Water Air Soil Pollut (2013) 224:1476

DOI 10.1007/s11270-013-1476-6

Distribution and Contamination of Heavy Metal in the Coastal

Sediments of Port Klang, Selangor, Malaysia
Seyedeh Belin Tavakoly Sany & Aishah Salleh &
Majid Rezayi & Naghmeh Saadati &
Leila Narimany & Ghazaleh Monazami Tehrani

Received: 5 September 2012 / Accepted: 4 February 2013 / Published online: 12 March 2013
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract The coastal sediments of Port Klang in
Malaysia were monitored from November 2009 to
October 2010 to evaluate the spatial distribution of
heavy metals As, Cu, Cd, Cr, Ni, Pb, Zn, Pb, Mn, Al
and Fe. Sediment samples were collected from 21
stations, covering three subsidiary ports, namely
West Port, North Port and South Port, at three-month
intervals. The geo-accumulation index and the enrich-
ment factor were estimated to assess contamination
status based on background values. Additionally, the
sediment quality guide was applied to evaluate the
adverse biological effects of heavy metals. These re-
sults show that the concentrations of some metals,
such as As, Cd and Pb were comparatively higher than
the background values. This is considered a critical
environmental issue for this region. Furthermore, the
S. B. Tavakoly Sany : A. Salleh : G. M. Tehrani
Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Malaya,
50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
S. B. Tavakoly Sany (*) : M. Rezayi
Food Science and Technology Research Institute,
ACECR Mashhad Branch,
Mashhad, Iran
e-mail: belintavakoli332@gmail.com
N. Saadati : L. Narimany
School of Chemical Sciences and Food Technology,
Faculty of Science and Technology,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
toxicity estimation indicates that living organisms
have a high risk of As exposure. Spatial distribution
maps of heavy metals would aid in the identification
of pollution sources and vulnerable sites.
Keywords Heavy metals . Sediment pollution . Port
Klang . Malaysia
1 Introduction
The marine environment is being continuously loaded
with chemical pollutants from lithogenic and anthro-
pogenic sources. In recent decades, anthropogenic
sources, such as agriculture, shipping, urban and in-
dustrial activities, have resulted in alarming concen-
trations of heavy metals and organic material in
aquatic areas. These chemical pollutants can cause
harmful effects on both marine organisms and human
populations (Karbassi et al. 2008; Morton and
Blackmore 2001; Muhammad et al. 2000; Vallejuelo
et al. 2010).
The assessment of sediment is more conservative
compared with water for determining the degree of
contamination and toxicity. Sediment acts as a contam-
inant reservoir; therefore, such analysis will reflect the
historical variation and effects of anthropogenic and
lithogenic inputs into the marine ecosystem (Marchand
et al. 2006; Olubunmi and Olorunsola 2010; Vallejuelo
et al. 2010). Moreover, the determination of dissolved
1476, Page 2 of 18
contaminates in water is more difficult and expensive
than that of contaminates in sediment because of their
low concentration. Furthermore, expensive pure chem-
ical methods are essential to accurately analyze
dissolved contaminates in water (Pan and Wang 2011;
Phillips and Rainbow 1993; Rezayi et al. 2012).
Heavy metal contamination in sediment is a critical
factor for evaluating potential environment effects be-
cause of the associated bio-toxicity, high environmen-
tal stability and high occurrence of bioaccumulation in
the food chain (Chon et al. 2010; Kishe and Machiwa
2003; Pan and Wang 2011; Süren et al. 2007; Wang
2009; Rezayi et al. 2011). Studies have shown that
heavy metal toxicity and accumulation not only de-
pends on metal concentrations but on other factors.
These include the form in which the metal component
is present, the type and concentration of other mate-
rials and the integration of physicochemical parame-
ters, such as temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO),
salinity, sediment grain size, pH and organic carbon
(Hardman 2006; Lehr and Keeley 2005; Rai et al.
1981; Wang et al. 2002).
In the aquatic environment, the minute quantities of
some metals, such as: copper, zinc, iron, manganese
and nickel are essential for biological systems to func-
tion, but their excessive concentration can be toxic to
living organisms. Other metals such as cadmium, mer-
cury, arsenic and lead are non-essential and therefore
have toxic effects on living organisms (Amiard et al.
1987; Barka et al. 2001; Hanna et al. 1997).
Port Klang is the location of three international ports,
which are surrounded by mangrove forests. The area is
important for tourism, fisheries, navigation and trans-
portation. However, there is limited information on
heavy metal concentrations in the sediments of the
Port Klang. The first basic study on the straits was
initiated by several research organisations in 1981,
including the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations, Department of Environment (Selangor) and
Environmental Management for the East Sea. Ten spe-
cific pollutants (bacteria, phenol, oil and grease contam-
ination and Cd, Hg, As, Pb, Cu, Cr and nutrient
concentrations) were estimated to assess environmental
quality. These studies reported that the high concentra-
tion of heavy metals, especially Fe and Pb in the water
and sediment area is probably derived from transporta-
tion and navigation, land-based contaminants and indus-
trial discharges (Everaart and Swennen 1987; Ho et al.
1993; Law and Singh 1986; Tavakoly Sany et al. 2012).
Water Air Soil Pollut (2013) 224:1476
The Malaysian government has put in place regu-
lations, guidelines and international agreements to de-
crease chemical contaminants in harbours and to treat
waste water flowing out of ships (Yap 2005).
However, these studies do not provide adequate
information to estimate the degree of contamination
or toxicity levels in sediment. There are no data on the
distribution of heavy metals in Port Klang, and there-
fore, ecological risk assessment cannot be predicted.
The area is affected by pollution from non-point
sources, such as port development activities, shipping
and land runoff from rivers and mangrove forests.
Another limitation is that the strong coastal currents
during the northeast monsoon can affect sediment
quality. Spatial assessment and multiple sediment
samplings during the north and south monsoons have
been used to measure the concentrations of heavy
metals. The objectives of the present study are (1) to
investigate the spatial variation of heavy metals in
sediments along the Port Klang, (2) to estimate the
potential degree of toxicity and adverse biological
effects based on sediment quality guides (SQGs) and
(3) to examine the pathway of heavy metals and their
entry source into the Port.
2 Materials and Methods
2.1 Study Area and Sampling Process
Port Klang is located in the Klang Strait on the west
coast of the Malay peninsula at latitude03°00′ N and
longitude 101°24′ E and covers an area of over
573 km2.The Strait is divided into three main ports
called the North, South and West Ports. Klang Straits
is sheltered completely by mangrove islands on the
west (Fig. 1).The study area is influenced by the rainy
season occurring during the North East Monsoon
(November to March) and the dry season (South
West Monsoon, April to October). Heavy rainfall is
normally experienced during the early part of the
monsoon while dry spells occur during the later part
(Yap 2005). The average salinity has been recorded at
30.25 ‰; whereas, the average temperature was
30.04 °C. The average concentration of DO at the
surface was 5.38 mg/l, and the monthly average sur-
face and bottom pH values ranged from 7.85 to 8.25,
with lower values obtained from October to January
because of the higher river discharge (Chong et al.
Water Air Soil Pollut (2013) 224:1476 Page 3 of 18, 1476

Fig. 1 Map showing the sampling sites in the three subsidiary ports of Port Klang, Malaysia

1990; Lehr and Keeley 2005). The Klang Strait expe- Tables of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, 2009). A
riences semi-diurnal tides with tidal ranges between total of 21 sampling stations were selected at three
2 m during neaps and 5.5 m during springs (Tide sites (six stations in North Port, six stations in South
1476, Page 4 of 18 Water Air Soil Pollut (2013) 224:1476

Port and nine stations in West Port) (Fig. 1; Table 1). and results were divided into sand (>64 μm), silt
According to the location and bathymetry of each site, (2 μm<size<64 μm) and clay (<2 μm) fractions for
stations located inside the Klang Strait were arranged into the determination of heavy metals in the contaminated
three parallel transects at three different distances. The sediment (Rauret 1998; Tessier et al. 1979). Double-
first transect lies parallel to the berth line and industrial distilled water was first used to wash sediment samples
outlets, the second is located in the middle line of the and remove halides from sediment. All Teflon bottles
strait and the third is parallel to the mangrove line in the and crystal material were washed with water and soap
west and north port. From November 2009 to October and rinsed with Milliq and Ellix quality water prior to
2010, sediment samples were collected every three analysis. Plasma mass spectrometry was used for the
months at low tide with clean plastic spoons. The samples chemical analysis of heavy metals (Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cu,
were collected in triplicate from surface sediments (2 cm Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, Vand Zn). The samples were dried in an
depth) because this layer controls the exchange of metals oven at 60 °C over the night, and 0.5 g of the dried
between sediment and water (Praveena Ahmed et al. sediment sample was transferred to vessels for acid
2008). The samples were stored in clean polythene bags extraction. The samples was digested in 3 ml of
and kept in an icebox at 4 °C to decrease chemical and hydrofluoric acid and 9 ml of nitric acid (HNO3) for
biological reactions. In the laboratory, the samples were 15 min using microwave heating, and 18 ml of boric
stored at −20 °C until further analysis. acid 99.99 % was added to the cooled solution followed
by centrifugation. The solution from the centrifugal
2.2 Experimental Methods operation was filtered using filter-paper (Whatman No.
0.45 μm), and the volume was topped to 50 ml with
Sediment grain size was determined using a multi- deionised water for the measurement of heavy metal
wavelength particle size analyzer (model LS 13 320), concentrations. The preparation procedure described
above for metal analyses was based on EPA method
Table 1 Location of the stations along Klang Strait 3052 (EPA 1996; Ilander and Väisänen 2007; Zhang
Sites Station Depth Description of stations
and Liu 2002). Total organic carbon (TOC) was deter-
code (M) mined in surface sediments using a carbon analyzer
(Horbia Model 8210). The procedure for TOC analysis
North N100 14.3 Industrial and liquid berth line follows Fang and Hong (1999). Standard reference ma-
Port N700 20.5 Remote terials (SRM) 2702 is a natural matrix of inorganic
N1500 10.3 Mangrove compounds collected from marine sediment with certi-
NC100 13.5 Container berths and urban fied concentration values. The National Institute of
NC700 21.6 Remote Standards and Technology and collaborating laborato-
NC1500 11.2 Mangrove ries obtained certified values for the concentrations of
West C100 12.5 Industrial and cement berth 25 elements based on chemically independent analytical
Port C500 19.5 Remote methods with the highest accuracy (Willie and May
C1000 7.8 Mangrove 2002). In this study, data quality control and heavy
L100 13.3 Industrial and liquid berth metal concentrations were evaluated with the certified
L500 20.3 Remote concentration of SRMs 2702 and matrix spike recover-
L1000 8.8 Mangrove ies. The percentage recovery was between 91.54 and
W100 15.5 Container Terminal berths 104.66 (Table 2). The standard methods suggest warn-
W500 21.1 Remote ing limits for matrix spike recoveries from 87 to 113 %;
W1000 6.8 Mangrove therefore, the range of recovery was reasonable in this
South SK100 7.5 Dry berths, urban and Klang river study (IDEM 2002; Willie and May 2002).
Port SK1000 10.5 Semi-urban and Klang river
SK2000 12.4 Semi-urban 2.3 Heavy Metal Enrichment Factor and Geo-
SL100 10.3 Liquid berth accumulation Index
SL1000 11.3 industrial
SL2000 10.4 Mangrove
Several normalisation methods have been used to assess
sediment quality, such as granoulometric normalisation,
Water Air Soil Pollut (2013) 224:1476 Page 5 of 18, 1476

Table 2 Average concentration (in milligrammes per has the same geochemical reaction under oxic and
kilogramme dry weight, except Al and Fe as weight per cent)
anoxic conditions with other heavy metals in sediment
standard deviation and percent recovery (%REC) of certified
references and also because the natural concentration is more
uniform compared with Al (Goldberg et al. 1979;
Metals Certified Measured±SD %REC Schiff and Weisberg 1999; Siddique et al. 2009). The
Cu 117.7 118.34±2.56 100.54
stability of Fe in sediment is lower than Al due to the
mobility and ability of this element to accumulate in
Cd 0.817 0.810±0.09 99.14
the food chain (Daskalakis and O’Connor 1995; Din
Zn 485.3 492.39±35.56 101.46
1992; Rubio et al. 2000; Zwolsman et al. 1996), which
Pb 132.8 128.98±6.56 97.12
indicates that Fe is affected by anthropogenic contam-
Mn 1,757.0 1,838.93±102.34 104.66
inants. Aluminium was selected as a normalising ele-
Ni 75.4 74.56±2.34 98.88
ment in this study because this metal is commonly
Co 27.76 25.21±1.3 90.81
inactive in marine sediment with little or no chemical
Cr 352.0 388.84±48.21 110.46
reaction and, therefore, is not easily affected by an-
V 357.6 371.13±31.23 103.76
thropogenic contamination and digenetic changes
As 453.0 475.26±47.32 104.91
(Rubio et al. 2000). Zubir indicated that Al has a
Al 8.4 % 7.69±0.39 91.54 strong liner correlation with other trace metals
Fe 7.91 % 8.14±0.22 102.90 (with r2, 0.89–0.93) in the Melaka Strait coastal water
(Din 1992). EF is the concentration ratio of measured
heavy metals to normalising elements (Al, Fe, Cs, Rb,
organic carbon (OC) normalisation, enrichment factor Li and Si) in sediment samples that is divided by the
(EF) and geo-accumulation index, but only a few have ratio of metal background to the normalising elements
been accepted for estuarine and coastal waters. (Rule 1986).
Granulometric normalisation analysis was used to as-
sess anthropogenic effects on the sediment, but this EF ¼ ðCmetal =Cnormaliser Þ=ðCmetal =Cnormaliser Þbackgroundvalues ð1Þ
method is not sufficient to assess the degree of contam-
ination. This method also has a reduced ability to indi- Where (Cmetal/Cnormaliser)soil are the metal concen-
cate the accurate concentration of contamination in trations in the sediment sample and (Cmetal/Cnormaliser)
marine sediment because of the extensive separation of background values is the natural background of the heavy
individual grain sizes (Ravichandran et al. 1995). It is metals and normalising elements. According to the EF,
incorrect to use the (OC) method for sediment sediment is classified into groups by river, estuary and
normalisation because OC is considered a pollutant coastal environments. EF values of 0.5≤EF≤1.5 indi-
without any geochemical approach (Kersten et al. cate that the metals may be completely derived from
1994; Rubio et al. 2000). The heavy metal EF and natural or lithogenic processes. EF values of more than
geo-accumulation are specific indices that are used to 1.5 indicate that a large portion of trace metal is
estimate the anthropogenic effect of heavy metals on derived from non-natural processes or anthropogenic
estuarine and coastal waters. sources (Feng et al. 2004; Siddique et al. 2009; Zhang
These indicators provide simple ways to assess the et al. 2009). Han et al. (2006) defined the new ER
contamination status of surface sediments (Sinex and value classification as follows: EF≤2 indicates that
Helz 1981; Vallejuelo et al. 2010; Zhang et al. 2007). metal contamination might be entirely from natural
EF is estimated based on total resistant elements, such sources, an EF value of 2–5 indicates that a moderate
as Al, Li, Fe, Rb, Sc and Cs (Balls et al. 1997; Odabasi portion of heavy metals originated from an anthropo-
et al. 2002; Rubio et al. 2000). genic source or non-natural process, an EF of 5–20
In recent decades, Al and Fe were widely used as indicates that a significant portion are from anthropo-
normalising element to estimate the EF (Ackermann et genic sources, an EF of 20 to 40 indicates that a high
al. 1983; Loring et al. 1995; Rubio et al. 2000). portion of contamination is derived from anthropogen-
Several comparative arguments exist on the use of Al ic sources, and an EF>40 indicates an extremely high
or Fe as normalising elements. Some studies have portion of contamination. In this research, the average
selected Fe as the normalising element because Fe concentration of heavy metals from 1996 to 2007 is
1476, Page 6 of 18
used to estimate the background value from Hakanson
(1980). The geo-accumulation index (Igeo) introduced
by Muller (1979) is used to better understand the
degree of contamination in surface sediments, and
these results reflect the effect of lithogenic sources
(Nobi et al. 2010; Sinex and Helz 1981; Singh et al.
2003; Vallejuelo et al. 2010).
Igeo ¼ Log2ðCn=1:5BnÞ ð2Þ
Where Cn is heavy metal concentration in sediment
of study area, Bn is the geochemical background value;
1.5 is the background matrix correction in factor due to
lithogenic effects. The contamination level was classified
in six scales: Igeo≤0=unpolluted, Igeo<1=unpolluted
to moderately polluted, Igeo<2=moderately polluted,
Igeo<3=moderately to strongly polluted, Igeo<4=
strongly polluted, and Igeo<5=strongly to very strongly
polluted. Igeo>5=very strongly polluted (Leorri et al.
2008; Loska et al. 1997).
2.4 Sediment Quality Assessment
There are several methods to assess sediment quality
and describe the contamination adverse effects. These
include contamination using indexes (comparison be-
tween polluted station and background level or polluted
stations), such as the EF and geo-accumulation, and the
SQGs that are applied to assess toxicity risk (Caeiro et
al. 2005). This method indicates that the relationship
between the concentrations of contaminants in sediment
samples and adverse biological effects is based on the
specific values of effect range low (TEL) and effect
range medium (PEL). The TEL value has been estimat-
ed as the concentration of contaminants with a relatively
low effect on biological communities, and PEL is a
concentration of contaminants with high adverse effects.
Occasional adverse effects are expected to occur from
metal concentrations between TEL and PEL (Hübner et
al. 2009; Long et al. 1995; Long and Morgan 1990). The
possible toxicity concerning metals was described by
PEL quotients (PELqs). The PELq factor is the average
of the ratios between the heavy metal concentration in
the sediment sample and the related PEL value (Alvarez
Guerra et al. 2007; Leorri et al. 2008). This factor de-
scribes the sediment contamination range as non-toxic
(PELq<0.1), slightly toxic (0.1<PELq>0.5), moderate-
ly toxic (0.5<PELq>1.5) and heavily toxic (PELq>1.5)
(Vallejuelo et al. 2010)
Water Air Soil Pollut (2013) 224:1476
2.5 Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using Microsoft
Excel and SPSS 17 software (SPSS, Chicago, IL). To
statistically evaluate the data, Kendall’s tau-b correla-
tion analysis and the Kruskal–Wallis test (level of
significant is 0.05) were employed to understand the
relationship between heavy metals in sediment and
other parameters. Geo-statistical analysis was
performed using Surfer 8 software (GPS value of
stations) based on geospatial methods to better under-
stand contaminant pathways and to provide a compre-
hensive contour map of the spatial distribution of
contaminants over a large area (Cressie 1990; Sparks
2000)
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Variation in the Concentration of Surface Sediment
Components
Analysis of sediment grain size demonstrated that
fine-grained sediments predominated in almost all sta-
tions (41.1–95.39 %) (Fig. 2). The highest amount of
fine fractions were found in stations close to the man-
grove shore and mouth of the Klang River, whereas
the highest portion of the sand fraction occurred in
stations C500 (54.03) and L500 (58.89). Grain size
variation is controlled by several factors in marine
environments, including sedimentary processes, sedi-
ment transportation and distance from material sources
(He et al. 2009; Qin et al. 1989). The area of fine
sediment along the mangrove shoreline reflected the
Fig. 2 Percentage contribution of different sized fractions in
sediments at stations in Port Klang, Malaysia
Water Air Soil Pollut (2013) 224:1476 Page 7 of 18, 1476

effect of mangrove forest on increasing the sedimen-
tary processes. The mangrove forest acts as a sediment
trap and provides a mechanism to sink suspended
solids by decreasing the hydrodynamic energy (tidal
current and baroclinic circulation), which provides
time for the sinking and re-deposition of fine grain
sizes (Woodroffe 1992; Wolanski et al. 1992;
Furukawa et al. 1997; Kathiresan 2003; Cunha-
Lignon et al. 2009). Moreover, fine grain size sedi-
ments along the mangrove line were likely transported
by land-based runoff. Other stations with a high per-
centage of fine grain sizes were close to the Klang
River in the South Port, which indicates the effect of
the river transport. Klang River contributed signifi-
cantly to the distribution of sediment particles, and
the weak hydrodynamic energy increased the sedi-
mentation rate of fine grain size sediment.
Sediment grain size plays a significant role in the
concentration and distribution of heavy metals in coastal
and estuarine sediment. The concentration of heavy
metals is widely enriched in fine particles compared with
sand size particles because fine-grained sediment signif-
icantly adsorbs heavy metals from water for deposition
in the bottom sediment. In addition, the fine fraction also
has a high capacity to retain heavy metals compared to
other fractions (Abrahim et al. 2007; Nobi et al. 2010; He
et al. 2009; Lim et al. 2006). Thus, this fine fraction is
frequently used to assess contaminant variation and for
toxicity tests in environmental research. In the present
study, some metals and TOC exhibited a positive
correlation (0.4<r, p<0.01) with fine particles, e.g., Al
(r=0.541), Cd (0.406), Cu (0.447), Fe (0.418), Ni
(0.432), V (0.411), Zn (0.493), and TOC (0.716)
(Table 3).
The TOC content of sediment samples were esti-
mated at 21 stations and these results are summarised
in Table 4. The TOC varied between 5.35–24.88 and
was synchronous with fine grain size sediment in most
parts of the study areas, with the peak value at the
south port around the mouth of Klang River and lower
concentrations at stations C500 and L500. Generally,
the fine grain sized sediment, specifically the clay
colloid, exhibits a significant trend for adsorbing
TOC, and the concentration increases as the average
grain size decreases (He et al. 2009). Some heavy
metals showed positive correlations with TOC, such
as Al (r=0.582), Cd (0.504), Cu (0.557), Fe (0.438),
Ni (0.404), V (0.462) and Zn (0.406) (Table 3). TOC,
such as humic material, has a high adsorption and
complex influence on the re-deposition of heavy
metals. Furthermore, anthropogenic heavy metals are
widely absorbed on the surface or combined with TOC
in suspended solids and deposited on bottom sedi-
ments (Zhang et al. 1996; Chapman 1992).
Variations in the heavy metal concentrations on
surface sediments were classified into four box–whis-
ker plots (Fig. 3), while the range of values are listed
in Table 4. These results showed that the concentration
of all metals (except for Cu, Ni and Fe) varied widely
at each station.

Table 3 Correlation coefficient between heavy metals, TOC and fine particular size fraction

Al As Cd Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb V Zn Fine fraction TOC

Al 1.00
As 0.26 1.00
Cd 0.38 0.32 1.00
Cr 0.37 0.27 0.26 1.00
Cu 0.33 0.15 0.29 0.32 1.00
Fe 0.63 0.35 0.39 0.52 0.29 1.00
Mn 0.13 0.23 0.19 0.11 0.03 0.10 1.00
Ni 0.29 0.32 0.30 0.29 0.34 0.34 0.18 1.00
Pb 0.31 0.58 0.36 0.22 0.21 0.39 0.16 0.27 1.00
V 0.30 0.29 0.51 0.36 0.22 0.34 0.31 0.24 0.28 1.00
Zn 0.68 0.26 0.55 0.32 0.38 0.58 0.08 0.38 0.27 0.27 1.00
Fine fraction 0.54 0.37 0.40 0.28 0.44 0.41 0.10 0.43 0.20 0.41 0.49 1.00
TOC 0.58 0.36 0.50 0.25 0.55 0.43 0.11 0.40 0.23 0.46 0.40 0.71 1.00
1476, Page 8 of 18 Water Air Soil Pollut (2013) 224:1476

Table 4 Range of the metal concentration (in milligrammes per kilogramme dry weight, except Al and Fe as weight percentage) in
different stations

Site

POINT Al Fe Mn As Cu Cr Cd Pb Ni V Zn TOC

North N100 Minimum 8,546.83 4,183.00 195. 43.30 12.40 39.50 0.42 41.20 4.50 30.23 29.00 10.00
Port Maximum 18,983.4 6,480.00 286.0 109.2 23.80 53.87 1.10 92.67 17.60 70.30 77.00 15.58
N700 Minimum 6,740.43 2,380.00 137.0 36.40 10.34 27.00 0.22 31.30 4.16 22.34 26.60 7.09
Maximum 12,983.4 4,700.00 210.0 91.00 16.93 50.98 1.00 73.40 9.60 47.00 47.00 19.00
N1500 Minimum 12,597.9 4,672.00 245.0 42.00 14.20 37.90 0.50 47.60 6.23 40.40 30.50 14.00
Maximum 24,804.5 8,278.00 289.1 121.2 30.40 49.11 1.30 98.90 13.89 71.25 83.00 21.74
NC100 Minimum 11,303.5 4,000.00 230.0 22.30 12.80 28.90 0.51 42.57 8.45 30.09 23.45 8.03
Maximum 16,784.5 9,247.00 289.0 46.00 20.80 52.67 1.32 62.60 17.90 67.50 72.00 14.94
NC700 Minimum 10,024.4 2,760.00 177.1 21.00 10.34 20.34 0.35 31.85 4.43 27.12 26.00 7.75
Maximum 20,875.3 6,890.00 216.6 41.00 14.70 46.70 1.40 60.25 10.0 62.50 62.90 13.06
EC1500 Minimum 10,768.5 4,095.59 299.0 25.52 12.34 31.45 0.58 32.70 9.34 42.67 28.45 11.00
Maximum 23,923.3 8,081.00 352.0 76.70 24.89 45.87 1.32 68.93 14.90 73.90 73.80 19.34
West C100 Minimum 7,845.87 2,855.98 162.8 27.20 11.50 50.35 0.32 45.67 6.20 29.45 30.40 6.94
Port Maximum 12,584.4 6,298.00 289.7 47.60 24.26 66.98 1.20 64.90 14.30 69.34 70.50 13.38
C500 Minimum 7,401.68 5,135.00 96.80 24.50 8.60 31.60 0.40 35.70 6.45 49.10 20.40 5.35
Maximum 10,123.4 10,560.0 234.0 95.60 13.93 66.90 1.18 75.30 10.93 77.90 60.90 10.83
C1000 Minimum 9,684.34 3,400.00 244.7 40.27 10.21 33.46 0.42 43.03 7.20 33.40 22.34 9.36
Maximum 13,608.3 6,298.00 390.5 124.7 17.54 58.50 1.30 58.90 14.50 73.34 57.70 18.94
L100 Minimum 8,783.50 3,000.00 179.1 43.90 12.34 28.50 0.20 44.95 7.89 21.30 20.70 7.00
Maximum 12,808.4 6,382.12 325.6 125.0 16.78 48.90 0.40 67.20 17.80 62.00 51.40 11.54
L500 Minimum 7,103.68 3,150.00 128.6 29.30 10.20 22.00 0.16 41.56 8.70 16.30 18.90 5.98
Maximum 10,474.9 6,652.00 220.7 63.90 16.98 51.90 0.52 64.30 18.20 50.30 49.00 8.94
L1000 Minimum 10,804.6 4,016.00 142.0 38.63 11.40 38.80 0.14 46.80 10.30 30.67 21.98 10.17
Maximum 16,032.8 6,730.80 365.5 57.45 20.99 61.50 1.10 66.10 20.80 72.70 52.87 18.04
W100 Minimum 15,318.6 6,626.53 201.6 43.40 14.03 54.80 0.40 50.90 10.34 64.30 28.70 9.00
Maximum 23,830.4 10,660.0 342.7 134.2 21.80 66.17 1.60 104.87 19.40 130.00 73.60 12.0
W500 Minimum 8,087.30 4,001.00 174.0 43.78 10.34 33.56 0.21 36.60 6.12 26.50 17.00 6.00
Maximum 20,999.4 10,156.0 321.0 87.20 14.90 50.30 1.80 62.13 12.70 73.28 46.87 12.95
W1000 Minimum 12,102.6 4,000.00 280.2 54.23 11.50 40.90 0.50 62.23 10.34 31.30 21.40 12.00
Maximum 24,930.4 10,370.0 468.0 137.5 28.90 52.90 1.90 89.98 14.87 127.34 70.67 19.03
South SK100 Minimum 20,578.2 10,020.0 193.3 84.34 29.20 63.00 1.14 78.23 8.67 65.45 76.45 20.00
Port Maximum 42,586.5 17,569.0 282.0 142.3 57.01 83.20 1.94 97.80 23.50 127.20 192.90 25.74
SK1000 Minimum 20,478.4 10,002.0 181.0 78.45 25.03 57.34 0.96 60.34 8.74 63.23 74.34 19.00
Maximum 40,849.4 15,908.0 248.5 138.0 51.92 73.10 2.10 98.56 21.40 121.72 189.45 24.88
SK2000 Minimum 15,287.0 6,023.00 167.0 30.30 14.40 40.50 0.83 60.20 6.56 28.40 38.60 13.70
Maximum 22,287.3 11,023.0 238.0 54.60 19.45 53.70 1.10 91.30 12.40 52.40 69.60 17.60
SL100 Minimum 10,484.5 3,567.34 118.3 37.98 12.20 39.50 0.40 36.23 6.50 35.49 22.67 12.04
Maximum 20,776.4 9,292.00 208.0 112.2 18.45 78.81 1.45 66.09 17.50 72.10 70.80 16.16
SL1000 Minimum 11,103.4 4,604.32 128.4 40.31 14.50 41.59 0.54 54.56 8.50 35.74 28.85 8.36
Maximum 19,439.3 8,802.03 219.1 63.20 24.89 60.19 1.46 96.02 15.09 74.02 72.20 21.35
SL2000 Minimum 10,104.8 3,103.70 118.0 30.00 11.23 34.00 0.52 37.89 3.96 24.56 31.70 6.56
Maximum 21,056.4 6,241.00 209.0 57.60 19.30 48.00 0.73 68.30 10.30 46.30 61.80 14.70
Water Air Soil Pollut (2013) 224:1476
In this study, Klang Strait was divided into three
specific geochemical sites (North, West and South
Ports) to describe the distribution of metals and
TOC. At the North Port site, the mean value of the
metals (Cu, Mn, Pb, Cr, Ni, Cd, Zn, As, V, Al, Fe (in
microgrammes per gramme)) and TOC were 16.24,
241.37, 53.85, 39.67, 9.63, 0.82, 47.48, 55.41, 46.52,
13,312.05, 5,373.43 and 12.18 %, respectively. At
West Port, these values were 14.58, 256.2, 58.35,
47.39, 12.11, 0.71, 39.22, 60.70, 53.34, 12359.49,
5,993.85 and 10.46 %, respectively. At South Port,
these values were 23.6, 189.5, 67.89, 53.07, 12.53,
1.02, 74.37, 66.31, 57.03, 20,179.4, 8,730.9 and
16.4 %, respectively.
3.2 Spatial Distribution
Figure 4 shows the spatial distribution of heavy
metals, sediment grain size and TOC. The highest
Fig. 3 Box–whisker plots
of the heavy metal concen-
trations (in milligrammes
per kilogramme weight, ex-
cept Al and Fe as weight per
cent) in sediments in the
Klang Strait (the whisker
show the minimum and
maximum concentration,
and the line of each plot is
the median value)
Page 9 of 18, 1476
concentration of all metals (except for Mn), TOC
and fine grain sized sediment were observed in
South Port. Metal analysis showed that there was
considerable variation among the different stations,
which was evidenced by a non-parametric Kruskal–
Wallis test. This test indicates that there were signifi-
cant differences (p<0.05) between the heavy metal
concentrations at some stations. Furthermore, the spa-
tial distribution maps indicated this significant
variation. These results indicate that heavy metal con-
centrations in Klang Strait were affected by several
sources of contamination (Fig. 4).
Studies elsewhere indicate that several factors such
as erosion, sedimentation, sediment type, water dy-
namics, urbanisation, industrialisation, river discharge
and geochemical reactions affect the distribution and
constitution of heavy metals in coastal and estuarine
waters (Olubunmi and Olorunsola 2010; Pan and
Wang 2011; Nobi et al. 2010; Vallejuelo et al. 2010;
1476, Page 10 of 18 Water Air Soil Pollut (2013) 224:1476

Fig. 4 Spatial distribution of heavy metals, TOC and fine-grain-sized sediment in Port Klang, Malaysia (in milligrammes per
kilogramme dry weight, except Al and Fe as weight percentage)
Water Air Soil Pollut (2013) 224:1476
Fig. 4 (continued)
Zhang et al. 2009; Siddique et al. 2009; Naji et al.
2010).
At the South Port, the distribution of all metals, TOC
and silt-clay sediments exhibited a homogeneous pat-
tern that decreased from the north to south direction.
Page 11 of 18, 1476
Likewise, the highest concentrations of these com-
pounds were estimated at the SK100 and SK1000 sta-
tions, which are parallel to the mouth of the Klang River.
This study support the view that the Klang River may
be the main source of contamination and influence the
1476, Page 12 of 18
Fig. 5 Box–whisker plots of the EF of heavy metals in sedi-
ment (the whisker shows the minimum and maximum concen-
tration, and the line of each plot is the mean value)
concentration and distribution of metals and TOC be-
cause water and suspended solids were easily exchanged
between South port and the polluted Klang River. The
river contains industrial effluents and untreated munici-
pal waste (Naji et al. 2010; Balamurugan 1991;
Greenwood, Jr. 2007). The water currents in the vicinity
of South Port are weak; therefore, there is enough time
for the absorption of heavy metals by suspended solids
for deposition on surface sediments. Heavy metals are
not easily deposited in bottom sediments with strong
water currents (He et al. 2009). The fine particle size
dominant in the South Port zone could be due to Klang
River sedimentation and the weak water currents be-
cause fine-sized grains are more easily deposited in areas
with weak water currents (Qin et al. 1989).
According to the correlation analysis, there was no
correlation between Mn and other metals, and Mn
showed a different spatial distribution relative to the
Fig. 6 Box–whisker plots of the geo-accumulation indexes for
sediments in Port Klang where (the whisker shows the minimum
and maximum concentration, and the line of each plot is the
median value)
Water Air Soil Pollut (2013) 224:1476
other metals. These results are most likely due to the
low concentration of biogenic carbonates in South
Port sediments. Dissolved concentration of Mn con-
trols the absorption and substitution in calcite. Most
particulate Mn is easily bound to seawater carbonates
(Wartel et al. 1991; Wartel et al. 1990). Studies have
also reported a strong correlation between the concen-
tration of biogenic carbonates and Mn in coastal sed-
iments of Taiwan and the East China Sea (Fang and
Hong 1999; Fang et al. 2009).
In North Port, the distribution of As and Zn gener-
ally showed a same pattern that varied from a high to
low concentration from north to south. The high con-
centration of Cu, Pb and Cr also occurred in the east
and northwest direction. These areas are adjoining to
land runoff and industrial outlets, which can directly
release organic and inorganic pollutants.
The distribution of Al, Fe, Mn, Cd and V showed
the same pattern with fine particle sized sediments and
TOC distribution. The highest concentration occurred
in the western part of strait and along the mangrove
forest fringes, which was related to the higher concen-
tration of TOC and fine grain size in mangrove sedi-
ment. In this study, there was a positive correlation
(0.4<r; p<0.01) between fine particle size and the
following metals: Al (r = 0.541), Cd (0.406), Fe
(0.418), V (0.411), Cu (0.447) and TOC (0.716).
The distribution of Ni was unique because it was
high along the mangrove coastline and east direction
of North Port. Generally, the lowest concentration of
metals (except for Al and As) was found close to the
stations N700 and NC700 in North Port. This may be
due to the strong water currents which decrease the
chemical reactions (adsorption and complexation) be-
tween metals and sediments. Moreover, these stations
had substrates with a high percentage of sand grain
sized sediments compared with other stations.
At the West Port area, the spatial distributions of
As, Pb, V, Al, Fe, Zn, Cu and Ni were generally
homogenous with a low to a high concentration from
the north to the south. The high concentration of these
metals was determined around stations W100. This
distribution may be related to the large container ter-
minal (Table 1) and the inflow of land runoff in south
of West Port, which may have caused an increase in
the metal concentration. Moreover, Ni showed the
highest concentration around the L1000 and L500
stations. These stations were probably influenced by
both the sedimentation area (mangrove line) and the
Water Air Soil Pollut (2013) 224:1476 Page 13 of 18, 1476

Table 5 Comparison of heavy metals concentration in Klang Strait with background value, igneous and SQG

Concentration of heavy metal (mg/kg) Al Fe Mn As Cu Cr Cd Pb Ni V Zn

the average concentration of heavy metal in 14,724 6,547 231.43 60.36 17.43 46.4 0.82 59.45 11.44 52. 51.05
Klang Strait
Heavy metals Back ground value in Klang 85,100 41,922 349.18 18.79 23.21 53.71 0.18 39.8 32.77 71.59 141.22
Strait (Yap 2005)
Igneous rock (Bowen 1966) 82,000 56,300 950 1.8 55 100 0.2 12.5 75 135 70
SQG-based on Macdonald et al. (1996, 2000)
TEL 7.24 18.7 52 0.68 30.2 15.9 124
PEL 41.6 108 160 4.2 112 42.8 271

industrial waste from the industrial outlets that are
located along the coastline. The higher concentration
of Cr exhibited a higher trend to east of the strait
(along the coast line). The concentration of Cd, Mn,
TOC and fine-grain size decreased from the mangrove
line to the coastline, and this pattern was similar to the
distribution patterns at North Port.
As a result, the different distribution patterns
showed that multiple sources widely contributed to
the heavy metal load in the Klang Strait. These sources
include the large-scale inflow from the industries, such
as the palm oil, cement and food manufactures that are
located along the coastline of North and West Port,
vessel-based discharges, Klang River outflow, land
runoff, sedimentation and siltation.
In the general, significance correlation analysis re-
veal that TOC and fine grain size sediment had syn-
ergic effects on the distribution of heavy metals, that
is, the percentage of fine grain sized sediment and
TOC increased in tandem. This resulted in an increase
of some metal concentrations, especially in South
Port. TOC and fine-grain size are natural controls of
heavy metal accumulation in the study area.
3.3 Enrichment Factor and Geo-accumulation Index
(Igeo): Pollution Levels
The metal EF was also applied to evaluate the anthro-
pogenic contribution of heavy metals in surface sedi-
ments. In this study, heavy metals had different EF
ranges (Fig. 5). The EF value of Fe was lower than 2,
indicating that Fe may have entirely originated from
natural processes or crustal materials. The enrichment
value of Cu, Cr, Mn, Ni, V and Zn were between 2<
EF<5, indicating that the sediment of Klang Strait had
moderate anthropogenic inputs of these heavy metals.
There was significant enrichment of Pb, As and Cd in
sediments, which suggests that a high proportion of
these metals were from anthropogenic sources.
The geo-accumulation index was used to evaluate the
pollution levels of heavy metals on surface sediment
(Fig. 6). Most of the Igeo values for heavy metals were
not detectable except for except for Cd and As. Cd and
As exhibited moderately polluted levels with mean
values of 1.33±0.9 and 1.12±0.63, respectively.
According to background value concentrations,
these results showed that heavy metal contamination

Fig. 7 PELqs values for

sediment in Klang Strait.
PELq<0.1, non-toxic;
0.1<PELq<0.5, slightly
toxic; 0.5<PELq<1.5, mod-
erately toxic; and
PELq>1.5, highly toxic
1476, Page 14 of 18
in marine sediments of Klang Strait were attributed to
natural processes or mineralogical variation and hu-
man activities (anthropogenic). Furthermore, marine
sediments of Klang Strait were considered to be pol-
luted with Cd and As.
Cd and As originate mainly from industrial process-
es including mining, burning of fossil fuels, waste
recycling, cement manufacturing, as well as paper
and glass production (Fishbein 1981; Srikanth et al.
1993; Yasar et al. 2001; Jennings and Rainbow 1979;
Cossa et al. 2011; Pan and Wang 2011; Davis et al.
2009). There are several industries in Port Klang in-
volved in cement manufacturing, palm oil processing
and oil/electrical based power generation. Other
sources of Cd and As might be due to atmospheric
deposition, river inflows and terrestrial runoffs, which
are the main routes of metal release into marine envi-
ronments. Organic herbicides, insecticides (lead-
Arsenate), pesticides and fertilisers applied in agricul-
ture activities and industrial discharges are the land-
based anthropogenic sources of metals into rivers that
could pollute coastal and estuarine areas. The high
concentration of all heavy metals around the Klang
River mouth is consistent with observations that the
river is a main route of heavy metal release, especially
for Cd and As, in Klang Strait (Law and Singh 1986).
Moreover, the high concentration of Cd and As could
have originated from tsunami sediment deposition,
ship waste, embarkation activities and anticorrosive
paints used on marine vessels.
Fig. 8 Dendogram showing
the rescaled distance cluster
of different stations of Port
Klang
Water Air Soil Pollut (2013) 224:1476
3.4 Comparison with the SQG: Adverse Biological
Effect
In this study, the concentration of heavy metals were
compared with TEL and PEL values and the PELq
factor were used to estimate possible toxic effects of
heavy metals at different stations. PELq were not
estimated for Al, Fe, Mn, V and Co because these
metals generally do not have toxic effects on biolog-
ical communities in the environment (Vallejuelo et al.
2010; Hübner et al. 2009). Table 5 shows a compari-
son between the heavy metal concentrations in the
present study with background values in the Klang
Strait, indigenous rock and guideline values (TEL
and PEL). The mean concentrations for Zn, Ni, Cr
and Cu were below the TEL value which effects are
expected to be rare. Cd and Pb were found in the TEL
and PEL rang where occasional adverse effects are
expected. Only As exceeded the PEL value, indicating
likely high adverse effects for biological organisms. In
the present study, only estimated Cd, Pb and As con-
centrations are significantly greater than the back-
ground and igneous rock value, while other metals
were lower than these values. This study clearly in-
dicates that the metal concentration was influenced by
disturbances, which changed the associated geochem-
ical concentration ratios, and that the metal concentra-
tions increased from their standard range. The relative
concentration ratio of the metals exceeds standard
variation levels in the sediment when geochemical
Water Air Soil Pollut (2013) 224:1476
metal concentrations experience disturbances due to
environmental change (Praveena et al. 2008; Wang
and Qin 2006).
The variation in estimated PELq values is shown in
Fig. 7. Three sediment samples collected in SK100,
SK1000 (South port) and W100 (West Port) were con-
sidered to exhibit moderate toxic effects. The rest of the
sediment samples were considered to be slightly toxic.
The dendrogram results allow for a better understanding
of the similarity between sampling stations and metal
analyses (Fig. 8). The dendrogram grouped sampling
stations into three clusters based on possible toxicity
effects of heavy metals in sediment. The first and second
plot clusters (A and B) are in the same range of slightly
toxic effects (0.1<PELq<0.5). However, the average
toxicity effects of heavy metals in the N100, N1500
and W1000 stations in the second cluster (B) were more
than the stations in the first cluster (A). Second cluster
values were closer to 0.5 compared with the first cluster
because these stations were largely influenced by land-
based runoff and mangrove sedimentation. The third
cluster of the plot (C), which includes stations SK100,
SK1000 and W100, exhibited a similar toxicity effect
(moderately toxic). The average toxicity effect of the
third cluster exhibited significant differences with sta-
tions located in the other cluster. Stations SK100 and
SK1000 are close to the Klang River mouth in South
Port, whereas W100 was located near the West Port end
and is close to the container terminal.
Regarding to the dendrogram results, only sediment
from SK100, SK1000 and W100 can be considered to
be polluted. This is in good agreement with the idea
that the Port Klang area recovered sediment quality,
which was most likely due to wastewater management
regulations that were ratified in 1990 and 1997 to
control petrogenic and chemical contaminants in
Klang Strait. These regulations focused on strategies
that were based on international agreements to prevent
and control pollution from ships, platform draining
and industrial inputs (MARPOL 73/78 and OPRC
1990) (Yap 2005).
It is clear that these regulations have controlled
contamination to some extent but have not been ade-
quate for complete recovery from toxic metal contam-
ination, because the contamination levels of some very
toxic elements such as As and Cd were categorised as
moderately to highly polluting in most sediment sam-
ples. Thus, sediment from the most polluted stations
was a significant source of toxic metals. These stations
Page 15 of 18, 1476
are influenced by the Klang River runoff and the
terminal container, which may not be covered under
the protective regulations.
4 Conclusions
The spatial distribution maps and geo-statistical index
reveal that contamination of sediments is in a pristine
state, except for Cd and As. Furthermore, contamina-
tion assessment based on the SQGs shows that the
potential toxicity of all metals varied between rare
toxic effects to occasional toxic effects, except in the
case of As. This metal exhibited high toxic effects, and
the As concentration was significantly greater than
PEL and the background value. Therefore, arsenic
(As) can be considered as a serious threat to biological
communities and human health.
In addition, Regarding the sediment quality esti-
mates, only sediment from SK100, SK1000 and
W100 can be considered to be moderately polluted,
and other stations were classified at the slightly pollu-
tion level. Thus, sediments from the most polluted
stations were a significant source of toxic metals. In
summary, the present study has provides excellent
baseline data for the long-term monitoring of heavy
metal pollution in Klang Strait.
Acknowledgment The authors’ gratitude goes to support of
University Malaya Research Grant (UMRG) with project number
RG174-12SUS, HIR Grant ( UM.C/625/1/HIR/162) and Univer-
sity Malaya Postgraduate Research Grant (PPP).
References
Abrahim, G. M. S., Parker, R., & Nichol, S. (2007). Distribution
and assessment of sediment toxicity in Tamaki Estuary,
Auckland, New Zealand. Environmental Geology, 52(7),
1315–1323.
Ackermann, F., Bergmann, H., & Schleichert, U. (1983).
Monitoring of heavy metals in coastal and estuarine sedi-
ments—a question of grain-size: <20 m versus <60 m.
Environmental Technology, 4(7), 317–328.
Alvarez Guerra, M., Viguri, J. R., Casado Martínez, M. C., &
DelValls, T. Á. (2007). Sediment quality assessment and
dredged material management in Spain: part I, application
of sediment quality guidelines in the Bay of Santander.
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management,
3(4), 529–538.
Amiard, J., Amiard-Triquet, C., Berthet, B., & Metayer, C. (1987).
Comparative study of the patterns of bioaccumulation of
1476, Page 16 of 18
essential (Cu, Zn) and non-essential (Cd, Pb) trace metals in
various estuarine and coastal organisms. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 106(1), 73–89.
Balamurugan, G. (1991). Tin mining and sediment supply in
Peninsular Malaysia with special reference to the Kelang
River basin. The Environmentalist, 11(4), 281–291.
Balls, P., Hull, S., Miller, B., Pirie, J., & Proctor, W. (1997).
Trace metal in Scottish estuarine and coastal sediments.
Marine Pollution Bulletin, 34(1), 42–50.
Barka, S., Pavillon, J. F., & Amiard, J. C. (2001). Influence of
different essential and non-essential metals on MTLP
levels in the copepod Tigriopus brevicornis. Comparative
Biochemistry and Physiology Part C: Toxicology &
Pharmacology, 128(4), 479–493.
Bowen, F. E. (1966). The Parahaki Volcanic Group and its
associated clays. New Zealand Geological Survey Report,
6, 72.
Caeiro, S., Costa, M., Ramos, T., & Fernandes, F. (2005).
Assessing heavy metal contamination in Sado Estuary sed-
iment: an index analysis approach. Ecological Indicators, 5
(2), 151–169.
Chapman, D. (1992). Water quantity assessment (pp. 121–134).
London: Chapman & Hall.
Chon, H. S., Ohandja, D. G., & Voulvoulis, N. (2010).
Implementation of EU Water Framework Directive: source
assessment of metallic substances at catchment levels.
Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 12(1), 36–47.
Chong, V. C., Sasekumar, A., Leh, T., & D’Cruz, R. (1990). The
fish and prawn communities of a Malaysian coastal man-
grove system. With comparisons to adjacent mudflats and
inshore waters. Est Coasta Shelf Science, 31, 703–722.
Cossa, D., Radakovitch, O., Bouloubassi, I., Bancon-Montigny,
C., Cadiou, J., Charmasson, S., et al. (2011). Marine eco-
systems responses to climatic and anthropogenic forcings
in the Mediterranean. Progress in Oceanography, 91, 97–
166.
Cressie, N. (1990). The origins of kriging. Mathematical
Geology, 22(3), 239–252.
Cunha-Lignon, M., Coelho-Jr, C., Almeida, R., Menghini, R.,
Correa, F., Schaeffer-Novelli, Y., et al. (2009). Mangrove
forests and sedimentary processes on the south coast of São
Paulo State (Brazil). Journal of Coastal Research, Special
Issue, 56, 405–409.
Daskalakis, K. D., & O’Connor, T. P. (1995). Normalization and
elemental sediment contamination in the coastal United
States. Environmental Science & Technology, 29(2), 470–
477.
Davis, H. T., Marjorie Aelion, C., McDermott, S., & Lawson, A.
B. (2009). Identifying natural and anthropogenic sources of
metals in urban and rural soils using GIS-based data, PCA,
and spatial interpolation. Environmental Pollution, 157(8–
9), 2378–2385.
Din, Z. B. (1992). Use of aluminium to normalize heavy-metal
data from estuarine and coastal sediments of Straits of
Melaka. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 24(10), 484–491.
EPA (1996). EPA method 3052: microwave assisted acid, di-
gestion of siliceous and organically based matrices. Report
number SW-846, Chapter 3.2.
Everaart, J. M., & Swennen, C. (1987). Heavy metal (Zn, Cu,
Cd, Pb) in some benthic invertebrate species and in
Water Air Soil Pollut (2013) 224:1476
sediment from three coastal areas in Thailand and
Malaysia. Journal of the Science Society of Thailand, 13,
189–203.
Fang, T. H., & Hong, E. (1999). Mechanisms influencing the
spatial distribution of trace metals in surficial sediments off
the south-western Taiwan. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 38
(11), 1026–1037.
Fang, T. H., Feng, H. M., & Chen, H. Y. (2009). Distribution
and contamination of trace metals in surface sediments of
the East China Sea. Marine Environmental Research, 68
(4), 178–187.
Feng, H., Han, X., Zhang, W., & Yu, L. (2004). A preliminary
study of heavy metal contamination in Yangtze River in-
tertidal zone due to urbanization. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 49(11–12), 910–915.
Fishbein, L. (1981). Sources, transport and alterations of metal
compounds: an overview. I. Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, and nickel. Environmental Health Perspectives,
40, 43.
Furukawa, K., Wolanski, E., & Mueller, H. (1997). Currents and
sediment transport in mangrove forests. Estuarine, Coastal
and Shelf Science, 44(3), 301–310.
Goldberg, E. D., Grin, J., Hodge, V., Koide, M., & Windom,
H. (1979). Pollution history of the Savannah River
estuary. Environmental Science and Technology, 13,
588–594.
Greenwood, Jr., C. L. (2007). Malaysia: Klang River Basin
Environmental Improvement and Flood Mitigation
Project. Project Number: 26009 (54 pp).
Hakanson, L. (1980). An ecological risk index for aquatic
pollution control. A sedimentological approach. Water
Research, 14(8), 975–1001.
Han, F. X., Su, Y., Monts, D. L., Waggoner, C. A., & Plodinec,
M. J. (2006). Binding, distribution, and plant uptake of
mercury in a soil from Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.
Science of the Total Environment, 368, 753–768.
Hanna, L. A., Peters, J. M., Wiley, L. M., Clegg, M. S., & Keen,
C. L. (1997). Comparative effects of essential and nones-
sential metals on preimplantation mouse embryo develop-
ment in vitro* 1. Toxicology, 116(1–3), 123–131.
Hardman, R. (2006). A toxicologic review of quantum dots:
toxicity depends on physicochemical and environmental
factors. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(2), 165.
He, Z., Song, J., Zhang, N., Zhang, P., & Xu, Y. (2009).
Variation characteristics and ecological risk of heavy
metals in the south Yellow Sea surface sediments.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 157(1), 515–
528.
Ho, C.Y., Tahir, N.M., & Tong, S.L. (1993). Distribution and
transport of Ba, Mn, Cu and Ni in Klang River and coastal
water. In Fifth Asian Chemical Congress, Kuala Lumpur,
8–11 November.
Hübner, R., Astin, K. B., & Herbert, R. J. H. (2009).
Comparison of sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) for
the assessment of metal contamination in marine and estu-
arine environments. Journal of Environmental Monitoring,
11(4), 713–722.
IDEM (2002). Quality assurance manual (vol. 91, pp. 20–29):
Indiana waste water laboratories. Available at:
www.in.gov/idem/water_comp_qaqclabs.doc.
Water Air Soil Pollut (2013) 224:1476
Ilander, A., & Väisänen, A. (2007). An ultrasound-assisted
digestion method for the determination of toxic element
concentrations in ash samples by inductively coupled plas-
ma optical emission spectrometry. Analytica Chimica Acta,
602(2), 195–201.
Jennings, J., & Rainbow, P. (1979). Studies on the uptake of
cadmium by the crab Carcinus maenas in the laboratory. I.
Accumulation from seawater and a food source. Marine
Biology, 50(2), 131–139.
Karbassi, A. R., Saeedi, M., & Amirnejad, R. (2008). Historical
changes of heavy metals content and sequential extraction
in a sediment core from the Gorgan Bay, Southeastern
Caspian Sea. Indian Journal of Marine Sciences, 37(3),
267–272.
Kathiresan, K. (2003). How do mangrove forests induce sedi-
mentation. Revista de Biologia Tropical, 51(2), 355–360.
Kersten, M., Balls, P., van Enk, R., Green, N., Kramer, K.,
Kriews, M., et al. (1994). Background concentrations for
metals in the North Sea: sediment, water, mussels and
atmosphere. Circulation and Contaminant Fluxes in the
North Sea, 290–316
Kishe, M. A., & Machiwa, J. F. (2003). Distribution of heavy
metals in sediment of Mwanza Gulf of Lake Victoria,
Tanzania. Environmental International, 28, 619–925.
Law, A., & Singh, G. (1986). Distribution of manganese, iron,
copper, lead and zinc in water and sediment of Kelang
estuary. Pertanika, 9(2), 209–217.
Lehr, J., & Keeley, J. (2005). Encyclopedia: Oceanography;
meteorology; physics and chemistry water law; and water
history, art and culture. New York: Wiley.
Leorri, E., Cearreta, A., Irabien, M., & Yusta, I. (2008).
Geochemical and microfaunal proxies to assess environ-
mental quality conditions during the recovery process of a
heavily polluted estuary: the Bilbao estuary case (N.
Spain). Science of the Total Environment, 396(1), 12–27.
Lim, D., Jung, H., Choi, J., Yang, S., & Ahn, K. (2006).
Geochemical compositions of river and shelf sediments in
the Yellow Sea: grain-size normalization and sediment
provenance. Continental Shelf Research, 26(1), 15–24.
Long, E.R., & Morgan, L.G. (1990). The potential for biological
effects of sediments-sorbed contaminants tested in the na-
tional status and trends program. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Seattle: National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration
Long, E. R., MacDonald, D. D., Smith, S. L., & Calder, F. D.
(1995). Incidence of adverse biological effects within
ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine
sediments. Environmental Management, 19(1), 81–97.
Loring, D., Naes, K., Dahle, S., Matishov, G., & Illin, G. (1995).
Arsenic, trace metals, and organic micro contaminants in
sediments from the Pechora Sea, Russia. Marine Geology,
128(3–4), 153–167.
Loska, K., Cebula, J., Pelczar, J., Wiechu, A. D., &
Kwapuli ski, J. (1997). Use of enrichment, and con-
tamination factors together with geoaccumulation in-
dexes to evaluate the content of Cd, Cu, and Ni in
the Rybnik water reservoir in Poland. Water, Air, and
Soil Pollution, 93(1), 347–365.
Macdonald, D. D., Carr, R. S., Calder, F. D., Long, E. R., &
Ingersoll, C. G. (1996). Development and evaluation of
Page 17 of 18, 1476
sediment quality guidelines for Florida coastal waters.
Ecotoxicology, 5(4), 253–278.
MacDonald, D. D., Ingersoll, C., & Berger, T. (2000).
Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment
quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 39(1), 20–31.
Marchand, C., Lallier-Vergès, E., Baltzer, F., Albéric, P., Cossa,
D., & Baillif, P. (2006). Heavy metals distribution in man-
grove sediments along the mobile coastline of French
Guiana. Marine Chemistry, 98(1), 1–17.
Morton, B., & Blackmore, G. (2001). South China Sea. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 42, 1236–1263.
Muhammad, B.G., Jaafar, M.S., Abdul Rahman, A., & Ingawa,
F.A. (2000). Determination of radioactive elements and heav-
y metals in sediments and soil from domestic water sources in
northern peninsular Malaysia. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment, 1–7. doi: 10.1007/s10661-011-2320-3
Muller, G. (1979). Schwermetalle in den sedimenten des
Rheins-VeraÈnderungenseit. Umschau 79:778–783. In C.
Green-Ruiz, & F. PaÂez-Osuna, (Eds.). Heavy metal
anomalies in Lagoon sediments related to Intensive
Agriculture in Altata-Ensenada del PabelloÂn coastal sys-
tem (SE Gulf of California). Environment International,
26, 265–273.
Naji, A., Ismail, A., & Ismail, A. R. (2010). Chemical speciation
and contamination assessment of Zn and Cd by sequential
extraction in surface sediment of Klang River, Malaysia.
Microchemical Journal, 95(2), 285–292.
Nobi, E., Dilipan, E., Thangaradjou, T., Sivakumar, K., &
Kannan, L. (2010). Geochemical and geo-statistical assess-
ment of heavy metal concentration in the sediments of
different coastal ecosystems of Andaman Islands, India.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 87(2), 253–264.
Odabasi, M., Muezzinoglu, A., & Bozlaker, A. (2002). Ambient
concentrations and dry deposition fluxes of trace elements
in Izmir, Turkey. Atmospheric Environment, 36(38), 5841–
5851.
Olubunmi, F. E., & Olorunsola, E. O. (2010). Evalution of the
Status of Heavy Metals Pollution of Sediment of Agbabu
Bitumen Deposit Area, Nigeria. European Journal of
Scientific Research, 41(3), 373–382.
Pan, K., & Wang, W.X. (2011). Trace metal contamination in
estuarine and coastal environments in China. Science of the
Total Environment, 421–422, 3–16.
Phillips, D., & Rainbow, P. (1993). Biomonitoring of aquatic trace
contaminants (pp. 76–132). London: Chapman & Hall.
Praveena, S. M., Ahmed, A., Radojevic, M., Abdullah, M. H., &
Aris, A. Z. (2008). Heavy metals in mangrove surface
sediment of Mengkabong Lagoon, Sabah: multivariate
and geo-accumulation index approaches. International
Journal of Environmental Research, 2(2), 139–148.
Praveena, S. M., Radojevic, M., Abdullah, M. H., & Aris, A. Z.
(2008). Application of sediment quality guidelines in the
assessment of mangrove surface sediment in Mengkabong
lagoon, Sabah, Malaysia. Iranian Journal of Environmental
Health Science & Engineering, 5(1).
Qin, Y.S., Zhao, Y.Y., & Chen, L.R. (1989). The geography
southern yellow sea. Beijing Marine, 20–28.
Rai, L. C., Gaur, N. J., & Rumar, H. D. (1981). Phycology and
heavy metals pollution. Biological Reviews, 56, 99–151.
1476, Page 18 of 18
Rauret, G. (1998). Extraction procedures for the determination
of heavy metals in contaminated soil and sediment.
Talanta, 46(3), 449–455.
Ravichandran, M., Baskaran, M., Santschi, P. H., & Bianchi, T.
S. (1995). History of trace metal pollution in Sabine-
Neches estuary, Beaumont, Texas. Environmental Science
& Technology, 29(6), 1495–1503.
Rezayi, M., Ahmadzadeh, S., Kassim, A., & Heng, L. Y. (2011).
Thermodynamic studies of complex formation between Co
(SALEN) ionophore with chromate (II) ions in AN-H2O bina-
ry solutions by the conductometric method. International
Journal of Electrochemical Science, 6, 6350–6359.
Rezayi, M., Lee, Y. H., Kassim, A., Ahmadzadeh, S., Abdollahi,
Y., & Jahangirian, H. (2012). Immobilization of tris(2
pyridyl) methylamine in PVC-membrane sensor and charac-
terization of the membrane properties. Chem Cent J, 6(1), 40.
Rubio, B., Nombela, M., & Vilas, F. (2000). Geochemistry of
major and trace elements in sediments of the Ria de Vigo
(NW Spain): an assessment of metal pollution* 1. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 40(11), 968–980.
Rule, J. H. (1986). Assessment of trace element geochemistry of
Hampton Roads Harbor and lower Chesapeake Bay area
sediments. Environmental Geology, 8(4), 209–219.
Schiff, K., & Weisberg, S. (1999). Iron as a reference element
for determining trace metal enrichment in Southern
California coastal shelf sediments. Marine Environmental
Research, 48(2), 161–176.
Siddique, A., Mumtaz, M., Zaigham, N. A., Mallick, K. A.,
Saied, S., Zahir, E., et al. (2009). Heavy metal toxicity
levels in the coastal sediments of the Arabian Sea along
the urban Karachi (Pakistan) region. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 58(9), 1406–1414.
Sinex, S., & Helz, G. (1981). Regional geochemistry of trace
elements in Chesapeake Bay sediments. Environmental
Geology, 3(6), 315–323.
Singh, A. K., Hasnain, S. I., & Banerjee, D. K. (2003). Grain
Size and geochemical portioning of heavy metals in sedi-
ments of the Damodar River—a tributary of the Lower
Ganga, India. Environmental Geology, 39, 90–98.
Sparks, T. (2000). Statistics in ecotoxicology (pp. 247–278).
Chichester: Wiley.
Srikanth, R., Rao, A. M., Kumar, C. H. S., & Khanum, A.
(1993). Lead, cadmium, nickel, and zinc contamination of
ground water around Hussain Sagar Lake, Hyderabad,
India. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology, 50(1), 138–143.
Süren, E., Yilmaz, S., Türkoglu, M., & Kaya, S. (2007).
Concentrations of cadmium and lead heavy metals in
Dardanelles seawater. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, 125(1), 91–98. doi:10.1007/s10661-006-9242-5.
Tavakoly Sany, S. B., Salleh, A., Sulaiman, A. H., Sasekumar,
A., Rezayi, M., Monazami Tehrani, Gh. (2012). Heavy
metal contamination in water and sediment of the Port
Klang coastal area, Selangor, Malaysia. Environmental
Earth Science, doi:10.1007/s12665-012-2038-8.
Tessier, A., Campbell, P. G. C., & Bisson, M. (1979). Sequential
extraction procedure for the speciation of particulate trace
metals. Analytical Chemistry, 51(7), 844–851.
Water Air Soil Pollut (2013) 224:1476
Vallejuelo, S. F.-O., d Arana, G., Diege, A. D., & Madariaga, J. M.
(2010). Risk assessment of trace elements in sediments: the
case of the estuary of the Nerbioi–Ibaizabal River (Basque
Country). Journal of Hazardous Materials, 181, 565–573.
Wang, Q. (2009). China cracks down on heavy metal pollution.
China Daily. Available at: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/
china/2010-04/10/content_9711092.htm2009
Wang, X., & Qin, Y. (2006). Spatial distribution of metals in
urban topsoils of Xuzhou (China): controlling factors and
environmental implications. Environmental Geology, 49
(6), 905–914.
Wang, W. X., Yan, Q. L., Fan, W., & Xu, Y. (2002).
Bioavailability of sedimentary metals from a contaminated
bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 240, 27–38.
Wartel, M., Skiker, M., Auger, Y., & Boughriet, A. (1990).
Interaction of manganese (II) with carbonates in seawater:
assessment of the solubility product of MnCO3 and Mn
distribution coefficient between the liquid phase and
CaCO3 particles. Marine Chemistry, 29, 99–117.
Wartel, M., Skiker, M., Auger, Y., Boughriet, A., Puskaric, E., &
Guegueniat, P. (1991). Seasonal variation of Mn2+ adsorp-
tion on to calcareous surfaces in the English Channel, and
its implication on the manganese distribution coefficient.
Marine Chemistry, 36(1–4), 85–105.
Willie, E., & May, C. (2002). Certified of analysis standard
reference materials 2702 (SRM) 2702 inorganic in marine
sediment. Chemistry Division of National Institute of
Standards and Technology of United State of America
Wolanski, E., Mazda, Y., & Ridd, P. (1992). Mangrove hydro-
dynamics. Tropical mangrove ecosystems, 43–62.
Woodroffe, C. (1992). Mangrove sediments and geomorpholo-
gy. Tropical mangrove ecosystems, 7–42.
Yap, S. Y. (2005). Pollution. In A. Sasekumar & V. C. Chong
(Eds.), Ecology of Klang Strait (pp. 225–235). Kuala
Lumpur: Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, 50603.
Yasar, D., Aksu, A., & Uslu, O. (2001). Anthropogenic pollu-
tion in Izmit Bay: heavy metal concentrations in surface
sediments. Turkish Iournal of Engineering and
Environmental Sciences, 25, 299–313.
Zhang, J., & Liu, C. (2002). Riverine composition and estuarine
geochemistry of particulate metals in China—weathering
features, anthropogenic impact and chemical fluxes.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 54(6), 1051–1070.
Zhang, J., He, S., & Zhang, S. (1996). Study of water environ-
mental chemistry (pp. 247–259). Beijing: China
Environment Science Press.
Zhang, L., Ye, X., Feng, H., Jing, Y., Ouyang, T., Yu, X., et al.
(2007). Heavy metal contamination in western Xiamen
Bay sediments and its vicinity, China. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 54(7), 974–982.
Zhang, W., Feng, H., Chang, J., Qu, J., Xie, H., & Yu, L. (2009).
Heavy metal contamination in surface sediments of
Yangtze River intertidal zone: an assessment from different
indexes. Environmental Pollution, 157(5), 1533–1543.
Zwolsman, J., van Eck, G. T. M., & Burger, G. (1996). Spatial
and temporal distribution of trace metals in sediments from
the Scheldt estuary, south-west Netherlands. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science, 43(1), 55–79.