approach to assess heavy metal source apportionment in peri-urban agricultural soils. J Hazard Mater. 2015; 299:540–9. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.07.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Christensen ER, Steinnes E, Eggen OA. Anthropogenic and geogenic mass input of trace elements to moss and natural surface soil in Norway. Sci Total Environ. 2018; 613:371–8. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.094 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lv JS, Liu Y. An integrated approach to identify quantitative sources and hazardous areas of heavy metals in soils. Sci Total Environ. 2019; 646:19–28. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.257 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Yang PG, Mao RZ, Shao HB, Gao YF. The spatial variability of heavy metal distribution in the suburban farmland of Taihang Piedmont Plain, China. C R Biol. 2009; 332(6):558–66. 10.1016/j.crvi.2009.01.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Pan YP, Wang YS. Atmospheric wet and dry deposition of trace elements at ten sites in Northern China. Atmos Chem Phys. 2014; 14(14):20647–76. 10.5194/acp-15-951-2015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kähkönen MA, Pantsar-Kallio M, Manninen PK. Analysing heavy metal concentrations in the different parts of Elodea canadensis and surface sediment with PCA in two boreal lakes in southern Finland. Chemosphere. 1997; 35(11):2645–56. 10.1016/S0045-6535(97)00337-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Keshavarzi A, Kumar V. Ecological risk assessment and source apportionment of heavy metal contamination in agricultural soils of Northeastern Iran. Int J Environ Heal R, 2018; 29(6):1–17. 10.1080/09603123.2018.1555638 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hou DY, O'Connor D, Nathanail P, Tian L, Ma Y. Integrated GIS and multivariate statistical analysis for regional scale assessment of heavy metal soil contamination: A critical review. Environ Pollut. 2017; 231:1188–200. 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kumar V, Sharma A, Minakshi B, Renu T, Ashwani K. Temporal distribution, source apportionment, and pollution assessment of metals in the sediments of Beas river, India. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 2018, 24(7–8):2162–2181. 10.1080/10807039.2018.1440529 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lee E, Chan CK, Paatero P. Application of positive matrix factorization in source apportionment of particulate pollutants in Hong Kong. Atmos Environ. 1999; 33(19):3201–3212. 10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00113-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Watson JG, Chow JC, Houck JE. PM2.5 chemical source profiles for vehicle exhaust, vegetative burning, geological material, and coal burning in northwestern Colorado during 1995. Chemosphere. 2001; 43 (8): 1141–1151. 10.1016/s0045-6535(00)00171-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Vaccaro S, Sobiecka E, Contini S, Locoro G, Free G, Gawlik BM. The application of positive matrix factorization in the analysis, characterisation and detection of contaminated soils. Chemosphere. 2007; 69:1055–1063. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.04.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Chen HY, Teng YG, Chen RH, Li J, Wang JS. Contamination characteristics and source apportionment of trace metals in soils around Miyun Reservoir. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2016; 23(15):15331–42. 10.1007/s11356-016-6694-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Luo XS, Xue Y, Wang YL, Cang L, Xu B, Ding J. Source identification and apportionment of heavy metals in urban soil profiles. Chemosphere. 2015; 127:152–7. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.01.048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mehr MR, Keshavarzi B, Moore F, Sharifi R, Lahijanzadeh A, Kermani M. Distribution, source identification and health risk assessment of soil heavy metals in urban areas of Isfahan province, Iran. J Afr Earth Sci. 2017; 132:16–26. 10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2017.04.026 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Liang J, Feng CT, Zeng GM, Gao X, Zhong MZ, Li XD, et al. Spatial distribution and source identification of heavy metals in surface soils in a typical coal mine city, Lianyuan, China. Environ Pollut. 2017; 225:681–90. 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.03.057 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cesari D, Amato F, Pandolfi M, Alastuey A, Querol X, Contini D. An inter-comparison of PM 10 source apportionment using PCA and PMF receptor models in three European sites. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2016; 23(15):15133–15148. 10.1007/s11356-016-6599-Z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Johnston K, Hoef JMV, Krivoruchko K, Lucas K, Using ArcGIS TM Geostatistical Analyst. New York: Environmental Systems Research Institute; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Nathanail C P, Rosenbaum M S. Spatial management of geotechnical data for site selection [J]. Engineering Geology, 1998, 50(3–4): 347–356. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Markus J A, McBratney A B. An urban soil study: heavy metals in Glebe, Australia [J]. Soil Research, 1996, 34(3): 453–465. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Norra S, Lanka-Panditha M, Kramar U, et al. Mineralogical and geochemical patterns of urban surface soils, the example of Pforzheim, Germany [J]. Applied Geochemistry, 2006, 21(12): 2064–2081. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wu CF, Wu JP, Luo YM, Zhang HB, Teng Y. Statistical and geoestatistical characterization of heavy metal concentrations in a contaminated area taking into account soil map units. Geoderma. 2008; 144(1–2):171–9. 10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.11.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cangemi M, Madonia P, Albano L, Bonfardeci A, Di Figlia MG, Di Martino RMR, et al. Heavy metal concentrations in the groundwater of the Barcellona-Milazzo Plain (Italy): Contributions from Geogenic and Anthropogenic Sources. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16(2):285 10.3390/ijerph16020285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lv JS, Zhang ZL, Liu Y, Dai J, Wang X, Wang M. Sources identification and hazardous risk delineation of heavy metals contamination in Rizhao City. Acta Geogr Sin. 2012; 67(7):971–84. 10.11821/xb201207010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lv JS, Liu Y, Zhang ZL, Dai JR, Dai B, Zhu YC. Identifying the origins and spatial distributions of heavy metals in soils of Ju country (Eastern China) using multivariate and geostatistical approach. J Soils Sediments. 2015; 15(1):163–78. 10.1007/s11368-014-0937-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lv JS. Multivariate receptor models and robust geostatistics to estimate source apportionment of heavy metals in soils. Environ Pollut. 2019; 244:72–83. 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.09.147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.United States Environmental Protection Agency. Code of federal regulations: priority pollutants list. washington: The Agency; c2018 [cited 2018. December 11]. Available from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2014-title40-vol29/xml/CFR-2014-title40-vol29-part423-appA.xml. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Liu S, Wu QY, Cao XJ, Wang JN, Zhang LL, Cai DQ, et al. Pollution Assessment and spatial distribution characteristics of heavy metals in Soils of Coal Mining Area in Longkou City. Environ Sci, 2016, 37(1): 270–279. 10.13227/j.hjkx.2016.01.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Li CF, Wang F, Cao WT, Pan J, Lv JS, Wu QY. Source analysis, spatial distribution and pollution assessment of heavy metals in sewage irrigation area farmland soils of Longkou City. Environ Sci. 2017; 38(3):1018–1027. 10.13227/j.hjkx.201607201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cao JF, Li CF, Wu QY, Qiao JM. Improved Mapping of Soil Heavy Metals Using a Vis-NIR spectroscopy index in an agricultural area of Eastern China. IEEE Access. 2020; 8:42584–42594. 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2976902 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lu RK. Analysis Method of Soil and Agricultural Chemistry. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Zhang Y, Guo CS, Xu J, Tian YZ, Shi GL, Feng YC. Potential source contributions and risk assessment of PAHs in sediments from Taihu Lake, China: comparison of three receptor models. Water Res. 2012; 46(9):3065–73. 10.1016/j.watres.2012.03.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Paatero P, Eberly S, Brown S, Norris G. Methods for estimating uncertainty in factor analytic solutions. Atmos Meas Tech. 2014; 7(3):781 10.5194/amt-7-781-2014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Goovaerts P. Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.China National Environmental Monitoring Center. Background concentrations of elements in soils of China. Beijing, China: China Environmental Science Press; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.State Environmental Protection Administration of China. Environmental quality standard for soils, GB15618-1995. Beijing, China: Standards Press of China; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Muller G. Index of geoaccumulation in sediments of the Rhine River. J Geol. 1969; 2:108–118. 10.3390/app2030584 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kumar V, Sharma A, Kaur P, Singh Sidhu GP, Bali AS, Bhardwaj R, et al. Pollution assessment of heavy metals in soils of India and ecological risk assessment: A state-of-the-art. Chemosphere. 2019; 216:449–462. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.10.066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Beaver MB, Beaver JR, Mendenhall W. Introduction to probability and statistics. New Delhi: Cengage Learning; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Dai LJ, Wang LQ, Li LF, Liang T, Zhang YY, Ma CX, et al. Multivariate geostatistical analysis and source identification of heavy metals in the sediment of Poyang Lake in China. Sci Total Environ. 2018; 621:1433–44. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.085 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Martín JAR, Arias ML, Corbí JMG. Heavy metals contents in agricultural topsoils in the Ebro basin (Spain). Application of the multivariate geoestatistical methods to study spatial variations. Environ Pollut. 2006; 144(3):1001–12. 10.1016/j.envpol.2006.01.045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Nanos N, Martín JAR. Multiscale analysis of heavy metal contents in soils: spatial variability in the Duero river basin (Spain). Geoderma.2012; 189:554–562. 10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.06.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Jiang YX, Chao SH, Liu JW, Yang Y, Chen YJ, Zhang A, et al. Source apportionment and health risk assessment of heavy metals in soil for a township in Jiangsu Province, China. Chemosphere. 2017; 168:1658–1668. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.11.088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Institute of Soil Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Chinese soil, Second edition Beijing, China: Science Press; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Wu KH, Huang MT, Jin ZX, Du LF, Liu XY, Luo XH, et al. Investigation on the pollution status and sources of heavy metals in vegetable base soils in the process of urbanization—A case study of Shenzhen city. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China. 2011; (4):83–89. 10.11838/sfsc.20110419 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Nriagu JO. Global metal pollution: poisoning the biosphere? Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 1990; 32(7): 7–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Wedepohl KH. The composition of the continental crust. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 1995; 7:1217–1232 [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Luo L, Ma Y, Zhang S, Wei D, Zhu YG. An inventory of trace element inputs to agricultural soils in China. J Environ Manage. 2009; 90(8):2524–2530. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Cheng QL, Guo YJ, Wang WL, Hao SL. Spatial variation of soil quality and pollution assessment of heavy metals in cultivated soils of Henan Province, China. Chem Spec Bioavailab. 2014; 26(3):184–90. 10.3184/095422914X14042081874564 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Holm AE. Coli associated diarrhoea in weaner pigs: zinc oxide added to the feed as a preventive measure. Proceedings, International Pig Veterinary Society, 11th Congress, 1990 July 1–5; Lausanne, Switzerland: Swiss Association of Swine Medicine; 1990.
  • 54.Liu ZH, Jiang LH, Zhang WJ, Zheng FL, Wang M, Lin HT. Evolution of fertilization rate and variation of soil nutrient contents in greenhouse vegetable cultivation in Shandong. Acta Pedologica Sinica. 2008; 45(2):295 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Yantai Municipal Bureau of Statistics. Yantai statistical year book in 2018. Beijing, China: China Statistics Press; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Guan QY, Wang FF, Xu CQ, Pan NH, Lin JK, Zhao R, et al. Source apportionment of heavy metals in agricultural soil based on PMF: a case study in Hexi Corridor, northwest China. Chemosphere. 2018; 193:189–197. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.10.151 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Fang T, Liu GJ, Zhou CC, Yuan ZJ, Lam PKS. Distribution and assessment of Pb in the supergene environment of the Huainan Coal Mining Area, Anhui, China. Environ Monit Assess. 2014; 186(8):4753–4765. 10.1007/s10661-014-3735-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Hjortenkrans D, Bergbäck B, Häggerud A. New metal emission patterns in road traffic environments. Environ Monit Assess. 2006; 117(1–3):85–98. 10.1007/s10661-006-7706-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Arditsoglou A, Samara C. Levels of total suspended particulate matter and major trace elements in Kosovo: a source identification and apportionment study. Chemosphere. 2005; 59(5):669–678. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.10.056 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Cai LM, Xu ZC, Ren MZ, Guo QW, Hu XB, Hu GC, et al. Source identification of eight hazardous heavy metals in agricultural soils of Huizhou, Guangdong Province, China. Ecotox Environ Safe. 2012; 78:2–8. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2011.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Lindberg S, Bullock R, Ebinghaus R, Engstrom D, Feng X, Fitzgerald W, et al. A synthesis of progress and uncertainties in attributing the sources of mercury in deposition. Ambio. 2007; 19–32. 10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[19:asopau]2.0.co;2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Zheng JY, Ou JM, Mo ZW, Yin SS. Mercury emission inventory and its spatial characteristics in the Pearl River Delta region, China. Sci Total Environ. 2011; 412:214–22. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.10.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Wang SX, Zhang L, Zhao B, Meng Y, Hao JM. Mitigation potential of mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants in China. Energy fuels. 2012; 26(8):4635–4642. 10.1021/ef201990x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Xu MH, Yan R, Zheng CG, Qiao Y, Han J, Sheng CD. Status of trace element emission in a coal combustion process: a review. Fuel Process Technol. 2004; 85(2–3):215–237. 10.1016/S0378-3820(03)00174-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Zhu CY, Tian HZ, Cheng K, Liu K, Wang K, Hua SB, et al. Potentials of whole process control of heavy metals emissions from coal-fired power plants in China. J Clean Prod.2016; 114:343–351. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Ni R, Ma Y. Current inventory and changes of the input/output balance of trace elements in farmland in China nationwide. PLoS One. 2018;13 (6): e0199460 10.1371/journal.pone.0199460 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Hao P, Chen YL, Weng LP, Ma J, Ma YL, Li YG, et al. Comparisons of heavy metal input inventory in agricultural soils in North and South China: a review. Science of the Total Environment. 2019; 660: 776–786. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Zhang Q, Wang C. Natural and Human Factors Affect the Distribution of Soil Heavy Metal Pollution: a Review. Water Air Soil Pollut, 2020, 231(7): 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Hu BF, Shao S, Ni H, Zhao Y, Min XX, She SF, et al. Current status, spatial features, health risks, and potential driving factors of soil heavy metal pollution in China at province level. Environ Pollut. 2020; 266:114961 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114961 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Andrés Rodríguez-Seijo

3 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-05425

Source apportionment of heavy metals in soils using APCS/MLR, PMF and geostatistics in a typical industrial and mining city in Eastern China

PLOS ONE

Dear mr Jianfei,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 18 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrés Rodríguez-Seijo, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. PLOS specifies that experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard; sample sizes are large enough to produce robust results; and methods are described in sufficient detail to allow another researcher to reproduce the experiment (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-3). We feel that your methods section did not include sufficient detail, including the manufacturer of all chemicals and instruments. Additionally, if the protocols used are previously published ones, citations should be given. Please revise this section to include this information.

2. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 7 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

<h3>3. Please upload a copy of Figure 6, to which you refer in your text. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.</h3>

4. We note that [Figure(s) 1-7] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [1-7] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The submitted article is interesting and suitable for PlosOne, mainly due to the application of the APCS/MLR model. However, I have some concerns about this manuscript that should be reviewed:

1. Arsenic was analyzed, but As is not a heavy metal. In my opinion, "heavy metal" should be change by "Potentially Toxic Elements". Besides, it should be interesting to explain why these elements were analyzed (introduction or mat and methods). For example, Ba or Mn are urban contaminants due to their origin from industrial and traffic sources (Ba). Even Fe is an interesting tracer for geochemical assessment. I understand that As and Hg are related to industrial activities. Maybe it should be better to try to improve why these elements were selected.

2. Information about soil origin is missing. I saw that are several samples and it is impossible to write in a table. However, it should be interesting to try to write a short sentence about the origin of the sample. E.g. XX from parks and gardens, XX near to roads, XX industrial areas, XX agricultural areas. See for example https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-017-1750-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-015-1304-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8762-6

3. The Source apportionment method is very interesting and gives an alternative approach to typical papers on urban contamination. However, in my opinion, it should be well explained the APCS/MLR and PMF. A short explanation about why this method is more suitable than typical approaches (e.g. advantages) and a short explanation for readers to try to replicate for their works. In a previous work https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.09.147 the authors give more details, and it could be interesting also for this paper. If authors do not want to add into the manuscript, it could be interesting to add as supplementary data like this paper https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-018-0572-4

4. Why was selected Ordinary kriging and not Inverse distance weighting (IDW) or SPLINE?

5. Line 203 "A higher SOM in some soils could be related to high application rates of organic fertilizers". First, this type of sentences should be written as discussion and soil properties are missing in the discussion section. In any case, the manuscript is missing some information about soil origin. I think that these higher values can be related to parks and gardens.

Besides, it should be interesting to try to see if contents of Cd, Cr or Cu are related to this SOM contents (Line 328). Sometimes are also related to garden-tending processes (protectors or wooden fences treated with chromate) as the most probable origin. Besides, P and N contents can help to explain well this relation between SOM and organic fertilizers https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-015-1304-2

6. why other soils properties (e.g. P, N, soil texture, etc.) were not measured? In addition, how was measured pH and OM? (Calcination, Walkey black, etc)

7. I suggest a short paragraph with a comparison of studied soils with soils from other Chinese cities.

8. I think that references are not according to the journal guidelines. E.g. Journal names should be abbreviated https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-references

Minor comments

1. Line 38. Typo error.

Line 181. "eight" instead "8". Please, try to write the full name for numbers 1-10 when it's possible.

2. L126. Why 0.074 nm mesh?

3. Line 135. Which means the reference #23? Is it related to the methodological method?

4. Line 200. Please, also give for the pH values the max and min such as SOM contents.

5. Table 2 it should be after Line 225

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled “Source apportionment of heavy metals in soils using APCS/MLR, PMF and geostatistics in a typical industrial and mining city in Eastern China” submitted to PONE, authors have determined source apportionment using multivariate techniques. I have few suggestions regarding this manuscript:

The authors should rewrite the abstract as: First explain the background of your work, objectives, then methods employed and main results of this study and finally what are the recommendations of this work to the society/enterprises/environmentalists.

The introduction section is very weak, authors should revise this section by following these articles:

Ecological Risk Assessment and Source Apportionment of heavy metal contamination in Agricultural Soils of North-eastern Iran.

Temporal distribution, source apportionment and pollution assessment of metals in the sediments of river Beas, India.

Assessment of heavy metal pollution in three different Indian water bodies by combination of multivariate analysis and water pollution indices.

Assessment of soil properties from catchment areas of Ravi and Beas Rivers: A review.

Pollution assessment of heavy metals in soils of India and ecological risk assessment: A State-of-the-Art.

Pollution assessment and spatial distribution of roadside agricultural soils: A case study from India.

Spatial distribution and potential ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in agricultural soils of Northeastern, Iran

Assessment of pollution in roadside soils by using multivariate statistical techniques and contamination indices.

Global evaluation of heavy metal content in surface water bodies: A meta-analysis using heavy metal pollution indices and multivariate statistical analyses.

Appraisal of metallic pollution and ecological risks in agricultural soils of Alborz province, Iran.

Ecological and human health risks appraisal of metal(loid)s in agricultural soils: a review.

Before objective, author should explain the rational of this study.

Line 93, Materials and methods should be rewritten as material and methods.

In study area, authors have not added any reference, from where this information was taken. Author should add references in this section. Why this area is important for this work. Explain it also.

In Table 1, authors have calculated C.V., S.D. and skewness, please discuss the following in the results and support your results by adding appropriate references.

In Table 2, the communality of the factor loadings missing, authors should add this in the Table 2.

Authors should add paragraph about the importance of this work to the society at the end of conclusion section.

Also improve the language of this manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Line 38 Print error.

Line 200 How did you determine pH and soil organic matter ?.

Line 204 Do not repeat data from table in text.

Table 1 should have median, percentile 25 and percentile 75.

Table 4. The Gaussian model should not test as it yields implausible results from its use (Oliver and Webster, 201).

Oliver, M.A., Webster, R., 2014. A tutorial guide to geostatistics: computing and modelling variograms and kriging. Catena 113, 56–69.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Sep 3;15(9):e0238513. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238513.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


6 May 2020

Dear editor and reviewers:

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have polished the manuscript and the revised manuscript has been submitted. Our revision have addressed all the concerns of the reviewers. The revised contents were highlighted in the manuscript with typeface and below is our point-by-point response. We look forward to your positive response.

Best regards,

Authors: Cao Jianfei, Li Chunfang, Wu Quanyuan, Lv Jianshu

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response-to-Reviewers_cjf.doc

Decision Letter 1

Andrés Rodríguez-Seijo

1 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-05425R1

Source apportionment of p otentially toxic elements in soils using APCS/MLR, PMF and geostatistics in a typical industrial and mining city in Eastern China

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jianfei,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. First, I want to apologize for the delay in reviewing this paper. Following this message are the reviews of the above-referenced manuscript. After reviewer's comments, some minor revisions are required.

We'll be glad to consider this paper for publication after it's been revised in accordance with the reviewers' comments. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 15 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrés Rodríguez-Seijo, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Editor Authors have addressed all my comments, so I recommend the publication of this manuscript to Plos One journal.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: I attached my comments in the pdf of the ms. Probably you can see my name there. Is no Problem for me. My main advise is that you add a table or a graph in which you compare your results of element concnetrations with those of other cities worldwide, that the meaning of the Longkou results can be classified.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Sep 3;15(9):e0238513. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238513.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


19 Jul 2020

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have polished the manuscript and the revised manuscript has been submitted. We look forward to your positive response.

Best regards,

Authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response-to-Reviewers_cjf 0717.doc

Decision Letter 2

Andrés Rodríguez-Seijo

19 Aug 2020

Source apportionment of p otentially toxic elements in soils using APCS/MLR, PMF and geostatistics in a typical industrial and mining city in Eastern China

PONE-D-20-05425R2

Dear Dr. Jianfei,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Andrés Rodríguez-Seijo, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Andrés Rodríguez-Seijo

21 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-05425R2

Source apportionment of potentially toxic elements in soils using APCS/MLR, PMF and geostatistics in a typical industrial and mining city in Eastern China

Dear Dr. Jianfei:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andrés Rodríguez-Seijo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. The concentration of heavy metals in 138 topsoil samples.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response-to-Reviewers_cjf.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response-to-Reviewers_cjf 0717.doc

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES