Relationship between Dust Retention and Heavy Metal Content in 8 Tree Species

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2018.05.011

Abstract

Abstract:

Garden plants have the function of entrainment of atmospheric particulates and heavy metals,which can significantly improve the urban environment.The dust retentions on the leaf surfaces of Ligustrum lucidum,Platanus orientalis and Populus tomentosa were larger than that of Salix matsudana and Koelreuteria paniculata,and the dust retention amount per leaf surface of Ligustrum lucidum was the largest at an average level of 4.494 9±0.727 4g/m²,which was about 2.8 times as that of the smallest Salix matsudana .The dust retention of the 8 studied tree species reached the maximum during day 21 to day 27.The highest saturated dust retention was Ligustrum lucidum on the 24th day after raining with an amount of 7.201 8±0.026 4g/m² while the lowest,Salix matsudana,of 2.805 3±0.049 3g/m ² on day 21.The former was about 2.5 times as much as that of the latter.There was a positive correlation between the heavy metal content in leaves and the leaf dust retention,as well as between the heavy metal content in leaves and in the retentive dust,heavy metal content in the retention dust and the retention dust amount.The correlation of Cd,Pb content in leaves and dust retention reached a very significant level.The correlation coefficient between Cu,Ni,Pb and Zn content in leaves and in the retention dust reached more than 0.8,reaching a very significant level.The correlation coefficient between heavy metal content in the retentive dust and leaf dust retention is above 0.4,especially the highest correlation between Pb and dust retention with a coefficient 0.880.

Key words: trees, maximum dust retention, heavy metal content, leaf, heavy metal content in retention dust correlation

CLC Number:

X173

LIN Xingyu, LI Haimei, LI Yanhua, LIU Zhike. Relationship between Dust Retention and Heavy Metal Content in 8 Tree Species[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2018, (5): 63-69.

Figures/Tables 8

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.1

Fig.3

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

References 29

[1]	姜少睿, 薛志钢, 李薇, 等. 我国环境空气质量状况及大气污染对健康的影响[J].华北电力技术, 2015(8):7-13.
[2]	刘佩琪, 陈奇伯, 邓志华, 等. 城市森林对大气中重金属的富集特征[J]. 环境化学, 2017,36(2):265-273.
[3]	Chen Hao, Lu Xin Wei, Chang Yu Yu, et al. Heavy metal contamination in dust from kindergartens and elementary schools in Xi’an,China[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2014,71(6), 2701-2709.
[4]	Feng S, Zhang N, Lin H, et al. Contamination assessment of copper,lead,zinc and chromium in dust fall of Jinan,NE China[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2012,66(7):1881-1886.
[5]	张丹龙, 方凤满, 朱哲, 等. 淮南城区小学校园石楠叶面尘重金属污染特征及健康风险评价[J]. 水土保持学报, 2016,30(2):328-333.
[6]	廖莉团, 苏欣, 李小龙, 等. 城市绿化植物滞尘效益及滞尘影响因素研究概述[J]. 森林工程, 2014,30(2):21-24.
[7]	戴斯迪, 马克明, 宝乐, 等. 北京城区公园及其邻近道路国槐叶面尘分布与重金属污染特征[J]. 环境科学学报, 2013,33(1):154-162.
[8]	戴斯迪, 马克明, 宝乐. 北京城区行道树国槐叶面尘分布及重金属污染特征[J]. 生态学报, 2012,32(16):5095-5102.
[9]	王丹丹, 孙峰, 周春玲, 等. 城市道路植物圆柏叶片重金属含量及其与滞尘的关系[J]. 生态环境学报, 2012,21(5):947-951.
[10]	Zhang Wei Kang, Wang Bing, Niu Xiang. Study on the Adsorption Capacities for Airborne Particulates of Landscape Plants in Different Polluted Regions in Beijing (China)[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2015,12(8):9623-9638. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120809623 pmid: 26287227
[11]	乔冠皓, 陈警伟, 刘肖瑜, 等. 两种常见绿化树种对大气颗粒物的滞留与再悬浮[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017,28(1):266-272.
[12]	杨周敏. 西安市区不同绿化植物的滞尘效应季节变化研究[J]. 水土保持研究, 2015,22(4):178-183.
[13]	刘玲, 方炎明, 王顺昌, 等. 基于悬铃木叶片重金属累积特性的大气污染分析和评价[J]. 环境科学, 2014,35(3):839-846.
[14]	阿衣古丽·艾力亚斯, 玉米提·哈力克, 塔依尔江·艾山, 等. 乌鲁木齐市主要绿化树种重金属累积能力比较[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2014,42(5):18-21.
[15]	齐丹卉, 刘文胜. 10种常见绿化树种重金属积累特性的研究[J]. 浙江林业科技, 2014,34(6):55-58.
[16]	宝乐. 北京城市叶面尘分布及其对国槐生理和生长的影响机制[D]. 北京:中国科学院研究生院, 2015.
[17]	刘将, 周春玲, 宋慧慧. 草地早熟禾对叶面尘与土壤重金属的吸收作用[J].北方园艺, 2014(15):81-84.
[18]	王丹丹, 孙峰, 周春玲, 等. 城市道路植物圆柏叶片重金属含量及其与滞尘的关系[J]. 生态环境学报, 2012,21(5):947-951.
[19]	杨淏舟, 李艳梅, 陈奇伯, 等. 昆明市区18种常见绿化树种叶片重金属富集特征[J]. 福建农林大学学报, 2017,46(5):584-589.
[20]	李艳芹, 李艳梅, 梁茂, 等. 绿化树种滞尘及对重金属的吸净效应[J].现代农业科技, 2016(5):212-214.
[21]	么旭阳, 胡耀升, 刘艳红. 北京市常见绿化树种滞尘效应[J]. 西北林学报, 2014,29(3):92-95.
[22]	高丹丹, 赵丽娅, 李成, 等. 常见园林植物滞尘能力及评价方法[J]. 湖北大学学报:自然科学版, 2017,39(1):56-59.
[23]	孙晓丹, 李海梅, 孙丽, 等. 8种灌木滞尘能力及叶表面结构研究[J]. 环境化学, 2016,35(9):1815-1822.
[24]	阿丽亚·拜都热拉, 玉米提·哈力克, 塔依尔江·艾山, 等. 干旱区绿洲城市主要绿化树种最大滞尘量对比[J]. 林业科学, 2015,51(3):57-64.
[25]	于志会, 赵红艳, 庄园园. 吉林市6种常见绿篱植物滞尘能力的比较[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2014,53(12):2824-2826.
[26]	杨丽. 兰州城区不同绿化植物滞尘效应分析[J]. 广东农业科学, 2015,42(10):34-39.
[27]	Mclenzie E R, Wong C M, Green P G, et al. Size dependent elemental composition of road-nssociated partieles[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2008,398:145-153. pmid: 18433840
[28]	Dabmani-Muller H, Van O F, Gelie B, et al. Strategies of heavy metal up take by three plant species growing near a metal smelter[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2002,109:231-238. doi: 10.1016/s0269-7491(99)00262-6 pmid: 15092894
[29]	李丰涛, 祁建民, 牛韶华, 等. 闽中南红麻种植田土壤重金属含量及其富集特征[J]. 福建农林大学学报:自然科学版, 2013,42(2):127-133.

植物	Cd	Cr	Cu	Ni	Pb	Zn
毛白杨	0.023±0.001b	0.90±0.10bc	9.61±0.54ab	4.34±0.05e	1.00±0.02c	25.95±1.49a
悬铃木	0.056±0.004c	0.80±0.06abc	18.15±0.78d	5.00±0.12f	1.26±0.04d	50.31±0.76c
栾树	0.025±0.002b	0.71±0.01ab	9.02±0.44a	2.09±0.22d	0.75±0.03b	23.69±1.12a
绦柳	0.005±0.001a	0.81±0.10abc	9.32±0.99ab	1.37±0.08c	0.50±0.06a	24.13±0.73a
紫叶李	0.064±0.006d	0.73±0.01abc	12.71±0.24c	0.89±0.06b	1.04±0.06c	46.31±0.53b
女贞	0.054±0.005c	0.92±0.06c	11.01±0.35b	0.82±0.08ab	1.93±0.11e	150.14±2.64d
洋白蜡	0.018±0.001b	0.69±0.06a	9.67±0.16ab	0.55±0.04a	0.86±0.07bc	25.20±0.96a
国槐	0.019±0.002b	0.85±0.01abc	10.71±0.37ab	0.56±0.02a	0.87±0.12bc	24.40±0.92a

植物	Cd	Cr	Cu	Ni	Pb	Zn
毛白杨	0.17±0.006a	1.68±0.02b	11.81±0.17bc	4.45±0.25e	1.42±0.1ab	27.19±0.33a
悬铃木	0.74±0.04b	5.38±0.10e	23.62±0.73f	5.99±0.48d	1.85±0.17ab	51.60±1.25d
栾树	0.14±0.019a	1.41±0.02ab	10.86±0.42b	1.55±0.006b	0.86±0.28a	41.79±3.35c
绦柳	0.13±0.020a	1.39±0.09ab	9.49±0.22a	1.57±0.05b	0.84±0.01a	34.89±0.31b
紫叶李	0.18±0.007a	2.29±0.22c	11.44±0.09b	1.07±0.07a	1.49±0.20a	58.24±1.43e
女贞	1.09±0.03c	3.61±0.02d	15.17±0.66e	1.74±0.13b	2.74±0.40b	161.82±1.80f
洋白蜡	0.15±0.009a	1.32±0.09a	12.29±0.04c	2.99±0.16d	1.01±0.6ab	27.62±1.83a
国槐	0.16±0.003a	1.68±0.02b	13.50±0.09d	2.45±0.04c	1.26±0.13a	39.34±1.40bc