minerals

Article
Environmental Magnetic Characteristics and Heavy Metal
Pollution Assessment of Sediments in the Le’an River, China
Shaowei Rong 1 , Jin Wu 1 , Jing Liu 1 , Qun Li 2, *, Chunping Ren 3, * and Xiaoyuan Cao 4

1 Faculty of Architecture, Civil and Transportation Engineering, Beijing University of Technology,

Beijing 100124, China
2 Ministry of Ecology and Environment Peoples Republic of China, Nanjing Institute of Environmental Science,
No.8, Jiangwang Miao Street, Nanjing 210042, China
3 Sichuan Academy of Environmental Policy and Planning, Chengdu 610041, China
4 Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, No. 19 Xinjiekouwai Street, Haidian District,
Beijing 100875, China
* Correspondence: [email protected] (Q.L.); [email protected] (C.R.)

Abstract: Environmental magnetism parameters have become a useful tool in addressing envi-
ronmental issues. Due to the rapid, sensitive, economical and non-destructive characteristics of
environmental magnetism, the present contribution focuses on magnetism parameters as proxy for
heavy metal pollution, especially from their relationship with contents of heavy metal. We evaluated
heavy metals pollution and examined environmental magnetism in the Dexing section of the Le’an
River. The pollution load index (PLI) of Cr, Pb, As, Cu and Zn, as well as the concentration of other
heavy metals, were analyzed, and the magnetic indexes of various sediments were analyzed. The
results showed that the concentrations of all heavy metals far exceeded the local background values,
and that the average contamination factor of Cu was as high as 22.88, making it the element of most
serious contamination. The problem of heavy metal pollution near the mine is very serious. The
content of magnetic minerals in sediments of Le’an River is relatively high and the composition of
magnetic minerals is relatively stable. The stable-single domin (SSD) content is high at S1 and S10,
indicating that ferromagnetic mineral content is relatively rich here, which dominates the magnetic
characteristics of the sample. In general, it was found that environmental magnetism indicators did
Citation: Rong, S.; Wu, J.; Liu, J.;
not exist in the Dexing section of the Le’an River that could clearly indicate the concentration of
Li, Q.; Ren, C.; Cao, X. Environmental
heavy metal pollution. Only a few heavy metals can be effectively indicated by magnetic parameters.
Magnetic Characteristics and Heavy
IRM-20mT and S-ratio can be used as indicators of Cr, Pb, As, Cu and Zn, but they are not accurate. The
Metal Pollution Assessment of
Sediments in the Le’an River, China.
correlation between Sr and magnetic indexes IRM200mT , IRM300mT , SIRM, IRM-300mT and HIRM is
Minerals 2023, 13, 145. https:// significant, which can be used as an indicator of Sr concentration. IRM20mT can also be used as an
doi.org/10.3390/min13020145 indicator of Hg concentration.

Academic Editor: Alexandra

Keywords: heavy metal pollution; Le’an River; magnetic properties; surface sediments
Courtin-Nomade

Received: 3 December 2022

Revised: 26 December 2022
Accepted: 9 January 2023 1. Introduction
Published: 18 January 2023
Heavy metal pollution has always been an unavoidable topic accompanying economic
development. With the acceleration of industrialization and urbanization, heavy metal
pollution of the aquatic ecosystem has become a global problem of increasing concern
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Z [1]. Heavy industry is not only polluting through wastewater discharge, but also ag-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
gravating environmental pollution through the burning of fossil fuels and atmospheric
This article is an open access article
deposition [2,3]. Rivers are one of the most sensitive continental environments. They re-
distributed under the terms and spond to natural and anthropogenic disturbances through physical, chemical and biological
conditions of the Creative Commons changes that are basically recorded in sediments (sedimentary facies, geochemistry, microor-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// ganisms) [4]. As the sediments of many rivers around the world are contaminated with
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ heavy metals to varying degrees, people are facing increasing threats to water security [5].
4.0/). It is therefore an urgent task to develop a set of low-cost and sensitive procedures for the

Minerals 2023, 13, 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/min13020145 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/minerals

Minerals 2023, 13, 145 2 of 14

detection and monitoring of water quality and thereby avoid heavy metal poisoning. The
magnetic properties of sediments are influenced by the type, content and grain size of
magnetic minerals, and can reflect a combination of information on the physical origin,
transport patterns, level of diagenesis and human activity relating to the sediments [6].
Environmental magnetism is a relatively new discipline that originated in many interdis-
ciplinary studies involving UK lake sediments, but one that has quickly developed into
an archive that can identify past global changes [7], with the basic principle of relating the
magnetic properties of mineral assemblages to the environmental processes that control
them for the purpose of understanding sediment or soil formation processes [8].
The study of mineral magnetism is widely used in geo-scientific research, such as
in reconstructing paleoclimates to adapt to the latest climate changes and environmental
risks [9]. In addition, environmental magnetism can also characterize the composition
of litho-units, and explore and describe sediment transport and sedimentary pathways,
diagenesis and the natural variation of rocks, etc. [9–14]. However, until now, no studies
have been conducted on the Le’an River using environmental magnetism methods for
sediment source-to-sink analysis.
Environmental magnetism can be used as an indicator of heavy metals, because the
presence of heavy metals in water may become fixed in stream sediments, participating in
absorption, co-precipitation, formation of complexes, and co-adsorption with iron oxides
and hydroxides or other particulate forms [15,16]. Thus, river sediments are not only major
concentrations of heavy metals, but also potential secondary sources of pollutants in the
water environment. Previous conventional geochemical methods for studying heavy metal
contamination in sediments, while highly accurate and revealing the intensity and extent
of contamination in the study area, are cumbersome, time-consuming and expensive, and
are not suitable for large-scale contamination [1]. The use of environmental magnetism in
environmental research was initiated by Oldfield [17]. After Oldfield pioneered this method,
many scholars around the world began to use environmental magnetism measurements to
replace and supplement the expensive and complex traditional chemical analysis [18–20].
Thompson and Oldfield studied the relationship between sediment magnetism and
environmental processes, and the results showed that the surface soil in northern indus-
trial areas would have higher susceptibility, which would be caused by the atmospheric
deposition of magnetic particles generated by the combustion of fossil fuels [18]. Friedrich
Heller et al. (1998) studied the environmental magnetism characteristics and sources of
magnetic particles of forest surface soil in Upper Silesia, Poland. The study found that
unusually strong soil susceptibility was not caused by natural causes, but by deposition of
industrial dust and fly ash containing man-made magnetic particles [20]. High magnetic
susceptibility values in forest topsoil are often accompanied by the presence of potentially
dangerous heavy metals, such as Zn, Pb and Cd, as Strzyszcz suggested in 1993 [19]. Most
studies have shown that magnetic measurements are promising and useful for identifying
pollution types in contaminated areas.
The use of magnetic parameters as a proxy for quantifying heavy metal concen-
trations in river sediments has been demonstrated in recent years, with one study on
suspended sediments showing a significant correlation between magnetic susceptibility
and the heavy metal content of iron and zinc [8,21]. Magnetic susceptibility and saturation
isothermal remanence can be used as indicators of heavy metal pollution in estuaries and
deltas [6,22–25]. Zhang et al. found a substantial correlation between heavy metal con-
centrations and magnetic parameters in river sediments near an iron refinery in China [1].
These studies all suggest that magnetic indicators of sediment can be used as indicators of
heavy metal contamination in some ranges. However, environmental magnetism methods
are not suitable for the study of heavy metal contamination under all conditions. Knab
et al., after studying the Vltava River (Czech Republic), demonstrated that the applicability
of magnetic methods may be limited when the geologically genetic background shows
major magnetic anomalies [26]. Stanislav et al. studied the magnetic, geochemical, and
mineralogical characteristics of the sediments of karstic and flysch rivers (in Croatia and
Minerals 2023, 13, 145 3 of 14

Slovenia). They found that these rivers serve as local databases of natural magnetic suscep-
tibility background values. However, the Celje area of Slovenia is heavily polluted due to
mining, metallurgy and other activities, so the magnetic parameters are not of reference
significance [27]. This indicates that the relationship between magnetic parameters and
potentially toxic elements may not be generalized to all environments [4], so the correlation
between local magnetic parameters and pollution indicators must be studied before using
different environmental magnetism parameters as proxies for pollution indicators.
Located in the north of Jiangxi Province in China, the Le’an River is a major tributary
of Poyang Lake, China’s largest freshwater lake, and has important ecological, social,
economic and recreational value [28]. The Le’an River is not only the main source of
drinking water for local residents, but also the main source of water for industrial and
agricultural activities in the area. Since the 1950s, many mines have been built in the area
along the Le’an River, such as the Dexing copper mine (the largest copper mine in Asia),
the Huaqiao gold mine and the Chung Shan coal mine. In addition, there are many sources
of heavy metal discharges along the Le’an River, such as paper mills, chemical plants
and non-ferrous metal smelters. The discharge of domestic sewage along the river makes
many pollution indicators of the Le’an River exceed the standard. The pollution of heavy
metal elements such as Zn, Cu and Pb turn the farmland downstream of Dexing Copper
Mine into wasteland [29,30]. Even the bottom mud of Poyang Lake has a great negative
impact [31]. Zhang J. et al. investigated the heavy metal pollution from non-ferrous metal
mining and smelting activities along the Le’an River, and studied the distribution of heavy
metals in the waterways of the area and the potential threat to the aquatic ecosystem. The
study found that the waterways in the area had become heavily contaminated with heavy
metals due to mining activities. The concentrations of Cu, Cd and As are all at high levels
in the whole waterway and their sources are relatively complex [32].
In the current research on the Le’an River, most scholars only analyze the pollution
status of the river by traditional chemical methods [5,28,33,34], and there are few studies
on the indicator effect of heavy metal concentration by means of environmental magnetism.
In this study, we carried out heavy metal contamination analysis and environmental
magnetism analysis on the surface sediments of the Dexing section of the Le’an River to
obtain the contamination status and environmental magnetism characteristics of the surface
sediments and to explore the connection between them in order to obtain the connection
between the local environmental magnetism parameters and geochemistry. The results
of this study will provide an idea for seeking a low cost and high sensitivity heavy metal
pollution monitoring technology in Le’an River. At the same time, the research results
may provide solutions for alleviating the severe heavy metal pollution in Poyang Lake,
and provide help to ensure the stable water supply for life, agriculture and industry in
Dexing area.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area
The Le’an River (116.5◦ ~117.9◦ E, 28.7◦ ~29.3◦ N) originates from the western foot of
Huaiyu Mountain at the border of Jiangxi Province and Zhejiang Province; it is the upper
main stream of Rao River, a tributary of Poyang Lake in Yangtze River Basin, with a total
length of 279 km, a watershed area of 8989 km2 , an average annual runoff of 12.6 billion m3 ,
and the main tributaries include the Lianxi River, Fuchun River, Jishui River, Changle
River, Jianjie River and Zhuxi River. The environmental condition of its water body affects
the water body environment of Poyang Lake, the largest freshwater lake in China, and
is of great significance for understanding the whole Poyang Lake basin. The Le’an River
flows through the counties and cities of Wuyuan, Dexing, Leping and Boyang, and enters
Poyang Lake at Longkou city. Geologically, the strata are well developed and distributed
throughout the study area, except for the Silurian, Devonian and Tertiary [35], and the
geological composition is mostly limestone. The climate of the study area is subtropical
warm and humid monsoonal with an average annual temperature of about 17 ◦ C and an
 which can be found in Jiangxi Province, with more than 5000 mineral producing areas.
Among them are gold, silver, copper, tungsten, uranium, rare earth, and tantalum nio-
bium; these seven metal ores occupy an important position in China and even the world.
Le’an River is located in the northeast of Jiangxi Province. Adjacent to Le’an River, Dexing
Minerals 2023, 13, 145 City has the largest open-pit copper mine in Asia, as well as dozens of large and small 4 of 14
metal mines such as Jinshan Gold mine, Damaoshan Copper mine, Zhulin Gold mine,
Toad gold mine, Huaqiao gold mine, Yinshan lead-zinc mine, Xijiang gold mine, Bashi-
yuan gold
average mine,rainfall
annual Fujiawu Copper
of 1900 mmmine,
[5]. InShibei Gold amine
this study, andofYuankeng
portion Gold
the middle mine.
section Its
of the
mineral resources are rich and varied.
Le’an River within the city of Dexing was intercepted for analysis (Figure 1; Table S1).

Figure 1.
Figure Study area
1. Study area and
and sampling
sampling sites
sites of
of the
the Le’an
Le’an River.

Jiangxi Province has superior metallogenic geological conditions and is extremely rich
2.2. Sampling
in mineral resources. There are 164 kinds of mineral resources found in China, 153 of which
A total of 10 surface sediment samples (S1 to S10) were collected from 1 to 7 Decem-
can be found in Jiangxi Province, with more than 5000 mineral producing areas. Among
ber 2020 in the inner section of the Dexing boundary of the Le’an River, and the sampling
them are gold, silver, copper, tungsten, uranium, rare earth, and tantalum niobium; these
points were located using the Global Positioning System (GPS) during the sampling pro-
seven metal ores occupy an important position in China and even the world. Le’an River
cess. The location of each sampling site is marked in Figure 1. As much as possible, sam-
is located in the northeast of Jiangxi Province. Adjacent to Le’an River, Dexing City has
ples were collected
the largest open-pitfrom
copperthemine
center
in of the as
Asia, river
welltoasavoid interference
dozens from
of large and organic
small metalmatter.
mines
A
such as Jinshan Gold mine, Damaoshan Copper mine, Zhulin Gold mine, Toadofgold
Van Veen grab was used to collect sediment samples from the top 2 cm the mine,
river
bottom. Two samples were collected to measure the magnetic parameters
Huaqiao gold mine, Yinshan lead-zinc mine, Xijiang gold mine, Bashiyuan gold mine, and chemical
elemental characteristics
Fujiawu Copper of theGold
mine, Shibei sediment respectively.
mine and Yuankeng After
Goldcollection,
mine. Its the samples
mineral were
resources
packed in clean polythene
are rich and varied. bags and transported to the laboratory in a cooler at 4 °C.

2.3.
2.2. Analyses
Sampling
2.3.1.AMagnetic
total of 10Measurement
surface sediment samples (S1 to S10) were collected from 1 to 7 December 2020
in the inner section
All samples were of the Dexing
dried boundary
naturally in theoflaboratory,
the Le’an River, androots
and the the sampling points
were removed,
were located using the Global Positioning System (GPS) during the sampling
crushed with a wooden pestle and mortar passed through a 2 mm nylon sieve, and then process. The
location of each sampling site is marked in Figure 1. As much as possible,
weighed and wrapped tightly in plastic cling film and compacted in 10 cm sample boxes 3 samples were
collected from
dedicated the center
to magnetism foroftesting.
the river to avoid
Magnetic interference
field from
intensity was organic
applied matter.
with A Van
an ASC IM-
Veen
10 grab magnetizer
pulsed was used to(Sensor
collect sediment
Co., Statesamples
College,from
PA, the topand
USA) 2 cm of the river
isothermal bottom.
remanent
Two samples were collected to measure the magnetic parameters and chemical elemental
characteristics of the sediment respectively. After collection, the samples were packed in
clean polythene bags and transported to the laboratory in a cooler at 4 ◦ C.

2.3. Analyses
2.3.1. Magnetic Measurement
All samples were dried naturally in the laboratory, and the roots were removed,
crushed with a wooden pestle and mortar passed through a 2 mm nylon sieve, and then
weighed and wrapped tightly in plastic cling film and compacted in 10 cm3 sample boxes
dedicated to magnetism for testing. Magnetic field intensity was applied with an ASC
IM-10 pulsed magnetizer (Sensor Co., State College, PA, USA) and isothermal remanent
magnetization (IRM) values were obtained at room temperature with a Molspin Spinner
Magnetometer (Molspin Co., Oxfordshire, UK). Positive magnetic fields of 20, 200 and
300 mT and negative magnetic fields of −20 and −300 mT were applied to the samples
Minerals 2023, 13, 145 5 of 14

successively to test the corresponding IRM. IRM20mT (20 mT positive magnetic field for the
corresponding isothermal remanent magnetization) was used to indicate the content of
ferrimagnetic minerals, particularly multi-domain and pseudo-single-domain magnetic
particles. SOFT-IRM , HIRM and S-ratio are obtained from the above measured parameters,
respectively [18,36].
SOFT−IRM = (SIRM − IRM−20mT )/2 (1)
HIRM = (SIRM + IRM−300mT )/2 (2)
−IRM−300mT
S−ratio = (3)
SIRM
In the formula, SOFT-IRM is soft isothermal remanent magnetization, which can in-
dicate the ferromagnetic minerals content, Am2 /kg; SIRM is the saturation isothermal
remanence, which has strong correlation with stable-single domain (SSD) magnetite concen-
tration, Am2 /kg; IRM−20mT is the isothermal remanent magnetization for the 20 mT nega-
tive magnetic field test, which can reflect the content of soft magnetic minerals, Am2 /kg;
HIRM is hard isothermal remanent magnetization, which can estimate the content of an-
tiferromagnetic minerals in the sample, Am2 /kg; IRM−300mT is the isothermal remanent
magnetization for the 300 mT negative magnetic field test, Am2 /kg; S-ratio indicates the
relative ratio of antiferromagnetic minerals to ferromagnetic minerals, with high values
representing more ferromagnetic minerals.

2.3.2. Chemical Analysis

Samples used to measure heavy metal concentrations were removed from stones
and other debris and then dried naturally at room temperature and used to measure
heavy elemental content. Heavy metal content, such as Soil and sediment—Determination
of mercury, arsenic, selenium, bismuth, antimony (HJ680-2013) and Soil and sediment—
Determination of aqua regia extracts of 12 metals (HJ803-2016), were measured using the
methods mentioned in the standards set by the People’s Republic of China. Concentrations
of As, Hg, Sb, Bi and Se were measured using atomic fluorescence spectrometry (AFS)
following the method described by Dai and Wang et al. [6,37]. Concentrations of V, Sr, Ti, Cr,
Mo, Ni, Zn, Pb and Cu were determined by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
(ICP-MS) following the method of Dai et al. [37,38].
Accuracy and precision were verified using certified reference materials from the
National Oceanic Administration (GB 17378.5-2007) (Table S2). Data processing and quality
control of the analysis was carried out according to the National Oceanic Administration’s
certified reference materials (GB 17378.2-2007). The analysis yielded recoveries of heavy
metals that varied between 87.9% and 102%.
There are a number of methods used to determine the concentration of heavy metals
in sediments, and, based on Bhuiyan et al. [39], we chose the pollution load index (PLI)
to assess the pollution status of heavy metals in the study area, which is mathematically
defined as [40]: r 
PLI = n C f 1 × C f 2 × C f 3 × . . . × C f n (4)

C f = Metalsample /Metalbackground (5)

In this study, the concentration data of Cr, Pb, As, Cu and Zn were selected to calculate
PLI, and the background values were chosen from the geochemical background values
in sedimentary rocks (Table 1) [41]. When PLI ≤ 1, there is no contamination; when
1 < PLI ≤ 2, moderate contamination; when 2 < PLI ≤ 3, strong contamination; when
PLI > 3, extremely serious contamination.
Minerals 2023, 13, 145 6 of 14

Table 1. Geochemical background values in sedimentary rocks (mg/kg).

Elements Cu Zn Pb Cd Cr As
Metalbackground 45 118 34 0.4 62 13

2.4. Analyses
SPSS software was used for statistical analysis of the data. Correlation analysis of
heavy metal concentrations with magnetic parameters was performed using Pearson
correlation analysis, with the significance level set at p < 0.01 (two-tailed).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Sediment Chemistry
The Cf and PLI values for the selected heavy metals (Cr, Pb, As, Zn and Cu) are
shown in Figure 2. The maximum and minimum values for the different heavy metal
concentrations at each point are shown in Table 2, and the Cf and PLI values can be seen
in Table S3. As can be seen from Table 2, there is a great spatial variability in the spatial
distribution of the concentrations of each heavy metal element, with the average value of
each element far exceeding the average value of the sediment of the national water system
and the background value of the sediment of the Le’an River, and this is most obvious in the
case of Zn, which varies from 31.6 to 4260 mg/kg, with a difference of 135 times between the
lowest and highest values. Based on the mean values of the pollution coefficients of various
heavy metals, it can be concluded that the pollution levels are Cu > As > Zn > Pb > Cr, with
all elements far exceeding the background values, especially Cu, with an average pollution
coefficient of 22.88 and a maximum value of 74.67. The highest pollution coefficients of Pb,
As and Zn are also above 30. As can be seen from Figure 2, the Cf values of Pb, As and Zn
have more or less the same distribution trend at different points, reaching the maximum
value at point S3. Although the distribution curve of Cf values of Cu and other heavy
metals are not the same, they are also at the highest value at the S3 sampling point, because
the sampling point S3 is located near the De Xing copper mine and Yin Shan Pb-Zn mine,
so its heavy metal content is higher. From the PLI results, it can be seen that the pollution
status of points S1 to S3 and S6 is extremely serious, which is mainly due to the fact that
these points are located near various mines. Only two sites, S7 and S9, are free of pollution.
These two sites are located in the upper reaches of the Le’an River, where the principal
sources of heavy metal discharge and sewage discharge from domestic areas are located,
so the river bottom sediment pollution is better. Overall, the pollution situation in the Le
An River is getting worse along the river flow, and after reaching the peak, the pollution
situation gradually recovers as the river self-purifies.
Combined with the special geographical location of Dexing section of Le’an River,
the pollution sources of heavy metals can be identified. Cu and As are mainly from the
mining activities of Dexing copper mine. The main sources of Pb and Zn are the mining
and smelting activities in Yinshan lead-zinc mine, followed by the deposition of Pb and
Zn elements by the activities of the Dexing Copper Mine and the urban pollution in the
middle reaches. The Cr comes from the mining associated with Cr element in the mining
area, as well as the compound effects of urban industrial activities, domestic sewage and
traffic factors.
Table 2. Concentrations of heavy metals in sediment of different sampling section (mg/kg).

Cr Pb As Cu Zn
Min <3.0 11.7 11.1 38.8 31.6
Max 176 1200 802 3360 4260
Average 104.91 193.94 117.81 1029.68 846.47
 Cr Pb As Cu Zn
Min <3.0 11.7 11.1 38.8 31.6
Max 176 1200 802 3360 4260
Minerals 2023, 13, 145 7 of 14
Average 104.91 193.94 117.81 1029.68 846.47

Figure 2. Comparison ofFigure 2. Comparison

Cf values of Cf values
and pollution and pollution
load load index
index (PLI) (PLI) changes
changes in sediments
in sediments at various
at various
sampling sites in the Le’an River.
sampling sites in the Le’an River.
3.2. Sediment Magnetic Parameter
3.2. Sediment Magnetic Parameter
The IRM results obtained for the Le’an River sediments under the effect of positive
magnetic fields of 20, 200 and 300 mT and negative magnetic fields of −20 and −300 mT are
The IRM results shown
obtained for 3.
in Figure the Le’an
From River
the figure sediments
it can be seen that under
the trendtheof effect of positive
IRM of the Le’an River
magnetic fields of 20,sediments
200 andat300 mT magnetic
different and negative magnetic
field strengths fieldswith
is the same, of higher
−20 and −300
values mTat
of IRM
each point as well as SIRM at points S1 and S10 at both ends
are shown in Figure 3. From the figure it can be seen that the trend of IRM of the Le’an of the river, with the IRM mainly
indicating the soft magnetic fraction of the sample, suggesting that the sediment samples
River sediments at different magnetic
at points S1 and S2 arefield strengths
characterized is magnetic
by soft the same, withcontrolling
minerals higher values of
the magnetic
IRM at each point as well as SIRM
properties. at points
Paramagnetic andS1 and S10 at
anti-magnetic both do
minerals ends of the river,
not influence with
the SIRM, theis
which
mainly indicative of ferromagnetic minerals
IRM mainly indicating the soft magnetic fraction of the sample, suggesting and stable-single domain (SSD) materials
that the sedi- [18].
The SIRM of the Le’an River sediments varies from 1.45 × 10−3 to 9.71 × 10−3 Am2 /kg,
ment samples at points S1a and
with smallS2 are characterized
variation and a mean value byofsoft
4.11 magnetic
× 10−3 Am2minerals controlling
/kg, indicating a relatively
the magnetic properties.
high Paramagnetic
content of magnetic and anti-magnetic
minerals minerals
in the Le’an River do not
sediments, and influence
the IRM curves theat
various magnetic field strengths are in general agreement
SIRM, which is mainly indicative of ferromagnetic minerals and stable-single domain with the SIRM curves, indicating
a relatively stable magnetic mineral composition in the samples. The lower values at sites
(SSD) materials [18]. The
S2 toSIRM
S4 and of
S6 the
to S9Le’an Riverdue
are probably sediments varies
to the proximity of from 1.45to×the
these sites 10mines
−3 to 9.71
along
× 10−3 Am2/kg, with a the
small
Le’anvariation and a the
River, especially mean
Dexingvalue
copperof 4.11
mine, ×where
10−3 Amheavy 2/kg,
metal indicating
contamination a
relatively high content of magnetic minerals in the Le’an River sediments, and the IRMin
from the mines has led to an increase in the concentration of antiferromagnetic minerals
the sediments.
curves at various magnetic field strengths are in general agreement with the SIRM curves,
indicating a relatively stable magnetic mineral composition in the samples. The lower val-
ues at sites S2 to S4 and S6 to S9 are probably due to the proximity of these sites to the
mines along the Le’an River, especially the Dexing copper mine, where heavy metal con-
tamination from the mines has led to an increase in the concentration of antiferromagnetic
minerals in the sediments.
2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Minerals 2023, 13, 145 8 of 14

Figure 3.Figure IRM characteristicsatateach

IRM3.characteristics each sampling
samplingsite site
in thein
Le’an
theRiver.
Le’an River.
ARM is generally used to reflect the ferrimagnetic mineral content and particle size
ARMof theissample,
generally
and is used to reflect
especially sensitivethe ferrimagnetic
to small single domainmineral
and quasi content and partic
single domain
magnetic minerals. There is a nonlinear correlation between ARM
of the sample, and is especially sensitive to small single domain and quasi single d and magnetic mineral
content, which is mainly the result of the interaction of magnetic particles during ARM
magnetic minerals.
acquisition [42]. There is a 4,
From Figure nonlinear
high valuescorrelation
of ARM in thebetween
Le’an RiverARMsedimentand magnetic
occur at m
−
content,points
which isand
S1, S6 mainly thea maximum
S10, with result ofvalue
the ofinteraction
8.76 × 10 m 6
of/kg,
3
magnetic
which may particles
be due to during
the effluent from the steel mill and fly ash from the coal plant
acquisition [42]. From Figure 4, high values of ARM in the Le’an River sedimentnear the points. At these three o
points, the sediment has a high content of single domain particles in the magnetic minerals.
points S1,
Also,S6theand
SIRMS10,
valueswith
for S1a and
maximum value high,
S10 are relatively of 8.76 × 10 a high
suggesting
−6 m /kg,
3
contentwhich
of SSDmay be
the effluent from theat steel
in the sediments mill
these two and fly ash from the coal plant near the points. A
points.
The results of HIRM, S-ratio and SOFT-IRM are shown in Figure 5. The SOFT-IRM ranges
three points, the sediment has a high content of single domain particles in the ma
from 4.025 × 10−4 Am2 /kg to 3.785 × 10−3 Am2 /kg, a wide range of variation, indicating
minerals.
thatAlso, the SIRMofvalues
the concentration for S1 fluctuates
ferrous minerals and S10significantly.
are relatively high,
The HIRM suggesting
can be used as a hig
tent of SSD
a proxyinfor
thethesediments
concentrationat ofthese two points. mineral hematite [43,44]. The mean
the antiferromagnetic
value of HIRM in the Le’an River sediments was 3.88 × 10−3 Am2 /kg, with a high overall
value and a sawtooth-shaped high-amplitude distribution of the HIRM curve, indicating
that the sediment formation process in the Le’an River was very unstable and that various
pollution sources had a great influence on the sediment deposition process.
x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14
Minerals 2023, 13, 145 9 of 14

x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 14

Figure 4. ARM characteristics at each

Figure 4. ARM samplingatsite
characteristics eachinsampling
the Le’an
siteRiver.
in the Le’an River.

The results of HIRM, S-ratio and SOFT-IRM are shown in Figure 5. The SOFT-IRM ranges
from 4.025 × 10−4 Am2/kg to 3.785 × 10−3 Am2/kg, a wide range of variation, indicating that
the concentration of ferrous minerals fluctuates significantly. The HIRM can be used as a
proxy for the concentration of the antiferromagnetic mineral hematite [43,44]. The mean
value of HIRM in the Le’an River sediments was 3.88 × 10−3 Am2/kg, with a high overall
value and a sawtooth-shaped high-amplitude distribution of the HIRM curve, indicating
that the sediment formation process in the Le’an River was very unstable and that various
pollution sources had a great influence on the sediment deposition process.
The S-ratio mainly reflects the relative importance of the ferromagnetic and antiferro-
magnetic minerals [36]. In the Le’an River sediments, the S-ratio varies from 0.73 to 0.93,
with a mean value of 0.87, essentially reaching saturation, indicating that the isothermal
remanence IRM is close to saturation under the applied magnetic field of 300 mT, and
with the increase of sediment deposition process and soft ferromagnetic mineral compo-
sition, the ferrous magnetic mineral composition becomes the main contributor of mag-
netic susceptibility. The same low values on the HIRM curve are found at sampling points
S7 to S9 where S-ratio is low, suggesting that the concentration of magnetic minerals is stable
at the headwaters of the Le’an River and its tributary, the Dawu River, meaning that the
presence of contaminants downstream of the Dawu River is increasing the concentration
of antiferromagnetic minerals in the sediment. Magnetite is the main ferric magnetic car-
rier in the sediments of river basins and reservoirs. The characteristics of magnetite lead
to the easy adsorption of toxic elements in the sediments of the Le’an River [4].
Figure 5. Other magnetic
Figureindexes’ characteristics
5. Other magnetic indexes’atcharacteristics
sampling sites in the Le’an
at sampling River.
sites in the Le’an River.

3.3. Correlation between Magnetic Parameter and Heavy Metal Content

The Pearson correlation coefficients of each environmental magnetism index and
each element are shown in Table S4. As can be seen from Table S4 and Figure 6, the S-ratio
Minerals 2023, 13, 145 10 of 14

The S-ratio mainly reflects the relative importance of the ferromagnetic and antiferro-
magnetic minerals [36]. In the Le’an River sediments, the S-ratio varies from 0.73 to 0.93,
with a mean value of 0.87, essentially reaching saturation, indicating that the isothermal
remanence IRM is close to saturation under the applied magnetic field of 300 mT, and with
the increase of sediment deposition process and soft ferromagnetic mineral composition,
the ferrous magnetic mineral composition becomes the main contributor of magnetic sus-
ceptibility. The same low values on the HIRM curve are found at sampling points S7 to
S9 where S-ratio is low, suggesting that the concentration of magnetic minerals is stable
at the headwaters of the Le’an River and its tributary, the Dawu River, meaning that the
presence of contaminants downstream of the Dawu River is increasing the concentration of
antiferromagnetic minerals in the sediment. Magnetite is the main ferric magnetic carrier
in the sediments of river basins and reservoirs. The characteristics of magnetite lead to the
easy adsorption of toxic elements in the sediments of the Le’an River [4].

3.3. Correlation between Magnetic Parameter and Heavy Metal Content

The Pearson correlation coefficients of each environmental magnetism index and each
element are shown in Table S4. As can be seen from Table S4 and Figure 6, the S-ratio is
positively correlated with the concentrations of Cr, Pb, As, Cu and Zn, but not significantly.
These two indicators reflect the relative importance of ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic
minerals. It shows that the concentration of these heavy metals is related to the content
of ferritic magnetic minerals. From the point of view of each heavy metal, the correlation
between various environmental magnetism indices and Cr, Pb, As, Cu and Zn is not strong,
which is different from the results of many previous studies [21,45,46]. It also indicates
that in areas with more mines, heavy metal pollution and the outflow of various minerals
may lead to the weakening of the indicator effect of environmental magnetism indices on
heavy metals. The highest correlation coefficient for each of the environmental magnetism
indices with the main heavy metals (Cr, Pb, As, Cu and Zn) was 0.528 for S-ratio and Zn,
but the correlation was not significant. Two elements, Pb and As, had negative correlation
coefficients, except for two positive correlations with S-ratio . The correlation coefficients
between most heavy metals and environmental magnetism are negative. According to the
results in the table, IRM-20mT and S-ratio have certain indicative effects on Cr, Pb, As, Cu
and Zn. This is not consistent with the findings of Zhang et al., that is, that SIRM has no
indicative effect on metallic elements. In that study, the authors also give reasons that the
differences in the correlation between magnetic parameters and heavy metals may depend
on their source [1].
ARM exhibited significantly positive correlations with HIRM, SOFT−IRM , IRM−300mT ,
SIRM, IRM20mT , IRM200mT and IRM300mT (p < 0.01). The IRM obtained under different
magnetic field intensities have little correlation (p < 0.01). ARM/SIRM is negatively
correlated with all environmental magnetic indicators except ARM and S-ratio, and the
correlation is not significant. On the whole, the correlation between the environmental
magnetic indicators is not high.
Sr is significantly correlated with multiple environmental magnetic indices (p < 0.01),
but its correlation coefficient was negative, and Sr correlated negatively with all environ-
mental magnetism indices, indicating that the higher the concentration of Sr in the sediment,
the smaller the environmental magnetic index of the sediment. Of all the correlation coeffi-
cients, the largest correlation coefficient was between Hg and ARM at 0.798 (p < 0.05). As
can be seen from the table, there is a positive correlation between ARM and the V, Hg, Ni
and Sr, and the correlation coefficients are large. However, in terms of magnetic indices,
there is no one indicator that is indicative of all heavy metal indicators, which is different
from the conclusions obtained from many previous studies [1,22,23], which also indicates
that in different locations, due to different deposition processes and different sources of
pollution, the environmental magnetism indices for heavy metals also vary from place
to place due to different deposition processes and pollution sources. According to the
results in Table S4 and Figure 6, it can be seen that IRM200mT , IRM300mT , SIRM, IRM-300mT
 indicates that in different locations, due to different deposition processes and differ
sources of pollution, the environmental magnetism indices for heavy metals also v
from place to place due to different deposition processes and pollution sources. Accord
to the results in Table S4 and Figure 6, it can be seen that IRM200mT, IRM300mT, SIRM, IR
Minerals 2023, 13, 145 11 of 14
300mT and HIRM have significant correlation with Sr (p < 0.05), has a certain indicative ro

ARM is a strong indicator of V and Hg, and Zhang C.X. et al., in 2011, also pointed ou
strongandcorrelation
HIRM havebetween
significantARM and V
correlation [1].SrIRM
with (p <20mT was
0.05), hassignificantly correlated
a certain indicative role. with
(p < 0.01). ARM/SIRM has strong indicative effect on Mo and Ni, which
ARM is a strong indicator of V and Hg, and Zhang C.X. et al., in 2011, also pointed out is consistent w
Chaparro’s
a strong finding that
correlation ARM/SIRM
between ARM andcan be IRM
V [1]. used aswas
20mT a proxy for Nicorrelated
significantly after studying
with the s
Hg (p < 0.01). ARM/SIRM has strong indicative effect on Mo and Ni,
iment of reservoir in Mexico. He did not study the relationship between Mo element awhich is consistent
with Chaparro’s finding that ARM/SIRM can be used as a proxy for Ni after studying the
magnetic parameters [4]. This parameter indicates Mo and Ni concentrations beca
sediment of reservoir in Mexico. He did not study the relationship between Mo element
ARM/SIRM cancels
and magnetic out the
parameters [4].effect of magnetic
This parameter mineral
indicates Mo andconcentrations
Ni concentrationsand enhances
because
signal caused bycancels
ARM/SIRM grainout
sizethechanges [47].
effect of magnetic mineral concentrations and enhances the
signal caused by grain size changes [47].

Figure 6. Plot
Figure of of
6. Plot correlation coefficients
correlation coefficients between
between magnetic
magnetic parameters
parameters and heavy
and heavy metal metal concen
concentrations
(* p ≤ 0.05).
tions (* p ≤ 0.05).
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
The concentration of each heavy metal element in the sediment of the Dexing section
of
Thetheconcentration
Le’an River hasof
great
eachspatial
heavy variability in spatialin
metal element distribution,
the sedimentand of
heavy
the metal
Dexing sect
pollution is more serious; the average value of each heavy metal concentration far exceeds
of the Le’an River has great spatial variability in spatial distribution, and heavy me
the background value of heavy metal in the sediment of the Le’an River, especially Cu.
pollution is more
The highest serious;
value the average
of pollution value
coefficient of each
is 74.67; heavy
from the metal
pollution concentration
coefficient Cf can befar exce
the background
seen that the pollution degree of various heavy metal pollution is Cu > As > Zn > Pb especially
value of heavy metal in the sediment of the Le’an River, > Cr. C
Combined
The highest with the
value PLI, the results
of pollution show thatisthe
coefficient degree
74.67; of pollution
from is extremely
the pollution serious Cf can
coefficient
at the points located near each mine, while the two points located in the
seen that the pollution degree of various heavy metal pollution is Cu > As > Zn > Pb > upper reaches
of the river are free of pollution, and the sediment pollution is better. The isothermal
Combined
remanent with the PLI, the
magnetization IRMresults showRiver
of the Le’an that sediments
the degree of pollution
is consistent is magnetic
across extremely serio
field strengths, and the SIRM curve is consistent with the IRM, indicating that the magnetic
mineral composition of the samples is relatively stable. From the other environmental
magnetism indicators, it can be seen that the ferromagnetic mineral fraction becomes the
main contributor to the magnetization rate and its concentration fluctuates more obviously,
Minerals 2023, 13, 145 12 of 14

while each pollution source has a greater influence on the deposition process of the Le’an
River sediments.
The correlation analysis between environmental magnetism indicators and heavy
metals did not show a significant pattern, with the S-ratio having a non-significant positive
correlation with the concentration of each major heavy metal, suggesting that heavy metals
are more readily enriched in ferromagnetic minerals. Overall, the magnetic parameters
IRM-20mT and S-ratio were indicative of Cr, Pb, As, Cu and Zn, but not strongly so. In
combination with other heavy metals, Sr had a more significant correlation (p < 0.05) with
the magnetic indicators IRM200mT , IRM300mT , SIRM, IRM-300mT and HIRM, which can be
used as indicators of pollution in response to Sr concentrations; ARM was indicative for V
(p < 0.05) and strongly indicative for Hg (p < 0.01). IRM20mT was significantly correlated
with Hg (p < 0.01); ARM/SIRM was highly indicative of Mo and Ni (p < 0.01). The
combination of environmental magnetism and geochemistry is an important method for
environmental assessment. In some areas environmental magnetism can be a good indicator
of heavy metal concentrations, but in this study, no single environmental indicator was
found to accurately and effectively reflect the concentrations of various heavy metals,
which also indicates that in different areas, due to the sediment formation process and the
pollution sources in the study area, the indication of environmental magnetism indicators
can have a large impact.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/min13020145/s1, Table S1. sampling sites; Table S2. Precision
and accuracy of each method; Table S3. Statistical analysis of pollution load index; Table S4. Pearson
correlation (PC) coefficient matrix of all elements and magnetic parameters in the study area.
Author Contributions: S.R. contributed significantly to the study design, literature review, statistical
analysis, and writing and revising the manuscript. J.W. was responsible for improving the study
design, literature screening, data validation, and review and revision of the manuscript. J.L. improved
the study ideas and revised the manuscript. Q.L. and C.R. were responsible for collecting data and
revising the manuscript, and liaising with the editorial team. X.C. improved the study’s ideas and
revised the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was supported by “the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universi-
ties”, No. 2022.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or
personal relationships that could have influenced the work reported in this paper.

References
1. Zhang, C.X.; Qiao, Q.Q.; Piper, J.; Huang, B.C. Assessment of heavy metal pollution from a Fe-smelting plant in urban river
sediments using environmental magnetic and geochemical methods. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 3057–3070. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Rijal, M.L.; Appel, E.; Petrovský, E.; Blaha, U. Change of magnetic properties due to fluctuations of hydrocarbon contaminated
groundwater in unconsolidated sediments. Environ. Pollut. 2010, 158, 1756–1762. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Sekabira, K.; Oryem Origa, H.; Basamba, T.A.; Mutumba, G.; Kakudidi, E. Assessment of heavy metal pollution in the urban
stream sediments and its tributaries. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 7, 435–446. [CrossRef]
4. Chaparro, M.A.E.; Ramírez-Ramírez, M.; Miranda-Avilés, R.; Puy-Alquiza, M.J.; Böhnel, H.N.; Zanor, G.A. Magnetic parameters
as proxies for anthropogenic pollution in water reservoir sediments from Mexico: An interdisciplinary approach. Sci. Total
Environ. 2020, 700, 134343. [CrossRef]
5. Chen, H.Y.; Chen, R.H.; Teng, Y.G.; Wu, J. Contamination characteristics, ecological risk and source identification of trace metals
in sediments of the Le’an River (China). Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety 2016, 125, 85–92. [CrossRef]
6. Wang, S.; Liu, J.; Li, J.C.; Xu, G.; Qiu, J.D.; Chen, B. Environmental magnetic parameter characteristics as indicators of heavy metal
pollution in the surface sediments off the Zhoushan Islands in the East China Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 150, 110642. [CrossRef]
7. Evans, M.E.; Heller, F. Environmental Magnetism: Principles and Applications of Enviromagnetics; International Geophysics Series;
Academic Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003; p. 86.
8. Mariyanto, M.; Amir, M.; Utama, W.; Hamdan, A.M.; Bijaksana, S.; Pratama, A.; Yunginger, R.; Sudarningsih, S. Heavy metal
contents and magnetic properties of surface sediments in volcanic and tropical environment from Brantas River, Jawa Timur
Province, Indonesia. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 675, 632–641. [CrossRef]
Minerals 2023, 13, 145 13 of 14

9. Panwar, S.; Yang, S.; Srivastava, P.; Khan, M.; Chakrapani, G.J. Environmental magnetic characterization of the Alaknanda and
Ramganga river sediments, ganga basin, India. Catena 2020, 190, 104529. [CrossRef]
10. Hatfield, R.G.; Maher, B.A. Fingerprinting upland sediment sources: Particle size-specific magnetic linkages between soils, lake
sediments and suspended sediments. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2009, 34, 1359–1373. [CrossRef]
11. Horng, C.S.; Huh, C.A. Magnetic properties as tracers for source-to-sink dispersal of sediments: A case study in the Taiwan Strait.
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2011, 309, 141–152. [CrossRef]
12. Kulkarni, Y.R.; Sangode, S.J.; Meshram, D.C.; Patil, S.K.; Dutt, Y. Mineral magnetic characterization of the Godavari river
sediments: Implications to Deccan basalt weathering. J. Geol. Soc. India 2014, 83, 376–384. [CrossRef]
13. Liu, X.; Li, A.; Dong, J.; Lu, J.; Huang, J.; Wan, S. Provenance discrimination of sediments in the Zhejiang-Fujian mud belt, East
China Sea: Implications for the development of the mud depocenter. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2018, 151, 1–15. [CrossRef]
14. Hatfield, R.G.; Wheeler, B.H.; Reilly, B.T.; Stoner, J.S.; Housen, B.A. Particle size specific magnetic properties across the norwegian-
greenland seas: Insights into the influence of sediment source and texture on bulk magnetic records. Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems
2019, 20, 1004–1025. [CrossRef]
15. Okafor, E.C.; Opuene, K. Preliminary assessment of trace metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the sediments. Int. J.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 4, 233–240. [CrossRef]
16. Mohiuddin, K.M.; Zakir, H.M.; Otomo, K.; Sharmin, S.; Shikazono, N. Geochemical distribution of trace metal pollutants in water
and sediments of downstream of an urban river. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 7, 17–28. [CrossRef]
17. Oldfield, F.; Hunt, A.; Jones, M.D.H.; Chester, R.; Dearing, J.A.; Olsson Prospero, J.M. Magnetic differentiation of atmospheric
dusts. Nature 1985, 317, 516–518. [CrossRef]
18. Thompson, R.; Oldfield, F. Environmental Magnetism; Allen and Unwin: London, UK, 1986.
19. Strzyszcz, Z. Magnetic susceptibility of soils in the area influenced by industrial emissions. In Soil Monitoring: Early Detection and
Surveying of Soils Contamination and Degradation; Schullin, D., Webster, S., Eds.; Birkhauser: Basel, Switzerland, 1993; pp. 255–269.
20. Heller, F.; Strzyszcz, Z.; Magiera, T. Magnetic record of industrial pollution in forest soils of Upper Silesia, Poland. J. Geophys. Res.
1998, 103, 17767–17774. [CrossRef]
21. Sudarningsih, S.; Bijaksana, S.; Ramdani, R.; Hafidz, A.; Pratama, A.; Widodo, W.; Iskandar, I.; Dahrin, D.; Fajar, S.J.; Santoso,
N.A. Variations in the concentration of magnetic minerals and heavy metals in suspended sediments from Citarum River and its
tributaries, West Java, Indonesia. Geosciences 2017, 7, 66. [CrossRef]
22. Dong, C.Y.; Zhang, W.G.; Ma, H.L.; Feng, H.; Lu, H.H.; Dong, Y.; Yu, L.Z. A magnetic record of heavy metal pollution in the
Yangtze River subaqueous delta. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 476–477, 368–377. [CrossRef]
23. Zhang, W.G.; Yu, L.Z.; Lu, M.; Simon, M.H.; Feng, H. Magnetic approach to normalizing heavy metal concentrations for particle
size effects in intertidal sediments in the Yangtze Estuary, China. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 147, 238–244. [CrossRef]
24. Lu, S.G.; Bai, S.Q. Study on the correlation of magnetic properties and heavy metals content in urban soils of Hangzhou City,
China. J. Appl. Geophys. 2006, 60, 1–12. [CrossRef]
25. Tao, Y.; Liu, Q.; Li, H.; Zeng, Q.; Chan, L. Anthropogenic magnetic particles and heavy metals in the road dust: Magnetic
identification and its implications. Atmos. Environ. 2010, 44, 1175–1185.
26. Knab, M.; Hoffmann, V.; Petrovsky, E.; Kapicka, A.; Jordanova, N.; Appel, E. Surveying the anthropogenic impact of the Moldau
river sediments and nearby soils using magnetic susceptibility. Environ. Geol. 2006, 49, 527–535. [CrossRef]
27. Frančišković-Bilinski, S.; Scholger, R.; Bilinski, H.; Tibljaš, D. Magnetic, geochemical and mineralogical properties of sediments
from karstic and flysch rivers of Croatia and Slovenia. Environ. Earth Sci. 2014, 72, 3939–3953. [CrossRef]
28. Wei, Y.H.; Zhang, J.Y.; Zhang, D.W.; Tu, T.H.; Luo, L.G. Metal concentrations in various fish organs of different fish species from
Poyang Lake, China. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2014, 104, 182–188. [CrossRef]
29. UNESCO (The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). Ecological Effects of Heavy-Metal Pollution in the
Dexing Copper Mine Region (Jian Xi Province, China); UNESCO: Paris, France, 1996.
30. Liu, G.N.; Tao, L.; Liu, X.H.; Hou, J.; Wang, A.J.; Li, R.P. Heavy metal speciation and pollution of agricultural soils along Jishui
River in non-ferrous metal mine area in Jiangxi Province, China. J. Geochem. Explor. 2013, 132, 156–163. [CrossRef]
31. Huang, X.P.; Wan, J.B. Current Status of Water Environment in Le’an River and Measures for pollution Control. Resour. Environ.
Yangtze Basin 2005, 14, 5.
32. Zhang, J.; Han, L.; Ji, Y.; Wei, J.; Cai, G.; Gao, G.; Wu, J.; Yao, Z. Heavy metal investigation and risk assessment along the Le’an
river from non-ferrous metal mining and smelting activities in Poyang, China. J. Environ. Biol. 2018, 39, 536–545. [CrossRef]
33. Wen, X.; Allen, H.E. Mobilization of heavy metal from Le’an River sediment. Sci. Total Environ. 1999, 227, 101–108. [CrossRef]
34. Liu, W.X.; Wang, Z.J.; Wen, X.H.; Tang, H.X. The application of preliminary sediment quality criteria to metal contamination in
the Le’an River. Environ. Pollut. 1999, 105, 355–366. [CrossRef]
35. Teng, Y.G.; Ni, S.J.; Wang, J.S.; Zuo, R.; Yang, J. A geochemical survey of trace elements in agricultural and non-agricultural
topsoil in Dexing area, China. J. Geochem. Explor. 2010, 104, 118–127. [CrossRef]
36. Evans, M.E.; Heller, F. Environmental Magnetism: Principles and Applications of Environ-Magnetics; Academic Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2003.
37. Dai, J.C.; Song, J.M.; Li, X.G.; Yuan, H.M.; Li, N.; Zheng, G.X. Environmental changes reflected by sedimentary geochemistry in
recent hundred years of Jiaozhou Bay, North China. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 145, 656–667. [CrossRef]
Minerals 2023, 13, 145 14 of 14

38. Xia, N.; Zhang, Q.; Yao, D.; Li, G.H. Geochemistry analysis of marine sediments using fused glass disc by X-ray fluorescence
spectrometry. Chin. J. Oceanol. Limnol. 2008, 26, 475–479. (In Chinese) [CrossRef]
39. Bhuiyan, M.A.H.; Parvez, L.; Islam, M.; Dampare, S.B.; Suzuki, S. Heavy metal pollution of coal mine affected agricultural soils in
the northern part of Bangladesh. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 173, 384–392. [CrossRef]
40. Angulo, E. The Tomlinson pollution index applied to heavy “Mussel-Watch” data: A useful index to assess coastal pollution. Sci.
Total Environ. 1996, 187, 19–56. [CrossRef]
41. Jia, Z.B.; Zhou, H.; Zhao, Z.J.; Tao, S.; Zhang, B.Q.; Zhao, L.H. The Application of the Index of Geoaccumulation to Evaluate
Heavy Metal Pollution in Sediments in the Benxi Section of the Taizi River. Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Pekin 2000, 4, 525–530.
42. Cisowski, S. Interacting vs Uniform Color Spaces, Color-Difference Equations, and Psychometric Color Terms; CIE: Paris, France, 1978;
pp. 152–179.
43. Liu, Y.; Shi, Z.; Deng, C.; Su, H.; Zhang, W. Mineral magnetic investigation of the Talede loess-palaeosol sequence since the last
interglacial in the Yili Basin in the Asian interior. Geophys. J. Int. 2012, 190, 267–277. [CrossRef]
44. Liu, Z.; Liu, Q.; Torrent, J.; Barrõn, V.; Hu, P. Testing the magnetic proxy χFD /HIRM for quantifying paleoprecipitation in modern
soil profiles from Shaanxi Province, China. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2013, 110, 368–378. [CrossRef]
45. Goddu, S.R.; Appel, E.; Jordanova, D.; Wehland, F. Magnetic properties of road dust from Visakhapatnam (India)—Relationship
to industrial pollution and road traffic. Phys. Chem. Earth 2004, 29, 985–995. [CrossRef]
46. Williams, T.M. A sedimentary record of the deposition heavy metals and magnetic oxides in the Loch Dee basin, Galloway,
Scotland, since 1500. Holocene 1991, 1, 142–150. [CrossRef]
47. Liu, Q.; Roberts, A.P.; Larrasoaña, J.C.; Banerjee, S.K.; Guyodo, J.; Tauxe, L.; Oldfield, F. Environmental Magnetism: Principles
and Applications. Rev. Geophys. 2012, 50, RG4002. [CrossRef]

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.