Geochemical characteristics and quality evaluation of soils in the Mantaro Basin, central Peru

doi:10.13745/j.esf.sf.2024.10.38

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to enhance the geoscientific collaboration between China and Peru using China’s advanced geochemical investigation and research methods, the China Geological Survey (CGS) and Peru Instituto Geológico, Minero y Metalúrgico (INGEMMET) jointly conducted a multipurpose geochemical survey in the Mantaro Basin of central Peru. The samples were collected and analyzed in Chinese laboratory according to applicable Chinese national standards. According to the results, the soil of the study area was in general weakly alkaline, with strong enrichment of Au and relatively enriched indicators such as I, C, C_org, Cd, and N. The soil nutrient indicators N and P were relatively abundant, but K was lacking. The comprehensive nutrient grade was mainly “relatively rich” (Grade 2), accounting for 74.1% of the total area, indicating good soil fertility. In terms of soil environmental assessment, Zn and Pb showed slight to severe pollution in a small number of areas, while Cd and As contamination was widespread. The comprehensive grade of soil environment was predominantly “slightly to lightly polluted”, with the polluted areas mainly concentrated within 5 km from either side of the Mantaro River, while the heavily polluted areas were mainly distributed close to the Mantaro River and Huancayo City with large population density. The heavy metal pollution was serious, and the spatial distribution of pollution was closely related to the Mantaro River. The comprehensive geochemical grade of soil quality was mainly “moderate” to “severe”, constituting 83.18% of the area, with only 16.82% of the area graded “good to high quality”. In summary, the Mantaro Basin was found to have relatively rich soil nutrients, severe heavy metal pollution, and a moderate to poor overall soil quality. Recommendations to relevant agencies include strengthening environmental management and control of heavy metal pollution sources in the Mantaro River and its upstream areas.

Key words: Mantaro Basin, multi-purpose geochemical survey, soil quality, geochemical characteristics, Peru

CLC Number:

LIU Jun’an, ZHU Yiping, JIANG Hantao, César De La Cruz POMA, Oliberth Pascual GODOY, Luis Enrique Vargas RODRÍGUEZ, GUO Weimin, YAO Chunyan, WANG Tiangang, ZHANG Ming, YAO Zhongyou. Geochemical characteristics and quality evaluation of soils in the Mantaro Basin, central Peru[J]. Earth Science Frontiers, 2025, 32(1): 219-235.

Figures/Tables 13

References 41

[1]	李括, 彭敏, 赵传冬, 等. 全国土地质量地球化学调查二十年[J]. 地学前缘, 2019, 26(6): 128-158. DOI
[2]	杨晓波, 王文清, 马力, 等. 加强多目标调查成果转化与应用为社会经济与生态环境的协调发展服务[J]. 岩矿测试, 2007, 26(4): 343-346.
[3]	郭志娟, 周亚龙, 王乔林, 等. 雄安新区土壤重金属污染特征及健康风险[J]. 中国环境科学, 2021, 41(1): 431-441.
[4]	贺灵, 吴超, 曾道明, 等. 中国西南典型地质背景区土壤重金属分布及生态风险特征[J]. 岩矿测试, 2021, 40(3): 384-396.
[5]	申汝佳, 黄海波, 谢恩平, 等. 土壤改进剂在重金属污染修复中的应用研究进展[J]. 华东地质, 2024, 45(3): 281-301.
[6]	唐志敏, 张晓东, 张明, 等. 新安江流域土壤元素地球化学特征: 来自岩石建造类型的约束[J]. 华东地质, 2023, 44(2): 172-185.
[7]	李明辉, 张笑蓉, 杜国强, 等. 安徽石台仙寓地区土壤硒地球化学特征及生物效应[J]. 华东地质, 2023, 44(2): 186-196.
[8]	韩伟, 王乔林, 宋云涛, 等. 四川省沐川县北部土壤硒地球化学特征与成因探讨[J]. 物探与化探, 2021, 45(1): 215-222.
[9]	陶春军, 周天健, 张笑蓉, 等. 安徽岳西翠兰产地土壤环境质量及种植适宜性评价研究[J]. 西北地质, 2020, 53(1): 261-268.
[10]	陶春军, 史春鸿, 张笑蓉, 等. 淮北平原覆盖区土壤采样密度及其环境质量研究: 以1∶5万高炉集幅为例[J]. 物探与化探, 2021, 45(1): 200-206.
[11]	张明, 陈国光, 高超, 等. 华东多目标区域地球化学调查区土壤常量元素地球化学特征[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2014, 44(3): 995-1002.
[12]	王亮, 王德伟, 龚仓, 等. 四川成都唐昌镇表层土壤元素地球化学特征及质量评价[J]. 岩矿测试, 2022, 41(6): 1082-1094.
[13]	杨帆, 张舜尧, 宋云涛, 等. 云南省盐津县1∶5万土地质量地球化学评价方法研究[J]. 现代地质, 2020, 34(6): 1318-1332.
[14]	范薇, 曾妍妍, 周金龙, 等. 新疆若羌县土壤质量地球化学评价[J]. 环境化学, 2019, 38(5): 1190-1196.
[15]	周国华, 孙彬彬, 贺灵, 等. 安溪土壤—茶叶铅含量关系与土壤铅临界值研究[J]. 物探与化探, 2016, 40(1): 148-153.
[16]	王立胜, 汪媛媛, 余涛, 等. 土地质量地球化学评估与绿色产能评价研究: 以吉林大安市为例[J]. 现代地质, 2012, 26(5): 879-885.
[17]	刘亮, 张杰, 张杰琼, 等. 四川旺苍县化龙乡土地质量及生态农业建设[J]. 矿产勘查, 2020, 11(12): 2601-2609.
[18]	杨泽, 刘国栋, 戴慧敏, 等. 黑龙江兴凯湖平原土壤硒地球化学特征及富硒土地开发潜力[J]. 地质通报, 2021, 40(10): 1773-1782.
[19]	黄园英, 魏吉鑫, 刘久臣, 等. 江西赣州瑞金—石城地区土壤与白莲果实中Se及其他有益元素地球化学特征[J]. 地质通报, 2020, 39(12): 1944-1951.
[20]	刘久臣, 魏吉鑫, 张明, 等. 江西赣州市石城县天然富锌土地资源特征与开发利用[J]. 地质通报, 2021, 40(增刊1): 442-450.
[21]	成晓梦, 孙彬彬, 贺灵, 等. 四川省沐川县西部地区土壤硒含量特征及影响因素[J]. 岩矿测试, 2021, 40(6): 808-819.
[22]	蔡大为, 李龙波, 任明强, 等. 贵州省土壤硒含量背景值研究[J]. 地球与环境, 2021, 49(5): 504-509.
[23]	吴峰, 王永, 向武, 等. 基于土壤地球化学特征的茶叶适生模式及种植区划研究: 以浙江余杭为例[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2021, 38(5): 909-918.
[24]	唐志敏, 白晓, 湛龙, 等. 福建省长汀县重点水土流失区土壤元素地球化学特征及其指示意义[J]. 华东地质, 2022, 43(3): 324-335.
[25]	吴超, 孙彬彬, 成晓梦, 等. 丘陵山区多目标区域地球化学调查不同成因表层土壤代表性研究: 以浙江绍兴地区为例[J]. 地质通报, 2022, 41(9): 1539-1549.
[26]	陶春军, 周天健, 李朋飞, 等. 安徽省岳西县来榜地区土地质量地球化学评价[J]. 华东地质, 2020, 41(1): 62-69.
[27]	姜冰, 张海瑞, 刘阳, 等. 青州市南张楼村土地质量地球化学特征及特色土地资源评价[J]. 山东国土资源, 2022, 38(1): 54-59.
[28]	王文俊. 福建多目标区域地球化学调查成果及其应用[J]. 福建地质, 2018, 37(2): 146-156.
[29]	邱成贵. 山东省成武县土壤地球化学特征及土地质量现状[J]. 山东国土资源, 2016, 32(9): 36-42, 47.
[30]	赵传冬, 成杭新, 庄广民, 等. 多目标地球化学填图中土壤环境质量评价方法的探讨[J]. 地质与勘探, 2003, 39(6): 78-81.
[31]	谢学锦, 周国华. 多目标地球化学填图及多层次环境地球化学监控网络: 基本概念与方法[J]. 地质通报, 2002, 21(12): 809-816.
[32]	张德存, 张宏泰. 江汉平原多目标地球化学调查主要成果与实际意义[J]. 湖北地矿, 2001, 15(4): 72-76.
[33]	中华人民共和国国土资源部. 多目标区域地球化学调查规范(1∶250 000): DZ/T 0258—2014[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2015.
[34]	中华人民共和国国土资源部. 土地质量地球化学评价规范: DZ/T 0295—2016[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2016.
[35]	WONGCHUIG S C, MELLO C R, CHOU S C. Projections of the impacts of climate change on the water deficit and on the precipitation erosive indexes in Mantaro River Basin, Peru[J]. Journal of Mountain Science, 2018, 15(2): 264-279.
[36]	APAÉSTEGUI J, ROMERO C, VUILLE M, et al. Moisture sources and rainfall δ¹⁸O variability over the central Andes of Peru: a case study from the Mantaro River Basin[J]. Water, 2023, 15(10): 1867.
[37]	HEIKKINEN A M. Climate change, power, and vulnerabilities in the Peruvian highlands[J]. Regional Environmental Change, 2021, 21(3): 82.
[38]	The Guardian. Poisoned city fights to save its children[EB/OL]. (2012-08-11)[2023-12-22]. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/12/environment.pollution.
[39]	中华人民共和国生态环境部. 土壤环境质量农用地土壤污染风险管控标准(试行): GB 15618—2018[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2018.
[40]	中华人民共和国国土资源部. 土地利用现状分类: GB/T 21010—2017[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2017.
[41]	Instituto Geológico, Minero y Metalúrgico(INGEMMET). GEOCATMIN[EB/OL]. (2023-12-22)[2023-12-22]. https://geocatmin.ingemmet.gob.pe/geocatmin/.

分析组分	测试方法	仪器型号	检出限	单位
SiO₂,Al₂O₃,Na₂O,MgO, CaO,TFe₂O₃,K₂O	XRF	ZSX PrimusⅡ	0.05(Al₂O₃,TFe₂O₃,K₂O,MgO,CaO), 0.1(SiO₂,Na₂O)	%
Ga,Rb,Nb,P,Ti,Zr,Ba, Cl,Br,V,Cr,Sr	XRF	ZSX PrimusⅡ	2(Ga,Nb,Zr),10(Rb,P,Ti,Ba), 20(Cl),1(Br),5(V,Cr,Sr)	10^-6
Li,Be,Co,Ni,Cu,Zn,Mo,Cd, W,Pb,Th,U,Tl	ICP-MS (混酸溶矿)	XSeries II	1(Li,Co,Cu),0.5(Be),2(Ni,Pb,Th),4(Zn), 0.3(Mo),0.03(Cd),0.4(W),0.1(U,Tl)	10^-6
Y,La,Ce	ICP-MS (混酸加硫酸溶矿)	XSeries II	1(Y,Ce),5(La)	10^-6
Au	ICP-MS	XSeries II	0.3	10^-9
Sc,Mn	ICP-OES(用MS的混酸溶液测定)	iCAP6300	1(Sc),10(Mn)	10^-6
Ag,Sn,B	ES	WP1	0.02(Ag),1(Sn,B)	10^-6
As,Sb,Bi,Se,Ge	AFS	AFS-8330	1(As),0.05(Sb,Bi),0.01(Se),0.1(Ge)	10^-6
Hg	AFS	AFS-8330	0.5	10^-9
F	ISE	PXJ-1B	100	10^-6
I	COL	UV1902PC	0.5	10^-6
TC	IR	HCS878A	0.1	%
N,S	VOL		20(N),30(S)	10^-6
C_org	VOL		0.1	%
pH	ISE	PXSJ-216	0.10	1

分析组分	测试方法	仪器型号	检出限	单位
SiO₂,Al₂O₃,Na₂O,MgO, CaO,TFe₂O₃,K₂O	XRF	ZSX PrimusⅡ	0.05(Al₂O₃,TFe₂O₃,K₂O,MgO,CaO), 0.1(SiO₂,Na₂O)	%
Ga,Rb,Nb,P,Ti,Zr,Ba, Cl,Br,V,Cr,Sr	XRF	ZSX PrimusⅡ	2(Ga,Nb,Zr),10(Rb,P,Ti,Ba), 20(Cl),1(Br),5(V,Cr,Sr)	10^-6
Li,Be,Co,Ni,Cu,Zn,Mo,Cd, W,Pb,Th,U,Tl	ICP-MS (混酸溶矿)	XSeries II	1(Li,Co,Cu),0.5(Be),2(Ni,Pb,Th),4(Zn), 0.3(Mo),0.03(Cd),0.4(W),0.1(U,Tl)	10^-6
Y,La,Ce	ICP-MS (混酸加硫酸溶矿)	XSeries II	1(Y,Ce),5(La)	10^-6
Au	ICP-MS	XSeries II	0.3	10^-9
Sc,Mn	ICP-OES(用MS的混酸溶液测定)	iCAP6300	1(Sc),10(Mn)	10^-6
Ag,Sn,B	ES	WP1	0.02(Ag),1(Sn,B)	10^-6
As,Sb,Bi,Se,Ge	AFS	AFS-8330	1(As),0.05(Sb,Bi),0.01(Se),0.1(Ge)	10^-6
Hg	AFS	AFS-8330	0.5	10^-9
F	ISE	PXJ-1B	100	10^-6
I	COL	UV1902PC	0.5	10^-6
TC	IR	HCS878A	0.1	%
N,S	VOL		20(N),30(S)	10^-6
C_org	VOL		0.1	%
pH	ISE	PXSJ-216	0.10	1

指标		N含量/(mg·g^-1)	P含量/(mg·g^-1)	K含量/(mg·g^-1)
土壤养分指标等级	一等(丰富)	>2.0	>1.0	>25
	二等(较丰富)	>1.5~2.0	>0.8~1.0	>20~25
	三等(中等)	>1.0~1.5	>0.6~0.8	>15~20
	四等(较缺乏)	>0.75~1.0	>0.4~0.6	>10~15
	五等(缺乏)	≤0.75	≤0.4	≤10

指标		N含量/(mg·g^-1)	P含量/(mg·g^-1)	K含量/(mg·g^-1)
土壤养分指标等级	一等(丰富)	>2.0	>1.0	>25
	二等(较丰富)	>1.5~2.0	>0.8~1.0	>20~25
	三等(中等)	>1.0~1.5	>0.6~0.8	>15~20
	四等(较缺乏)	>0.75~1.0	>0.4~0.6	>10~15
	五等(缺乏)	≤0.75	≤0.4	≤10

养分综合等级	N		P		K			养分综合
养分综合等级	面积/km²	占比/%	面积/km²	占比/%	面积/km²	占比/%		面积/km²	占比/%
一等(丰富)	627.65	41.66	1 312.33	87.11	53.97	3.58	284.00		18.85
二等(较丰富)	539.99	35.84	130.16	8.64	277.13	18.40	1 116.29		74.10
三等(中等)	314.88	20.90	60.00	3.98	373.87	24.82	106.20		7.05
四等(较缺乏)	19.97	1.33	4.00	0.27	633.10	42.02	0.00		0.00
五等(缺乏)	4.00	0.27	0.00	0.00	168.42	11.18	0.00		0.00