Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:411
DOI 10.1007/s12665-015-5151-7
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Distribution, correlation, ecological and health risk assessment
of heavy metal contamination in surface soils around an industrial
area, Hyderabad, India
A. Keshav Krishna1 • K. Rama Mohan1
Received: 8 July 2014 / Accepted: 13 October 2015
Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016
Abstract In recent years, much concern has been
addressed over the soil contamination with heavy metals
due to rapid industrialization and urbanization. The present
study was conducted to investigate distribution of poten-
tially hazardous elements (PHEs) (As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and
Zn) concentration in soils of Kazipalli, Hyderabad, India.
Soil samples from fifty-seven (57) sampling sites were
collected from in and around industrial zone and were
analysed for their heavy metal contents. Concentrations
ranged from 4.4 to 796.3 mg/kg for As, 9.7 to 598.6 mg/kg
for Cr, 7.9 to 183.5 mg/kg for Cu, 10.2 to 129.6 mg/kg for
Ni, 25.3 to 1830 mg/kg for Pb and 23.8 to 879 mg/kg for
Zn. Application of Pearson’s correlation, factor and cluster
analysis indicates that heavy metal contamination in soils
originates from industrial activities which are of anthro-
pogenic origin. Contamination of soils in the study area
was further classified for geoaccumulation index, enrich-
ment factor, contamination factor and contamination
degree. The values of pollution index and integrated pol-
lution index indicated that metal pollution levels were in
order of As [ Pb [ Cu [ Cr [ Zn [ Ni. Potential eco-
logical risk indices (PERI, RI) and health risk assessment
based on Hazard Quotient, Hazard index and on Average
daily doses of individual elements were calculated using
exposure parameters for resident population and references
from integrated database of USEPA. These results are
important for the development of proper management
& A. Keshav Krishna
keshav_aradhi@rediffmail.com; keshav_krishna@ngri.res.in
1 contaminants resulting from both natural and anthro-
CSIR-National Geophysical Research Institute (Council of
Scientific & Industrial Research), Habsiguda,
Hyderabad 500 007, India
strategies to decrease point and non-point source of pol-
lution by studying different remediation methods.
Keywords Heavy metal contamination  Soil  Health
risk assessment  Factor and cluster analysis  Correlation 
Pollution index
Introduction
In many industrialized countries heavy metal contamina-
tion in soils has become a serious and environmental issue
in different parts of the world (Gasparatos 2013). This is
especially the case in regions with high population density,
modernization of industry and the presence of intensive
human activities in urban areas have exacerbated the
problem of heavy metal contamination in industrial soils
(Massas et al. 2013; Chen et al. 2005; Van Straalen 2002).
Soil is the pre-eminent source of most biologically active
trace elements such as Pb, Cd, Cr, Ni and Zn that reach
man through plants and animals. Further, the trace element
content of soil depends on the nature of its parent rocks and
also the amount of industrial wastes and fertilizer impuri-
ties entering the soil. Although fewer than 20 trace ele-
ments are required for the health growth of plants and
animals, the excess of these PHEs, nowadays throughout
the world have been taken into consideration due to their
toxic effects even at low concentrations. Considering these
facts, this paper emphasized the heavy metals considered as
potential contaminants in the environment and excessive
amounts of them which enter into food source can cause
problem for human health. Among the most significant soil
pogenic sources, heavy metals are of most importance due
to their long-term toxicity effect. Addition of metals which
123
411 Page 2 of 17
are anthropogenic in nature is much greater than contri-
bution of metals from natural sources. This activity of
increase in metal content in soils is generally observed in
areas of intense industrial activity (Nriagu 1979; Yaylahi
and Abanuz 2011). Moreover, the long-term input of
metals could result in decreased buffering capacity of soil
and groundwater contamination (Ljung et al. 2006).
Heavy metals do not vanish in time as organic materials,
although at certain levels they are essential for leaving,
they show toxic effect if they exceed the limit values.
Health risk assessment has assumed a central role in the
characterisation and remediation of contaminated sites with
the introduction of the new environmental code (D.L.152/
2006). Risk evaluation is a complex task with an assump-
tion and probability to estimate that the population and the
surrounding environment, exposed to the pollution from
the site will be harmful. The heavy metals owing to their
toxicity, persistence and bio-accumulative nature in envi-
ronment are considered to be as severe pollutants. Some of
heavy metals like copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) are essentially
required for normal body growth and functions of living
organisms, while high concentrations of metals like chro-
mium (Cr), arsenic (As) and lead (Pb) are considered
highly toxic for human aquatic life (Ouyang et al. 2002).
A specific amount of Cr is needed for normal body
functions, while its high concentrations may cause toxicity
problems like liver and kidney failure. Similarly high
concentrations of Cu may cause mental diseases such as
Alzheimer’s and Manganism. Zinc deficiency can lead to
poor wound healing, reduced work capacity of respiratory
muscles, immune dysfunction, anorexia and depression.
While Zn toxicity causes siderplastic anaemia, lead (Pb) is
also a highly toxic and carcinogenic metal and may cause
chronic health risks, including headache, irritability,
abdominal pain, nerve damage, kidney damage, and lung
cancer. Further, exposure of humans to high levels of risk
elements through their contact with contaminated soils can
lead to serious chronic even carcinogenic diseases (Coskun
et al. 2006). Thus, the estimation of health risk is a very
important and useful tool in view of human health espe-
cially, from contaminated environment like in industrial
zone. In addition, it provides basic presumption for iden-
tification of remediation measurements in reduction of
negative impacts of health.
Kazipalli is one such region, highly contaminated
industrial zone identified by Central Pollution Control
Board (CPCB), Delhi, India. Due to vast industrialization
in Kazipalli and the unrestrained disposal of factory
effluents and waste to soil or waters and their transport by
air, it is thought that heavy metal contents of soils in this
region are extremely high. Therefore, monitoring of this
change and determination of contamination in soils is of
great importance. Heavy metal contents in soils of the
123
Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:411
Kazipalli industrial area, their contamination levels and
pollution sources have not been investigated in detail. The
main objectives of the study were (1) to evaluate the dis-
tribution of As, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn in soil around the
industrial belt and then to assess their anthropogenic inputs
using multivariate statistical tools (correlation analysis,
principal component analysis and cluster analysis). (2) The
potential ecological risk index and health risk factor, which
may be used as a diagnostic tool for determining the degree
of pollution in soil, were also assessed using geoaccumu-
lation index (Igeo), enrichment factor (EF), contamination
factor (CF), factor and cluster analysis. In addition, soil
contamination degrees were performed using pollution
index (PI), and integrated pollution index (IPI). (3) Health
risk classified in relation to two adverse health effects of
chemical elements on humans, chronic and carcinogenic
effects were assessed using ADD, HQ and HI from so-
called risk assessment methodology by USEPA 1989. By
this study it is anticipated that it would provide baseline
data regarding the distribution, accumulation of toxic
metals in soils and health risk to human and would help to
reduce the contamination around the industrial soils by
identifying major pollution sources. It would also be
helpful in designing the pollution abatement strategy to
control the emission and spread of the pollutants in the
environment surrounded by industrial activity and resi-
dential zone.
Materials and methods
Study area
Kazipalli industrial development area (IDA) (Fig. 1) which
is a part of Kazipalli village is situated 35 km towards the
northeast of Hyderabad, which has 506 households with a
total population of 3000 people. Around 82 percent of the
total households are dependent on farming. Again, another
15 percent of the households are engaged as agricultural
labour for livelihoods. Together around 97 percent of
households are dependent on agriculture. The watershed,
about 10 miles by 25 miles, is crisscrossed by intermittent
streams, their water conserved in a chain of 14 small,
picturesque reservoirs called cheruvus that provided irri-
gation water during the long dry season. This region hosts
several industrial activities which are the main source for
hazardous waste which include pharmaceuticals, drugs,
metal, paint, packing, machinery and chemicals. The pre-
sent situation of the Kazipalli industrial development area
(IDA) is still worse with the Kazipalli Lake, where most of
the effluents from the industries are let into the lakes. These
effluents are in turn released to Gandicheruvu which is in
the downstream and to the residential areas which are most
Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:411
Fig. 1 Location map of the
study area with soil sampling
sites
effected with groundwater getting contaminated over a
period of time.
Sampling and analysis
The total number of soil samples was fifty-seven (57). Most
of the soil samples were collected from outer surface, i.e.
5–15 cm depth to study the anthropogenic source of pol-
lutants, as normally industrial pollutants contaminate the
upper layer of the soil (0–40 cm). The samples were col-
lected in self-locking polythene bags and were sealed in
bags. Use of metal tools was avoided and a plastic spatula
was used for sample collection. Figure 1 shows the loca-
tion map of the study area with soil sampling sites.
Soil samples were dried for 2 days at 60 °C. The dry
soil sample was finely powdered to -200 mesh size (US
Standards) using a swing-grinding mill. Sample pellets
were prepared for analysis by X-ray fluorescence spec-
trometry (XRF), using a backing of boric acid and pressing
it at 25 tonnes of pressure. A hydraulic press (Herzog,
make) was used to prepare pellet for XRF analysis to
determine heavy metals. To monitor the quality of chem-
ical analysis and examine the accuracy of the data, soil
reference materials, SO-1 and SO-4 issued by Canadian
Page 3 of 17 411
reference materials were analysed along with the soil
samples during the course of analysis. The analytical
concentrations of the metals in standards are listed in
Table 1.
Chemicals and reagents
The consumption of chemicals for the XRF analysis used
were (Boric acid powder LR grade, Spectromelt C-20
cellulose) and aluminium cups to prepare the pellets for
XRF analysis. International soil reference materials from
the US Geological Survey (USGS), Canadian Certified
Reference Materials (CRMP), (SO-1, 2, 3, 4; LKSD-1, 2, 3,
and 4), International Working Groups (France) and
National Geophysical Research Institute (India) were used
to prepare the calibration curves for major and trace ele-
ments, and to check the accuracy of analytical data.
Instrumentation
A fully automated Philips MagiXPRO-PW2440, micro-
processor controlled, 168-position automatic PW 2540 vrc
sample changer wavelength dispersive X-ray spectrometer
was used along with 4KW X-ray generator for the
123
411 Page 4 of 17
determination of heavy metals (As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn)
in soil samples. The MagiX PRO is a sequential instrument
with a single goniometer-based measuring channel cover-
ing the complete elemental range. A Rhodium (Rh) anode
is used in the X-ray tube, which may be operated up to
125 mA, at a maximum power level of 4KW.
Suitable software SUPER Q was used to take care of dead
time correction and inter-element matrix effects.
Statistical analysis, data treatment and analysis
The analytical data were processed by applying some sta-
tistical methods in terms of distribution and correlation
among the studied parameters. The position of soil sample
location was recorded as a coordinate system using an
Atrax GPS receiver system. STATISTICA software SPSS
10.0 package was used for statistical analysis of the metal
data. Basic statistical parameters such as range, mean,
standard deviation (SD), kurtosis, skewness and standard
error (SE) were computed along with correlation analysis,
while multivariate statistics in terms of Principal compo-
nent analysis (PCA) and Cluster analysis (CA) were also
carried out (Tariq et al. 2008; Acosta et al. 2010). PCA was
carried out using varimax normalized rotation on the data-
set and the CA was applied to the standardized matrix
samples, using dendrogram method. PCA is basically used
for data reduction and it aims at finding components that
explain the major variation within the data, whereas, CA
organizes a set of variables into two or more mutually
exclusive unknown groups/clusters based on combination
of internal variables. The idea of CA is to discover a sys-
tem of organizing variables where each cluster shares
common properties.
Contaminants at large contaminated sites often share
critical properties such as high acute and chronic toxicity,
high environmental persistence, often high mobility lead-
ing to contamination of groundwater and high lipophilicity
leading to bioaccumulation in food web. With a view to
understand the heavy metal dynamics the present study was
carried out on soil contamination using various indices,
including index of geoaccumulation (Igeo) normalized
enrichment factor (EF), contamination factor (CF) and
degree of contamination (Cdeg).
Table 1 Analytical results of the soil standard reference materials SO-1 (regosolic clay soil) and SO-4 (chernozemic A horizon soil) in
comparison with the certified reference values
CRM As Cr
SO-1 1.96 (2.0) 167.2 (170)
SO-4 7.19 (7.4) 63.5 (64)
First row indicates measured value (n = 3)
Second row in brackets indicate certified values
123
Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:411
Index of geoaccumulation (Igeo)
The geoaccumulation index enables to estimate contami-
nation comparing present and preindustrial metal concen-
tration. This method has been used by Muller 1969 for
several trace metal studies in Europe. It is computed using
the following equation,
Igeo ¼ LogðCn =1:5 Bn Þ ð1Þ
where Cn represents measured concentration of the element
in the peltic sediment fraction and Bn is the geochemical
background value in fossil argillaceous sediment. The
constant 1.5 allows us to analyse the natural fluctuations in
the content of a given substance in the environment and
very small anthropogenic influences. In the present study
we applied the modified calculation based on the equation
given in Krzysztof et al. 2004, where Cn denoted the
concentration of a given element in the soil tested, while Bn
denoted the concentration of elements in the earth’s crust
(Taylor and McLennan 1995). Muller divided the geoac-
cumulation index into six classes, they are (Igeo B 0)
practically uncontaminated; (0 \ Igeo \ 1) uncontaminated
to moderately contaminated; (1 \ Igeo \ 2) moderately
contaminated, (2 \ Igeo \ 3) moderately to heavily con-
taminated; (3 \ Igeo \ 4) heavily contaminated; (5 B Igeo)
extremely contaminated.
Enrichment factor
Based on the equation suggested by Buat-Menard and
Chesselet 1979, the value of EF was calculated using the
modified formula given by Loska et al. 2004. This method
is based on standardization of most common reference
elements being Sc, Mn, Ti, Al, Ca and Fe (Quevanviller
et al. 1989; Schiff and Weisberg 1997; Reimann and de
Caritat 2000). If enrichment factor is \1, the element is
depleted in the environment, while in the case of [1, the
element is relatively enriched in the environment. Refer-
ence element used in this study was Ni. Nickel is also one
of the most important components in the earth’s crust as Sr
and its concentration in soils varies with respect to matrix.
Reference environment adopted here was the average
concentration of elements in Earth’s crust as similar to Igeo.
Cu Pb Ni Zn
60.4 (61) 19.5 (20) 91.6 (92) 138.6 (140)
20.8 (12) 12.9 (14) 23.5 (24) 93.1 (94)
Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:411
This aimed to enable a comparison of the two factors Igeo
and EF. The following Eq. (2) as suggested by Buat-Me-
nard was utilized,
EF ¼ fCn ðsampleÞ= Cref ðsampleÞg= fBn ðbackgroundÞ=
Bref ðbackgroundÞg ð2Þ
where Cn (sample) is the content of the examined element,
Cref (sample) is the content of the reference element in the
examined environment, Bn (background) is the content of
the examined element, Bref (background) is the reference
element in the reference environment. Sutherland 2000
divided EF into five groups, they are; (EF \ 2) deficiency
to minimal enrichment; (EF = 2–5) moderate enrichment;
(EF = 5–20) significant enrichment; (EF = 20–40) very
high enrichment; (EF [ 40) extremely high enrichment.
Contamination factor, contamination degree
For determination of soil contamination, enrichment factor
and contamination degree are used. In the present study,
the modified form of the method for calculation of con-
tamination factor by Hakanson 1980 was applied. The
contamination factor is computed from the following
Eq. (3),
Cf ¼ Co = Cn ð3Þ
where Co is the mean content of metals of at least five
sampling sites, Cn is the concentration of elements in the
earth’s crust. Hakanson 1980 divided the contamination
factor into four categories; (Cf \ 1) low contamination
factor indicating low contamination; (1 B Cf B 3) moder-
ate contamination factor; (3 B Cf B 6) considerable con-
tamination factor; (6 C Cf) very high contamination factor.
The contamination factor indicates contamination of only
one element. The sum of the contamination factor of all the
elements yields the contamination degree (Cdeg) of the
environment investigated. It can be divided into four cat-
egories as (Cdeg \ 8) low degree of contamination;
(8 B Cdeg \ 16) moderate degree of contamination;
(16 B Cdeg \ 32) considerable degree of contamination;
(32 C Cdeg) very high degree of contamination.
The risk factor and the risk index
To quantify the potential ecological risk (PERI) of a given
contaminant in a given environment media like soil, the
risk factor (Efi) can be defined as,
Ef i ðPERIÞ ¼ Tf i : Cf i ð4Þ
where Tri is the toxic-response factor for a given substance,
Cfi is the contamination factor. The risk factor can be
categorized into following, (Efi \ 40) low potential
Page 5 of 17 411
ecological risk; (40 B Efi \ 80) moderate potential eco-
logical risk; (80 B Efi \ 160) considerable potential eco-
logical risk; (160 B Efi \ 320) high potential ecological
risk; (Efi C 320) very high potential ecological risk. In
continuation with previous discussion concerning the
contamination factor (Cfi) and the degree of contamination
(Cdeg), potential ecological risk indices can be defined by
Eqs. 4 and 5.
X
RI ¼ Ef i ð5Þ
Risk index can be categorized as low ecological risk
(RI \ 150); moderate ecological risk (150 B RI \ 300);
considerable ecological risk (300 B RI \ 600); very high
ecological risk (RI C 600).
Pollution index (PI) and integrated pollution index
(IPI)
Assessment of soil contamination degree is performed by
the quantification of an accumulation factor (pollution
index PI) and integrated pollution index (IPI). Generally,
pollution index is defined as the ratio of heavy metal
concentration of the corresponding metal to its geochemi-
cal background concentration.
PI ¼ Ci = Si ð6Þ
where PI is the evaluation score corresponding to each
sample, Ci is the measured concentration of the examined
metals in the soils, and Si is the geochemical background
concentration of the metals. The PI values of each metal
contamination can be classified as either low contamination
(PI B1.0); moderate contamination (1.0 \ PI B 3.0); high
contamination (PI [3.0).
Integrated pollution index (IPI) is another method used
for the determination of heavy metal contamination in
individual samples in the area of interest, rather than
revealing a general contamination degree of the whole
area. This value yields the average of the contamination
factors computed for each sample. IPI helps to know the
distribution of the sample contamination. IPI B1 indicates
low level of contamination; (1 \ IPI B 2) moderate level
of pollution; (2 \ IPI B 5) high level of pollution and IPI
[5 indicates extremely high level of pollution (Wei and
Yang 2010).
Health risk assessment
Health risk (chronic, carcinogenic) was estimated for soil
concentrations of chemical elements in every soil sample
collected from within the industrial zone including resi-
dential area. The following (PHEs) (As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb
and Zn) were studied for the estimation of chronic risk.
123
411 Page 6 of 17
The relevant quantification information for above PHEs
about their adverse health effects and toxicity levels
(reference doses) were utilized available with USEPA,
IRIS and RAIS. The health risk assessments were per-
formed using USEPA approach for health risk assessment
(USEPA 1989, 1991, 2005). Calculation of average daily
dose (ADD) and life time average daily dose (LADD)
using following equations with exposure input parameters
is given as:
ADDchildren=adults ðmg=kg=dayÞ
ðCS  IR  FI  ED  EF  CFÞ
¼ ð7Þ
ðBW  ATÞ
where CS chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg), IR
ingestion rate (mg soil/day) (50: Adult; 100: Children)
(USEPA 1991), FI fraction ingested from contaminated
source (1: USEPA 1991) (unit less), ED exposure duration
(years)(Adult: 64; Children: 6) (USEPA 1991), EF Expo-
sure frequency (days/year) (Adult: 120: Children) (USEPA
1999), CF conversion factor (10-6 kg/mg) (USEPA 1989),
BW body weight (Kg) (Adult: 70; Children: 15) (USEPA
1991), AT* averaging time period over which exposure is
averaged—days), Chronic risk (Adult: 23,360; Children:
2190) (USEPA 1989), Carcinogenic risk (Adult: 25,550;
Children: 25,550) (USEPA 1989)
(*For chronic risk AT = ED 9 365 days per year, for
carcinogenic risk AT* lifetime (LT) = 70 years)
Preferential exposure pathway chosen was soil inges-
tion, through which humans can be exposed to potentially
toxic elements. Chronic risk from soil ingestion was cal-
culated and expressed for adults and child population. The
child population for that matter has more immediate con-
tact with soil and children incidentally ingest higher
amount of soil with substantially higher exposure fre-
quency as the adults have. In addition, the effect of con-
taminants is considered to be significantly higher in
children with lower body weight.
Chronic risk was calculated on the basis of comparison
of average doses with reference doses (HQ = ADD/RfD)
(USEPA 1989; Rapant et al. 2011). The characteristics of
defined reference doses (RfD) for evaluated risk elements
were 0.0003 mg/kg/day for As, 0.04 mg/kg/day for Cu,
0.02 mg/kg/day for Ni, 0.0036 mg/kg/day for Pb and
0.3 mg/kg/day for Zn as developed by USEPA (IRIS,
2009; RAIS, 2009). Chronic risk level estimated was
expressed as maximum hazard quotient (HQmax) calculated
for a group of evaluated elements and as hazard index (HI)
calculated as a sum of hazard quotients of all evaluated
P
elements in every sample (HI = HQi).
Carcinogenic risk was calculated as individual lifetime
cancer risk based on multiplying lifetime average daily
doses with the cancer slope factor. (CRadit =
LADD 9 CSF; USEPA 1989). In this study, only arsenic
123
Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:411
was considered for carcinogenic risk as with derived cancer
slope factor at level 1.5 mg/kg/day.
Results and discussion
Heavy metal concentrations in soils
Descriptive statistics such as minimum, median, mean,
maximum and standard deviation for six elements used in
this study are shown in Table 2. Reference values (earth’s
crust average) (Taylor and McLennan 1995) of the studied
metals are also mentioned in the table. This was evident for
all elements As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn, where concentra-
tions vary from 4.4 to 796.3 mg/kg with a median value of
18.2 mg/kg for As, 46.9 mg/kg for Cr, 24.2 mg/kg for Cu,
27.3 mg/kg for Pb, 69 mg/kg for Ni and 129 mg/kg for Zn,
and a significant higher mean of 65.9 mg/kg for As,
126 mg/kg for Cr, 31.9 mg/kg for Cu, 43 mg/kg for Ni and
7.2 mg/kg for Pb 107.6 mg/kg for Zn. A detailed discus-
sion for individual elements, their distribution and contri-
bution towards ecological risk and contamination of soils is
made.
Arsenic content with mean concentration of 65.5 mg/kg
ranging from 4.4 to 796.3 mg/kg indicated the soil is
highly contaminated with toxic metal. High concentration
of arsenic in Kazipalli soils is due to industrial activities
and significant concentration of As are related to anthro-
pogenic sources from industrial activity such as pesticides,
chemical industries and metallurgical activity. The mean
Igeo calculated for As was -1.24, ranging from -2.10 to
0.16 (Fig. 2a). The maximum value for Igeo classifies the
soil as uncontaminated to moderately contaminated. The
results obtained for enrichment factor (EF) ranged from
2.13 to 159.83 with average 19.14. The minimum and
maximum values implied moderate to extremely high
enrichment of soils with As. Arsenic upon deposition on
surface soil undergoes various processes such as oxidation–
reduction, ligand exchange, precipitation and biotransfor-
mation which are dependent on pH.
The mean Cr content in Kazipalli soils is 126 mg/kg
ranging from 9.7 to 598 mg/kg. Much higher values were
also reported by Ansari et al. 1999. The Igeo values ranged
from -0.56 to 1.23 with mean value of 0.38. The maxi-
mum value revealed that the soils in the study area fall into
the class 2 of moderately contaminated. The chromium
enrichment values ranged from 0.52 to 6.55 with mean
1.51. The maximum value obtained showed significant
enrichment with minimum value showing deficiency to
minimal enrichment. Further, the Cr content in topsoil is
known to increase due to pollution from various sources
like several industrial wastes, in the manufacture of steel
and other alloys, chrome plating, metallurgical, chemicals
and pigment production. The source of Cr appears to be
Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:411 Page 7 of 17 411

Table 2 Metal content in soil of Kazipalli and Reference value (a)

(Taylor and McLennan 1995) 2.5

Geoaccumulation Index (Igeo)

2.0
Parameters As Cr Cu Pb Ni Zn Min Max Mean
1.5
Mean 65.9 126.1 31.9 172.1 43.0 107.6 1.0
Median 18.2 46.9 24.2 27.3 69.0 129.1 0.5
Std. Dev 122 133.8 24.2 276.6 24.7 129.7 0.0
-0.5
Kurtosis 23.9 2.9 27.7 24.0 3.2 22.6
-1.0
Skewness 4.5 1.9 4.6 4.5 1.7 4.3
-1.5
Min 4.4 9.7 7.9 25.3 10.2 23.8
-2.0
Max 796.3 598.6 183.5 1830 129.6 879.0
-2.5
Reference value 1.5 35.0 25.0 20.0 20.0 71.0 As Cr Cu Ni Pb Zn
Element
(b)
anthropogenic from some industries producing steel, metal 150.3

Enrichment Factor (EF)

plating in the area. The concentration of copper content in Min Max Mean
125.3
soils ranged from 9.7 to 598.6 mg/kg. The value of Cu
generally in non-contaminated soils is 50 mg/kg. The range 100.3
of Igeo value obtained were -0.50 to 0.87. The maximum
75.3
geoaccumulation index showed uncontaminated to mod-
erately contaminated soil. Copper contamination in soils of 50.3
the study area is due to fertilizers, sprays or agriculture 25.3
wastes and industrial emissions. The high concentration of
Cu in some pockets of the study area may be due to some 0.3
As Cr Cu Pb Zn
input through industrial effluents on to the surface soil
Element
whereby the normal copper value in the study area could
(c)
have got enriched showing 598.6 mg/kg indicating con- 140.0
Contamination Factor (CF)

tamination due to accumulation over a period of time. In

120.0
the tested soils of Kazipalli, Pb values ranged from 25.3 to Min Max Mean
1830 mg/kg, with mean content of 172 mg/kg, which is 100.0

higher than normal mean of lead in uncontaminated soils 80.0

29 mg/kg. However, in the study area Pb content in soils
60.0
was falling in class 1 showing uncontaminated to moder-
ately contaminated with Igeo values ranging from 0.10 to 40.0

1.96; whereas, in the case of EF it showed deficiency to 20.0

minimal enrichment and to very high enrichment in few
samples ranging from 0.92 to 28.2 with mean content of
3.96 EF (Fig. 2b). High EF in few samples could be due to
some anthropogenic deposition of Pb and its presence in
organic-material-rich soils as Pb behaves as adsorbent in
soils contaminated by organic material.
The nickel content in Kazipalli soils ranged from 10.2 to
129.6 mg/kg with mean value of 43 mg/kg. The Igeo value
was ranging from -0.29 to 0.81 with a mean value of 0.27.
The Ni in soils showed practically uncontaminated
geoaccumulation index. Thus, the Ni was taken as refer-
ence element in this study due to its normal distribution.
The mean contamination factor for Ni was 2.15 which fall
under moderate contamination which may be due to release
of organically bound Ni at a single sampling point. The
study area indicates minimal to low contamination of Ni.
The average Zn content in the tested soils was 107.6 mg/kg
ranging from 23.8 to 879 mg/kg. Zn is very mobile in soils,
0.0
As Cr Cu Ni Pb Zn
Element
Fig. 2 Summary of a geoaccumulation index; b enrichment factor;
c contamination factor for selected metals in soil samples
hence it has relatively wide range and marked difference in
the value of Igeo from -0.47 to 1.09 (Fig. 1a). The mean
Igeo classified the soil as uncontaminated with zinc. The
average EF value is 0.67 showing deficiency to minimal
enrichment. The low EF for zinc in soils may indicate soil
depletion in this metal.
Correlation, cluster and factor analysis
Correlation analysis for the studied elements in soil sam-
ples is very useful for determination of multielement

123
411 Page 8 of 17 Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:411

relations. The statistical parameters as shown in Table 2 for Table 3 Pearson correlation coefficient matrix for elements in the
the elements show high skewness and kurtosis coefficients soil samples (P B 0.01)
and as it is showing positive skewness character, a suit- Correlations
able data transformation is required. Generally for positive-
As Cr Cu Ni Pb Zn
skewed data sets, logarithmic transformation is a com-
monly used method (Kebata-Pendias 2000). Pearson correlation As 1.00
Pearson’s correlation analysis performed between all Cr 0.54 1.00
variables (As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn) is closely associated Cu 0.23 0.49 1.00
with each other. Table 3 shows that all the elements are Ni 0.39 0.73 0.49 1.00
significant at a level of p B 0.01. High and significant Pb 1.00 0.54 0.22 0.39 1.00
correlations between these metals indicate that contami- Zn 0.13 0.55 0.81 0.67 0.12 1.00
nants in Kazipalli soil have a similar source which origi-
nates from industrial activities. The highest correlation
coefficients are found between As and Pb (r = 1.00); Cr 11, 21, 31, 43 and KZP-48 show abnormal values with
and Ni (r = 0.73); Cu and Zn (r = 0.81); Ni and Zn respect to its average and are distributed in proximity to
(r = 0.67). Overall, the elements As, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni and Zn industries and all along the two lakes one in the upstream
are grouped together, indicating that the anthropogenic known as Kazicheruvu and another lake located in the
sources of these heavy metals are closely related in the soil downstream known as Krishnareddypet cheruvu where
of the study area. Cluster analysis results given in den- these toxic elements would have been accumulated after
drogram (Fig. 3) reveal that the elements comprise only migration over a period of time. Especially with reference
one group with subgroup consisting of Cr, Ni, Pb and As, to As, Cr, and Pb, very abnormal concentration of As
indicating the common influence of the identified source (796 mg/kg), Cr (478 mg/kg) and 1180 mg/kg of Pb can
from the industries. be attributed to anthropogenic source as there are phar-
By factor analysis complex linear correlation between maceutical industries in the close vicinity of the sampling
metal concentrations in soils was determined, which points.
enabled interpretation of correlation of elements in the Factor PC2 shows 57.51 % of total variance with high
study area. Elements belonging to a given factor were positive loading on As and Pb showing high values. As and
defined by factor matrix after varimax rotation, with those Pb showed greater values of PC2 and were also partially
having strong correlations grouped into factors. Consid- represented in PC1. This may be attributed to agriculture
ering the influence they exerted on to the surface soils by activity in the study area.
determining the distribution of elements in the study area
of Kazipalli industrial area, the said multielement factors Assessment based on contamination factor and degree
were divided into two groups: (1) factors with strong of contamination
scattered anthropogenic influence and (2) factors caused
by predominantly natural processes or other anthro- The elements in Kazipalli soils were categorized on the
pogenic influences. The identification of factors is based basis of the contamination factor calculations (Table 5).
on dominant influence. The distribution manner of indi- Soils in Kazipalli are moderately contaminated with
vidual association of element soils was determined by respect to Ni, Pb and Zn; very high contamination factor
principal component method (results are shown in was indicated for Cr and Cu. The contamination degree for
Table 4). Based on eigen values and varimax rotation, As, the Kazipalli is found as 61.05 which is noticeably lower
Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn concentrations could be grouped compared to the classification proposed in Gebze soils
into a two component model, which accounted for (Yaylahi and Abanuz 2011) which was found to be 82.59.
84.25 % of all the data variation. The first component The contribution of each element to the contamination
matrix (PC1) displayed high values for As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb degree in Kazipalli soils are As 0.99; 10.33 % by Cr;
and Zn indicating their strong association and PC2 10.12 % by Cu; 4.01 % by Ni; 3.4 % by Pb and 2.96 % by
showing positive load of As and Pb. Zn. Overall it was seen that Cr and Cu contributed most to
Factor PC1 shows 84.25 % of total variance with high the degree of contamination index of the soils by total
positive loading on As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn coming to 20.4 %.
(r = 0.7–0.86). This factor is attributed to anthropogenic
influences of these trace metals in soil. The data reveal Assessment of potential ecological risk and health risk
that these potentially hazardous elements would have
been deposited on the surface soils, migrated from efflu- Potential ecological risk index (PERI) was introduced to
ents discharged from industries. Sample nos. KZP-9, 10, assess the degree of heavy metal pollution in soils. In this

123
Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:411 Page 9 of 17 411

Fig. 3 Dendrogram defining Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups)

the hierarchical cluster analysis
Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25
Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

CU 3 -+
ZN 6 -+
CR 2 -+-----------------------------------------------+
NI 4 -+ I
PB 5 -+ I
AS 1 -------------------------------------------------+

Table 4 Total variance explained and component matrices for the heavy metals
Component Initial eigen values Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of squared loadings
loadings
Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative %

1 3.45 57.51 57.51 3.451 57.541 57.514 2.702 45.038 45.038

2 1.60 26.74 84.25 1.60 26.74 84.25 2.35 39.21 84.25
3 0.56 9.27 93.52
4 0.26 4.34 97.87
5 0.13 2.13 100.00
Elements Component matrix Rotated component matrix
PC1 PC2 PC1 PC2

Component matrix
As 0.71 0.68 0.12 0.98
Cr 0.86 0.00 0.66 0.55
Cu 0.70 -0.50 0.86 0.07
Ni 0.82 -0.21 0.77 0.36
Pb 0.71 0.68 0.11 0.98
Zn 0.72 -0.62 0.95 -0.02

Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

risk index approach, the toxic factor will primarily give Table 5 Contamination factors and contamination degree for metals
information about the potential transport avenues of toxic in Kazipalli soils
substances and threat to man. Secondarily, the toxic factor Metals Minimum Maximum Average
will give information about even more complex threat to
the aquatic ecological system. As given by Hakanson 1980, As 2.93 530.9 0.61
the toxic factor concept was discussed based on the Cr 0.28 17.10 6.33
abundance principle, i.e. the potential toxicological effect Cu 0.32 7.34 6.18
of an element is proportional to the abundance of various Ni 0.51 6.48 2.45
elements in soil media which were in the order Cr Pb 1.27 91.50 2.09
(100) \ Zn (50) [ Ni (40) [ Cu (20) [ Pb (10) [ As Zn 0.34 12.30 1.81
(6.0). In analogy with the previous discussion concerning Contamination degree (Cdeg) 5.64 665.69 61.05
the contamination factor (Cf) and the degree of contami-
nation (Cdeg), the PERI values provided a good resolution potential ecological risk, followed by rest of the elements
for the investigated elements in the study area based on the falling in the low potential ecological risk
equations given. The mean ecological risk factor values (Pb [ Ni [ Cr [ Cu [ Zn). Further, Potential index (PI)
obtained (Table 6) were in the order As (292) [ Pb and Risk index (RI) represent the sensitivity of various
(28.7) [ Ni (7.2) [ Cr (4.8) [ Cu (4.3) [ Zn (1.0), based biological communities to toxic substances and describes
on the classification arsenic falling in the class zone of high the potential ecological risk caused by heavy metals. The

123
 Table 6 The potential ecological risk indexes and pollution index in Kazipalli
411

Seq. Sample As Cr Cu Ni Pb Zi RI

123
PI(Cf i) PERI(Ef i) PI(Cf i) PERI(Ef i) PI(Cf i) PERI(Ef i) PI(Cf i) PERI(Ef i) PI(Cf i) PERI(Ef i) PI(Cf i) PERI(Ef i)

1 KZP-1 6.7 66.7 1.15 2.30 0.54 2.69 0.83 4.15 1.95 9.73 0.51 0.51 86.1
Page 10 of 17

2 KZP-2 6.7 66.7 0.58 1.16 0.87 4.36 0.54 2.70 1.96 9.80 0.71 0.71 85.4
3 KZP-3 9.1 91.1 1.08 2.16 0.61 3.03 0.89 4.45 2.10 10.52 1.23 1.23 112.5
4 KZP-4 5.5 54.7 0.84 1.68 0.88 4.40 1.28 6.42 1.69 8.47 0.70 0.70 76.3
5 KZP-5 4.8 48.0 0.70 1.41 0.53 2.65 0.88 4.38 1.81 9.05 0.36 0.36 65.9
6 KZP-6 5.3 52.9 0.87 1.74 0.62 3.08 1.09 5.47 1.88 9.42 0.40 0.40 73.0
7 KZP-1 11.3 112.9 1.60 3.21 1.15 5.77 1.68 8.38 2.39 11.93 1.00 1.00 143.2
8 KZP-8 7.3 72.9 1.20 2.40 0.45 2.25 0.75 3.73 1.98 9.92 0.93 0.93 92.1
9 KZP-9 122.5 1225.3 1.34 2.68 0.53 2.65 0.77 3.83 21.64 108.20 0.42 0.42 1343.1
10 KZP-10 80.8 808.4 3.98 7.95 0.93 4.65 2.16 10.82 14.44 72.20 1.12 1.12 905.2
11 KZP-11 182.3 1823.1 7.79 15.59 1.10 5.49 2.41 12.03 31.62 158.08 1.03 1.03 2015.3
12 KZP-12 17.5 175.1 1.45 2.90 0.73 3.65 1.60 8.00 3.86 19.30 0.63 0.63 209.6
13 KZP-13 18.1 181.3 1.26 2.53 0.72 3.61 1.47 7.33 4.04 20.18 0.60 0.60 215.6
14 KZP-14 9.8 98.2 1.28 2.55 1.00 5.01 1.63 8.15 2.43 12.17 0.69 0.69 126.8
15 KZP-15 34.0 339.6 0.86 1.72 0.51 2.57 0.81 4.07 6.46 32.32 0.43 0.43 380.7
16 KZP-16 23.4 233.8 1.90 3.81 0.54 2.71 1.24 6.18 5.05 25.25 0.44 0.44 272.2
17 KZP-17 34.0 340.4 1.27 2.54 0.37 1.84 0.88 4.40 6.58 32.90 0.71 0.71 382.8
18 KZP-18 26.2 261.8 6.35 12.69 0.55 2.75 2.42 12.10 5.04 25.18 2.46 2.46 317.0
19 KZP-19 6.3 62.7 7.17 14.34 1.10 5.48 1.77 8.87 1.87 9.37 0.58 0.58 101.3
20 KZP-20 7.3 73.3 0.81 1.61 0.53 2.63 1.07 5.37 2.04 10.22 0.38 0.38 93.5
21 KZP-21 76.0 760.4 2.98 5.96 0.83 4.16 1.88 9.40 13.92 69.62 0.70 0.70 850.3
22 KZP-22 5.9 58.7 1.36 2.72 0.52 2.61 0.88 4.42 1.73 8.63 0.52 0.52 77.6
23 KZP-23 7.3 73.3 1.14 2.29 1.30 6.49 1.31 6.55 1.84 9.18 0.56 0.56 98.4
24 KZP-24 5.0 49.8 1.33 2.65 0.69 3.43 1.33 6.63 1.33 6.63 0.52 0.52 69.6
25 KZP-25 3.9 38.7 0.18 0.37 0.21 1.05 0.34 1.70 1.81 9.05 0.22 0.22 51.1
26 KZP-26 7.6 76.0 0.59 1.18 0.54 2.72 0.77 3.83 2.30 11.52 0.89 0.89 96.1
27 KZP-27 30.9 309.3 8.08 16.15 4.89 24.47 2.77 13.85 5.55 27.77 8.25 8.25 399.8
28 KZP-28 8.0 80.0 1.31 2.63 1.03 5.13 1.76 8.78 2.25 11.23 1.23 1.23 109.0
29 KZP-29 8.1 80.9 0.89 1.79 0.65 3.23 0.91 4.55 2.30 11.50 1.21 1.21 103.2
Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:411

30 KZP-30 5.1 51.1 1.03 2.05 0.54 2.68 0.79 3.95 1.59 7.93 0.31 0.31 68.0
31 KZP-31 48.8 487.6 7.12 14.25 1.33 6.65 4.05 20.23 9.09 45.43 3.22 3.22 577.3
32 KZP-32 6.5 65.3 1.33 2.65 0.82 4.09 1.55 7.73 2.02 10.10 0.55 0.55 90.5
33 KZP-33 19.6 196.0 2.10 4.19 1.40 7.01 1.89 9.47 3.84 19.18 1.91 1.91 237.8
34 KZP-34 6.8 68.0 0.99 1.97 0.57 2.84 1.02 5.12 2.02 10.08 0.35 0.35 88.4
 Table 6 continued
Seq. Sample As Cr Cu Ni Pb Zi RI
PI(Cf i) PERI(Ef i) PI(Cf i) PERI(Ef i) PI(Cf i) PERI(Ef i) PI(Cf i) PERI(Ef i) PI(Cf i) PERI(Ef i) PI(Cf i) PERI(Ef i)

35 KZP-35 5.6 55.6 1.02 2.05 0.57 2.87 0.95 4.77 1.69 8.45 0.48 0.48 74.2
36 KZP-36 9.6 96.0 1.64 3.29 1.16 5.79 2.19 10.97 2.23 11.15 0.77 0.77 128.0
37 KZP-37 10.2 102.2 1.50 3.01 0.98 4.92 1.65 8.27 2.50 12.48 0.99 0.99 131.9
38 KZP-38 10.3 103.1 1.18 2.36 0.81 4.03 1.25 6.27 2.60 12.98 0.78 0.78 129.5
Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:411

39 KZP-39 11.2 112.4 1.00 2.00 0.88 4.39 1.39 6.95 2.60 13.00 0.67 0.67 139.5
40 KZP-40 54.7 547.1 5.84 11.68 1.18 5.89 3.52 17.60 10.17 50.83 2.90 2.90 636.0
41 KZP-41 6.7 66.7 0.49 0.98 0.36 1.80 0.48 2.42 1.94 9.72 0.37 0.37 82.0
42 KZP-42 35.8 357.8 2.64 5.28 0.53 2.67 1.28 6.40 6.74 33.72 0.68 0.68 406.5
43 KZP-43 90.7 907.1 7.65 15.29 1.20 6.00 4.32 21.60 16.17 80.87 3.64 3.64 1034.5
44 KZP-44 24.5 245.3 1.23 2.46 0.45 2.25 0.96 4.80 4.79 23.93 0.53 0.53 279.3
45 KZP-45 30.9 308.9 0.80 1.60 0.39 1.95 0.75 3.75 5.72 28.60 0.50 0.50 345.3
46 KZP-46 25.7 257.3 1.99 3.98 0.52 2.60 1.21 6.03 5.25 26.23 0.45 0.45 296.6
47 KZP-47 16.1 160.9 0.87 1.74 0.50 2.51 0.98 4.90 3.22 16.10 0.43 0.43 186.6
48 KZP-48 353.9 3539.1 9.10 18.21 1.84 9.20 2.35 11.77 61.01 305.07 1.01 1.01 3884.4
49 KZP-49 16.8 168.0 1.39 2.78 0.41 2.07 0.85 4.25 3.73 18.65 0.41 0.41 196.2
50 KZP-50 38.3 382.7 2.80 5.61 0.71 3.56 1.30 6.48 7.36 36.80 0.87 0.87 436.0
51 KZP-51 33.3 332.9 3.17 6.34 0.74 3.72 2.58 12.88 6.55 32.75 2.60 2.60 391.2
52 KZP-52 8.1 80.9 1.24 2.47 0.72 3.59 0.59 2.95 2.04 10.20 0.96 0.96 101.1
53 KZP-53 4.3 43.1 1.16 2.32 0.59 2.97 0.88 4.38 1.66 8.30 0.40 0.40 61.5
54 KZP-54 2.0 19.6 0.47 0.95 1.95 9.73 0.92 4.58 0.84 4.22 0.57 0.57 39.6
55 KZP-55 3.0 30.2 2.44 4.88 0.70 3.52 0.81 4.05 1.25 6.27 0.42 0.42 49.4
56 KZP-56 11.8 117.8 11.40 22.80 0.95 4.75 1.74 8.70 2.88 14.42 0.82 0.82 169.3
57 KZP-57 6.4 63.6 1.90 3.80 0.76 3.79 1.28 6.38 1.66 8.32 0.56 0.56 86.4
Page 11 of 17
411

123
411 Page 12 of 17 Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:411

Table 7 Pollution index (PI) and integrated pollution index (IPI) of heavy metals in Kazipalli soils
Metal Reference value PI No. of samples IPI No. of samples
Min Max Mean Low Middle High Min Max Mean Low Middle High

As 2.25 2.0 353.9 29.3 0 2 55 1.28 43.9 10.17 0 3 54

Cr 52.50 0.2 11.4 2.4 12 32 13
Cu 37.50 0.2 4.9 0.9 42 15 0
Ni 30.00 0.3 4.3 1.4 19 36 2
Pb 30.00 0.8 61.0 5.7 1 32 24
Zn 106.5 0.2 8.3 1.0 41 13 3

maximum RI of 57 sampling points was 3884. Among 57
sampling stations the ecological risk index, accounting for
the contamination caused by As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn in
the study area indicated that 12 % samples fell in very high
ecological risk levels, 15 % samples fell in considerable
ecological risk levels, 10 % samples fell in moderate
ecological risk and 61 % samples fell in the low ecological
risk levels. High ecological risk levels up to 12 % were
contributed by arsenic concentrations in the study area due
to industrial activities with significant anthropogenic
sources from some chemical and use of pesticides in
agricultural activities. Overall, the contamination order of
ecological risk index was As [ Pb [ Ni [ Cr [ Cu [ Zn.
PI values for As ranged from 2.0 to 353.9 with a mean
value of 29.3. As and Pb fell in the category of high con-
tamination (PI [ 3.0). Pollution index for Cr ranged from
0.2 to 11.4 with average value of 2.4, with moderate con-
tamination (1.0 \ PI B 3.0). The PI values for Cu and Ni
fell in the category of low contamination (Table 7). The
mean PI value for Zn was 1.0 with low contamination in
the study area.
Evaluating IPI values, which are defined as taking mean
values for all the PIs of all considered metals, the level of
contamination can be classified into three categories as low
contamination (IPI B1), middle contamination
(1 \ IPI B 2) or high contamination IPI [2.0. The IPI
value of soils in Kazipalli varied from 1.28 to 43.9 with an
average of 10.17 (Table 7). There were zero samples with
IPI \1.0, 3 samples with IPI between 1.0 and 2.0, and 54
samples with IPI [2.0 and further, taking summary of
degree of contamination (Cdeg) and contamination factor
the soils were classified as contaminated with As and Pb
moderately with contamination factors varying from 0.61
to 6.33 with mean IPI value for As (0.61) falling in low
level of contamination. Cr (6.33) and Cu (6.18) showed
extremely high level of pollution. Ni (2.45) and Pb (2.09)
showed high level of pollution and Zn (1.81) with moderate
level of pollution. Thus, it is very likely that soils of
Kazipalli are polluted with high level or extremely high
level pollution due to heavy metals.
The results of health risk-estimated calculations
(chronic and carcinogenic) represented were transformed
into stock plots as shown in Figs. 4a, b and 5a, b. The
health risk estimates in kazipalli study area (calculated
for 57 soil samples) were represented in the form of box
plots, numeric and tabular form based on the character-
ization of chronic risk level (Table 8). Assessment of
health risk values for average daily dose (ADD) for
chronic and carcinogenic in adults and children are
shown in Table 9 and average health risk estimates
(chronic and carcinogenic) calculated for the soils in the
study area are shown in Table 10. Chronic risk is
expressed in the form of maximum HQ for the most
hazardous elements and in the form of hazard index (HI)
as the sum of HQ for all elements. The calculated risk
levels expressed as HI are higher and the chronic risk in
adults (HQ 0.01 to 0.21) in the form of HQ showed low
level of chronic risk and for children it showed low-level
to high-level chronic risk (HQ 0.18 to 5.82). The sam-
pling points KZP-48 and KZP-56 showed high chronic
risk of HQ 5.82 and 4.37 with HI 10.44 and 4.63. The
influence of industrial activity due to the deposition of
potential hazardous elements onto the soil from smoke
stacks and continuous release of industrial effluents onto
the surface soils might have contaminated the soil. The
fact that arsenic is the most important contaminant
among potentially toxic elements in the study area is
confirmed by the level of carcinogenic risk that has
similar distribution as chronic risk when expressed in
stock plots and Table 10. The lowest carcinogenic risk
level for soil arsenic was in sample KZP-39 with CR
value 9.8E-06 and highest in KZP-48 with CR value
1.6E-04.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the present study showed marked varia-
tions and diverse correlations of the selected metal
contents (As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn) which were higher

123
Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:411 Page 13 of 17 411

(a)
Chronic Risk (in adults)
0.250000

Hazard Quotient (HQ)

Min Max Avg
0.200000

0.150000

0.100000

0.050000

0.000000
As Cr Cu Ni Pb Zn
Elements

_____________________________________________________
Risk level Hazard quotient chronic risk No of samples
_____________________________________________________
1 < 0.1 Negligible 50
2 ≥ 0.1 < 1 Low 07
3 ≥1<4 Medium 0
4 ≥4 High 0

(b)

Chronic Risk (in children)

7.00000
Hazard Quotient (HQ)

6.00000 Min Max Avg

5.00000
4.00000
3.00000
2.00000
1.00000
0.00000
As Cr Cu Ni Pb Zn
Elements

_____________________________________________________
Risk level Hazard quotient chronic risk No of samples
_____________________________________________________
1 < 0.1 Negligible 01
2 ≥ 0.1 < 1 Low 42
3 ≥1<4 Medium 12
4 ≥4 High 02

Fig. 4 Chronic risk for soil ingestion in adults and children population

123
411 Page 14 of 17 Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:411

than their background values in the study area. The of hazardous wastes and effluents from industrial
Kazipalli industrial zone has been extremely contami- activities. The multivariate and correlation analysis
nated for many years because of unmonitored disposal revealed significant anthropogenic pollution especially
by As, Cr, Cu and Pb in soils of kazipalli. As a result
of the index of geoaccumulation, enrichment factor,
(a)
Carcinogenic Risk (in adults) contamination degree, pollution index and integrated
0.200000 pollution index applications very high As, Pb and Cr
Hazard Quotient (HQ)

Min Max Avg

concentrations were found in the soil and may be mixed
0.150000
with groundwater by leaching and posing serious threat
to human health.
0.100000
These risk indices when applied to the soils of the study
0.050000 area revealed high risk of contamination by As, Pb and Cr
and the order of ecological risk index was
0.000000 As [ Pb [ Ni [ Cr [ Cu [ Zn. Further, pollution index
As Cr Cu Ni Pb Zn (PI) and integrated pollution index (IPI) carried out on
Elements these toxic elements revealed with contamination order
As [ Pb [ Cu [ Cr [ Zn [ Ni for PI and IPI showing
(b) Carcinogeinic Risk (in children) high level to extremely high level of pollution. Further,
5.000000 based on assessment of health risk from PHEs like As, Cr,
Hazard Quotient (HQ)

Min Max Avg

4.000000 Cu, Pb, Ni and Zn by means of risk level calculation for its
chronic and carcinogenic effects we propose the possible
3.000000
risk from As, Cr, Pb contamination to the resident popu-
2.000000 lation of the kazipalli study area. The risk of chronic dis-
1.000000 ease occurrence is generally low in adults and medium to
high in children. Some of the sampling points indicated
0.000000
As Cr Cu Ni Pb Zn
high potential risk of As and Pb as these had medium to
high chronic as well as carcinogenic risk. The study area
Elements
shows a potentially greater risk due to anthropogenic
Fig. 5 Carcinogenic risk for soil ingestion in adults and children contamination. Our assessment of health risk from As and
population Pb contamination in soils was based on calculations and
box plot visualization which may be linked to real threat to
humans.
Table 8 Characterisation of chronic risk level (USEPA 1999)
The proposed method of quantification of health risk
Risk level Hazard quotient/hazard index Chronic risk will help in identification and preliminary evaluation of
1 \0.1 Negligible the industrial sites and residential community at risk in
2 C 0.1 \ 1 Low the study area and will be benefited in giving new
3 C 1\4 Medium directions to the future complex risk assessment studies.
4 C4 High Further, it is recommended to utilize various remediation
technologies like permeable reactive barrier and

Table 9 Health risk assessment values for average daily dose for chronic and carcinogenic in adults and children
Metal Chronic Carcinogenic
ADDadult ADDchild ADDadult ADDchild
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean

As 3E-07 6E-05 5E-06 1E-05 3E-05 1E-04 3E-07 6E-05 5E-06 8E-07 1E-04 1E-05
Cr 8E-07 5E-05 1E-05 2E-05 1E-04 3E-04 7E-07 4E-05 9E-06 1E-05 1E-03 3E-04
Cu 6E-07 1E-05 2E-06 2E-05 7E-05 7E-05 6E-07 1E-05 2E-06 1E-06 3E-05 6E-06
Ni 8E-07 1E-05 3E-06 2E-05 5E-05 9E-05 7E-07 9E-06 3E-06 2E-06 2E-05 8E-06
Pb 2E-06 1E-04 1E-05 6E-05 1E-04 4E-04 2E-06 1E-04 1E-05 5E-06 3E-04 3E-05
Zn 2E-06 7E-05 8E-06 5E-05 2E-04 2E-04 2E-06 6E-05 8E-06 4E-06 2E-04 2E-05

123
Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:411 Page 15 of 17 411

Table 10 Health risk from soil

Sample No. Chronic risk (adults) Chronic risk (child) Carcinogenic risk
contamination for child
population in the Kazipalli HQ HI HQ HI CAs CR
industrial site
KZP-1 0.02 0.02 0.44 0.59 15.0 5.8E-06
KZP-2 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.37 15.0 5.8E-06
KZP-3 0.01 0.02 0.41 0.61 20.5 8.0E-06
KZP-4 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.45 12.3 4.8E-06
KZP-5 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.39 10.8 4.2E-06
KZP-6 0.01 0.02 0.33 0.46 11.9 4.6E-06
KZP-7 0.02 0.03 0.62 0.85 25.4 9.9E-06
KZP-8 0.02 0.02 0.46 0.62 16.4 6.4E-06
KZP-9 0.07 0.10 2.01 2.93 275.7 1.1E-04
KZP-10 0.05 0.11 1.53 3.13 181.9 7.1E-05
KZP-11 0.11 0.23 3.00 6.57 410.2 1.6E-04
KZP-12 0.02 0.03 0.56 0.92 39.4 1.5E-05
KZP-13 0.02 0.03 0.49 0.86 40.8 1.6E-05
KZP-14 0.02 0.03 0.49 0.70 22.1 8.6E-06
KZP-15 0.02 0.04 0.56 1.01 76.4 3.0E-05
KZP-16 0.03 0.04 0.73 1.21 52.6 2.0E-05
KZP-17 0.02 0.04 0.56 1.17 76.6 3.0E-05
KZP-18 0.09 0.11 2.43 2.97 58.9 2.3E-05
KZP-19 0.10 0.10 2.75 2.90 14.1 5.5E-06
KZP-20 0.01 0.02 0.31 0.47 16.5 6.4E-06
KZP-21 0.04 0.09 1.25 2.66 171.1 6.7E-05
KZP-22 0.02 0.02 0.52 0.65 13.2 5.1E-06
KZP-23 0.02 0.02 0.44 0.60 16.5 6.4E-06
KZP-24 0.02 0.02 0.51 0.62 11.2 4.4E-06
KZP-25 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.17 8.7 3.4E-06
KZP-26 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.40 17.1 6.7E-06
KZP-27 0.11 0.13 3.10 3.73 69.6 2.7E-05
KZP-28 0.02 0.02 0.50 0.69 18.0 7.0E-06
KZP-29 0.01 0.02 0.34 0.52 18.2 7.1E-06
KZP-30 0.01 0.02 0.39 0.51 11.5 4.5E-06
KZP-31 0.10 0.13 2.73 3.72 109.7 4.3E-05
KZP-32 0.02 0.02 0.51 0.66 14.7 5.7E-06
KZP-33 0.03 0.04 0.80 1.21 44.1 1.7E-05
KZP-34 0.01 0.02 0.38 0.53 15.3 6.0E-06
KZP-35 0.01 0.02 0.39 0.52 12.5 4.9E-06
KZP-36 0.02 0.03 0.63 0.84 21.6 8.4E-06
KZP-37 0.02 0.03 0.58 0.80 23.0 9.0E-06
KZP-38 0.02 0.02 0.45 0.68 23.2 9.0E-06
KZP-39 0.01 0.02 0.38 0.62 25.3 9.8E-06
KZP-40 0.08 0.12 2.24 3.34 123.1 4.8E-05
KZP-41 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.34 15.0 5.8E-06
KZP-42 0.04 0.06 1.01 1.73 80.5 3.1E-05
KZP-43 0.10 0.17 2.93 4.74 204.1 7.9E-05
KZP-44 0.02 0.03 0.47 0.97 55.2 2.1E-05
KZP-45 0.02 0.03 0.51 0.92 69.5 2.7E-05
KZP-46 0.03 0.05 0.76 1.29 57.9 2.3E-05
KZP-47 0.01 0.02 0.33 0.66 36.2 1.4E-05
KZP-48 0.21 0.37 5.82 10.44 796.3 3.1E-04

123
411 Page 16 of 17 Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:411

Table 10 continued
Sample No. Chronic risk (adults) Chronic risk (child) Carcinogenic risk
HQ HI HQ HI CAs CR

KZP-49 0.02 0.03 0.53 0.88 37.8 1.5E-05

KZP-50 0.04 0.07 1.08 1.85 86.1 3.4E-05
KZP-51 0.04 0.07 1.22 1.89 74.9 2.9E-05
KZP-52 0.02 0.02 0.47 0.65 18.2 7.1E-06
KZP-53 0.02 0.02 0.45 0.55 9.7 3.8E-06
KZP-54 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.24 4.4 1.7E-06
KZP-55 0.03 0.04 0.94 1.01 6.8 2.6E-06
KZP-56 0.16 0.17 4.37 4.63 26.5 1.0E-05
KZP-57 0.03 0.03 0.73 0.87 14.3 5.6E-06

phytoremediation by growing some plants in the area to
minimize the rate of contamination and extent of future
pollution problems.
Acknowledgments The present work was carried out as part of the
Network Project NWP-0046. The authors are thankful to Prof. Mrinal
K Sen, Director, CSIR-National Geophysical Research Institute for
his continuous support, encouragement and his permission to publish
this paper.
References
Acosta JA, Faz A, Martinez SM (2010) Identification of heavy metal
sources by multivariable analysis in a typical Mediterranean city
(SE Spain). Environ Monit Assess 169:519–530
Ansari AA, Singh IB, Tobschall HJ (1999) Status of anthropogeni-
cally induced metal pollution in the Kanpur-Unnao industrial
region of the Ganga plain, India. Environ Geol 38:25–33
Buat-Menard P, Chesselet R (1979) Variable influence of the
atmospheric flux on the trace metal chemistry of oceanic
suspended matter. Earth Planet Sci Lett. 42:398–411
Chen TB, Zhang YM, Lei M, Huang ZC, Wu HT, Chen H, Fan KK,
Yu K, Wu X, Tian QZ (2005) Assessment of heavy metal
pollution in surface soils of urban parks in Beijing. China
Chemosphere 60:542–551
Coskun M, Steinnes E, Frontasyeva VF, Sjobakk TE, Demmika S
(2006) Heavy metal pollution of surface soils in the Thrace
region, Turkey. Environ Monit Assess 119:545–556
Gasparatos D (2013) Sequestration of heavy metals from soil with Fe-
Mn concretions and nodules. Environ Chem Lett 11(1):1–9
Hakanson K (1980) An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution
control, a sedimentological approach. Water Res 14:975–1001
Kebata-Pendias A (2000) Trace elements in soils and plants, 3rd edn.
CRCPress, p 413
Krzysztof L, Wiechula D, Korns I (2004) Metal contamination of
farming soils affected by industry. Environ Int 30:159–165
Loska K, Wiechula D, Korns I (2004) Metal contamination of
farming soilsaffected by industry. Environ Int 30:159–165
Ljung K, Otabbong E, Selinus O (2006) Natural and anthropogenic
metal inputs to soils in Urban Uppsala, Sweden. Environ
Geochem Health 28:353–364
Massas I, Kalivas D, Ehaliotis C, Gasparatos D (2013) Total and
available heavy metal concentrations in soils of the Thriassio
plain (Greece) and assessment of soil pollution indexes. Environ
Monit Assess 185(8):6751–6766
Muller G (1969) Index of geo-accumulation in sediments of the Raine
River. GeoJournal 2:108–118
Nriagu JO (1979) Global inventory of natural and anthropogenic
emission of trace metals to the atmosphere. Nature
279:409–411
Ouyang Y, Higman J, Thompson J, Toole OT, Campbell D (2002)
Characterizationand spatial distribution of heavy metals in
sediment from Cedar and Ortega Riverssub-basin. J Contam
Hydrol 54:19–35
Quevanviller P, Lavigne R, Cortez L (1989) Impact of industrial and
mining drainage wastes on the heavy metal distribution in the
drainage basin and estuary of the Sado River, Portugal. Environ
Pollut 59:267–286
Rapant S, Fajcikova K, Khun M, Cveckova V (2011) Application of
health risk assessment method for geological environment at
national and regional scales. Environ Earth Sci 64:513–521
Reimann C, de Caritat P (2000) Intrinsic flaws of element enrichment
factors in environmental geochemistry. Environ Sci Technol
34:5084–5091
Schiff KC, Weisberg SB (1997) Iron as a reference element for
determining trace metal enrichment in southern California
coastal shelf sediments. Mar Environ Res 48:76–161
Sutherland RA (2000) Bed sediment associated trace elements in an
urban stream, Oahu Hawaii. Environ Geol 39:611–627
Tariq SR, Shah MH, Shaheen N, Jaffar M, Khalique A (2008)
Statistical source identification of metals in groundwater
exposed to industrial contamination. Environ Monit Assess
138:159–165
Taylor SR, McLennan SM (1995) The geochemical evolution of the
continental crust. Rev Geophys 33:165–241
USEPA (1989) Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS),
Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (HHEM). Part A.
Baseline risk assessment. Interim Final. United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, DC, (EPA/540/1-89/002)
USEPA (1991) Risk assessment guidance for superfund (RAGS),
Volume I: Human health evaluation manual (HHEM)—Supple-
mental guidance, interim final. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, DC (OSWER 9285.6-03)
USEPA (1999) A risk assessment–multiway exposure spreadsheet
calculation tool. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC
USEPA (2004) Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I:
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental
Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Final EPA/540/R/99/
005 OSWER 9285.7-02EP PB99-96 3312, July 2004. USEPA
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC

123
Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:411 Page 17 of 17 411

USEPA (2005) Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. United Yaylahi G, Abanuz (2011) Heavy metal contamination of surface
States Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment soils around Gebze industrial area, Turkey. Microchem J
Forum, Washington, DC (EPA/630/P-03/001F) 99:82–92
Van Straalen NM (2002) Assessment of soil contamination—a
functional perspective. Biodegradation 13:41–52
Wei B, Yang L (2010) A review of heavy metal contamination in
urban soils, Urban road dusts and agricultural soils from China.
Microchem J 94:99–107

123