See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342233409

Heavy metal and potential ecological risk assessment in sedimentscollected

from Poombuhar to Karaikal Coast of Tamilnadu using Energy dispersive X-
ray fluorescence (EDXRF) techniqu...

Article · September 2017

CITATIONS READS

3 625

1 author:

Marimuthu Selvapandiyan
Periyar University Centre for Post Graduate and Research Studies
57 PUBLICATIONS   177 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Crystal growth View project

Molecular docking View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marimuthu Selvapandiyan on 22 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 6 (2017) 285–292

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Beni-Suef University
Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bjbas

Heavy metal and potential ecological risk assessment in

sedimentscollected from Poombuhar to Karaikal Coast of Tamilnadu
using Energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (EDXRF) technique
E. Devanesan a, M. Suresh Gandhi b, M. Selvapandiyan c, G. Senthilkumar d, R. Ravisankar e,⇑
a
Department of Physics, Dhivya Arts & Science College for Women, Chetpet 606801, Tamilnadu, India
b
Department of Geology, University of Madras, Guindy Campus, Chennai 600025, Tamilnadu, India
c
Department of Physics, Periyar University PG Extension Centre, Dharmapuri 636 705, Tamilnadu, India
d
Department of Physics, University college of Engineering Arni, (A Constituent college of Anna University chennai), Thatchur, Arni-632 326, Tiruvannamalai District, Tamilnadu, India
e
Department of Physics, Government Arts College, Thiruvannamalai 606603, Tamilnadu, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Heavy metal concentrations in coastal sediments from Poombuhar to Karaikal of South East Coast of
Received 7 December 2016 Tamilnadu were conducted to evaluate the level of contamination. The metal concentrations were ana-
Received in revised form 19 April 2017 lyzed in sediment samples using Energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence technique. The determined mean
Accepted 21 April 2017
metal concentration is in the order of Ca > Ti > K > Al > Fe > Mg > Zn > Ni > Cr > V > Mn > Co The heavy
Available online 24 April 2017
metals contamination in sediments is assessed using pollution indices like Contamination factor (Cf),
Contamination Degree (Cd), Modified Degree of Contamination (mCd) and potential contamination index
Keywords:
(Cp). The environmental risks of the heavy metals in sediments assessed by the potential ecological risk
Sediment
Heavy metals
factor. From the analysis, sediments are polluted by Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Ca and Pb due to anthropogenic activites
EDXRF (fishermen boat activites) in the study area. The results of this study would provide a useful aid for sus-
Contamination status tainable marine management in the region.
Potential ecological risk Ó 2017 Beni-Suef University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under
the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction dwelling organisms and fish, resulting in death, reduced growth,

Environmental contamination arising from rapid urbanization
and industrialization has become a serious concern worldwide
(Lacerda et al., 1988; Tam and Wong, 2000; Li et al., 2007). The
contamination is especially significant in the estuarine and coastal
sediments which usually act as a sink receiving the heavy metals
through adsorption onto suspended matter and subsequent sedi-
mentation (Zwolsman et al., 1997; Chapman et al., 1998). Sediment
bound heavy metals have a tendency to adsorb and accumulate on
fine-grained particles that eventually move into the depositional
areas (Harbison, 1986; Morillo et al., 2002a; Man et al., 2004;
Gao and Li, 2012). Sediment pollution by heavy metals has been
regarded as a critical problem in marine environment because of
their toxicity, persistence and bio accumulation (Chapman et al.,
1998; Machado et al., 2002; Islam and Tanaka, 2004; Roussiez
et al., 2011; Ravisankar et al., 2015). Accumulation of heavy metals
occurs in the upper sediment in aquatic environment by biological
and geochemical mechanisms and become toxic to sediment-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ravisankarphysics@gmail.com (R. Ravisankar).
or in impaired reproduction and lower species diversity
(Praveena et al., 2007). Several studies have shown that heavy met-
als in sediments could significantly impact the health of marine
ecosystem (Marchand et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2007, 2012;
Christophoridis et al., 2009; Rahman and Ishiga, 2012).
The present study investigated the assessment of the ecological
relevance of heavy metal pollution in the sediments from Poom-
buhar to Karaikal of South East Coast of Tamilnadu. Our investiga-
tions have focused (i) to determine the concentration of heavy
metals in the sediments (ii) to evaluate the metal contamination
of sediments using the pollution indices (iii) environmental risks
of the heavy metal in the study area using potential ecological risk.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
Sediment samples were collected by a Peterson grab sampler
along the Bay of Bengal coastline, from Poombuhar to Karaikal
along the South East Coast of Tamilnadu, India during pre-
monsoon condition. The sampling locations were selected based

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjbas.2017.04.011
2314-8535/Ó 2017 Beni-Suef University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
286 E. Devanesan et al. / Beni-Suef Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 6 (2017) 285–292
on the prevailing stresses and included areas near the urban and
domestic effluent discharge point. The Fig. 1 shows the sampling
location of the Study area. The samples were collected in pre-
monsoon season, when sediment texture and ecological conditions
can be clearly observed, when erosional activities are predominant
and sediments were not transported from the river and estuary
towards the beach and marine. Recent industry developments dur-
ing the last two decades in Cuddalore, Auroville, Thazhankuda and
Sitheripettai coastal towns include offshore oil production, chemi-
cal, fertilizer processing plants and more than 150 small scale
industries, all located in this region. The study area is also drained
by the tributaries of river Cauvery which runs through many
industrial towns and its tributaries, i.e., rivers Puravandayanar,
Uppanar pass through the agricultural belt of Tamilnadu state
and finally drain into the Bay of Bengal in this coastal sector.
Table 1 represents the geographical latitude and longitude for
the sampling locations at the study area.
2.2. Sample collection
The grab sampler collects sediment layer from the seabed along
the 20 stations. Uniform quantity of sediment samples were col-
lected from all the sampling stations. Each sample of about 2 kg
was kept in a thick plastic bag. The samples were air dried at
105 °C for 24 h to a constant weight and sieved using a 63 lm sieve
in order to identify the geochemical concentrations. Care was
taken to ensure that the collected sediments were not in contact
with the metallic dredge of the sampler, and the top sediment layer
was scooped with an acid washed plastic spatula. Sediment sam-
ples were stored in plastic bags and kept in refrigeration at -4 °C
until analysis. Then pebbles, leaves and other foreign particles
were removed.
Fig. 1. Location Map of the study area.
2.3. Sample preparation
The samples were air dried at 105 °C for 24 h to a constant
weight and sieved using a 63 lmsievein order to identify the geo-
chemical concentrations. The grain size <63 mm, which presents
several advantages: (1) heavy metals are mainly linked to silt
and clay; (2) this grain size is like that of the suspended matter
inwater; and (3) it has been used in many studies on heavymetal
contamination. Then samples were ground into a fine powder for
10–15 min, using an agate martor. All powder samples were stored
in desiccators until they were analyzed. One gram of the fine
ground sample and 0.5 g of the boric acid (H3BO3) were mixed.
The mixture was thoroughly ground and pressed to a pellet of
25 mm diameter using a hydraulic press (20 tons).
2.4. EDXRF technique
The prepared pellets were analyzed using the EDXRF available
at Environmental and Safety Division, Indira Gandhi Centre for
Atomic Research (IGCAR), Kalpakkam, Tamilnadu. The instrument
used for this study consists of an EDXRF spectrometer of model
EX-6600SDD supplied by Xenemetrix, Israel. The spectrometer is
fitted with a side window X-ray tube (370 W) that has Rhodium
as anode. The power specifications of the tube are 3-60 kV;
10-5833lA. Selection of filters, tube voltage, sample position and
current are fully customizable. The detector SDD 25mm2 has an
energy resolution of 136 eV ± 5 eV at 5.9 keV Mn X-ray and
10-sample turret enables keeping and analyzing 10 samples at a
time. The quantitative analysis is carried out by the In-built soft-
ware nEXT. A standard soil (NIST SRM 2709a) was used as refer-
ence material for standardizing the instrument. This soil standard
obtained from a follow field in the central California San Joaquin
 E. Devanesan et al. / Beni-Suef Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 6 (2017) 285–292 287

Table 1
The Geographical latitude and longitude for the sampling locations.

S.No Locations Sample ID Latitude (N) Longitude (E)

0 00
1 Poombuhar PPR 11° 9 1.0836 N 79° 500 37.24800 E
2 ChinnaVaanagiri PCV 11° 70 5.577600 N 79° 500 49.282800 E
3 Vaanagiri PVG 11° 70 10.765200 N 79° 500 47.32800 E
4 Chinnangudi PCG 11° 50 32.150400 N 79° 500 32.521200 E
5 Pillaiperumalnallur PPM 11° 40 21.802800 N 79° 490 59.149200 E
6 Vellaikoil PVK 11° 20 3.249600 N 79° 510 15.548400 E
7 TharangamPadi PTP 11° 10 37.18200 N 79° 500 13.675200 E
8 Cheranjampadi PCP 10° 590 59.65800 N 79° 510 0.716400 E
9 Mandapaputhur PMP 10° 590 8.246400 N 79° 510 4.424400 E
10 Akkampettai-I PAP-1 10° 560 56.378400 N 79° 500 54.614400 E
11 Akkampettai-II PAP-2 10° 560 56.072400 N 79° 510 17.17200 E
12 Keelakasakudimedu-I PKM-1 10° 560 26.568400 N 79° 510 10.738400 E
13 Keelakasakudimedu-II PKM-2 10° 560 10.568100 N 79° 510 6.738200 E
14 Kilinjalmedu PKJ 10° 560 23.614800 N 79° 500 50.906400 E
15 Karaikalmedu PKL 10° 560 24.219600 N 79° 510 11.919600 E
16 Ammantherumedu-I PAT-1 10° 550 54.219200 N 79° 510 07.913600 E
17 Ammantherumedu-II PAT-2 10° 550 43.218800 N 79° 510 10.919200 E
18 Karaikal-I PKK-1 10° 550 31.58400 N 79° 500 16.821600 E
19 Karaikal-II PKK-2 10° 550 30.43200 N 79° 500 16.839600 E
20 Karaikal-III PKK-3 10° 550 30.129600 N 79° 500 18.848400 E

Table 2 3.2. Assessment of sediment quality: pollution indicators

Results obtained from the analysis of soil standard-2709a reference sample using
EDXRF (in mg kg
1).
The anthropogenic metal contribution in sediments can be esti-
Element Certified values EDXRF values mated from the enrichment relative to un polluted reference mate-
Mg 14,600 14,900 ± 1000 rials or widely accepted background (pre-industrial) levels, such as
Al 72,100 68,400 ± 2300 the average values for continental shale or crustal abundances
K 20,500 19,100 ± 700 (Christophoridis et al., 2009; Turekian and Wedepohl, 1961;
Ca 19,100 16,500 ± 500
Wedepohl, 1995). Different pollution indicators can be used such
Ti 3400 3100 ± 100
Fe 33,600 33,900 ± 1200
as contamination factor (Cf), contamination degree (Cd), modified
V 110 98.8 ± 6.59 degree of contamination (mCd) and potential contamination index
Cr 130 112.1 ± 4.01 (Cp) providing a relative ranking of sampling sites. The contamina-
Mn 529 568.2 ± 19.85 tion factor (Cf) is a verstalie tool to identify the pollution and con-
Co 12.8 12.8 ± 0.55
tamination level in environmental matrix.
Ni 83 69.3 ± 2.98
Zn 107 127.9 ± 4.88

3.2.1. Contamination factor (Cf)

Contaminant factor (Cf) is the ratio obtained by dividing the
valley. The soil standard (reference material) (NIST SRM 2709a) concentration of eachmetal in the sediment by the background val-
analysis value are given in Table 2. ueand is given by the formula (Hakanson, 1980),

Cf ¼ fracCheavymetal Cbackground ð1Þ

3. Results and discussions
3.1. Heavy metals in sediments
The determined heavy metal concnetration in sediment sam-
ples by EDXRF technique given in Table 3. The mean concentration
found to be: 7223 mg kg
1 for Mg; 41725 mg kg
1 for Al;
5246 mg kg
1 for K; 20,015 mg kg
1 for Ca; 43,241 mg kg
1 for
Ti; 66,216 mg kg
1 for Fe; 610 mg kg
1 for V; 383 mg kg
1 for Cr;
1641 mg kg
1 for Mn; 23 mg kg
1 for Co; 42 mg kg
1 for Ni;
90 mg kg
1 for Zn; 4 mg kg
1 for As; 159 mg kg
1 for Ba;
146 mg kg
1 for La; 50 mg kg
1 for Pb; This mean concentration
of heavy metals in sediments do not exceed the natural back-
ground levels of heavy metals given by Turekian and Wedepohl
(1961). This indicates that study area dominated with large
amount of natural sediment with low heavy metal content
(Herut et al., 1993). The determined mean metal concentration is
in the order of Ca > Ti > K > Al > Fe > Mg > Zn > Ni > Cr > V >
Mn > Co. Table 4 lists the comparison of the present work with
Regional level in the study area and Table 5 reports the comparison
of heavy metal concentration in the present work with different
parts of the countries.
‘‘Cbackground’’ refers to the concentration of metal indicates the
concentration of metal (of interest) in the soilswhen there was
no anthropogenic input. According to Hakanson (1980): Cf < 1 indi-
cates low contamination; 1 < Cf < 3 is moderate contamination;
3 < Cf < 6 is considerable contamination; and Cf > 6 is very high
contamination. The calculated CF values are given in Table 6.
The results of the present study show that the Cf values of met-
als such as Mg, K, Al, As, Ba and Ni in the study area are low ( < 1)
which indicates that the sediments of the present study area not
polluted by these metals. The CF values of V, Cr, Mn, of locations
PPR, PCV, PVG, PCG, PPN, PVK, PCP, PAP-1, PAP-2, PKK-1, shows
that sediments are moderately contaminated by these metals. This
may be due to the high tourists’ boat activities and anthropogenic
activities. Similarly the Cf value of Pb of PKN, PAT-1-PKA-3 shows
that sediments are highly contaminated by Pb and remaining loca-
tions are moderaltely polluted. A metal Ti shows the enormous dif-
ference in CF values. The CF values of sediments show that
sediments are highly contaminated by titanium. The CF values of
Fe and Co shows that sediments are moderately polluted and very
low contaminated by metal Mg, Al and K. Fig 2 shows the variation
in CF values of heavy metals with locations.
 288
Table 3
Heavy metal concentration in sediments along the East Coast of Tamilnadu, India (in ppm unless% is indicated).

S.No Locations Sample ID Mg(%) Al (%) Si (%) K (%) Ca (%) Ti (%) Fe (%) V (ppm) Cr (ppm) Mn (ppm) Co (ppm)
1 Poombuhar PPR 0.55 ± 0.15 3.31 ± 0.19 13.98 ± 0.20 061 ± 0.01 2.08 ± 0.001 1.42 ± 0.01 4.24 ± 0.004 244.4 ± 8.6 204.5 ± 7.4 1027.1 ± 2.1 14.6 ± 0.4
2 ChinnaVaanagiri PCV 1.04 ± 0.26 3.56 ± 0.02 14.30 ± 0.19 0.57 ± 0.013 2.39 ± 0.004 1.59 ± 0.006 4.94 ± 0.01 275.3 ± 15.2 271.5 ± 14.6 1131.9 ± 14.4 17.3 ± 0.4
3 Vaanagiri PVG 0.84 ± 0.46 3.68 ± 0.02 14.09 ± 0.12 0.60 ± 0.001 2.45 ± 0.02 1.39 ± 0.001 4.93 ± 0.097 242.6 ± 5.3 254.9 ± 18.8 1142.3 ± 11.7 17.3 ± 0.1
4 Chinnangudi PCG 0.64 ± 0.09 3.83 ± 0.23 15.33 ± 0.06 0.67 ± 0.002 2.15 ± 0.01 2.03 ± 0.002 4.90 ± 0.11 313.3 ± 34.9 283.8 ± 8.5 1186.1 ± 16.8 17.0 ± 0.5
5 Pillaiperumalnallur PPM 0.85 ± 0.31 3.65 ± 0.13 15.12 ± 0.03 0.61 ± 0.02 2.33 ± 0.01 1.48 ± 0.01 4.55 ± 0.02 246.2 ± 21.3 207.8 ± 28.2 1103.2 ± 2.4 15.9 ± 0.5
6 Vellaikoil PVK 0.53 ± 003 2.79 ± 0.07 15.86 ± 0.001 0.74 ± 0.02 1.78 ± 0.01 0.43 ± 0.003 2.44 ± 0.007 108.3 ± 6.2 112.0 ± 10.6 545.1 ± 25.2 8.5 ± 0.1
7 Tharangambadi PTP 1.10 ± 0.21 4.40 ± 0.14 11.97 ± 0.17 0.41 ± 0.002 2.91 ± 0.02 3.19 ± 0.002 7.13 ± 0.001 490.0 ± 3.2 416.0 ± 20.4 1977.1 ± 12.3 24.6 ± 0.2
8 Cheranjampadi PCP 0.78 ± 0.12 3.85 ± 0.01 14.98 ± 0.28 0.66 ± 0.01 2.01 ± 0.002 2.34 ± 0.03 4.98 ± 0.02 364.9 ± 15.1 267.1 ± 20.7 1213.1 ± 5.7 17.3 ± 0.0

E. Devanesan et al. / Beni-Suef Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 6 (2017) 285–292

9 Mandapaputhur PMP 0.83 ± 0.26 5.00 ± 0.19 13.33 ± 0.11 0.58 ± 0.01 1,86 ± 0.01 5.91 ± 0.02 7.95 ± 0.03 813.3 ± 18.9 415.7 ± 25.2 1900.8 ± 26.2 26.8 ± 0.2
10 Akkampettai-I PAP-1 0.92 ± 0.11 3.72 ± 0.07 15.82 ± 0.11 0.69 ± 0.011 2.22 ± 0.01 1.72 ± 0.001 4.77 ± 0.013 301.5 ± 21.1 230.9 ± 34.6 1103.1 ± 7.6 16.5 ± 0.4
11 Akkampettai-II PAP-2 0.43 ± 0.002 3.34 ± 0.03 13.78 ± 0.09 0.68 ± 0.01 1.98 ± 0.002 1.47 ± 0.01 4.18 ± 0.01 258.4 ± 11.9 220.0 ± 18.1 1033.0 ± 27.9 14.3 ± 0.1
12 Keelakasakudimedu-I PKM-1 0.52 ± 0.05 3.53 ± 0.25 13.64 ± 0.13 0.62 ± 0.01 2.09 ± 0.02 1.81 ± 0.001 4.68 ± 0.11 291.6 ± 11.8 267.6 ± 9.3 1086.7 ± 11.2 16.3 ± 0.3
13 Keelakasakudimedu-II PKM-2 0.71 ± 0.16 3.74 ± 0.04 16.02 ± 0.01 0.70 ± 0.01 2.28 ± 0.01 1.88 ± 0.001 4.90 ± 0.02 323.5 ± 28.3 242.8 ± 9.4 1164.6 ± 2.9 16.7 ± 0.3
14 Kilinjalmedu PKJ 1.39 ± 0.43 5.14 ± 0.14 12.86 ± 0.23 0.43 ± 0.001 2.54 ± 0.01 6.44 ± 0.01 9.17 ± 0.02 876.7 ± 47.7 489.9 ± 26.7 2459.9 ± 34.6 32.1 ± 0.1
15 Karaikalmedu PKL 0.91 ± 0.09 3.69 ± 0.09 13.99 ± 0.06 0.58 ± 0.01 2.39 ± 0.01 2.02 ± 0.01 5.25 ± 0.01 337.5 ± 24.8 331.9 ± 4.6 1325.0 ± 3.1 18.4 ± 0.1
16 Ammantherumedu-I PAT-1 0.02 ± 0.01 5.76 ± 0.10 5.59 ± 0.32 0.14 ± 0.01 1.04 ± 0.02 13.56 ± 0.01 12.93 ± 0.02 1701.3 ± 18.3 947.0 ± 9.0 3289.4 ± 56.3 44.9 ± 0.6
17 Ammantherumedu-II PAT-2 0.96 ± 0.27 5.38 ± 0.54 5.99 ± 0.05 0.15 ± 0.01 1.19 ± 0.03 11.87 ± 0.03 11.80 ± 0.02 1571.5 ± 5.4 751.3 ± 64.7 3145.6 ± 66.3 40.3 ± 1.0
18 Karaikal-I PKK-1 0.56 ± 0.37 5.36 ± 0.20 5.42 ± 0.08 0.11 ± 0.01 1.36 ± 0.01 11.34 ± 0.04 11.77 ± 0.06 1498.1 ± 4.8 708.0 ± 40.2 3133.2 ± 5.3 40.5 ± 0.1.7
19 Karaikal-II PKK-2 0.18 ± 0.07 5.14 ± 0.23 11.34 ± 0.22 0.45 ± 0.01 1.41 ± 0.01 7.75 ± 0.02 8.87 ± 0.03 1025.2 ± 5.5 592.0 ± 34.4 1984.9 ± 17.3 30.4 ± 0.1
20 Karaikal-III PKK-3 0.68 ± 0.11 4.50 ± 0.28 11.58 ± 0.17 0.48 ± 0.01 1.58 ± 0.02 6.84 ± 0.02 8.13 ± 0.01 920.1 ± 16.8 452.9 ± 58.2 1873.8 ± 8.9 28.4 ± 0.7
S.No Locations Sample ID Ni(ppm) Cu(ppm) Zn(ppm) As(ppm) Cd(ppm) Ba(ppm) La(ppm) Pb(ppm)
1 Poombuhar PPR 45.2 ± 0.3 – 69.0 ± 1.3 5.0 ± 0.2 – 221.2 ± 31.6 34.0 ± 9.7 19.2 ± 1.9
2 ChinnaVaanagiri PCV 50.2 ± 0.2 – 75.8 ± 4.4 5.8 ± 0.5 1.6 ± 0.1 169.4 ± 2.7 70.8 ± 1.0 23.7 ± 8.8
3 Vaanagiri PVG 49.7 ± 0.9 – 75.7 ± 0.8 5.4 ± 0.5 – 191.0 ± 34.9 53.7 ± 21.3 25.1 ± 2.7
4 Chinnangudi PCG 43.8 ± 0.6 – 74.3 ± 1.4 6.1 ± 0.6 – 165.2 ± 7.6 86.4 ± 6.9 23.6 ± 3.1
5 Pillaiperumalnallur PPM 46.3 ± 0.9 – 69.6 ± 2.3 5.1 ± 0.1 – 268.9 ± 16.1 52.7 ± 3.6 16.8 ± 2.5
6 Vellaikoil PVK 38.0 ± 0.8 – 46.3 ± 0.2 5.2 ± 0.4 7.1 ± 1.6 256.0 ± 39.1 12.2 ± 5.5 9.2 ± 3.3
7 Tharangambadi PTP 49.6 ± 0.4 – 100.2 ± 0.7 5.1 ± 0.2 2.3 ± 1.3 114.9 ± 17.2 83.0 ± 17.3 45.3 ± 2.1
8 Cheranjampadi PCP 41.3 ± 1.2 – 72.3 ± 1.4 5.3 ± 0.4 – 193.1 ± 19.4 99.3 ± 2.2 21.0 ± 6.0
9 Mandapaputhur PMP 36.7 ± 0.6 – 92.2 ± 0.4 5.2 ± 0.6 – 135.2 ± 22.1 269.7 ± 7.7 52.4 ± 1.5
10 Akkampettai-I PAP-1 44.7 ± 0.4 – 96.6 ± 1.9 5.3 ± 0.1 – 220.0 ± 28.8 41.7 ± 13.5 19.2 ± 3.7
11 Akkampettai-II PAP-2 40.8 ± 0.5 0.94 70.6 ± 1.4 5.3 ± 0.5 – 218.0 ± 19.8 47.2 ± 0.1 16.7 ± 1.7
12 Keelakrasakudimedu-I PKM-1 45.6 ± 1.4 – 71.6 ± 2.9 6.3 ± 0.2 3.3 ± 1.5 220.1 ± 11.1 80.2 ± 16.2 21.6 ± 3.6
13 Keelakasakudimedu-II PKM-2 44.7 ± 1.3 – 77.7 ± 2.3 6.1 ± 0.9 0.4 ± 0.1 165.9 ± 5.3 60.4 ± 6.4 27.4 ± 3.0
14 Kilinjalmedu PKJ 45.9 ± 1.2 – 127.7 ± 1.2 3.8 ± 0.5 – 108.6 ± 58.0 204.0 ± 3.5 75.7 ± 0.4
15 Karaikalmedu PKL 47.6 ± 0.6 – 84.0 ± 2.4 5.4 ± 0.01 – 181.2 ± 52.5 52.0 ± 6.5 27.8 ± 2.4
16 Ammantherumedu-I PAT-1 31.0 ± 1.3 – 135.9 ± 10.3 – 6.2 ± 0.2 54.0 ± 21.0 352.4 ± 8.0 157.5 ± 4.1
17 Ammantherumedu-II PAT-2 28.6 ± 0.8 – 133.5 ± 3.8 – – 34.8 ± 23.3 272.1 ± 5.2 123.6 ± 3.3
18 Karaikal-I PKK-1 32.4 ± 1.1 – 128.8 ± 3.8 – – 25.3 ± 13.9 331.0 ± 2.4 138.9 ± 9.7
19 Karaikal-II PKK-2 30.8 ± 0.3 – 101.2 ± 2.0 3.7 ± 0.5 3.6 ± 1.5 88.5 ± 23.1 390.5 ± 0.6 87.2 ± 6.1
20 Karaikal-III PKK-3 37.4 ± 1.4 – 99.7 ± 1.0 5.1 ± 0.8 – 150.2 ± 42.9 322.6 ± 2.7 74.2 ± 2.5
 E. Devanesan et al. / Beni-Suef Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 6 (2017) 285–292 289

Table 4
Comparison of the present work with Regional level in the study area.

S. Locations ANALYSED METALS (in ppm) References

No.
Mg Al K Ca Ti Fe V Cr Mn Co Ni Zn As Ba La Pb
1 Thazhankuda to kodiyakkarai, East 5985 54,060 14,220 17,290 5550 19,605 91.4 115.2 427.5 7.0 32.5 43.6 – –
Sivakumar et al. – –
Coast of Tamilnadu (2016)
2 Pattipulam to Devanampattinam 1665 21,719 8405 9284 1520 6554 35.3 30.1 130.4 2.4 20.2 62.2 6.2 404.9 15.1 12.1 Chandramohan
East Coast of Tamilnadu et al. (2016)
3 Periyakalapet to Parangaipettai, 2305 23,691 6179 12,076 8460 19,302 139.11 80.03 367.65 6.68 24.80 39.79 5.3 275.2 36.8 11.1 Harikrishnan et
East Coast of Tamilnadu al. (2015)
4 Poombuhar to Karaikal, East Coast 7223 41,725 5246 20,015 43,241 66,216 610 383 1641 23 42 90 4 159 146 50 Present work
of Tamilnadu

Table 5
Comparison of heavy metal (mg kg
1) concentration of present work with other countries.

S.No. Location Cr Mn Co Ni Zn References

1. Coastal shandong,Penninsula 35–99.6 – – 19–56.8 37–181.1 Li et al. (2013)
2. Izmit Bay, Turkey 74.3 – – – 930 Pekey (2006)
3. Danube River, Europa 26.5–556.5 442–1655 – 17.5–173.3 78–2010 Woitke et al. (2003)
4. Bohai Bay, Bohai Sea China 33.5 – – 30.5 71.7 Hu et al. (2013)
5. Bremen Bay, Germany 131 – – 60 790 Hamer and Karius (2002)
6. Tinto River, Spain 11–151 – 6.8–42 1.6–36 68–5280 Morillo et al. (2002b)
7. Pearl river estuary, China 89 – – 41.7 150 Zhou et al. (2004)
8. Kafrain Dam, Jordan 160 730 60 100 120 Ghrefat et al. (2011)
9. Masan Bay, Korea 67.1 – – 28.8 206.3 Hyun et al. (2007)
10. East Coast of Tamilnadu, India 383 1641 23 42 90 Present Study

Table 6
Contamination factor (Cf), Contamination Degree (Cd) and Modified Degree of Contamination (mCd) of sediments along the East Coast of Tamilnadu,India.

S.No. Locations Sample ID Mg Al K Ca Ti Fe V Cr Mn Co Ni Zn As Ba La Pb

1. Poombuhar PPR 0.370 0.414 0.229 0.942 3.091 0.899 1.880 2.273 1.208 0.770 0.664 0.727 0.382 0.381 0.369 0.958
2. ChinnaVaanagiri PCV 0.696 0.446 0.214 1.081 3.448 1.047 2.118 3.017 1.332 0.913 0.738 0.798 0.445 0.292 0.770 1.184
3. Vaanagiri PVG 0.561 0.461 0.226 1.111 3.021 1.044 1.866 2.832 1.344 0.908 0.731 0.797 0.419 0.329 0.584 1.253
4. Chinnangudi PCG 0.424 0.479 0.253 0.973 4.405 1.038 2.410 3.154 1.395 0.895 0.644 0.782 0.466 0.285 0.939 1.179
5. Pillaiperumalnallur PPM 0.566 0.456 0.229 1.053 3.209 0.965 1.894 2.309 1.298 0.835 0.681 0.733 0.389 0.464 0.573 0.839
6. Vellaikoil PVK 0.353 0.349 0.279 0.803 0.944 0.517 0.833 1.244 0.641 0.448 0.559 0.488 0.397 0.441 0.132 0.459
7. Tharangambadi PTP 0.734 0.549 0.156 1.315 6.937 1.511 3.769 4.622 2.326 1.294 0.729 1.055 0.389 0.198 0.903 2.266
8. Cheranjampadi PCP 0.521 0.481 0.247 0.909 5.097 1.055 2.807 2.968 1.427 0.910 0.608 0.761 0.409 0.333 1.079 1.052
9. Mandapaputhur PMP 0.552 0.624 0.219 0.843 12.841 1.685 6.256 4.619 2.236 1.410 0.540 0.970 0.398 0.233 2.932 2.621
10. Akkampettai-I PAP-1 0.613 0.466 0.260 1.005 3.748 1.010 2.319 2.566 1.298 0.871 0.657 1.017 0.410 0.379 0.453 0.960
11. Akkampettai-II PAP-2 0.289 0.427 0.257 0.895 3.195 0.886 1.988 2.445 1.215 0.753 0.600 0.743 0.408 0.376 0.513 0.833
12. Keelakasakudimedu-I PKM-1 0.350 0.441 0.234 0.944 3.927 0.992 2.243 2.973 1.278 0.856 0.671 0.753 0.487 0.379 0.871 1.079
13. Keelakasakudimedu-II PKM-2 0.473 0.468 0.263 1.029 4.094 1.038 2.489 2.698 1.370 0.877 0.658 0.818 0.473 0.286 0.656 1.372
14. Kilinjalmedu PKJ 0.924 0.643 0.161 1.149 14.007 1.943 6.744 5.443 2.894 1.687 0.676 1.344 0.291 0.187 2.217 3.784
15. Karaikalmedu PKL 0.603 0.461 0.218 1.081 4.391 1.113 2.596 3.688 1.559 0.966 0.701 0.885 0.415 0.312 0.565 1.389
16. Ammantherumedu-I PAT-1 0.016 0.720 0.051 0.470 29.471 2.738 13.087 10.522 3.870 2.362 0.456 1.431 0.000 0.093 3.831 7.876
17. Ammantherumedu-II PAT-2 0.640 0.672 0.056 0.539 25.807 2.500 12.089 8.348 3.701 2.121 0.420 1.405 0.000 0.060 2.957 6.182
18. Karaikal-I PKK-1 0.370 0.670 0.041 0.617 24.652 2.494 11.524 7.867 3.686 2.133 0.477 1.355 0.000 0.044 3.598 6.947
19. Karaikal-II PKK-2 0.120 0.643 0.171 0.638 16.853 1.861 7.886 6.578 2.335 1.602 0.452 1.065 0.287 0.153 4.245 4.359
20 Karaikal-III PKK-3 0.455 0.563 0.180 0.714 14.866 1.722 7.078 5.032 2.205 1.496 0.550 1.049 0.395 0.259 3.507 3.709
AVERAGE 0.482 0.522 0.197 0.906 9.400 1.403 4.694 4.260 1.931 1.205 0.610 0.949 0.343 0.274 1.585 2.515
MIN 0.016 0.349 0.041 0.470 0.944 0.517 0.833 1.244 0.641 0.448 0.420 0.488 0.287 0.044 0.132 0.459
MAX 0.924 0.720 0.279 1.315 29.471 2.738 13.087 10.522 3.870 2.362 0.738 1.431 0.487 0.464 4.245 7.876
Cd 9.631 10.431 3.944 18.113 188.005 28.057 93.876 85.197 38.619 24.107 12.210 18.974 6.860 5.485 31.696 50.304
mCd 0.602 0.652 0.247 1.132 11.750 1.754 5.867 5.325 2.414 1.507 0.763 1.186 0.429 0.343 1.981 3.144
Cp 0.92 0.72 0.28 1.32 29.47 2.74 13.08 10.52 3.87 2.37 0.74 1.43 0.46 0.46 4.25 7.90

3.2.2. Contamination degree (Cd)
To simplify contamination control, Hakanson (1980) suggested
a method utilizing a diagnostic tool named the contamination
degree (Cd). Cd was calculated as the sum of the Cf for each sample
X
i¼n
Cd ¼ Cf
i¼1
For contamination degree, Hakanson (1980) [22] proposed this
classification: Cd < 6 indicates a low degree of contamination;
6 < Cd < 12 is a moderate degree of contamination; 12 < Cd < 24
is a considerable degree of contamination; and Cd > 24 is a high
degree of contamination, indicating serious anthropogenic pollu-
tion. The calculated contamination degree (Cd) of heavy metals
given in Table 6.
In present study, the Cd value for K, Ba shows < 6 indicates
low degree of contamination; Cd values of Mg, Al, and As lies
ð2Þ between 6 and 12 indicates moderate degree of contamination.
Similarly the Cd values of Ca and Co lies between 12 and 24 indi-
cates that moderate degree of contamination andmetals Ti, Fe, V,
Cr, Mn, Ni, Zn, La and Pb shows that high degree of contamination
of sediments. Fig 3 shows the variation of Cd values of heavy
metals in locations.
290 E. Devanesan et al. / Beni-Suef Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 6 (2017) 285–292

Fig. 2. Variation of contamination factor (CF) in sediment samples of East Coast of Tamilnadu, India.

Fig. 3. Variation of Cd and mCd of heavy metals in sediment samples of East Coast of Tamilnadu, India.

3.2.3. Modified contamination degree (mCd)
The modified degree of contamination was introduced to esti-
mate the overall degree of contamination at a given site according
to the formula (Abrahim and Parker, 2008). . .
Pi¼n
ð i¼1 CFÞ
mCd ¼
n metal Pb shows the moderate degree of contamination and Mn,V,
where n = number of analyzed elements, i = ith element and
CF = contamination factor. For the classification and description
of the modified degree of contamination (mCd) in sediment, the
following gradations are proposed: mCd < 1.5 is nil to a very low
degree of contamination; 1.5  mCd < 2 is a low degree of contam-
ination; 2  mCd < 4 is a moderate degree of contamination;
POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION
4  mCd < 8 is a high degree of contamination; 8  mCd < 16 is a
very high degree of contamination; 16  mCd < 32 is an extremely
high degree of contamination; mCd  32 is an ultra high degree of
contamination. In the present study (Table 6), the mCd values of
Mg, Al, K, Ni, As and Ba shows the <1.5 indicates that nil contami-
nation of sediment whereas Ca, Fe, Co, La and Zn lies between 1.5
ð3Þ to 2 indicates that low contamination of sediments. Similarly,
Cr shows the high degree of contamination and Ti shows the very
high degree of contamination in sediments. This may be due to the
recent development of major industries (in the coastal areas) and
minor harbor activities where heavy movement of naval vessels
takes place throughout the year in the coastal region. Fig. 3shows
the variation of mCd values of heavy metals in locations.

30

20
INDEX

10

0
Mg Al K Ca Ti Fe V Cr Mn Co Ni Zn As Ba La Pb

ELEMENTS
Fig. 4. Variation of potential contamination index (Cp) of heavy metals in sediment samples of East Coast of Tamilnadu, India.
 E. Devanesan et al. / Beni-Suef Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 6 (2017) 285–292 291

3.2.4. Potential contamination index (Cp)
The potential contamination index can be calculated by the fol-
lowing method (Hakanson, 1980).
ðMetalÞsamplemaxmium
CP ¼
ðMetalÞBackground
where (Metal) Sample maxmium is the maximum concentration of a
metal in sediment, and (Metal) Background is the average value of the
same metal in a background level. Cp values were interpreted as
suggested by Davaulter and Rognerud (2001), where Cp < 1 indi-
cates low contamination; 1 < Cp < 3 is moderate contamination;
and Cp > 3 is severe or very severe contamination. The calculated
potential contamination index of heavy metals given in Table 6.
The Cp values of heavy metals shows, value of Mg, Al, K, As, Ba
and Ni shows the <1 indicates that low contamination whereas
Ca, Fe, Co and Zn lies between 1 and 3 indicates moderate contam-
ination of sediments. The Cp values of Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Ca and Pb
shows the sediments are severely contaminated due to anthro-
pogenic activities in the coastal area. Fig 4 shows the variation in
Cp values of heavy metals with locations.
heavymetal contaminants in coastal sediments. The main function
of this index is T ir to indicate the contaminant agents and where
contamination studies should be prioritized. The potential ecolog-
ical risk index (RI) was introduced to assess the degree of heavy
metal pollution in sediments, according to the toxicity of heavy
ð4Þ
metals and the response of the environment where RI is calculated
as the sum of all risk factors for heavy metals in sediments, Eir is the
monomial potential ecological risk factor, Cf is the contamination
factor, and is the toxic response factor, representing the potential
hazard of heavy metal contamination by indicating the toxicity
of particular heavy metals and the environmental sensitivity to
contamination. According to the standardized toxic response factor
proposed by Hakanson (1980) Cr, Eir As, Ni, Pb and Zn have toxic
response factors of 2, 5, 5, 5 and 1, respectively.
Eir ¼ T ir  CF ð5Þ
X
n
RI ¼ Eir ð6Þ
i¼1

The terminology used to describe the risk factors Eir and RI was
4. Assessment of potential ecological risk
suggested by Hakanson (1980), where: Eir < 40 indicates a low
potential ecological risk; 40  80 is a moderate ecological risk;80<
The potential ecological risk index method was proposed by
Hakanson (1980, 1988) from a sediment logical perspective Eir < 160 is a considerable ecological risk; 160  320 is a high eco-
toassess the characteristics and environmental behaviour of logical risk and Eir > 320 is a very high ecological risk. RI < 95 indi-
cates a low potential ecological risk; 95 < RI < 190 is amoderate
ecological risk; 190 < RI < 380 is a considerable ecological risk
Table 7
and RI>380 is a very high ecological risk. Table 7 lists the relation-
Relationship among RI, Eir and pollution levels.a
ship among RI, Eir and pollution levels.
Scope of potential Ecological risk Scope of General level of
As seen from the Table 8, the Eir values of Cr, Ni, Zn, As and Pb
ecological risk level of single- potential potential
index (Eir) factor pollution toxicity index ecological risk found to be less than 40 indicates that sediments are low potential
(RI) ecological risk. But potential ecological risk index of Ni, Zn and As
Eir < 40 Low RI < 150 Low-grade were less than 95 indicates that low potential ecological risk index
40  Eir < 40 Moderate 150  RI < 300 Moderate (RI) whereas Cr lies between 95 to 190 shows the moderate poten-
80  Eir < 160 Higher 300  RI < 600 Severe tial ecological risk. Finally the metal Pb lies between 190 to 380
160  Eir < 320 High 600  RI Serious implies that sediments are considerable potential ecological risk
320  Eir Serious – –
index. Hence sediments of the present study area show the poten-
a
Weihua Guo et al. (2010). tial ecological risk due to metal Cr and Pb.

Table 8
Monomial potential ecological risk (Eir Þ factor and potentialecological risk index (RI) of heavy metals.

Locations Sample ID Eir

Cr Ni Zn As Pb
Poombuhar PPR 4.55 3.32 0.73 3.82 4.79
ChinnaVanagiri PCV 6.03 3.69 0.80 4.45 5.92
Vaanagiri PVG 5.66 3.65 0.80 4.19 6.27
Chinnangudi PCG 6.31 3.22 0.78 4.66 5.90
PillaiPerumalNallur PPM 4.62 3.40 0.73 3.89 4.20
VellaiKoil PVK 2.49 2.79 0.49 3.97 2.30
Tharangambadi PTP 9.24 3.65 1.06 3.89 11.33
Cheranjampadi PCP 5.94 3.04 0.76 4.09 5.26
Mandapaputhur PMP 9.24 2.70 0.97 3.98 13.10
AkkamPettai I PAP-1 5.13 3.28 1.02 4.10 4.80
AkkamPettai II PAP-2 4.89 3.00 0.74 4.08 4.17
Keelakasakodimedu I PKM-1 5.95 3.35 0.75 4.87 5.40
Keelakasakodimedu II PKM-2 5.40 3.29 0.82 4.73 6.86
KilinjalMedu PKJ 10.89 3.38 1.34 2.91 18.92
KaraikalMedu PKL 7.38 3.50 0.88 4.15 6.95
AmmantheruMedu I PAT-1 21.04 2.28 1.43 0.00 39.38
AmmantheruMedu II PAT-2 16.70 2.10 1.41 0.00 30.91
Karaikal I PKK-1 15.73 2.39 1.36 0.00 34.74
Karaikal II PKK-2 13.16 2.26 1.07 2.87 21.80
Karaikal III PKK-3 10.06 2.75 1.05 3.95 18.55
RI 170.39 61.05 18.97 68.60 251.52
292 E. Devanesan et al. / Beni-Suef Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 6 (2017) 285–292
5. Conclusion
The heavy metal concnetrationin sediment samples have been
determined EDXRF technique. A metal calcium (Ca) is most abun-
dant metal in the sediments. The results of pollution indices shows
that sediments are not polluted by Mg, Al, K, As, Ba and Ni whereas
moderately polluted by Ca, Fe, Co and Zn. Sediments are severely
polluted by Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Ca and Pb due to anthropogenic activites
(fishermen boat activites) in the study area. Sediment samples are
potentailly risk due concnetration of Cr and Pb. The potential eco-
logical risk index adopted for the sediment conditions presents sat-
isfactory results.
Acknowledgements
We are sincerely thanks and gratitude to Dr. K.K. Satpathy,
Head, Environment and Safety Division, RSEG, EIRSG, Indira Gandhi
Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR), Kalpakkam-603 102 for giving
permission to make use of EDXRF facility in RSEG and also our deep
gratitude and thanks to Dr. M.V.R. Prasad, Head, EnSD, RSEG,
IGCAR, Kalpakkam-603102, India for his keen help and constant
encouragements in EDXRF measurements. Our sincere thanks to
Mr. K.V. Kanagasabapathy, Scientific Officer, RSEG, IGCAR for his
technical help in EDXRF analysis.
References
Abrahim, G.M.S., Parker, R.J., 2008. Assessment of heavy metal enrichment factors
and the degree of contamination in marine sediments from Tamaki Estuary,
Auckland, New Zealand. Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci. 136, 227–238.
Chandramohan, J., Chandrasekaran, A., Senthilkumar, G., Elango, G., Ravisankar, R.,
2016. Heavy metal assessment in sediment samples collected from pattipulam
to dhevanampattinam along the east coast of tamil nadu using EDXRF
technique. J. Heavy Metal Toxicity Diseases 1 (2:8), 1–9.
Chapman, P.M., Wang, F., Janssen, C., Persoone, G., Allen, H.E., 1998. Ecotoxicology of
metals in aquatic sediments binding and release, bioavailability, risk
assessment, and remediation. Can. J. Fish. Aquat Sci. 55, 2221–2243.
Christophoridis, C., Dedepsidis, D., Fytianos, K., 2009. Occurrence and distribution
ofselected heavy metals in the surface sediments of Thermaikos Gulf, N. Greece.
Assessment using pollution indicators. J. Hazard Mater. 168, 1082–1091.
Davaulter, V., Rognerud, S., 2001. Heavy metal pollution in sediments of the Pasvik
River drainage. Chemosphere 42, 9–18.
Gao, X.L., Li, P.M., 2012. Concentration and fractionation of trace metals insurface
sediments of intertidal Bohai Bay. China. Mar. Sci. Bull. 64, 1529–1536.
Ghrefat, H.A., Abu-Rukah, Y., Rosen, M.A., 2011. Application of geoaccumulation
index and enrichment factor for assessing metal contamination in the
sediments of Kafrain Dam, Jordan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 178, 95–109.
Guo, Weihua., Liu, Xianbin., Liu, Zhanguang., Li, Guofeng., 2010. Pollution and
potential ecological risk evaluation of heavy metals in the sediments around
Dongjiang Harbor, Tianjin. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2, 729–736.
Hakanson, L., 1980. An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control. A
sedimentological approach. Water Res. 14, 975–1001.
Hakanson, L., 1988. Metal monitoring in coastal environments. In: Seeliger, U.,
Lacerda, L.D., Patchineelam, S.R. (Eds.), Metals in Coastal Environments of Latin
America. Springer Verlag, pp. 240–257.
Hamer, K., Karius, V., 2002. Brick production with dredged harbor sediments. An
industrial-scale experiment. Waste Manage. 22, 521–530.
Harbison, P., 1986. Mangrove muds: a sink and a source for trace metals. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 17, 246–250.
Harikrishnan, N., Suresh Gandhi, M., Chandrasekaran, A., Ravisankar, R., 2015.
Assessment of Heavy Metal Pollution And Potential Ecological Risk of Sediments
of East Coast of Tamilnadu by Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence
Spectroscopy (EDXRF) and Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGS). J. Heavy
Metal Toxicity Dis. 1 (1:3), 1–7.
Herut, B., Hornung, H., Krom, M.D., Kress, N., Cohen, Y., 1993. Trace metals in
shallow sediments from the Mediterranean coastal region of Israel. Mar. Poll.
Bull. 26 (12), 675–682.
View publication stats
Hu, B., Li, G., Li, J., Bi, J., Zhao, J., et al., 2013. Spatial distribution and ecotoxicological
risk assessment of heavy metals in surface sediments of the southern Bohai Bay,
China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res 20, 4099–4110.
Hyun, S., Lee, C.H., Lee, T., Choi, J.W., 2007. Anthropogenic contributions to heavy
metal distributions in the surface sediments of Masan Bay,Korea. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 54, 1059–1068.
Islam, M.S., Tanaka, M., 2004. Impacts of pollution on coastal and marine
ecosystems including coastal and marine fisheries and approach for
management: a review and synthesis. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 48, 624–649.
Lacerda, L.D., Martinelli, L.A., Rezende, C.A., Mozetto, A.A., Ovalle, A.R.C., Victoria, R.
L., Silva, C.A.R., Nogueira, F.B., 1988. The fate of trace metals in suspended
matter in a mangrove creek during a tidal cycle. Sci. Total. Environ. 75, 169–180.
Li, Q.S., Wu, Z.F., Chu, B., Zhang, N., Cai, S.S., Fang, J.H., 2007. Heavy metals in coastal
wetland sediments of the Pearl River Estuary. China Environ. Poll. 149, 158–
164.
Li, G., Hu, B., Bi, J., Leng, Q., Xiao, C., Yang, Z., 2013. Heavy metals distribution and
contamination in surface sediments of the coastal Shandong Peninsula (Yellow
Sea). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 76, 420–426.
Machado, W., Silva-Filho, E.V., Oliveira, R.R., Lacerda, L.D., 2002. Trace metal
retention in mangrove ecosystems in Guanabara Bay, SE Brazil. Mar. Sci. Bull.
44, 1277–1280.
Man, K.W., Zheng, J., Leung, A.P.K., Lam, P.K.S., Lam, M.H.W., Yen, Y.F., 2004.
Distribution and behavior of trace metals in the sediment and porewater of
atropical coastal wetland. Sci. Total. Environ. 327, 295–314.
Marchand, C., Lallier-Verges, E., Baltzer, F., Alberica, P., Cossac, D., Baillif, P., 2006.
Heavy metals distribution in mangrove sediments along the mobile coastline of
French Guiana. Mar. Chem. 98, 1–17.
Morillo, J., Usero, J., Gracia, I., 2002a. Partitioning of metals in sediments from the
Odiel River (Spain). Environ. Int. 28, 263–271.
Morillo, J., Usero, J., Gracia, I., 2002b. Heavy metal fractionation in sediments from
the Tinto River (Spain). Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 82, 245–257.
Pekey, H., 2006. Heavy metal pollution assessment in sediments of the Izmit Bay,
Turkey. Environ. Monit. Assess 123, 219–231.
Praveena, S.M., Radojevic, M., Abdullah, M.H., Avis, A.Z., 2007. Factor-clusteranalysis
and enrichment study of mangrove sediments – an example from Mengkabong
Sabah, Malays. J. Anal Sci 11, 421–430.
Rahman, M.A., Ishiga, H., 2012. Trace metal concentrations in tidal flat coastal
sediments, Yamaguchi Prefecture, southwest Japan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 184,
5755–5771.
Ravisankar, R., Sivakumar, S., Chandrasekaran, A., Kanagasabapathy, K.V., Prasad, M.
V.R., Satapathy, K.K., 2015. Statistical assessment of heavy metal pollution in
sediments of east coast of Tamilnadu using Energy Dispersive X-ray
Fluorescence Spectroscopy (EDXRF). Appl. Radiat. Isot. 102, 42–47.
Roussiez, V., Ludwig, W., Radakovitch, O., Probst, J., Monaco, A., Charriere, B.,
Buscail, R., 2011. Fate of metals in coastal sediments of a Mediterranean
flooddominated system: an approach based on total and labile fractions. Estuar.
Coast Shelf Sci. 92, 486–495.
Sivakumar, S., Chandrasekaran, A., Balaji, G., Ravisankar, R., 2016. Assessment of
Heavy Metal Enrichment and the Degree of Contamination in Coastal Sediment
from South East Coast of Tamilnadu, India. J. Heavy Metal Toxicity Dis. 1 (2:11),
1–8.
Tam, N.F.Y., Wong, Y.S., 2000. Spatial variation of heavy metals in surface sediments
of Hong Kong mangrove swamps. Environ. Pollut. 110, 195–205.
Turekian, K.K., Wedepohl, K.H., 1961. Distribution of the elements in some major
units of the earth’s crust. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 72, 175–192.
Wedepohl, K.H., 1995. The composition of the continental crust. Geochim.
Cosmochim. Acta 59, 1217–1232.
Woitke, P., Wellmitz, J., Helm, D., Kube, P., Lepom, P., et al., 2003. Analysis and
assessment of heavy metal pollution in suspended solids and sediments of the
river Danube. Chemosphere 51, 633–642.
Zhang, L., Ye, X., Feng, H., Jing, Y., Ouyang, T., Yu, X., Liang, R., Gao, C., Chen, W., 2007.
Heavy metal contamination in western Xiamen Bay sediments and its vicinity,
China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54, 974–982.
Zhang, W.F., Liu, X.P., Cheng, H.F., Zeng, E.Y., Hu, Y.N., 2012. Heavy metal pollution in
sediments of a typical mariculture zone in South China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64,
712–720.
Zhou, H.Y., Peng, X.T., Pan, J.M., 2004. Distribution, source and enrichment of some
chemical elements in sediments of the Pearl River Estuary, China. Continental
Shelf Res. 24, 1857–1875.
Zwolsman, J.J.G., Eck, B.T.M., Van der Weijden, C.H., 1997. Geochemistry of dissolved
trace metals in the Scheldt estuary, southwestern Netherlands: impact of
seasonal variability. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 61, 1635–1652.