葛峰(1981-), 男, 江苏人, 博士, 副研究员, 主要从事土壤环境基准制定、生态规划等方面的研究。E-mail:
综述了国外土壤环境基准的发展历程、研究体系及技术方法,结合中国土壤环境基准领域的研究现状及发展需求进行综合分析,提出了我国土壤环境基准发展“三步走”战略:1)建立适合我国基本国情的、有充分科学依据的土壤环境基准制定理论与方法体系,引导相关人员有序开展基于我国土壤类型及其分布、土地利用方式、人群特征及本土化物种特征的基准研究工作;2)基于代表性土壤类型,开展一批典型污染物的土壤环境基准建议值研究工作,发展一批能够支撑国家发展需要的环境基准重点实验室,并逐步建成和完善国家土壤环境基准基础数据共享与应用平台;3)形成一套完整的土壤环境基准研究体系,为我国土壤环境标准体系建设、土壤污染风险防控和土壤环境损害评估等工作提供科学支撑。
This paper reviewed the development course, research system, as well as technical methods of the researchers on soil environmental criteria in other countries, in combination with synthetical analysis of the status and development needs of the research on soil environmental criteria of China. A "three-step" strategy for development of soil environmental criteria of China was brought up, consisting of 1) to set up a theoretic and methodologic system that suited to the fundamental reality of the country and had a sufficient scientific basis of formulating soil environmental criteria; and to guide relevant personnel to unfold orderly researches on the criteria in light of soil types and their distribution, land use patterns, as well as characteristics of the population and indigenous species in China; 2) to launch a study on values to be suggested for soil environmental criteria for a group of typical pollutants based on the soils types typical of the country, to develop some key laboratories capable of supporting the nation in its development of soil environmental criteria, and gradually to build up and perfect a national fundamental data sharing and application platform for soil environmental criteria; and 3) to form a complete system for research of criteria, with a view to providing scientific support to the development of a soil quality standard system, the prevention and control of soil contamination risks, and the identification and assessment of damages of the soil environment, etc.
土壤环境中的污染物对生态安全、人体健康和食用农产品质量安全等保护对象不产生有害效应的最大浓度或水平称为土壤环境基准[
相比较之下,欧美等发达国家土壤环境基准研究工作普遍起步于20世纪末[
美国和荷兰政府在土壤环境保护方面较早开展了土壤环境基准研究和标准的制订工作,其研究过程中所使用的方法学目前已被其他国家广泛借鉴和引用[
欧美等主要发达国家基于不同保护对象的土壤环境基准
Soil environmental criteria in major developed countries relative to protection object
国家Country | 土壤环境基准类型Type of soil environmental criteria | ||
保护人体健康 |
保护生态安全 |
保护水体安全 |
|
美国USA | √ | √ | √ |
英国UK | √ | √ | |
荷兰Netherland | √ | √ | |
加拿大Canada | √ | √ | √ |
日本Japan | √ | √ | |
丹麦Denmark | √ | √ | √ |
德国Germany | √ | √ | √ |
捷克Czech Republic | √ | √ |
由于工业废弃地等的影响,场地污染对人体健康的危害首先进入公众视野(
相比于人体健康,EPA对生态安全的研究滞后了一些。1992年,EPA首次发布了生态风险评价框架报告[
美国EPA土壤环境基准研究工作发展历程
Development process of the research of US EPA on soil environmental criteria
1989年,土壤污染导致的环境安全和人体健康问题日益引起公众关注。为此,加拿大环境部长理事会(Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment,CCME)启动了国家污染场地修复五年规划。为保证实施该规划过程具有统一的评价和修复场地的准则,1991年CCME根据已有土壤和水质基准,基于专家经验建立了污染场地质量临时基准[
在SQG的推导方面(
CCME土壤环境基准及标准研究框架
Framework of the research on soil environmental criteria and standards of CCME
20世纪80年代,在英国污染土地再开发利用部门间委员会(the United Kingdom Interdepartmental Committee for Redevelopment of Contaminated Land,ICRCL)研究成果的基础上,英国颁发了17种污染物的土壤触发值(Trigger concentration),用于指导城市污染土地的再开发利用工作[
此外,由于土壤指导值是直接通过CLEA模型推算的科学值,经过近些年的运用,英国各界发现,在污染土壤风险筛选过程中将基准研究获得的土壤指导值直接作为阈值使用会导致对污染场地的过度分类。因此,英国环境和农村事务部在2007年提出应当将基于CLEA推导出的土壤指导值提高到与法律定义的不可接受风险相一致的水平后再作为风险筛选标准使用[
荷兰是欧盟成员国中最早就土壤保护进行专门立法的国家之一,1970年就起草了《土壤保护法》,并于1983年引入了全国统一的A、B、C值用于指导荷兰国内的土壤保护管理工作[
根据各国实际国情,土壤环境基准的研究工作可以分为保护人体健康的土壤环境基准、保护生态安全的土壤环境基准、保护农产品安全的土壤环境基准和保护水体安全的土壤环境基准。但国际上由于种植结构和饮食结构的不同,大多未单独开展保护农产品安全的土壤环境基准研究工作,而是普遍考虑保护人体健康的土壤环境基准、保护生态安全的土壤环境基准和保护水体安全的土壤环境基准三类。
人体健康风险评估是欧美等发达国家在研究保护人体健康的土壤环境基准过程中普遍采用的方法,虽然各国在研究过程中所采用的方法学相同,但最终研究制定的土壤环境基准并不相同。因国而异的用地方式、生活方式和敏感人群划分方式及毒理学参数和一些建筑物、气象参数等的本土化程度是导致各国采用同一方法学所制定的土壤环境基准存在差异的主要原因之一[
美国、英国、加拿大和荷兰推导保护人体健康的土壤基准时对暴露情景和暴露途径的划分
Division of exposure scenarios and exposure pathways when derive soil environmental criteria that protect human health in the US, the UK, Canada, and the Netherlands
暴露途径① | 美国USA | 英国UK | 加拿大Canada | 荷兰Netherlands | |||||||||||||||||
居住用地② | 工商业用地③ | 建设用地④ | 居住用地② | 果蔬用地⑤ | 商业用地⑥ | 农用地⑦ | 住宅/公园用地⑧ | 工商业用地③ | 带花园的住宅用地⑨ | ||||||||||||
表层土壤⑭ | 下层土壤⑮ | 室外工人⑩ | 室内工人⑪ | 建设工人⑫ | 周边居民⑬ | ||||||||||||||||
表层土壤⑭ | 下层土壤⑮ | 表层土壤⑭ | 下层土壤⑮ | 表层土壤⑭ | 下层土壤⑮ | 表层土壤⑭ | 下层土壤⑮ | ||||||||||||||
① Exposure pathways; ② Residential; ③ Industrial/Commercial; ④ Construction; ⑤ Allotment; ⑥ Commercial; ⑦ Agricultural; ⑧ Residential/Park; ⑨ Residential with garden; ⑩ Outdoor worker;⑪ Indoor worker;⑫ Construction worker;⑬ Off-site resident;⑭ Surface soil;⑮ Subsurface soil;ⓐ Direct ingestion;ⓑ Dermal contact;ⓒ Inhalation of indoor vapor;ⓓ Inhalation of outdoor vapor;ⓔ Inhalation of indoor dust;ⓕ Inhalation of outdoor dust;ⓖ Drinking water;ⓗ Ingestion of home-grown crops;ⓘ Remote migration;ⓙ Shower. | |||||||||||||||||||||
直接摄食ⓐ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||||
皮肤接触ⓑ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||
吸入室内蒸气ⓒ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||||||||||
吸入室外蒸气ⓓ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||||||
吸入室内灰尘ⓔ | √ | √ | |||||||||||||||||||
吸入室外灰尘ⓕ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||||
饮用水ⓖ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||||||
摄食自产农作物ⓗ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||||||||
异地迁移ⓘ | √ | ||||||||||||||||||||
淋浴ⓙ | √ |
与人体健康风险评估方法相比,各国生态风险评估技术的发展相对滞后且参差不齐。美国目前已经具备了较为完善的生态筛选值制定技术指南,制定并发布了本国具有指导性意义但不具备法律强制性的生态筛选值。在欧盟国家中德国、芬兰及荷兰也开展了本国保护生态安全的土壤环境基准的研究工作,制定并发布了本国的生态风险评估技术指南。欧美国家研究保护生态安全的土壤环境基准的方法学基本类似,主要包括文献数据收集与评价、数据选择、保护生态安全的土壤环境基准的计算和基准值的验证等。各国在保护生态安全的土壤环境基准研究过程中的差异主要是由所保护生态受体类型(
欧盟不同国家制定保护生态安全的土壤环境基准所保护的生态受体类型
Types of ecological receptors protected by soil environmental criteria for ecological safety relative to country in the EU
国家或地区 |
微生物过程 |
土壤动物 |
植物 |
陆生动物 |
荷兰Netherlands | √ | √ | √ | √ |
英国UK | √ | √ | √ | √ |
德国Germany | √ | √ | √ | √ |
西班牙Spain | √ | √ | √ | √ |
瑞典Sweden | √ | √ | √ | √ |
芬兰Finland | √ | √ | √ | √ |
捷克Czech Republic | √ | √ | ||
奥地利Austria | √ | |||
比利时Belgium | √ | √ | √ | √ |
保护水体安全的土壤环境基准研究相对晚于人体健康和生态安全。由于饮用水来源不同,各国保护水体安全的土壤环境基准所针对水体并不相同,研究成果也相对有限。总体而言,国际上一些发达国家大多是将地下水途径作为某特定条件下的暴露途径列入保护人体健康的土壤环境基准研究过程中,推导过程中污染源位置、污染源区域以及污染物稀释衰减机制、土壤和水文地质参数的选择等导致了最终建立的土壤环境基准的差异。美国、荷兰等[
随着土壤环境基准研究持续深入,国外土壤环境基准体系不断完善并向纵深发展。在保护人体健康的土壤环境基准研究方面[
20世纪50、60年代,欧美等发达国家广泛开展土壤环境基准研究工作,并以土壤环境基准研究成果直接作为本国筛选值或指导值等使用。相比之下,我国由于在当时的历史背景下未出现明显土壤污染问题,未大规模开展土壤环境基准研究工作。仅在“六五”“七五”期间,组织开展了“土壤背景值”和“土壤环境容量”的调查工作,基于生态环境效应开展少数污染物(重金属、六六六、滴滴涕、苯并[a]芘和矿物油等)的土壤环境基准研究[
在国家政策的引导下,我国科学界陆续开展了基于不同保护对象的土壤环境基准研究工作[
因此,作为一个疆域辽阔,自然背景、地质、地理、气候和生态系统特征差异显著,区域自然环境中的生物区系组成、结构和功能特征,尤其是本地物种和敏感物种不同、生态和健康效应差异性明显的国家,开展土壤环境基准研究不能再简单地将国外模型或推荐值直接用于我国,而应当围绕环境管理和保护的科技需求,按照“吸收借鉴、重点突破、创新跨越、支撑引领”的思路,统筹规划和系统推进环境基准工作,以关键科学问题和关注污染物为导向,明确土壤环境基准研究的科技目标、根本途径、主体思路,有计划、分阶段在典型地区系统开展土壤环境基准本土化案例研究,逐步与我国的土壤环境管理和环境保护工作需求接轨,更好地支撑人体健康与生态环境保护工作。
经过分析国外土壤环境基准研究现状及我国土壤环境基准发展需求,笔者认为,虽然我国现行土壤环境标准最大程度上保障了标准在当前科研成果下的准确性和科学性,但是标准制修订过程中对土壤环境基准的科学研究并不充分,现行标准的科学性仍待提高。目前,我国已成立了国家环境基准委员会等,相继开展了一些环境基准的研究工作,也于2018年发布了基于保护生态安全、人体健康和农产品安全的土壤环境基准制定技术指南征求意见稿,但是这些工作的进度和成果远远不足以完全支撑我国5年一轮的标准修订工作,因此,应当尽快引导我国相关人员开展土壤环境基准的研究工作。具体而言:1)在现阶段应尽快构建适合我国基本国情的、有充分科学依据的土壤环境基准制定理论与方法体系,以国内外最新研究为基础,针对国外方法中存在的缺陷有针对性地逐步建立我国人体健康、生态安全、农产品安全以及地下水安全土壤环境基准的技术方法和模型,形成一套较为完善的土壤环境基准技术指南,从而引导国内人员有序开展基于土壤类型及其分布、人群特征及本土化物种特征的土壤环境基准研究工作。2)本着“成熟一个发布一个”的原则,在我国原有土壤环境基准研究工作和成果的基础上,按照土壤环境基准技术指南中规定的原则和方法开展数据筛选和补充工作,充分利用现有基准工作中有价值的成果,基于代表性土壤类型,研究制定一批典型污染物的土壤环境基准建议值,并发布相关技术文件;在原国家基准实验室的基础上发展一批能够支撑国家发展需要的基准相关实验室,逐步建立国家土壤环境基准基础数据共享与应用平台,根据相关数据采纳规范,持续不断充实共享平台,最终建成完善的用于土壤环境基准制定所需参数的国家数据库、基准相关研究平台,实现我国环境介质(水、土和气)基本理化参数数据查询,我国污染物环境浓度及生物分布数据搜索,我国污染物环境毒理数据搜索(水生态毒性数据库、健康毒性数据库),各国环境质量基准与标准查询,健康调查及流行病学数据搜索功能。3)全面建成保护人体健康、生态安全、农产品安全和地下水安全的土壤环境基准研究体系,并将其与水质、大气基准结合起来,形成一套完整的环境基准研究体系,共同为系统完整、监管有效、保护环境、经济可行和社会认可的环境标准体系的建立提供科学依据,为我国环境管理提供科学支撑。
Zheng L P, Feng Y H, Zhang Y, et al. Research profile on soil environmental criteria based on ecological risk[C] Chinese Society for Environmental Sciences, Haikou, Hainan, 2016: 3713-3716.
郑丽萍, 冯艳红, 张亚, 等.基于生态风险的土壤环境基准研究概况[C].中国环境科学学会, 海南海口, 2016: 3713-3716.
Teng Y, Zhou Q X. Conversion relationships between environmental quality criteria of water/air and soil[J]. Scientia Sinica:Terrae, 2018, 48(11):1466-1477.
滕涌, 周启星.土壤环境质量基准与水/大气环境质量基准的转换研究[J].中国科学:地球科学, 2018, 48(11):1466-1477.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. A protocol for the derivation of environmental and human health soil quality guidelines[R]. Winnipeg: CCME, 2006.
Zhou J M, Shen R F. Dictionary of soil science[Z]. Beijing: Science Press, 2013.
周健民, 沈仁芳.土壤学大辞典[Z].北京: 科学出版社, 2013.
Xu M, Yan Z G, He M M, et al. Human health risk-based environmental criteria for soil:A comparative study between countries and implication for China[J]. Environmental Science, 2013, 34(5):1667-1678.
徐猛, 颜增光, 贺萌萌, 等.不同国家基于健康风险的土壤环境基准比较研究与启示[J].环境科学, 2013, 34(5):1667-1678.
Feng C L, Zhao X L, Hou H, et al. Research progress and main scientific problems of theory and methodology of China's environmental quality criteria[J]. Asian Journal of Ecotoxicology, 2015, 10(1):2-17.
冯承莲, 赵晓丽, 侯红, 等.中国环境基准理论与方法学研究进展及主要科学问题[J].生态毒理学报, 2015, 10(1):2-17.
Ge F, Xu K K, Yun J J, et al. Studies on screening and list of priority pollutants in China's soil criteria research[J]. China Environmental Science, 2018, 38(11):4228-4235.
葛峰, 徐坷坷, 云晶晶, 等.我国土壤环境基准优先污染物的筛选及清单研究[J].中国环境科学, 2018, 38(11):4228-4235.
Zhao X L, Zhao T H, Li H X, et al. Investigation on important directions of China environmental quality criteria[J]. Asian Journal of Ecotoxicology, 2015, 10(1):18-30.
赵晓丽, 赵天慧, 李会仙, 等.中国环境基准研究重点方向探讨[J].生态毒理学报, 2015, 10(1):18-30.
Xia J Q. Methods for derivation of site specific standard for management of contaminated agricultural soil[J]. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 2019, 35(3):405-408.
夏家淇.农用地块土壤污染分类标准制订方法探讨[J].生态与农村环境学报, 2019, 35(3):405-408.
Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People's Republic of China. Soil environmental quality Risk control standard for soil contamination of development land: GB 36600-2018)[S]. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press, 2018.
生态环境部.土壤环境质量建设用地土壤污染风险管控标准(试行): GB 36600-2018[S].北京: 中国环境出版社, 2018.
Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People's Republic of China. Soil environmental quality Risk control standard for soil contamination of agricultural land: GB 15618-2018[S]. 2018.
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]. 2018.
http://www.mee.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/bgth/201801/t20180124_430241.htm.[2019-11-18]]]>
http://www.mee.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/bgth/201801/t20180124_430241.htm.][2019-11-18]]]>
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Canadian soil quality guidelines for the protection of environmental and human health: Introduction[R]. Winnipeg: CCME, 1999.
Janssen P J C M, Apeldoom M E, Koten-Vermeulen J E M., et al. Human-toxicological criteria for serious soil contamination: Compounds evaluated in 1993 & 1994[R]. Bilthoven: National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection, 1995.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I: Human health evaluation manual(Part B)[R]. Washington: EPA, 1989.
Carlon C, D'Alessandro M, Swartjes F. Derivation methods of soil screening values in Europe. A review and evaluation of national procedures towards harmonisation.[R]. Ispra: European Commission, 2007.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Draft soil screening level guidance[R]. Washington: Nation Service Center for Environmental Publications, 1993.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Soil screening guidance: Technical background document[R]. Washington: EPA, 1996.
EPA. Region 4 human health risk assessment supplemental guidance[R]. Washington: Superfund Division, 2018.
EPA. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment[R]. Washington: National Technical Information Service, 1998.
Ecological planning and toxicology, Inc. A critical review of methods for developing ecological soil quality guidelines and criteria[R]. Corvallis: American Petroleum Institute Biomonitoring Task Force, 1999.
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. Guidance for developing ecological soil screening levels: Executive summary[R]. Washington: EPA, 2003.
Simon C, Jo J. Using soil guideline values[R]. Bristol: U.K. EA, 2009.
Hosford M. Human health toxicological assessment of contaminants in soil[R]. Bridtol: U.K. EA, 2009.
Brand E, Bogte J, Baars B J, et al. Proposal for tevised Intervention Values soil and groundwater for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th series of compounds[R]. Bilthoven: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, 2012.
Mennes W, Apeldoorn M, Meijerinck M, et al. The incorporation of human toxicity criteria into integrated environmental quality standards[R]. Bilthoven: National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, 1998.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Superfund public health evaluation manual[R]. Washington: EPA, 1986.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Soil screening guidance: User's guide[R]. Washington: EPA, 1996.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Supplemental guidance for developing soil screening levels for superfund sites[R]. Washington: EPA, 2002.
EPA. Framework for ecological risk assessment[R]. Washington: National Technical Information Service, 1992.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Ecological soil screening level guidance(Draft)[R]. Washington: EPA, 2000.
EPA. Exposure factors handbook. 2011 Edition[R]. Washington: National Center for Environmental Assessment, 2011.
EPA. Update for chapter 5 of the exposure factors handbook: soil and dust ingestion[R]. Washington: National Center for Environmental Assessment, 2017.
EPA. Update for chapter 9 of the exposure factors handbook: Intake of fruits and vegetables[R]. Washington: National Center for Environmental Assessment, 2018.
EPA. Update for chapter 11 of the exposure factors handbook: Intake of meats, dairy products, and fats[R]. Washington: National Center for Environmental Assessment, 2018.
EPA. Update for chapter 12 of the exposure factors handbook: Intake of grain products[R]. Washington: National Center for Environmental Assessment, 2018.
EPA. Update for chapter 19 of the exposure factors handbook: Building characteristics[R]. Washington: National Center for Environmental Assessment, 2018.
Sciences International, Inc. Health effects support document for hexachlorobutadiene[R]. Washington: EPA, 2002.
Sciences International, Inc. Health effects support document for naphthalene[R]. Washington: EPA, 2002.
Health and Ecological Criteria Division. Health effects support document for perfluorooctane sulfonate[R]. Washington: EPA, 2016.
EPA. Draft guidance for evaluating the vapor intrusion to indoor air pathway from groundwater and soils[R]. Washington: EPA, 2002.
Tillman F D, Weaver J W. Review of recent research on vapor intrusion[R]. Washington: EPA, 2005.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Conceptual model scenarios for the vapor intrusion pathway[R]. Washington: EPA, 2012.
Environmental Quality Management, Inc. User's guide for evaluating subsurface vapor intrusion into buildings[R]. Washington: EPA, 2004.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Interim Canadian environmental quality criteria for contaminated sites[R]. Winnipeg: CCME, 1991.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. A protocol for the derivation of environmental and human health soil quality guidelines[R]. Winnipeg: CCME, 1996.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Canadian soil quality guidelines for carcinogenic and other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(environmental and human health effects)[R]. Winnipeg: CCME, 2010.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Canadian soil quality guidelines for barium: protection of environmental and human health[R]. Winnipeg: CCME, 2013.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Canadian soil quality guidelines: selenium(environmental and human health effects)[R]. Winnipeg: CCME, 2009.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Scientific criteria document for the development of the Canadian soil and groundwater quality guidelines for perfluorooctane sulfonate: protection of environmental and human health[R]. Winnipeg: CCME, 2017.
Environment Agency. Guidance on the assessment and redevelopment of contaminated land(ICRCL 59/83)[R]. Bristol: U.K. EA, 1987.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency. Assessment of risks to human health from land contamination: an overview of the development of soil guideline values and related research[R]. Bristol: U.K. EA, 2002.
Defra U. The contaminated land exposure assessment model(CLEA): Technical basis and algorithms[R]. Bristol: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2002.
Jeffries J, Martin, I. Updated technical background to the CLEA model[R]. Bristol: U.K. EA, 2009.
Fishwick S; Scientist S; Quality S, et al. Soil screening values for use in UK ecological risk assessment[R]. Bristol: U.K. EA, 2004.
http://www.eugris.info/displaynewsitem2.asp?newsiD=411.]]>
Van der Hoek, KW. National institute of public health and environmental protection[R]. Bilthoven: The Netherlands(personal communication), 1994.
Otte P F, Lijzen J P A, Otte J G, et al. Evaluation and revision of the CSOIL parameter set[R]. Bilthoven: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, 2001.
Brand E, Otte P f, Lijzen J P A. CSOIL 2000 an exposure model for human risk assessment of soil contamination: A model description[R]. Bilthoven: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, 2007.
Luo Y M, Xia J Q, Zhang H B. The theory and method of deriving soil environmental quality criteria and standard in China[M]. Beijing:Science Press, 2015.
骆永明, 夏家淇, 章海波.中国土壤环境质量基准与标准制定的理论和方法[M].北京:科学出版社, 2015.
Provoost J, Reijnders L, Swartjes F, et al. Parameters causing variation between soil screening values and the effect of harmonization[J]. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2008, 8(5):298-311.
Yao Y J, Verginelli I, Suuberg E M. A two-dimensional analytical model of vapor intrusion involving vertical heterogeneity[J]. Water Resources Research, 2017, 53(5):4499-4513.
Du H H. Health risk assessment of contaminated sites based on modification of indoor vapor invasion model in residential land planning[D]. Xiangtan, Hunan: Xiangtan University, 2019.
杜红花.基于居住用地规划室内蒸汽入侵模型修正的污染场地健康风险评估研究[D].湖南湘潭: 湘潭大学, 2019.
Lijzen J, Baars A, Otte P, et al. Technical evaluation of the intervention values for soil/sediment and groundwater:Human and ecotoxicological risk assessment and derivation of risk limits for soil, aquatic sediment and groundwater[J]. Chinese Optics Letters, 2001, 8(8):286-289.
Liu H G, Song J, Pan Y Y, et al. Food hygienic standard based Cd threshold value of fluvo-aquic soils in Tianjin for rice production[J]. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 2013, 29(2):220-224.
刘宏鸽, 宋静, 潘云雨, 等.基于稻米食品卫生标准的天津潮土Cd临界值研究[J].生态与农村环境学报, 2013, 29(2):220-224.
Luo Y M, Teng Y. Regional difference in soil pollution and strategy of soil zonal governance and remediation in China[J]. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2018, 33(2):145-152.
骆永明, 滕应.我国土壤污染的区域差异与分区治理修复策略[J].中国科学院院刊, 2018, 33(2):145-152.
Shen R Y, Zheng Z, Zhao X Q, et al. Effects of municipal sludges from the Yangtze River Delta Area on seed germination and root elongation of Chinese cabbage[J]. Guangdong Agricultural Sciences, 2012, 39(18):43-45, 47.
申荣艳, 郑正, 赵兴青, 等.长三角地区城市污泥施入土壤对白菜种子发芽和根伸长的影响[J].广东农业科学, 2012, 39(18):43-45, 47.
Song J, Luo Y M, Xia J Q. Study of the development of environmental criteria and standards for agricultural lands in China[J]. Environmental Protection Science, 2016, 42(4):29-35.
宋静, 骆永明, 夏家淇.我国农用地土壤环境基准与标准制定研究[J].环境保护科学, 2016, 42(4):29-35.
Zhang H Z, Luo Y M, Xia J Q, et al. Some thoughts of the comparison of risk based soil environmental standards between different countries[J]. Environmental Science, 2011, 32(3):795-802.
张红振, 骆永明, 夏家淇, 等.基于风险的土壤环境质量标准国际比较与启示[J].环境科学, 2011, 32(3):795-802.
Song J, Xu G Y, Luo Y M, et al. Some thoughts on the classification of soil environmental quality for agricultural land:Taking risk control of Cd in potato producing area of Guizhou as an example[J]. Earth Science Frontiers, 2019, 26(6):192-198.
宋静, 许根焰, 骆永明, 等.对农用地土壤环境质量类别划分的思考:以贵州马铃薯产区Cd风险管控为例[J].地学前缘, 2019, 26(6):192-198.
Li J, Yu T M, Zhou J, et al. Assessment of health risk for mined soils based on critical thresholds for lead, zinc, cadmium and copper[J]. Environmental Science, 2008, 29(8):2327-2330.
李静, 俞天明, 周洁, 等.铅锌矿区及周边土壤铅、锌、镉、铜的污染健康风险评价[J].环境科学, 2008, 29(8):2327-2330.
Rafiq M T, Aziz R, Yang X E, et al. Cadmium phytoavailability to rice(Oryza sativa L.)grown in representative Chinese soils. A model to improve soil environmental quality guidelines for food safety[J]. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2014, 103:101-107.
Ding C F, Zhang T L, Wang X X, et al. Prediction model for cadmium transfer from soil to carrot(Daucus carota L.)and its application to derive soil thresholds for food safety[J]. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2013, 61(43):10273-10282.
Feng Y H, Wang G Q, Zhang Y, et al. Study on bioaccumulation of cadmium in soil-vegetable system and pollution threshold in soil[J]. Earth and Environment, 2019, 47(5):653-661.
冯艳红, 王国庆, 张亚, 等.土壤-蔬菜系统中镉的生物富集效应及土壤阈值研究[J].地球与环境, 2019, 47(5):653-661.
Chen H P, Dai B C, Yang X P, et al. Cadmium(Cd)threshold values of paddy soils to brown rice as determined by Cd concentrations in soils and rice grains as well as soil properties[J]. Soils, 2018, 50(2):361-368.
陈宏坪, 戴碧川, 杨新萍, 等.土壤与水稻籽粒镉含量相关性分析及水稻产地土壤镉临界值的研究[J].土壤, 2018, 50(2):361-368.
Wang G Q, Luo Y M, Song J, et al. Study on soil environmental quality guidelines and standards ⅳ.Soil benzo[a]Pyrene threshold concentrations based on human health risk assessment[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2007, 44(4):603-611.
王国庆, 骆永明, 宋静, 等.土壤环境质量指导值与标准研究Ⅳ.保护人体健康的土壤苯并[a]芘的临界浓度[J].土壤学报, 2007, 44(4):603-611.
Li Z B, Luo Y M, Song J, et al. Study on soil environmental quality guidelines and standards ⅱ.Health risk assessment of polluted soils[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2006, 43(1):142-151.
李志博, 骆永明, 宋静, 等.土壤环境质量指导值与标准研究Ⅱ·污染土壤的健康风险评估[J].土壤学报, 2006, 43(1):142-151.
Fei W X, Rong S B, Chu M G, et al. Enrichment difference of heavy metal cadmium and cuprum by Brassica napus L. in contaminated farmland soil[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 47(10):74-78.
费维新, 荣松柏, 初明光, 等.甘蓝型油菜品种对农田土壤重金属镉与铜的富集差异研究[J].安徽农业科学, 2019, 47(10):74-78.
Fan R W. Enrichment characteristic and risk assessment of heavy metals in rice(Oryza.sativa L.)from Suzhou regions[D]. Suzhou, China: Suzhou University of Science and Technology, 2018.
范荣伟.水稻中重金属复合污染富集特征及风险评价[D].苏州: 苏州科技大学, 2018.
Jiang B. Long-term aging behavior of soil added nickel and copper and ecological thresholds based on extractable copper in soils[D]. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2017.
蒋宝.土壤铜镍长期老化行为及有效态生态阈值研究[D].北京: 中国农业大学, 2017.
Song W E, Chen S B. The toxicity thresholds(ECx)of cadmium(Cd)to rice cultivars as determined by root-elongation tests in soils and its predicted models[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2014, 47(17):3434-3443.
宋文恩, 陈世宝.基于水稻根伸长的不同土壤中镉(Cd)毒性阈值(EC_x)及预测模型[J].中国农业科学, 2014, 47(17):3434-3443.
Lu J H, Yang X P, Meng X C, et al. Predicting cadmium safety thresholds in soils based on cadmium uptake by Chinese cabbage[J]. Pedosphere, 2017, 27(3):475-481.
Wang G Q, Luo Y M, Song J, et al. Study on soil environmental quality guidelines and standards I. International trend and suggestions for amendment in China[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2005, 42(4):666-673.
王国庆, 骆永明, 宋静, 等.土壤环境质量指导值与标准研究I·国际动态及中国的修订考虑[J].土壤学报, 2005, 42(4):666-673.