2002
DOI: 10.1006/ecss.2001.0879
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Riverine Composition and Estuarine Geochemistry of Particulate Metals in China—Weathering Features, Anthropogenic Impact and Chemical Fluxes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

12
365
1
13

Year Published

2004
2004
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 985 publications
(391 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
12
365
1
13
Order By: Relevance
“…Based on a study conducted by Zhang and Liu [20], an EF value between 0.5 and 1.5 suggests that the metal may be entirely from crustal materials or natural weathering processes. However, an EF greater than 1.5 suggests that a significant portion of the metal originated from non-crustal or anthropogenic processes.…”
Section: Enrichment Factormentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Based on a study conducted by Zhang and Liu [20], an EF value between 0.5 and 1.5 suggests that the metal may be entirely from crustal materials or natural weathering processes. However, an EF greater than 1.5 suggests that a significant portion of the metal originated from non-crustal or anthropogenic processes.…”
Section: Enrichment Factormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The distribution of heavy metals in sediments adjacent to populated areas can provide researchers with evidence of the anthropogenic impact on ecosystems and assist in assessing the risks associated with discharged human waste [17]. Therefore, problems in aquatic systems due to heavy metals pollution have been extensively studied [18][19][20].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Generally, an EF value of about 1 suggests that a given metal may be entirely from crustal materials or natural weathering processes (Zhang and Liu, 2002). Nevertheless, a slight positive deviation of EF value from unity may not arise from anthropogenic activities, for the natural difference in elemental composition between a pristine sediment and the reference Earth's crust used in EF calculation could also cause it.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to [34], EF values smaller than 1.5 suggest that heavy metals derived from mainly natural sources such as weather processes, while EF values greater than 1.5 suggest that the sources are more likely to be anthropogenic. [35] divided the contamination into different categories based on EF values.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%