Next Article in Journal
A Comprehensive Review of the Harmful Compounds in Electronic Cigarettes
Previous Article in Journal
Silicon Speciation and Its Relationship with Carbon and Nitrogen in the Sediments of a Macrophytic Eutrophic Lake
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Tolerance Differences of Two Industrial Hemp Varieties Under Lead (Pb) Stress
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Source Apportionment of Potentially Toxic Elements in Agricultural Soils of Yingtan City, Jiangxi Province, China: A Principal Component Analysis–Positive Matrix Factorization Method

1
Institute of Water Ecology and Environment Research, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China
2
School of Environment, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210023, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxics 2025, 13(4), 267; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics13040267
Submission received: 26 December 2024 / Revised: 13 March 2025 / Accepted: 26 March 2025 / Published: 31 March 2025

Abstract

:
The increase in the concentration of potentially toxic elements in farmland soil attracts more and more attention. To identify the sources of potentially toxic elements in agricultural soils, 148 soil samples in Yingtan were selected as a case study, potentially toxic elements levels were analyzed, and principal component analysis (PCA) and positive matrix factorization (PMF) were employed. The results indicate that the average of Zn (89.62 mg·kg−1 d.w.), Cu (76.30 mg·kg−1 d.w.), Pb (35.56 mg·kg−1 d.w.), Mo (0.66 mg·kg−1 d.w.), and Cd (0.59 mg·kg−1 d.w.) exceed the corresponding soil background values of Jiangxi Province. Moreover, the high spatial coefficient of variation (above 1.00) for these elements suggests a significant influence from long-term external inputs. Among all of the elements above, the soil Cu and Cd concentrations indicate a relatively high pollution ranked by Igeo. Further analysis of sources apportioned by PCA and PMF implies that the potentially toxic elements input into agricultural soil may be attributed to mining activity, natural sources, smelting, and agricultural activity. This study implies that PCA-PMF combined with the field survey may be helpful tools for discerning the pollutants sources, and it addresses a view that the increasing Cu and Cd levels in farmland is concerning, as it is associated with the historical use of mixed fertilizers and a lack of supervision.

1. Introduction

Over the past four decades, highly intensive agricultural production alongside rapid industrialization and urbanization has led to increasingly severe farmland soil pollution and quality decline in China, posing a grave threat to agrarian product quality and safety [1]. According to the National Soil Pollution Status Survey Bulletin [2], 16.1% of the soil samples and 19.4% of the agricultural soils are contaminated based on China’s soil environmental quality limits, mainly by potentially toxic elements (PTEs), with cadmium pollution exceeding the standard the most severely (7.0%).
Currently, PTE pollution in China’s farmland is characterized by an expanding area and increasingly diverse sources [3]. Agricultural soil pollution distribution is spatially uneven, with contamination being more severe in the south and east compared to the north and west. Regions such as the Yangtze River Delta, Pearl River Delta, and the Northeast old industrial bases, which are major grain-producing areas with intensive industrial activities and high agricultural intensification, face prominent soil issues [4]. The sources of PTEs are also relatively complex, with parent materials and human activities being the main factors affecting their sources. Human activities mainly include industrial production emissions, sewage irrigation, mineral resource development, pesticide and fertilizer use, etc. [5,6]. However, with the modernization of agriculture and the development of the rural economy, the scope and severity of PTE pollution are expanding and worsening [7]. The safe utilization of agricultural soils in China is gathering increasing concern [8,9].
Exceeding the contaminant limits in food crops is widespread in some areas, especially Cd in rice in the southern region, which is often related to contaminated agricultural soils [10,11]. There are various inputs of contaminants, such as anthropogenic activities involving irrigation water, atmospheric deposition, utilizing fertilizers containing potentially toxic elements, accumulating hazardous waste containing PTEs [12,13], and even leachate from hazardous waste disposal [14,15,16]. Except for PTEs due to human activities, the background PTEs in soil or its acidic nature are thought to promote crop species or cultivars prone to PTE accumulation. An accurate identification of contaminant sources in agricultural systems is crucial for risk control strategies.
Source apportionment techniques can be categorized into qualitative source identification and quantitative source contribution. Qualitative methods primarily use principal component analysis (PCA) and isotope fingerprint analysis to identify major sources, while quantitative methods employ receptor models such as positive matrix factorization (PMF), geostatistical analysis, and chemical mass balance (CMB) [17,18,19,20]. PCA and PMF are widely used for PTE source apportionment in soils [21,22,23]. PCA simplifies data and reveals intrinsic structures by reducing dimensionality, which enhances source identification efficiency while preserving original data information. PMF allocates sources without prior knowledge of source profiles, which is advantageous when profiles are unknown or difficult to obtain [24]. However, PCA is qualitative, while PMF is quantitative, lacking an intuitive display of factor numbers and requiring multiple calculations [25]. Combining PCA and PMF compensates for their shortcomings, providing precise estimates of each element’s source contributions and minimizing biased judgments in source apportionment. For example, a study using this combined approach found that coal combustion (34.15%), livestock farming (17.44%), traffic emissions (12.42%), and natural factors (35.99%) were the main sources of pollution [26].
However, the complexity of the environment inevitably affects the accuracy of source resolution. If the sample number is limited, more variations may occur. Therefore, the combined auxiliary information should be obtained and integrated into PCA-PMF to improve the prediction’s accuracy.
The primary aim of this study is to develop PCA-PMF techniques by combined land-use type, which will be used for the source apportionment of PTEs in agricultural soils. This study emphasizes the advantage of the improved PCA-PMF and sheds light on the source of the PTEs of farmland, which is expected to help with risk reduction strategies on agricultural soil.

2. Materials and Method

2.1. Study Area and Sampling

The study area is located in Yingtan City, Jiangxi Province, China. It is characterized by a subtropical, humid monsoon climate; the region experiences high temperatures, ample sunlight, and abundant rainfall. The predominant soil type is Ferralsols (based on the FAO Soil Classification System), and the primary crop cultivated is rice. Yingtan City is endowed with abundant mineral resources, with reserves of Pb, Zn, Ag, and Mn ranking among the top in Jiangxi Province. The Guixi Smelter, the largest modern copper smelter in China, is located in the research area. Its main products include copper, sulfuric acid, electrolytic copper, electrolytic silver, etc. In 2022, a total of 148 agricultural soil samples (depth of 0–20 cm) were collected using clean stainless-steel shovels (Delixi Electric Co., Ltd., Leqing, China), each comprising a mixture of five closely located subsamples. After applying the quartering method, approximately 1 kg of the mixed soil sample was retained and stored in a polyethylene bag away from light, and the sampling information was recorded. The sampling sites are shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Field Investigation

Zhoufang Town (ZF Town) is situated at the northern end of Guixi City, Yingtan City, approximately 30 km from the Guixi Smelter. It is a typical green agricultural area with no industrial activities, sharing a similar climate, geological background, and agricultural cultivation situation with the aforementioned research area. According to the local data regarding the safe use and stringent control of contaminated agricultural land in 2021, certain rice samples have been identified as having PTE levels that exceed the limits set by the National Food Safety Standard (GB 2762-2012) [27].
Field investigations have been carried out along with face-to-face interviews to obtain more historical information on the farmland. The data reveal that the main irrigation water is taken from the local reservoir storage or a small river nearby. According to the villagers’ statements, it was confirmed that for some land, Cd rice exceeded the standard and had a history of mixed fertilizers being applied. The compound fertilizers had a lack of labels relating to PTE testing and were purchased from various sellers and producer sites, including Jiangxi, Hunan, Hubei, and Zhejiang. The usage of compound fertilizers is estimated to reach approximately 50~80% of the total fertilizer, but no detailed purchase and usage data have been recorded. Some sites are reported as old farmhouses or woodland; thus, they are assigned as soil without any fertilizer added. In some areas, slag piles in the surface soil have been observed along rural roads with low traffic volume, far away from rush-hour highways. The sample sites were classified based on the field investigation.

2.3. Analysis of PTEs

The soil samples were first sieved to remove debris such as roots, leaves, and stones. They were then dried at 60 °C to a constant weight for 48 h to ensure the removal of all free water. After drying, the samples were ground and passed through a 100-mesh sieve to obtain a homogeneous powder. All subsequent analyses were conducted on these prepared samples, and the results are reported on a dry weight basis (mg·kg−1 d.w.). The samples were comprehensively analyzed at the China Customs Science and Technology Research Center (STRC), which holds the necessary certification qualifications from China Metrology Accreditation (CMA) and is recognized as a proficiency testing provider by the China National Accreditation Service for Conformity Assessment (CNAS PT0012). The sample preparation and analysis process strictly adhered to the soil and sediment determination of aqua regia extracts of 12 metal elements by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (HJ 803-2016) [28].
The determination of PTEs was carried out on an ICP-MS (PerkinElmer NexION 350X, Waltham, MA, USA) with a carrier gas flow rate of 1.10 L/min and a sampling depth of 6.9 mm. The instrument automatically measured three times. Two laboratory blank samples per batch were analyzed, with results below the detection limit. A zero-point analysis of the standard curve was conducted after each batch analysis. Furthermore, parallel sample analyses and spiked recovery tests were conducted on 10% of the samples per batch. The detection results met the standard requirements (refer to HJ 803-2016), with a relative standard deviation of less than 5% and a recovery rate ranging from 95.6% to 104.0%. A total of twelve PTEs were detected, including vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), arsenic (As), molybdenum (Mo), cadmium (Cd), antimony (Sb), and lead (Pb).

2.4. Index of Geo-Accumulation

The Index of Geo-accumulation (Igeo), as introduced by Müller, is a widely recognized tool for assessing the degree of potentially toxic element contamination. It compares the element concentrations in the sampled soils to those in the background environment [29,30]. It is calculated using Equation (1).
I g e o = l o g 2 C n / k × B n
Here, C n (mg·kg−1 d.w.) represents the measured PTE content in sampled soil, while B n denotes the background value of potentially toxic elements in soil (mg·kg−1 d.w.) based on the soil background values in Jiangxi Province. k , usually denoted as 1.5, is the correction factor that indicates the possible variation of the background value of potentially toxic elements in the soil rock layer [30,31,32,33]. The Igeo values are categorized into seven classes, ranging from 0 to 6 (Table 1).

2.5. Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

The principal component analysis (PCA) adopted in this study is a dimensionality reduction method that applies a linear transformation to numerous interrelated original variables. It extracts fewer essential variables that are uncorrelated with each other. Using fewer representative factors, PCA can explain the primary information of multiple variables and infer relevant pollution sources, enabling the more accurate qualitative identification of pollution sources [34].

2.6. Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF)

The positive matrix factorization (PMF) employed in this study is a receptor model recommended by the US EPA and first introduced by Paatero and Tapper in 1994 [35]. This model identifies pollution sources using sample composition or fingerprints, applying non-negative constraints during the factor matrix decomposition process to achieve a quantitative analysis of pollution sources. In the PMF model, the concentration data matrix of receptor samples ( X ) is decomposed into a factor score matrix ( G ), a factor loading matrix ( F ), and a residual matrix ( E ). The matrix form is expressed as follows (Equations (2) and (3)):
X = G F + E
x i j = k = 1 p g i k f k j + e i j
Here, x i j represents the concentration of compound j in sample i (mg·kg−1 d.w.); g i k denotes the contribution of source k to sample i; f k j is the concentration of compound j in source k (mg·kg−1 d.w.); p represents the total number of identified pollution sources in the model; and e i j is the residual for each sample and compound. The results of the PMF model are determined by the objective function (Equation (4)).
Q E = i = 1 n j = 1 m ( e i j u i j ) 2  
Here, u i j represents the uncertainty of each compound in each sample, which is dimensionless, and the method for calculating uncertainty refers to the literature [36].
When the concentration of potentially toxic elements is below the detection limit of the corresponding method, the parameters are suggested as follows (Equation (5)):
x i j = d i j 2 ,   u i j = 5 6 d i j
In reverse, the parameters can be set as follows. The value x i j can be seen as the PTE concentration detected. The uncertainty factor will be chosen depending on Equation (6) or (7).
x i j 3 d i j ,           u i j = d i j 3 + 0.2 × c i j
x i j > 3 d i j ,           u i j = d i j 3 + 0.1 × c i j
Here, c i j is the measured concentration of the sample, mg·kg−1 d.w.; values of x i j are the input concentration during the model operation process, mg·kg−1 d.w.; d i j is the detection limit of the method, mg·kg−1 d.w.; and u i j is the uncertainty factor, dimensionless.

2.7. Data Analysis

The concentrations of each PTE were statistically analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2016. Subsequently, all test data were subjected to a normality test using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test within SPSS 18.0 software, and the results were visualized using OriginPro 2024. The data are considered to have a normal distribution if the p-value is more significant than 0.05. For source apportionment analysis, the PCA module of SPSS 18.0 is employed in conjunction with PMF 5.0, downloaded from the US EPA website [37].

3. Results and Analysis

3.1. Descriptive Statistics of PTEs in Soil

The profiles of PTE levels in agricultural soil were surveyed (Table 2). The descending order of mean value in the soil is as follows: Mn, Zn, Cu, Pb, Cr, As, Ni, Sb, Mo, and Cd. It is noteworthy that the average concentrations of Mo and Pb are marginally elevated above the corresponding soil background values in Jiangxi Province. Also, the average of Cu and Cd are substantially higher, with 3.76 and 5.40 times the background levels, respectively. Of particular concern, over 80% of the surveyed sites had Cu and Cd concentrations surpassing the background values. Furthermore, compared to the risk screening values for soil contamination on agricultural land, as stipulated by the standard GB 15618-2018 [38], this indicates that the average of Cu and Cd are 1.53 and 1.97 times, respectively.
The coefficient of variation (CV) is defined as the degree of spatial variability in PTE concentrations [39], and it is sorted as low (CV ≤ 0.30), moderate (0.30 < CV ≤ 0.50), high (0.50 < CV ≤ 1.00), or extremely high (CV > 1.00). The CV values for PTEs in this study range from 0.51 to 2.56, with an average of 1.33 (Table 2), indicating an extremely high level of variation in the study area, which might be affected by external factors.

3.2. Assessment of Soil PTs Contamination

To further investigate the degree of PTE pollution in agricultural soils, the Index of Geo-accumulation was applied. The regional Igeo mean is ranked from lowest to highest (Figure 2a), listed as V < Co < Mn < Cr < Ni < As < Sb < Pb < Zn < Mo < Cu < Cd. The pollution status of Cu and Cd in the soil is particularly concerning, with their respective Igeo mean values of 0.73 and 0.84, both falling within the class 1 zone (Table 1), which is a scope of moderate contamination. In contrast, all other PTEs fall in the zone of class 0, with no pollution. As far as how PTEs in soil fall into the scope of contamination is concerned, the Igeo indicates that Cu, Cd, Mo, and Sb are 74.32%, 70.95%, 25.00%, and 11.49%, respectively, whereas Mn, Ni, As, Pb, and Zn are below 10%. No contamination of V, Co, or Cr is found (Figure 2b). After calculating the Igeo value, it emphasizes the necessity to pay more attention to the risk that Cu and Cd may pose.

3.3. Source Apportionment of Soil PTEs

3.3.1. Homology Analysis of Soil PTEs

The theory of elemental geochemistry puts up a view that the correlation among elements can reflect the similarities in their sources, and accordingly, the homogeneity analysis of PTEs can provide a basis for identifying the sources of PTEs [40,41,42], which is performed using correlation statistics and clustering analysis [40,43]. The content of soil PTEs in the study area was found to be normally distributed, determined by R-type clustering and Spearman correlation analysis.
Figure 3a shows that PTEs are clustered into three types: Cluster I includes V, Cr, Co, and Ni; Cluster II includes Mn, Zn, Pb, and Cd; and Cluster III includes Cu, Mo, Sb, and As. The inter-cluster elements have significant autocorrelation, indicating that these PTEs may have homologous sources [44]. In conjunction with the correlation heat map (Figure 3b), it can be inferred that V, Cr, Co, and Ni in Cluster I may have homologous sources. Similarly, Mn, Zn, Pb, and Cd in Cluster II and Cu, Mo, Sb, and As in Cluster III are speculated as having homologous sources. A comparative analysis across the three clusters shows poor correlation among the elements in different clusters, suggesting a lower homology among these clusters. As a result, it can be concluded that there are at least three potential sources of PTEs in agricultural soils.

3.3.2. PCA Analysis of Soil PTEs

PCA is further utilized to delineate the sources of PTEs in the soil. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test gave a value of 0.76, a value suitable for factor analysis, and the Bartlett sphericity examination passed. Following varimax rotation to maximize variance, three principal components were identified, adhering to the criterion of eigenvalues exceeding 1 in PCA. These components cumulatively account for 80.34% of the total variance, suggesting that the majority of PTE sources can be attributed to these three principal components. The three factors after rotation are shown (Table 3), and the loadings on each factor are displayed (Figure 4).
The first principal component (PC1) explains 29.29% of the total variance, with high loadings (>0.85) observed for Mn, Zn, Cd, and Pb, which indicates that these elements likely share a homologous source or similar transport pathways, as evidenced by their significant correlations (Figure 3). Based on the Mineral Resource Master Plan of Yingtan City (2008–2015), it is confirmed that the area boasts a significant abundance of lead–zinc mineral resources. According to previous research, PTEs such as Pb, Zn, and Cd are released into the environment during the mining process and subsequently enter the soil through weathering, erosion, and other environmental processes [45,46,47]. Also, a large amount of wastewater and slag is discharged during the ore dressing process, which contains high concentrations of PTEs [46]. For example, in a typical lead–zinc mining area in Guizhou Province, the average concentrations of Pb and Zn in the ore dressing wastewater reach 10.5 mg/L and 25.3 mg/L, respectively, far exceeding the national discharge standards (GB 8978-1996) [48,49]. If these wastewaters are discharged directly without treatment, they can cause severe pollution to the soil and groundwater. The research area has a developed mining industry, which might be one of the pollution source contributors. Moreover, Cd has been identified as an element associated with agricultural practices, and the excessive use of phosphate fertilizers can result in Cd accumulation in soil [50,51]. Similar fertilizers were applied in the investigation areas; therefore, PC1 is assigned as a composite source encompassing both mining and agricultural activities.
The second principal component (PC2) explains 25.70% of the total variance, in which strongly positive correlations of V, Cr, Co, and Ni were explored, and the CV values of the four elements were all relatively weak (0.51~0.65); meanwhile, their average contents did not exceed the soil background values in Jiangxi Province. All the data suggest that external activities have minimal impact on their distribution. Concerning the source of V, Cr, Co, and Ni, the previous report indicated that natural sources originating from soil matrix matrices and weathering processes may be the main input [30,32,52,53]. Combined with the level of background PTEs in Jiangxi Province, it is speculated that PC2 may be a natural source.
The third principal component (PC3) explains 25.36% of the total variance, with Cu, As, Mo, and Sb being the main loading elements. Among them, Cu pollution is the most severe, with an average content exceeding 3.76 times the soil background value in Jiangxi Province. According to Zhou [54], the Guixi Smelter did not plan and control the discharge of waste residue, wastewater, and exhaust gas generated during the smelting process in the early stages of operation. After more than 30 years of accumulation, it has caused pollution to the surrounding environment, with the main pollutants including Cu. The investigation conducted by Wu et al. [55] and Xu et al. [56] also confirms this statement. In addition, substantial acid waste containing As, Mo, and Sb was generated from copper smelting and released into the environment by slag, wastewater, and flue gas [57,58]. These PTEs enter the soil via atmospheric deposition, waste residue leakage, sewage irrigation, and other pathways, resulting in enrichment in the soil. Thus, the main source of elements of PC3 can be identified as copper smelting activities.

3.3.3. PMF Analysis of Soil PTEs

To further elucidate the origins and contributions of PTEs in agricultural soils, PMF was employed to determine the sources. The PTE concentration data and their corresponding uncertainty parameters were introduced into the PMF model. Based on the results from PCA, the parameters of three primary sources were set, but an unsatisfactory fitting was obtained. To improve the fitting degree, more source numbers were selected to reflect the multiple sources of soil PTEs in the research area, and the Robust model was adopted. The number of runs was set as 20, and the mode of “random starting seed number” was optioned in PMF, and then parameters of five source factors were identified. The fitting results between the real and predicted values are presented in Table 4. All PTEs exhibit high correlation coefficients (R²) above 0.50, indicating that the PMF simulation yields well-fitting results in response to the sources.
In PMF, the loading factors for each potentially toxic element can help to apportion the sources (Figure 5), and it can be observed that PM1 is more loaded on Mn. However, the average concentration of Mn does not exceed the background values for Jiangxi Province, and only a few sample sites are found in a state of pollution. Regarding the sources, natural sources are the first focus. Mn, a constituent of the Earth’s crust, is naturally abundant in soils. Yingtan, a city with abundant manganese ore resources, is one of the main production areas of manganese ore in China. According to official statistical data, the manganese ore production in Yingtan has remained at more than 300,000 tons in the past few years. Most of these mines are open mines, and Mn would be released into the environment along with slag disposal and atmospheric sedimentation, which explains the increasing Mn soil in the local area. Considering the fact of mining activities, it is inferred that PM1 is mainly influenced by natural origin and mining activities.
The main loading factors of PM2 are Sb, As, and Mo, which overlap with the composition of PC3 in PCA. These elements are tightly associated with the by-products of copper smelting. Thus, PM2 is apportioned as an industrial source relating to copper smelting activities.
In PM3, the contribution ratios are dominated by V, Cr, Ni, Co, Zn, and Pb, with loading factor ratios of 78.67%, 81.14%, 65.41%, 46.12%, 39.58%, and 32.57%, respectively. It is worth noting that there is no correlation between the group of Zn and Pb and another group of V, Cr, Ni, and Co, which mainly come from soil parent materials and are less affected by human activities [30,32,52,53]. The study area was found to be rich in lead–zinc minerals and mining activities. In this study, the average contents of V, Cr, Ni, and Co are lower than the corresponding soil background values in Jiangxi Province (Table 2), with a low CV value, which means these PTEs come from natural sources, while soil Zn and Pb are contributed by anthropology activities. Therefore, PM3 can be characterized as a mixed source of natural origin and mining activities.
PM4 was mainly characterized by loadings from Cu. In this study, over 80% of the survey sites showed Cu concentrations exceeding the background value, with an average exceedance multiple of 3.76, which indicates that Cu has been related to severe external input. The copper smelting activities mentioned may have a role in contributing to Cu in soil. As far as other input ways, it cannot be ignored that Cu, as an inherent component of additives in livestock feed, will be transferred to the soil via animal manure [59]. In addition, using fertilizers and pesticides can lead to the accumulation of Cu in the soil [60]. So, PM4 is set as a mixed source of agriculture and copper smelting.
PM5 has a relatively high contribution of 84.37% to Cd. It was often regarded as a hallmark element in agricultural activities [50,51]. In general, some research found that phosphate ores contain 5–100 mg/kg of Cd, and most or all of the Cd enters the fertilizer [51]. Excessive application of phosphate fertilizer can cause the accumulation of Cd in the soil. Hence, PM5 is considered an agricultural source.

3.3.4. Integrating PCA-PMF with Field Survey

The source apportionment and counterpart contribution ratios obtained from both PCA and PMF are shown (Figure 6). PCA has accounted for the sources of PTEs in soil by using three factors, while PMF, based on three factors, has yielded suboptimal model fitting because of the complexity of input sources. Due to a complex environmental background, the pathways through which PTEs enter the soil are diverse, making it challenging to define them with a single source. The PMF model provides an advantage to overcome the shortage by optimizing the parameters of input sources and uncertainties. In terms of the source apportionment results, it can be observed that despite the use of five factors by PMF to describe the sources of PTEs, which still include the PCA analysis, the sources are mining activity, natural, smelting, and agricultural activity. This integration of PCA-PMF can be cross-validated for allocating pollution sources, which is more suitable for dealing with the complexity of PTE sources in soil.
The escalating pollution of agricultural soils with Cd and Cu not only impacts crop growth but also poses a prolonged risk to human health through the food chain [61,62]. This study underscores that the contamination of Cu and Cd in the study area’s soil warrants significant attention (Figure 2). For the specific area, an extra field survey combined with PCA-PMF can help apportion sources. For example, ZF Town, a green farmland area far away from the industrial zones, has found that Cd rice exceeded the standard. It is important to identify the source of PTEs. Information on historical land use in ZF is inquired, and the soil can be classified into two categories: soil with mixed fertilizer application (SF) and soil without mixed fertilizer application (SNF). The technology of PCA-PMF was employed in the specific green agricultural area, and the results are shown in Figure S2 and Table S4. The results show that Cd and Cu were alien pollution elements in farmland soils, and there was a significant correlation between them (Figure S1). In the previous analysis, it has been pointed out that soil Cd and Cu are closely related to the application of fertilizers. However, an interesting phenomenon was found in Table S1. The average of Cd in SNF soil is 0.06 mg·kg−1 d.w., which is considerably lower than the 0.18 mg·kg−1 d.w. observed in SF soil and the soil background value of 0.11 mg·kg−1 in Jiangxi Province. In contrast, the mean Cu concentration in SNF soil is 30.21 mg·kg−1 d.w., significantly lower than the 39.09 mg·kg−1 d.w. in SF soil, but it exceeds the background value of 20.3 mg·kg−1. This result indicates that fertilization is likely the predominant source of Cd, whereas Cu, although also present in higher concentrations in SF soil, may have additional anthropogenic sources contributing to its levels in the soil. For example, the long-term application of pig manure can lead to Cu accumulation in farmland soil [63,64]. This methodology of PCA-PMF merged with field survey will enable a more comprehensive understanding of the origins of Cd and Cu, particularly in the agricultural area.

4. Discussion

Cd and Cu contamination in farmland soil poses significant risks to human and environmental health. Cd, a toxic metal, enters the human body through the food chain, causing kidney damage, bone deformities (e.g., Itai-Itai disease), and increased cancer risk with long-term exposure [65]. It also impairs soil biota and plant growth, reducing biodiversity and ecosystem services [66]. Cu, essential in small amounts, becomes harmful at high levels, causing gastrointestinal, liver, and kidney issues in humans and disrupting the nervous system. In soil, elevated Cu levels inhibit microbial activity that is crucial for nutrient cycling and plant growth, leading to reduced crop yields and quality [67].
Given the complex pollution distribution in the study area, a multi-method approach is recommended for highly polluted small-area farmland patches. Deep plowing combined with guest-soil methods can dilute contaminants. Acidic modifiers like ferrous sulfate can adjust soil pH to precipitate Cd and Cu without harming the acidic environment. For bioremediation, local acid-tolerant hyperaccumulators such as Rumex species, which excel in Cd enrichment, can be planted in treated soils to boost phytoremediation efficiency. Additionally, acid-tolerant microorganisms like Acid thiobacillus can be introduced, which can transform Cd and Cu to enhance the removal of PTEs when cooperating with plants.
This highlights the need for government departments to enhance the environmental supervision of the copper-smelting industry, drive smelters to upgrade pollution-control facilities, ensure standard waste discharge, and curb PTE migration to farmland. They should strictly enforce ecological protection for mining, regulate mining procedures, improve drainage systems, and prevent PTE wastewater from entering farmland. Ecological restoration, like vegetation cover on abandoned mines, should be implemented to block PTE spread. In agriculture, scientific fertilization and pesticide use should be promoted. Organic fertilizer use should be encouraged to replace some chemical fertilizers, PTE input from fertilizer impurities should be reduced, and farmers should be guided on using low-toxicity, low-residue pesticides with minimal impact on soil PTEs, building a PTE source-control system.
Additionally, current research has limitations in scale, and relying solely on PCA and PMF may not fully capture the complexity of PTs sources, especially considering the influence of various environmental factors and the dynamic nature of soil interactions. It is recommended that introducing isotope methods could provide a more robust framework for source identification by offering geochemical fingerprints that are less affected by external conditions and more closely related to the compositional features of the source region.

5. Conclusions

This study suggests that the input of PTEs into agricultural soil may be attributed to mining activity, natural sources, copper smelting, and agricultural practices. Among these elements, Cu and Cd were significantly enriched in agricultural soils and identified as the most critical pollutants in the region. The comparative analysis using PCA and PMF demonstrated a high degree of congruence in identifying pollution sources, providing mutual validation for the large-scale region with complex sources. PCA excels in determining the primary number of predominant pollution sources, while PMF is more precise in calculating their contribution rates. For specific sites, the integration of PCA-PMF with field investigations effectively pinpoints the sources and has proven to be a robust approach in this study.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/toxics13040267/s1, Table S1: Statistical analysis of PTEs concentrations in the typical green agricultural soil; Table S2: Rotating loadings of PTEs on principal components; Table S3: Fitting results of measured value and simulated predicted value of PTEs content based on PMF; Table S4: Sources spectra and source contribution of PTEs based on PMF; Figure S1: The homology analysis of PTEs in the typical green agricultural soil; Figure S2: PCA loading contribution of the PTEs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.W.; data curation, R.H.; writing—original draft preparation, S.C.; writing—review and editing, H.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFC1809104).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Chen, S.B.; Wang, M.; Li, S.S.; Zheng, H.; Lei, X.Q.; Sun, X.Y.; Wang, L.F. Current status of and discussion on farmland heavy metal pollution prevention in China. Earth Sci. Front. 2019, 26, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ministry of Environmental Protection; Ministry of Land and Resources. National Soil Pollution Status Survey Bulletin. Available online: https://www.gov.cn/foot/site1/20140417/782bcb88840814ba158d01.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2023).
  3. Zhao, J.X.; Yin, P.C.; Yue, R.; Wang, M.P.; Shi, R. Research progress of status, source, restoration technique of heavy metals pollution in cropland of China. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 2018, 46, 19–21+26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wang, Y.; Zhang, X.L.; Wang, R. Soil pollution survey and management in Taiwan of China. Soils 2018, 50, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hu, Y.A.; He, K.L.; Sun, Z.H.; Chen, G.; Zheng, H.F. Quantitative source apportionment of heavy metal(loid)s in the agricultural soils of an industrializing region and associated model uncertainty. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 391, 122244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yu, F.R.; Ji, Y.K.; Wu, L.; Zhang, J.N.; Fu, Y.; Liu, S.T.; Ma, J.Q. Source-oriented comprehensive assessment framework for identifying priority heavy metals in agricultural soils. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2025, 13, 115579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yang, L.; Bai, Z.X.; Bo, W.H.; Lin, J.; Yang, J.J.; Chen, T. Analysis and evaluation of heavy metal pollution in farmland soil in China: A Meta-analysis. Environ. Sci. 2024, 45, 2913–2925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fei, X.F.; Lou, Z.H.; Xiao, R.; Ren, Z.Q.; Lv, X.N. Source analysis and source-oriented risk assessment of heavy metal pollution in agricultural soils of different cultivated land qualities. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 341, 130942. [Google Scholar]
  9. NI, Z.Y.; Xie, G.X.; Zhang, M.K. Effects of Acidification on Bioavailability of Cadmium and Lead in Cultivated Land Soil and Their Accumulation in Agricultural Products. Acta Agric. Jiangxi 2017, 29, 52–56. [Google Scholar]
  10. Wang, Q.; Pang, Y.; Xu, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Yin, D.; Hu, M.; Xu, L.; Liu, T.; Sun, W.; Yu, H.Y. Controlling factors of heavy metal(loid) accumulation in rice: Main and interactive effects. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2024, 31, 42357–42371. [Google Scholar]
  11. Liu, Q.; Lu, W.; Bai, C.; Xu, C.; Ye, M.; Zhu, Y.; Yao, L. Cadmium, arsenic, and mineral nutrients in rice and potential risks for human health in South China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 76842–76852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhou, L. Research on the Content and Distribution of Heavy Metals in the Soil of a Vegetable Base Site. Master’s Thesis, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  13. Lv, Y.; Xie, L.; Zhu, W.; Zhou, Y.; Sun, H. Early warning research on the probability of soil heavy metal risk in county agricultural land based on environmental capacity. Resour. Environ. Yangtze River Basin 2020, 29, 253–264. [Google Scholar]
  14. Wan, Y.; Liu, J.; Henríquez-Hernández, Z.Z.W.L.A. Heavy Metals in Agricultural Soils: Sources, Influencing Factors, and Remediation Strategies. Toxics 2024, 12, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Wang, H.; Wu, J.; Tian, Z. Study on atmospheric heavy metal deposition by environmental tracers surrounding copper smelting. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2023, 16, 1479–1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Huang, Y.; Chen, G.; Huang, Y.; Liu, B.; Xiong, L.; Xiaoqing, O.U.; Zhao, X.; Zhou, Y.; Pang, M. Characteristics and Risk Assessment of Soil Heavy Metal Contents in Facility Agriculture of Guangxi. Asian Agric. Res. 2021, 13, 5. [Google Scholar]
  17. Huang, Y.; Chen, Q.; Deng, M.; Japenga, J.; Li, T.; Yang, X.; He, Z. Heavy metal pollution and health risk assessment of agricultural soils in a typical peri-urban area in southeast China. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 207, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, X. Sources Analysis of Heavy Metal Contamination in Soil and Rice in an Industrial Area in Hunan Province, China. Master’s Thesis, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  19. Wei, Y.H.; Li, G.C.; Wang, Y.H.; Zhang, Q.; Li, B.; Wang, S.C.; Cui, J.H.; Zhang, H.Z.; Zhang, Q. Investigating factors influencing the PMF model:A case study of source apportionment of heavy metals in farmland soils near a lead-zinc ore. J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 2018, 37, 2549–2559. [Google Scholar]
  20. Diakite, M.L.; Hu, Y.; Cheng, H. Source apportionment based on the comparative approach of two receptor models in a large-scale region in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 56696–56710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, X.; Wei, S.; Sun, Q.; Wadood, S.A.; Guo, B. Source identification and spatial distribution of arsenic and heavy metals in agricultural soil around Hunan industrial estate by positive matrix factorization model, principle components analysis and geo statistical analysis. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 159, 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jiang, F.; Ren, B.; Hursthouse, A.S.; Zhou, Y. Trace Metal Pollution in Topsoil Surrounding the Xiangtan Manganese Mine Area (South-Central China): Source Identification, Spatial Distribution and Assessment of Potential Ecological Risks. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jiang, Y.; Chao, S.; Liu, J.; Yang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, A.; Cao, H. Source apportionment and health risk assessment of heavy metals in soil for a township in Jiangsu Province, China. Chemosphere 2017, 168, 1658–1668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Đorđević, D.; Petrović, S.; Relić, D.; Mihajlidi-Zelić, A. Applying receptor models Unmix and PMF on real data set of elements in PM for sources evaluation of the sea coastal side region (Southeast Adriatic Sea). Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss. 2013, 2013, 4941–4969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, C.; Zhao, Y.P.; Xie, M.J. Characteristics of lead enrichment in the soil from a typical peri-urban agricultural area of the southern Jiangsu and source appointment based on the PCA-PMF method. China Environ. Sci. 2021, 41, 279–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yang, Z.; Yu, J.; Yang, K.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, Y.; Qiao, S. Source Apportionment and Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements Based on PCA and PMF Model in Black Soil Area of Hailun City, Northeast China. Toxics 2024, 12, 683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. GB 2762-2012; National Food Safety Standard—Limits of Contaminants in Food. National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2012.
  28. HJ 803-2016; Soil and Sediment-Determination of Aqua Regia Extracts of 12 Metal Elements-Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry. Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the Reople’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2016.
  29. Müller, G. Index of Geoaccumulation in Sediments of the Rhine River. GeoJournal 1969, 2, 109–118. [Google Scholar]
  30. Luo, H.P.; Wang, Q.Z.; Guan, Q.Y.; Ma, Y.R.; Zhang, J. Heavy metal pollution levels, source apportionment and risk assessment in dust storms in key cities in Northwest China. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 422, 126878. [Google Scholar]
  31. Li, Z.Y.; Ma, Z.W.; van der Kuijp, T.J.; Yuan, Z.W.; Huang, L. A review of soil heavy metal pollution from mines in China: Pollution and health risk assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 468–469, 843–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pan, H.Y.; Lu, X.W.; Lei, K. A comprehensive analysis of heavy metals in urban road dust of Xi’an, China: Contamination, source apportionment and spatial distribution. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 609, 1361–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Anaman, R.; Peng, C.; Jiang, Z.C.; Liu, X.; Zhou, Z.R.; Guo, Z.H.; Xiao, X.Y. Identifying sources and transport routes of heavy metals in soil with different land uses around a smelting site by GIS based PCA and PMF. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 823, 153759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kuang, H.F.; Hu, C.H.; Wu, G.L.; Chen, M. Combination of PCA and PMF to apportion the sources of heavy metals in surface sediments from Lake Poyang during the wet season. J. Lake Sci. 2020, 32, 964–976. [Google Scholar]
  35. Paatero, P.; Tapper, U. Positive matrix factorization: A non-negative factor model with optimal utilization of error estimates of data values. Environmetrics 1994, 5, 111–126. [Google Scholar]
  36. Zhang, J.Z.; Zhou, X.H.; Wang, Z.; Yang, L.X.; Wang, J.; Wang, W.X. Trace elements in PM2.5 in Shandong Province: Source identification and health risk assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 621, 558–577. [Google Scholar]
  37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/air-research/positive-matrix-factorization-model-environmental-data-analyses (accessed on 15 September 2023).
  38. GB 15618-2018; Soil Environmental Quality Risk Control Standard for Soil Contamination of Agricultural Land. Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the Reople’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2018.
  39. Wang, H.Z.; Liu, D.Y.; Lv, Y.F.; Wang, W.; Wu, Q.; Huang, L.; Zhu, L. Ecological and health risk assessments of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soils around a petroleum refining plant in China: A quantitative method based on the improved hybrid model. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 461, 132476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Xie, Z.J.; Zhao, R.B.; Wang, Y.; Wang, H.; Li, C.H.; Yu, Z.L.; Ye, C. Ecological risk assessment and pollution characteristic analysis of heavy metals in sediments of Xingkai Lake. J. Environ. Eng. Technol. 2023, 13, 1987–1996. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lv, Y.J.; Wang, Q.Y.; Sun, X.M.; Zhang, Z.W.; Zhang, Y.M.; Gao, Y.X. Pollution characteristics and source identification of heavy metals in farmland soils around a tailing pond in Zhejiang Province. J. Environ. Eng. Technol. 2023, 13, 1464–1475. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mi, X.J.; Ren, W.; Luo, Q.; Ma, J. Evaluation and their sources of heavy metals in uncultivated saline-alkaline soil in the Junggar Basin, Xinjiang. Arid Zone Res. 2019, 36, 824–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Shuai, W.C.; Liu, W.Q.; Ma, L.Y.; Ming, C.H.; Chen, J.B.; Yuan, W. Analysis of heavy metal sources and ecological health risk assessment in typical non-ferrous metal smelting sites. Earth Environ. 2024, 52, 756–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Li, X.X.; Liu, H.Y.; Meng, W.; Liu, N.T.; Wu, P. Accumulation and source apportionment of heavy metal(loid)s in agricultural soils based on GIS, SOM and PMF: A case study in superposition areas of geochemical anomalies and zinc smelting, Southwest China. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2022, 159, 964–977. [Google Scholar]
  45. Liu, A.; Yu, C.L.; Wang, L.P.; Song, J.J.; Sun, L.W.; Qian, J.; Sun, M.H. Heavy metal sources and ecological risk assessment of typical lead-zinc mining areas in Hebei Province. Bull. Geol. Sci. Technol. 2024, 43, 307–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chen, Y. Research progress on soil heavy metal pollution and ecological restoration technology in lead-zinc mining areas. China Strateg. Emerg. Ind. 2024, 32, 122–124. [Google Scholar]
  47. Liu, N.; Tang, Y.Y.; Chen, M.; Pan, Y.X. Source apportionment of soil heavy metals in lead-zinc area based on APCS-MLR and PMF. China Environ. Sci. 2023, 43, 1267–1276. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gu, H.; Zhao, T.; Gao, Y.; Sun, R.G. Pollution characteristics and source analysis of heavy metals in soils of a typical lead-zinc mining Area in Guizhou Province. Earth Environ. 2022, 50, 506–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. B 8978-1996; Integrated Wastewater Discharge Standard. Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the Reople’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 1996.
  50. Yang, Y.; Zhou, J.; Guo, T.; Ding, H.; Liu, X. Source analysis of heavy metal pollution in farmland soil in a mining area based on a small watershed scale. J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 2023, 42, 1956–1963. [Google Scholar]
  51. Li, J.; Chen, H.Y.; Teng, Y.G.; Dong, Q.Q. Contamination characteristics and source apportionment of soil heavy metals in Lalin River basin. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2016, 32, 226–233. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ali, M.H.; Mustafa, A.-R.A.; El-Sheikh, A.A. Geochemistry and spatial distribution of selected heavy metals in surface soil of Sohag, Egypt: A multivariate statistical and GIS approach. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gunawardena, J.; Ziyath, A.M.; Bostrom, T.E.; Bekessy, L.K.; Ayoko, G.A.; Egodawatta, P.; Goonetilleke, A. Characterisation of atmospheric deposited particles during a dust storm in urban areas of Eastern Australia. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 461–462, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Zhou, J. Present situation and prospects of technologies for remediation of heavy-metal-contaminated soil around Jiangxi Guixi Smelter. World Environ. 2016, 161, 48–53. [Google Scholar]
  55. Wu, S.X.; Zou, X.H.; Pan, X.L.; Cai, W.D.; Luo, Y.Q. Analysis and evaluation on heavy metal pollution condition of soil in farmland around Guixi Smelting Factory. Jiangxi Sci. 2012, 30, 779–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Xu, S.; Gong, X.F.; Liu, C.Y.; Chen, C.L.; Zeng, H.Q.; Wang, J.J.; Li, Z.L.; Zheng, L. Ecological risk assessment and pollution analysis on the heavy metals contaminated soil around Guixi smeltery. J. Nanchang Univ. (Nat. Sci.) 2015, 39, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zhang, Y.Z.; Yang, Z.H.; Qi, Y.H.; Zhang, X.T. Determination of Re, Mo and Se in copper smelting waste by indutively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry. Anhui Chem. Ind. 2011, 37, 72–74. [Google Scholar]
  58. Zhang, Z.Q.; Yuan, L.C.; Huang, L.Q.; Xu, Z.F. Trend and recovery of arsenic, antimony and bismuth in copper smelting. Nonferrous Met. Sci. Eng. 2019, 10, 13–19+27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Guan, Q.; Wang, F.; Xu, C.; Pan, N.; Lin, J.; Zhao, R.; Yang, Y.; Luo, H. Source apportionment of heavy metals in agricultural soil based on PMF: A case study in Hexi Corridor, northwest China. Chemosphere 2018, 193, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Liang, J.; Feng, C.; Zeng, G.; Gao, X.; Zhong, M.; Li, X.; Li, X.; He, X.; Fang, Y. Spatial distribution and source identification of heavy metals in surface soils in a typical coal mine city, Lianyuan, China. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 225, 681–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Wang, M.; Li, S.S.; Li, X.Y.; Zhao, Z.Q.; Chen, S.B. An overview of current status of copper pollution in soil and remediation efforts in China. Earth Sci. Front. 2018, 25, 305–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Meng, L.; Huang, T.H.; Chen, J.; Zhong, F.L.; Shi, J.C.; Xu, J.M. Safe utilization of farmland soil with cadmium pollution: Strategies and deliberations. J. Zhejiang Univ. (Agric. Life Sci.) 2019, 45, 263–271. [Google Scholar]
  63. Xu, M.G.; Wu, H.W.; Liu, J. Evolution of heavy metal contents of three soils under long-term fertilizations. J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 2010, 29, 2319–2324. [Google Scholar]
  64. Zhang, Y.J.; Liang, T.Z.; Feng, D.L.; Diao, L.Y.; Liang, M.Z. Research on trace element copper application in aquaculture. J. Guangxi Agric. 2019, 34, 57–62. [Google Scholar]
  65. Cai, J.Y.; Zhang, W.L. Advances of epidemiological study on population exposure and health hazard of environmental cadmium pollution. J. Environ. Hyg. 2019, 9, 621–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Deng, J.L.; Wang, Y.G.; Yu, D.; Li, X.J.; Yue, J.P. Effects of heavy metals on variation in bacterial communities in farmland soil of tailing dam collapse area. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 8100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Matse, D.T.; Geretharan, T.; van Gorp, E.F.; Anderson, S.; Jeyakumar, P.; Anderson, C.W.N. The Potential Impact of Long-Term Copper Fungicide Sprays on Soil Health in Avocado Orchards. Environments 2024, 11, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Sample sites.
Figure 1. Sample sites.
Toxics 13 00267 g001
Figure 2. Index of Geo-accumulation in the study area.
Figure 2. Index of Geo-accumulation in the study area.
Toxics 13 00267 g002
Figure 3. Homology analysis of potentially toxic elements in soil. (a,b) R-type cluster map and Spearman correlation heat map, respectively.
Figure 3. Homology analysis of potentially toxic elements in soil. (a,b) R-type cluster map and Spearman correlation heat map, respectively.
Toxics 13 00267 g003
Figure 4. PCA loading contribution of potentially toxic elements.
Figure 4. PCA loading contribution of potentially toxic elements.
Toxics 13 00267 g004
Figure 5. Factor fingerprints of potentially toxic elements.
Figure 5. Factor fingerprints of potentially toxic elements.
Toxics 13 00267 g005
Figure 6. A comparison of source apportionment by PCA and PMF.
Figure 6. A comparison of source apportionment by PCA and PMF.
Toxics 13 00267 g006
Table 1. Igeo of contamination degrees ranking.
Table 1. Igeo of contamination degrees ranking.
ClassIgeo ValueSoil Quality
0Igeo ≤ 0Practically uncontaminated
10 < Igeo ≤ 1Uncontaminated to moderately contaminated
21 < Igeo ≤ 2Moderately contaminated
32 < Igeo ≤ 3Moderately to heavily contaminated
43 < Igeo ≤ 4Heavily contaminated
54 < Igeo ≤ 5Heavily to extremely contaminated
6Igeo > 5Extremely contaminated
Table 2. Statistical analysis of PTE concentrations in soil.
Table 2. Statistical analysis of PTE concentrations in soil.
Mean of All Soil (1)
(mg·kg−1 d.w.)
Minimum (1)
(mg·kg−1 d.w.)
Maximum (1)
(mg·kg−1 d.w.)
Variation CoefficientSoil Background Value in Jiangxi Province (2)
(mg·kg−1)
Risk Screening Value (3)
(mg·kg−1)
Average of the Igeo
Mn137.8814.631861.001.31328.00-−2.43
Zn89.6225.812717.602.5669.40200.00−0.77
Cu76.3010.23739.051.3920.3050.000.73
Pb35.567.47990.832.4832.3080.00−1.06
V20.584.5996.760.6595.80-−3.02
Cr15.473.4957.140.5145.90250.00−2.31
As8.571.13116.051.6014.9030.00−1.91
Ni8.422.1328.550.5718.9060.00−1.93
Co3.210.6611.360.6511.50-−2.70
Sb0.900.029.921.261.15-−1.73
Mo0.660.164.190.980.50-−0.56
Cd0.590.0310.852.000.110.300.84
Notes: (1) The concentrations of the elements analyzed are reported on a dry weight basis (mg·kg−1 d.w.). (2) Soil background value of layer A in Jiangxi Province (background values of soil elements in China, China National Environmental Monitoring Centre, 1990). (3) Risk screening values for soil contamination of agricultural land, pH ≤ 5.5 (Soil Environmental Quality Risk Control Standard for Soil Contamination of Agricultural Land, GB15618-2018, Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China, 2018).
Table 3. Rotating loadings of potentially toxic elements on principal components.
Table 3. Rotating loadings of potentially toxic elements on principal components.
ElementsComponent
PC1PC2PC3
V−0.060.840.02
Cr−0.070.850.03
Mn0.890.27−0.06
Co0.230.85−0.01
Ni0.070.880.14
Cu−0.02−0.130.89
Zn0.970.010.03
As0.080.090.83
Mo0.130.240.83
Cd0.87−0.080.21
Sb0.06−0.010.89
Pb0.97−0.010.08
Eigenvalues4.002.882.76
Variance contribution ratio %29.2925.7025.36
Cumulative contribution ratio %29.2954.9880.34
Note: (1) The rotation method used varimax with Kaiser Normalization, and the rotation converged in 4 iterations; (2) the bold numbers represent the higher values of the load in each principal component.
Table 4. Fitting results of measured value and simulated predicted value of potentially toxic element content.
Table 4. Fitting results of measured value and simulated predicted value of potentially toxic element content.
ElementsR2InterceptSlope
V0.686.920.60
Cr0.851.820.85
Mn0.6458.860.47
Co0.880.620.72
Ni0.682.880.62
Cu0.8612.210.76
Zn0.7647.950.19
As0.633.910.38
Mo0.700.170.63
Cd0.870.020.89
Sb0.800.040.80
Pb0.5918.450.14
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, S.; Wang, H.; Han, R. Source Apportionment of Potentially Toxic Elements in Agricultural Soils of Yingtan City, Jiangxi Province, China: A Principal Component Analysis–Positive Matrix Factorization Method. Toxics 2025, 13, 267. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics13040267

AMA Style

Chen S, Wang H, Han R. Source Apportionment of Potentially Toxic Elements in Agricultural Soils of Yingtan City, Jiangxi Province, China: A Principal Component Analysis–Positive Matrix Factorization Method. Toxics. 2025; 13(4):267. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics13040267

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Shaoting, Hongmei Wang, and Ruiming Han. 2025. "Source Apportionment of Potentially Toxic Elements in Agricultural Soils of Yingtan City, Jiangxi Province, China: A Principal Component Analysis–Positive Matrix Factorization Method" Toxics 13, no. 4: 267. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics13040267

APA Style

Chen, S., Wang, H., & Han, R. (2025). Source Apportionment of Potentially Toxic Elements in Agricultural Soils of Yingtan City, Jiangxi Province, China: A Principal Component Analysis–Positive Matrix Factorization Method. Toxics, 13(4), 267. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics13040267

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop