reclaimed water through field trials on the content and distribution of heavy metals in both tomatoes

Overview

This source page is a mechanical bulk-ingest record for a PDF in the research-pulls corpus. It preserves source-level identity, routeable product/analyte scope, and exact extracted numeric lines for later human or fresh-context audit. It does not derive HMTc thresholds, percentiles, or brand-by-brand comparisons.

Key numbers

The worker extracted the full PDF text with layout preservation twice and compared extraction hashes before commit. The following lines are copied from numeric/table-bearing regions of the PDF and retain the source units and wording where legible:

• mainly embodied in the following two aspects: (1) Since the water source is stable and reliable, it can
• to soil to vegetables (3,4). The content of other elements has no significant difference to that of tap
• in a typical year ranges from ´14.9 ˝ C to 41 ˝ C with the average of 15.3 ˝ C. The annual accumulated
• season (from 1 May, to 20 December) takes up 58%–62% of that of the whole year. During the season
• Table 1 shows the contents of seven heavy metals present within the irrigation water. It can be
• seen from Table 1 that, besides Hg, the contents of other six heavy metals in the reclaimed water are
• Table 1. Heavy metal content of the reclaimed water.
• In Table 1, there are seven heavy metals in the reclaimed water. As can be seen from the Table,
• Table 2 shows the distribution of seven heavy metals in soil with different reclaimed water
• Table 2. Heavy metal content in the soil for different reclaimed water for irrigation periods and
• As is shown in Table 2, by comparing heavy metal contents in 2011 and 2014 with reclaimed
• The heavy metal contents are shown in Table 3.
• Table 3. Heavy metal contents in the soils irrigated with the different ratios of clean and
• Note: For the level where p = 0.05, the same letter means that there is no significant difference, and different
• As can be seen from Table 3, by comparing the values under various circumstances, it can be
• and human body food chain, were selected for analysis. The results are shown in Table 4where it can
• found to reach a significant level of 90% (F = 6.481, sig = 0.081< 0.1), but for Cd, Pb, Hg, As, Cu, and Zn,
• Table 4. Tomato fruits heavy metal contents with diverse irrigation water quality mg/kg.
• paper analyzes the balance of heavy metals in the soil and tomatoes. As is shown in Table 5, for the
• as we can see from Table 3, the soil heavy metal content does not show significant changes (increase
• in Table 6. As for those taken away, As is the highest with 0.68%–0.72% while Cr is the lowest,
• 0.061%–0.070%. Zn has the highest brought-in proportion of 0.02%–0.30%, and Pb accounts for the
• Table 5. The amount of heavy metals brought in by the reclaimed water and that taken away when the
• Table 6. The proportion of heavy metals brought in and taken away in the soil during the growth of

Methods (brief)

• The samples of tomatoes and soil were collected twice, in August 2011 and 2014 respectively,
• when the plants ripened. The soil samples were taken from layers of depths 0–30, 30–60, and 60–90 cm
• the samples were the fruits. The test indexes are as follows: seeds and fruit dry weight, TN, NO´3 -N,
• Instruments: An inductively coupled plasma emission spectrograph (ICP-AES), PHs-10A model
• 2.4. Sample Determination Method
• the heavy metal contents of the tomatoes. Use the mass spectrometer MDS26 microwave digestion
• digestion pot, add 1ml of concentrated HNO3 and H2 O2 to each, use the expander for expansion of
• alongside two screws, and start the microwave digestion process. Remove the pot after sufficient
• internal mixture and set to 10 mL volume. At the operating parameters of ICP2MS, determine the
• content of As, Pb, the mass concentration of Cd, Hg and other elements in the digested sample solution.
• Determine Pb, and Cd in soil by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry and
• Author Contributions: Shibao Lu conceived and designed the study, Jianhua Wang collected and analyzed the

Implications

This page makes the source discoverable for category-level evidence routing. Values remain source-native and should be used only with the stated matrix, species, basis, geography, and censoring context from the paper. The page does not convert total mercury to methylmercury or use total arsenic as inorganic arsenic.

Wiki pages this source may touch

• Other cooking oils (canola, sunflower, coconut, avocado, sesame)
• Cadmium
• Lead

Verification notes

• Identity check: DOI, raw handle, candidate cite-key, and SHA-256 were compared against existing wiki/sources/ pages before creation.
• Full-PDF read: pdftotext -layout was run on the full PDF twice; extracted text hashes matched before the page was written.
• Numeric verification: numeric/table-bearing lines were selected mechanically from the verified extraction and preserved without unit conversion or rounding.
• Brand firewall: the worker skips PDFs when extracted numeric lines appear brand/manufacturer-sensitive; this page contains category-level or species-level evidence only.
• HMTc firewall: no threshold, percentile, pass/fail, clean/dirty, or certification math is stated.

Update history

The five most recent substantive edits to this page, classified major (evidence or structure moved), correction (a published value or statement was wrong and has been fixed), or minor (narrative rewritten without changing the underlying evidence). Each description is derived from what the edit did to this page; the linked commit is the authoritative record, routine regeneration passes are excluded, and the full version history lives in git. When DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.