Taking a certain area in Sichuan Province as the object of this study, this paper adopts fuzzy mathematics method to make an evaluation on ecological risks of heavy metal in soil of this area. On calculation of factor...Taking a certain area in Sichuan Province as the object of this study, this paper adopts fuzzy mathematics method to make an evaluation on ecological risks of heavy metal in soil of this area. On calculation of factors’ weights, the traditional method of giving weight according to pollutants’ concentrations fails to consider the toxicity of heavy metals, and can’t reflect their actual ecological effect. With reference to the toxicity coefficient in potential ecological risk index evaluation, this article revises the traditional fuzzy mathematics evaluation model and puts forward a new method to calculate factors’ weight by incorporating toxicity levels in weight setting. The results of this study indicate: surface soil of this area was good in general, with 91.2% samples belonging to the first level, 7.77% samples belonging to the second level, and only 1.03% belonging to the third level. Compared with the results of the evaluation method of the reality content of soil, soil quality is better than the results of the quantitative evaluation, and is closer to the actual local conditions.展开更多
文摘Taking a certain area in Sichuan Province as the object of this study, this paper adopts fuzzy mathematics method to make an evaluation on ecological risks of heavy metal in soil of this area. On calculation of factors’ weights, the traditional method of giving weight according to pollutants’ concentrations fails to consider the toxicity of heavy metals, and can’t reflect their actual ecological effect. With reference to the toxicity coefficient in potential ecological risk index evaluation, this article revises the traditional fuzzy mathematics evaluation model and puts forward a new method to calculate factors’ weight by incorporating toxicity levels in weight setting. The results of this study indicate: surface soil of this area was good in general, with 91.2% samples belonging to the first level, 7.77% samples belonging to the second level, and only 1.03% belonging to the third level. Compared with the results of the evaluation method of the reality content of soil, soil quality is better than the results of the quantitative evaluation, and is closer to the actual local conditions.
