Agricultural and Food Science in Finland, Vol. 11 (2002): 285–300 285 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 11 (2002): 285–300. Arsenic and heavy metal concentrations in agricultural soils in South Savo province Väinö Mäntylahti and Pirkko Laakso Viljavuuspalvelu Oy, PO Box 500, FIN-50101 Mikkeli, Finland, e-mail: vaino.mantylahti@viljavuuspalvelu.fi Increasing concentrations of arsenic and heavy metals in agricultural soils are becoming a growing problem in industrialized countries. These harmful elements represent the basis of a range of prob- lems in the food chain, and are a potential hazard for animal and human health. It is therefore impor- tant to gauge their absolute and relative concentrations in soils that are used for crop production. In this study the arsenic and heavy metal concentrations in 274 mineral soil samples and 38 organogenic soil samples taken from South Savo province in 2000 were determined using the aqua regia extrac- tion technique. The soil samples were collected from 23 farms. The elements analyzed were arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, lead and zinc. The median concentrations in the min- eral soils were: As 2.90 mg kg–1, Cd 0.084 mg kg–1, Cr 17.0 mg kg–1, Cu 13.0 mg kg–1, Hg 0.060 mg kg–1, Ni 5.4 mg kg–1, Pb 7.7 mg kg–1, Zn 36.5 mg kg–1. The corresponding values in the organogenic soils were: As 2.80 mg kg–1, Cd 0.265 mg kg–1, Cr 15.0 mg kg–1, Cu 29.0 mg kg–1, Hg 0.200 mg kg–1, Ni 5.9 mg kg–1, Pb 11.0 mg kg–1, Zn 25.5 mg kg–1. The results indicated that cadmium and mercury concentrations in the mineral and organogenic soils differed. Some of the arsenic, cadmium and mercury concentrations exceeded the normative values but did not exceed limit values. Most of the agricultural fields in South Savo province contained only small amounts of arsenic and heavy metals and could be classified as “Clean Soil”. A draft for the target values of arsenic and heavy metal concentrations in “Clean Soil” is presented. Key words: arsenic, heavy metals, soil, classification, normative and limit values, soil pollution, Finland © Agricultural and Food Science in Finland Manuscript received April 2002 Introduction The concentration of an element in soil is the end result of its input and output from different sources. The input includes the sources of the parent material, atmospheric deposition, fertiliz- ers, agrochemicals, organic wastes and inorgan- ic pollutants. The output includes removal in harvested crops, leaching and volatilization. Thus the concentration of a soil trace element can increase, e.g. cadmium and copper, or de- crease, e.g. lead in Finnish and Swedish soils (Sippola and Mäkelä-Kurtto 1993, Eriksson et mailto:vaino.mantylahti@viljavuuspalvelu.fi 286 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Mäntylahti, V. & Laakso, P. Arsenic and heavy metal concentrations in agricultural soils al. 1997, Tarvainen and Kuusisto 1999). Agro- chemicals and farmyard manure apparently rep- resent the main sources of the increasing con- centrations of cadmium and copper in topsoils (Eriksson et al. 1997, Mäkelä-Kurtto 1998, Tar- vainen and Kuusisto 1999). Soil digestion with strong mineral acids is considered a form of pseudo-total analysis. Min- eral acids (e.g. HCl, H2SO4, HNO3) do not com- pletely dissolve silicates (Ure 1990, Salminen 1995), but are strong enough to dissolve the heavy metals not bound to silicate phases, which is the normal case for most heavy metal pollut- ants (Ure 1990). Guideline, normative, limit and target values have been designated for the concentrations of heavy metals and arsenic. The analyses are based on aqua regia – extractable quantities of the ele- ments. The normative value expresses the max- imum concentration of the harmful element con- sidered harmless to man and the environment. The limit value expresses the concentration of the harmful element that requires cleaning proc- esses. The target values are used to describe the national limits for different soils (Directive 86/ 278/EEC). Accordingly, guidelines for the tar- get values vary depending on the issuing author- ity. These are based on the concentrations of the elements in natural soils and on soil parameters. For example, the Dutch national target values to limit pollution from sewage sludge applied to agricultural land are based on soil texture, clay content and organic matter content (Smit 1997). The Finnish Ministry of the Environment follows the same rules, but applies smaller constants to calculate target values (Ympäristöministeriö 2000). Soil is considered to be clean when it contains arsenic and heavy metals at concentra- tions lower than the target values (Viljavuuspal- velu 2000). Finnish geological, forest and agrochemical surveys have provided basic data on the heavy metal concentrations in forest and cultivated soils based on dissolution in aqua regia. The soil maps cover the entire country at a density of < 1– 10 samples per 1000 km–2 (Tarvainen 1996). However, the studies differ in the selection of the elements analyzed, in the sampling depth, and in the particle size fraction of the samples (Sippola and Mäkelä-Kurtto 1986, 1993, Salmi- nen 1995, Salminen and Lampio 1995, Tarvai- nen and Kallio 1999, Tarvainen and Kuusisto 1999). The particle size fraction in particular has an effect on the concentrations of trace elements (Tarvainen 1995) and therefore care should be taken when making comparisons. Trace element concentrations in Finland range from very low values [< the limit of quantification, e.g. arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn)] to levels above the normative or limit values, e.g. As, Cr, Ni (Sippola and Mäkelä-Kurt- to 1986, 1993, Tamminen and Starr 1990, Neno- nen and Nikkarinen 1995, Tarvainen and Kallio 1999, Tarvainen and Kuusisto 1999, Lahdenperä et al. 2001, Nykänen-Kurki et al. 2001). In the other Nordic Countries, trace element concen- trations seem to follow the same trends as in Fin- land (e.g. Jeng and Bergseth 1992, Eriksson et al. 1997) although differences in analytical tech- niques make direct comparison difficult. The aim of this work was to study variation in the arsenic and heavy metal concentrations in cultivated soils of South Savo province in Fin- land. The results were compared with the nor- mative and limit values. The possibilities of iden- tifying soils with low arsenic and heavy metal concentrations for plant production, and to hall- mark these soils, were also investigated. Material and methods Study material The project was carried out in the province of South Savo in eastern Finland (Fig. 1). Soil sam- ples were collected from farms engaged in plant, herb, vegetable and animal production. The se- lection of farms was made by the local agricul- tural advisory organization, the Mikkeli Rural Advisory Centre. The farms were relatively 287 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 11 (2002): 285–300. evenly spread throughout South Savo province (Fig. 1) and no heavy metal emission sources were identified near the farms. Traffic in the vi- cinity of the selected farms was less than near major roads. The average field area of the farms was 25 ha, and ranged from 3 to 80 ha. The size of the farms in terms of cultivated area was slightly less than the Finnish average (27.8 ha in 2000, http://matilda.mmm.fi/). Soil sampling The extension staff of Mikkeli Rural Advisory Centre collected the soil samples from 23 farms in autumn 2000. One to 35 soil samples (mean 13.5) were taken per farm. The number of sam- ples taken for soil fertility testing was approxi- mately the same that normally collected, result- ing in an average of 0.6 samples per ha. The number of samples per farm and additional in- formation are presented in Table 1. The samples were collected from the plough layer, and consisted of 6–8 sub-samples, repre- senting an area of about 100 m2. The depth of the plough layer was from 15 cm to 25 cm. The sample size was about 0.4 litre. Analytical methods Basic methods The soil samples were air dried at 40°C, ground and homogenized (< 2 mm sieve) with an Alpine Multi-Purpose Mill 25 MZ before analysis. Soil texture was determined using the pipette meth- od of Elonen (1971) before the samples were ground. The wet digestion method was used to determine the organic matter content (Graham 1948). The material was classified into soil groups according to Aaltonen et al. (1949) (Ta- ble 2). Most of the soil samples were classified as coarse-textured mineral and till soils. This distribution was typical of South Savo province (Kähäri et al. 1987). The soil samples were characterized using the soil fertility testing method widely used in Fin- land (soil pHH2O 1:2.5 v/v, Ca, K, P and Mg ex- t r a c t e d w i t h 0 . 5 M C H 3C O O N H 4, 0 . 5 M CH3COOH, pH 4.65, 1:10 v/v, 1h, Vuorinen and Mäkitie 1955; Cu, Zn and Mn extracted with 0.5 M CH3COONH4, 0.5 M CH3COOH, 0.02 M Na2EDTA, pH 4.65, 1:10 v/v, 1h, Lakanen and Erviö 1971, Mohammadi et al. 1991), Table 3. According to the soil testing analyses, soil pHH2O and the Ca, K, P and Mg concentrations were in most cases higher than the average val- ues for cultivated soils in Mikkeli province (un- Fig. 1. The location of the study farms in South Savo Province. 288 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Mäntylahti, V. & Laakso, P. Arsenic and heavy metal concentrations in agricultural soils Table 1. Details and origin of soil samples taken from farms in South Savo province, Finland, in 2000. Farm Farm size, Number of Samples Main production number ha samples per ha 13 000*) 01 00*) Herb production 12 03.0 01 0.3 Vegetable production 22 14.5 07 0.5 Animal production 11 13.3 07 0.5 Plant production 19 05.2 07 1.3 Plant production 18 20.8 10 0.5 Animal production 07 12.0 11 0.9 Plant production 04 34.0 12 0.4 Animal production 23 15.0 12 0.8 *) 02 49.0 13 0.3 Vegetable production 01 13.4 13 1.0 Animal production 05 11.8 13 1.1 Plant production 03 36.0 14 0.4 Animal production 15 21.1 14 0.7 Animal production 17 18.3 14 0.8 Animal production 09 25.0 15 0.6 Animal production 16 17.7 16 0.9 Plant production 20 23.5 17 0.7 Animal production 08 34.0 19 0.6 Animal production 10 29.4 19 0.6 Animal production 06 22.3 20 0.9 Vegetable production 14 46.6 22 0.5 Animal production 21 80.6 35 0.4 Animal production *) Unknown Table 2. Distribution of the soil samples taken from farms in South Savo province, Finland, in 2000 ac- cording to soil texture group. Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) are given. Soil texture group Number of Size fraction Organic samples < 2 µm, % 2–20 µm, % Matter, % Clay soils Silty clay 2 33 (3.5) 49 (3.5) 4.4 (1.1) Clay loam 1 32 42 11.8 Coarse-textured mineral soils Silt 1 08 53 09.8 Loam 3 24 (3.6) 36 (9.8) 8.0 0(3.6) Very fine sand 10 6.0 (5.1) 24 (9.2) 8.4 0(5.9) Medium fine sand 136 3.5 (2.5) 12 (4.5) 6.7 0(3.6) Medium coarse sand 32 2.8 (1.9) 10 (5.4) 9.2 0(4.7) Till Fine sandy till 68 3.2 (2.4) 12 (3.3) 6.4 0(3.1) Sandy till 21 1.7 (1.6) 8.0 (2.9). 4.4 (0.96) Organogenic soils Mull 24 .27 0(5.3) Well-decomposed peat 14 .58 0.(11) 289 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 11 (2002): 285–300. published data). However, the EDTA-extracta- ble Cu and Zn concentrations were mostly rela- tively lower than the average values for Mikkeli province (unpublished data). The EDTA-extract- able Mn concentration (mg l–1) was converted into Mn-values using the pH-value (Mohamma- di et al. 1991), and, based on this manipulation, the results were expressed without a quality unit (Table 3). Bulk density was determined by weighing 25 ml of air-dried, ground soil and thus corresponded to the bulk density of disturbed soil (Table 3). The results of soil analyses are usually pre- sented as w/w values, i.e. weight per unit weight. This method is used, for example, in ISO 11047. However, the results of soil analyses can be cal- culated as w/v, weight per unit volume (e.g. Vuo- rinen and Mäkitie 1955). The rationale is that plant roots have the same soil volume for growth independent of the bulk density of the soil. This is especially relevant when the results for min- eral soils are compared with those for organo- genic soils. This study material also comprised mull and peat soils. The bulk density of the min- eral soils ranged from 0.65 to 1.36 kg dm–3, and in the organogenic soils from 0.32 to 0.78 kg dm–3 (Table 3). The results were accordingly also calculated as w/v. Methods for analysis of arsenic and heavy metals The pre-treatment of the samples (drying and crushing) was performed by Soil Analysis Serv- ice Ltd according to the ISO 11464 method. The analyses were carried out either in the laborato- ry of Soil Analysis Service Ltd, Mikkeli, or in the laboratory of the Geological Survey of Fin- land, Kuopio. Both of the laboratories used a slightly modified form of the ISO 11466 meth- od. The method is based on aqua regia digestion (1 g soil, 7.5 ml conc. HNO3, 2.5 ml conc. HCl, 12 h pause, 2 h digestion, filtering with S & S 5892). The analyses were performed as described in Table 4. Each soil batch (about 20 samples) sent to the Geological Survey of Finland includ- ed an internal control sample from Soil Analy- sis Service Ltd, and an average of every tenth sample was duplicated. Based on the results of the control samples, the arsenic results were multiplied by a factor of 1.5, the mercury results by a factor of 1.6 and the lead results by a factor of 1.3. The results were calculated as mg kg–1 on a dry matter basis. Copper and zinc are plant nutrients, but are also classified as heavy metals. In this study the EDTA-extraction was used to characterize soil material (Table 3), but the aqua regia digestion was used for evaluating copper and zinc concen- trations for environmental purposes. Statistical methods In this study the limit of quantification was used as the result for the sample without manipula- tion when the element concentration fell below it. This method limited the use of the various parameters to characterize the data. However, the data are presented together with the statistical parameters, including the mean, median, stand- ard deviation and range. The skewness was de- fined as the quotient of the third moment about the mean and the third power of the standard deviation. In accordance with ASTM (1997), the averages were reported to one more decimal place than the original data that were found to be significant. The percentiles were also calcu- lated. None of the results were discarded. The untransformed data indicated positive skewness and, as a result, the statistical parame- ters such as the mean and the median differed from each other. This problem has been report- ed previously and the data have been transformed in many reports (e.g. Berrow and Reaves 1984). The method decreases the weight of the high values while retaining the problems of low val- ues (< the limit of quantification). However, in this material no very high values were obtained in comparison with the results of Berrow and Reaves (1984) and Jeng and Bergseth (1992), and therefore the data were not transformed. In order to evaluate the element concentra- tions in agricultural soil in South Savo province, the results were classified on the basis of their 290 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Mäntylahti, V. & Laakso, P. Arsenic and heavy metal concentrations in agricultural soils T ab le 3 . C ha ra ct er is ti cs o f th e so il t ex tu re g ro up s. M ea ns a nd s ta nd ar d de vi at io ns ( in p ar en th es es ) ar e gi ve n. T he d et er m in at io ns w er e m ad e w it h th e m et ho ds o f so il fe rt il it y te st in g in u se i n F in la nd . S oi l te xt ur e gr ou p N um be r B ul k de ns it y pH H 2O C a P K M g B C u M n Z n of kg d m –3 m g l– 1 m g l– 1 m g l– 1 m g l– 1 m g l– 1 m g l– 1 m g l– 1 sa m pl es C la y so il s S il ty c la y 2 0. 81 (0 .0 3) 5. 9 (0 .2 ) 0 95 0 0( 14 0) 07 .6 0( 1. 8) 06 5 00 (4 ) 16 3 0( 24 ) 0. 40 (0 ) . 00 2. 5 (0 .7 ) 11 .1 0( 2. 7) 0. 9 (0 .3 ) C la y lo am 1 0. 65 (– .0 –) 5. 7 (– 0. ) 11 10 (1 03 – ) 0 8. 4 0( –2 .) 04 5 0( 3 –) 11 6 0( 6 – ) 0. 30 (– .0 5) 6. 3 (– .8 ) 36 .1 0( – .5 ) 1. 5 (– .5 C oa rs e- te xt ur ed m in er al s oi ls S il t 1 0. 78 (– 0. 0) 6. 7 (– 0. ) 17 80 (1 03 – ) 0 8. 0 0( –2 .) 13 5 0( 3 –) 25 3 0( 6 – ) 0. 80 (– .0 5) 9. 1 (– .8 ) 05 .1 0( – .5 ) 2. 4 (– .5 ) L oa m 3 0. 88 (0 .0 4) 6. 3 (0 .2 ) 15 80 0( 49 0) 11 .2 0( 2. 7) 09 1 0( 32 ) 20 1 0( 61 ) 0. 53 (0 .0 5) 4. 5 (0 .8 ) 14 .3 0( 1. 5) 1. 6 (0 .5 ) V er y fi ne s an d 10 0. 96 (0 .1 4) 6. 4 (0 .5 ) 14 50 0( 41 0) 13 .4 0( 8. 5) 13 9 0( 73 ) 16 9 0( 61 ) 0. 72 (0 .2 2) 4. 8 (2 .7 ) 12 .3 (1 6. 1) 3. 2 (2 .4 ) M ed iu m f in e sa nd 13 6 1. 08 (0 .1 1) 6. 4 (0 .5 ) 16 10 (1 03 0) 16 .1 (1 0. 6) 12 6 0( 80 ) 15 8 0( 75 ) 0. 83 (0 .3 5) 5. 1 (3 .0 ) 21 .9 (2 2. 2) 5. 1 (3 .6 ) M ed iu m c oa rs e sa nd 32 1. 02 (0 .1 4) 6. 3 (0 .5 ) 17 90 (1 09 0) 13 .6 0( 7. 8) 11 6 0( 63 ) 14 8 0( 82 ) 0. 77 (0 .3 9) 6. 1 (4 .1 ) 18 .6 (1 6. 2) 4. 7 (3 .7 ) T il l F in e sa nd y ti ll 68 1. 12 ( 0. 10 ) 6. 3 (0 .4 ) 16 20 (1 02 0) 16 .6 0( 8. 9) 15 5 0( 91 ) 17 6 0( 87 ) 0. 90 (0 .3 0) 5. 5 (3 .7 ) 30 .3 (2 0. 0) 7. 5 (4 .4 ) S an dy t il l 21 1. 21 ( 0. 09 ) 6. 2 (0 .4 ) 11 90 0( 40 0) 13 .9 0( 7. 1) 15 9 (1 08 ) 15 8 0( 75 ) 0. 80 (0 .3 4) 3. 8 (2 .0 ) 37 .1 (1 8. 6) 7. 7 (5 .2 ) O rg an og en ic s oi ls M ul l 24 0. 61 ( 0. 11 ) 5. 7 (0 .6 ) 22 20 (1 42 0) 10 .6 0( 8. 2) 08 2 0( 37 ) 21 8 (1 40 ) 0. 72 (0 .4 3) 6. 3 (4 .3 ) 33 .8 (3 0. 7) 4. 6 (2 .4 ) W el l- de co m po se d pe at 14 0. 46 ( 0. 07 ) 5. 5 (0 .3 ) 26 80 0( 77 0) 10 .4 0( 7. 4) 06 4 0( 25 ) 19 8 0( 68 ) 00 .7 0 (0 .2 35 ) 7. 0 (3 .6 ) 47 .6 (3 8. 1) 4. 3 (1 .9 ) 291 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 11 (2002): 285–300. distribution. Sillanpää (1982) divided his results into five groups depending on the percentiles of the material as follows: 5%, 10%, 70%, 10% and 5%. A slight modification of this method was used in this study. The mean and standard devi- ation were calculated. The mean plus a single standard deviation was used to calculate the val- ues for different elements. The samples that fell below this value were termed “Clean Soils”. This level was used to indicate the trace element con- centrations in South Savo province compared with the results from other studies. The limits were compared, for example, with the limits pro- posed by Soil Analysis Service (Viljavuuspal- velu 2000). Results and discussion Arsenic and heavy metal concentrations A high proportion of the results for nickel, mer- cury, cadmium, copper and arsenic fell below the limit of quantification (Table 5). The low values Table 4. Analytical techniques and uncertainty for the arsenic and heavy metal analyses. Element Soil Analysis Service Ltd Geological Survey of Finland Expanded uncertainty at 95% confidence level, % Arsenic GF-AAS GF-AAS n.e. Cadmium GF-AAS GF-AAS 35 Chromium ICP-AES ICP-AES 20 Copper ICP-AES ICP-AES n.e. Mercury FIA-AAS Flameless AAS 40 Nickel ICP-AES ICP-AES n.e. Lead ICP-AES ICP-AES 45 Zinc ICP-AES ICP-AES n.e. GF-AAS = graphite furnace-atomic absorption spectrometry ICP-AES = inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry FIA-AAS = flow injection analysis-atomic absorption spectrometry Flameless AAS = flameless-atomic absorption spectrometry n.e. = not estimated Table 5. The number of soil samples falling below the limit of quantification (< LOQ) and equal to the limit of quantification (= LOQ) for arsenic and heavy metals. Element Limit of Mineral soils Organogenic soils quantification < LOQ = LOQ < LOQ = LOQ mg kg–1 Arsenic 1 06 1 – 2 Cadmium 0.05 37 130 – 1 Chromium 0.1 – – – – Copper 5 12 – – – Mercury 0.05 75 220 – – Nickel 5 103 5 120 – Lead 2.0 – – – – Zinc 10 – – – – 292 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Mäntylahti, V. & Laakso, P. Arsenic and heavy metal concentrations in agricultural soils T ab le 6 . A rs en ic a nd h ea vy m et al c on ce nt ra ti on s in t he s oi l te xt ur e gr ou ps e xt ra ct ed w it h aq ua r eg ia . M ea ns , s ta nd ar d de vi at io ns ( in p ar en th es es ), r an ge s an d co ef fi ci en t of v ar ia ti on a re g iv en . S oi l te xt ur e gr ou p N um be r A s C d C r C u H g N i P b Z n of m g kg –1 m g kg –1 m g kg –1 m g kg –1 m g kg –1 m g kg –1 m g kg –1 m g kg –1 sa m pl es C la y so il s S il ty c la y 2 3. 45 (0 .0 7) 0. 06 9 (0 .0 12 ) 56 .5 (0 .7 ) 19 .5 (2 .1 ) 0. 06 6 (0 .0 07 ) 21 .4 (2 .0 ) 16 .5 (0 .7 ) 73 .0 (1 .4 ) C la y lo am 1 4. 5 0 (– 0. 10 0 (– 47 .0 (– 47 .5 (– 0. 16 0 (– 22 .4 (– 18 .5 (– 52 .0 (– C oa rs e- te xt ur ed m in er al s oi ls S il t 1 3. 2 0 (– 0. 15 0 (– 15 .0 (– 26 .5 (– 0. 06 0 (– 5 .0 4 (– 11 .5 (– 26 .0 (– L oa m 3 1. 76 (0 .4 6) 0. 11 5 (0 .0 21 ) 39 .3 (3 .0 ) 19 .0 (3 .6 ) 0. 08 9 (0 .0 13 ) 16 .1 (1 .7 ) 12 .3 (2 .5 ) 49 .3 (1 0. 2) V er y fi ne s an d 10 3. 14 (1 .6 8) 0. 11 7 (0 .0 77 ) 21 .3 (7 .7 ) 16 .8 (9 .5 ) 0. 07 6 (0 .0 21 ) 7. 6 0( 3. 2) 8. 2 0( 1. 9) 34 .4 (1 3. 3) M ed iu m f in e sa nd 13 6 3. 21 (3 .0 6) 0. 10 3 (0 .0 44 ) 17 .8 (4 .9 ) 13 .9 (5 .5 ) 0. 07 6 (0 .0 23 ) 6. 7 0( 1. 8) 7. 8 0( 2. 1) 35 .6 (1 3. 1) M ed iu m c oa rs e sa nd 32 3. 05 (1 .8 7) 0. 10 7 (0 .0 49 ) 14 .6 (4 .3 ) 15 .2 (8 .4 ) 0. 08 3 (0 .0 28 ) 5. 9 0( 0. 7) 7. 2 0( 2. 2) 28 .0 (1 1. 8) T il l F in e sa nd y ti ll 68 3. 65 (1 .6 2) 0. 10 8 (0 .0 51 ) 18 .2 (3 .9 ) 14 .5 (5 .6 ) 0. 07 4 (0 .0 30 ) 6. 6 0( 1. 6) 8. 7 0( 2. 1) 43 .6 (1 1. 8) S an dy t il l 21 3. 18 (1 .6 0) 0. 08 4 (0 .0 32 ) 13 .8 (4 .0 ) 10 .6 (3 .6 ) 0. 05 6 (0 .0 03 ) 6. 5 0( 1. 0) 7. 4 0( 1. 9) 37 .1 (1 2. 9) M in er al s oi ls 27 4 M ea n (s ta nd ar d de vi at io n) 3. 24 (2 .4 4) 0. 09 7 (0 .0 47 ) 18 .0 (6 .5 ) 13 .9 (6 .4 ) 0. 06 9 (0 .0 25 ) 6. 3 0( 2. 5) 8. 1 0( 2. 4) 37 .1 (1 3. 8) R an ge 1– 35 0. 05 –0 .3 8 5. 3– 57 5. 0– 37 0. 05 –0 .2 6 5. 0– 22 .9 3. 4– 18 10 –8 8 V ar ia ti on % 75 .4 49 .4 36 .5 45 .9 36 .6 39 .9 29 .9 37 .2 M ed ia n 2. 90 0. 08 4 17 .0 13 .0 0. 06 0 5. 4 7. 7 36 .5 95 % C on fi de nc e in te rv al fo r m ea n 2. 95 –3 .5 3 0. 09 1– 0. 10 2 17 .2 –1 8. 7 13 .2 –1 4. 7 0. 06 6– 0. 07 2 6. 0– 6. 6 7. 8– 8. 4 35 .5 –3 8. 8 O rg an og en ic s oi ls M ul l 24 4. 94 (6 .0 5) 0. 23 6 (0 .1 02 ) 15 .8 (4 .4 ) 27 .4 (1 5. 9) 0. 16 8 (0 .0 69 ) 8. 3 0( 3. 1) 11 .4 (9 .8 ) 27 .6 (9 .7 ) W el l- de co m po se d pe at 14 3. 60 (2 .7 7) 0. 35 7 (0 .1 33 ) 13 .8 (3 .3 ) 50 .3 (2 7. 7) 0. 26 5 (0 .0 76 ) 7. 4 0( 1. 8) 11 .7 (5 .1 ) 26 .2 (7 .2 ) O rg an og en ic s oi ls 38 M ea n (s ta nd ar d de vi at io n) 4. 38 (5 .0 9) 0. 28 0 (0 .1 27 ) 15 .0 ( 4. 1) 35 .9 (2 3. 5) 0. 20 4 (0 .0 85 ) 7. 0 0( 2. 5) 11 .5 (8 .3 ) 27 .1 (8 .8 ) R an ge 1– 28 0. 06 7– 0. 65 8. 7– 28 6. 6– 10 0 0. 07 1– 0. 38 5. 0– 15 4. 8– 56 14 –5 7 V ar ia ti on % 11 6. 3 45 .5 27 .5 65 .5 41 .7 36 .5 72 .3 32 .5 M ed ia n 2. 80 0. 26 5 15 .0 29 .0 0. 20 0 5. 9 11 .0 25 .5 95 % C on fi de nc e in te rv al fo r m ea n 2. 70 –6 .0 5 0. 23 8– 0. 32 2 13 .7 –1 6. 4 28 .1 –4 3. 6 0. 17 6– 0. 23 2 6. 1– 7. 8 8. 8– 14 .3 24 .2 –3 0. 0 293 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 11 (2002): 285–300. were problematic from the analytical and statis- tical viewpoint but, on the other hand, indicated that many soils and fields in the province of South Savo contained only very low levels of hazardous elements (Table 6). This phenomenon caused the high clustering especially for cad- mium, mercury, nickel and lead in the low per- centiles (Table 7). In the organogenic soil group a high proportion of the nickel results fell below the limit of quantification (Table 5) and caused the high clustering in the low percentiles (Ta- ble 7). The concentrations of the various elements were also calculated in units mg l–1 (Table 8). The procedure did not markedly change the re- sults for the mineral soils. However, the number of extremes decreased for all elements except nickel and zinc (Table 9). In the organogenic soil group the procedure increased the number of extremes in the case of cadmium and chromium (Table 9). All the recorded extremes were high ex- tremes. In the mineral soil group the proportion of extremes was 8% for nickel, 5% for arsenic, mercury and chromium, 4% for cadmium, and 2% or lower for the other elements. Only in the case of arsenic, chromium, mercury and nickel did these extremes cause any pronounced skew- ness. In the organogenic soil group the high ex- tremes caused noticeable skewness only for ar- senic and lead (Table 7). The difference in skew- ness between the mineral and organogenic soil groups seemed to be restricted to the large number of low values in the mineral soil group excluding copper, lead and zinc (Table 7). The results were in good agreement with those of Tarvainen and Kuusisto (1999), who reported the median values of arsenic and heavy metal concentrations in arable clay, till and bio- genic topsoils in Finland. A mean of 0.15 mg l–1 was reported for the cadmium concentration by Sippola and Mäkelä-Kurtto (1986) for soils in Mikkeli Province (South Savo). Yläranta (1996) reported slightly higher cadmium concentrations: 0.56 mg kg–1 for clay soil, 0.19–0.26 mg kg–1 for coarse-textured mineral soils, and higher values in the vicinity of a smelter (Cd 0.21–0.79 mg kg–1). Mäkelä-Kurtto and Sippola (1986) report- ed slightly lower values for the mercury concen- tration in Finnish agricultural soils than those for this study: the mean for clay soils varied be- tween 0.047 and 0.051 mg kg–1 and of coarse- textured mineral soils between 0.046 and 0.051 mg kg–1. For till soils the value was 0.049 mg kg–1, for mull soils 0.103 mg kg–1, for Carex peat 0.134 mg kg–1 and for Sphagnum peat 0.060 mg kg–1. The means for the lead concentrations in the Finnish soils were: clay soils 12.9 mg l–1, coarse-textured mineral soils 8.1 mg l–1 and or- ganic soils 5.4 mg l–1 (Sippola and Mäkelä-Kurt- to 1993), which corresponded relatively well with the values recorded in this study. Arsenic and heavy metal concentrations in Finnish basal till samples (< 0.06 mm size frac- Table 7. Arsenic and heavy metal percentiles of the mineral and organogenic soils. Element Analysis values expressed as mg kg–1 Mineral soils Organogenic soils 5 10 25 50 75 5 10 25 50 75 Arsenic 1.30 1.50 2.20 2.90 3.80 1.00 1.38 2.20 2.80 4.20 Cadmium 0.050 0.050 0.062 0.084 0.120 0.098 0.129 0.180 0.265 0.381 Chromium 9.5 12.0 14.0 17.0 20.3 8.8 9.2 12.0 15.0 17.0 Copper 5.1 6.6 9.1 13.0 18.0 11.7 15.8 20.0 29.0 43.3 Mercury 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.060 0.078 0.080 0.089 0.128 0.200 0.270 Nickel 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.4 6.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.9 8.2 Lead 5.0 5.1 6.4 7.7 9.6 4.8 5.5 7.4 11.0 13.3 Zinc 17.0 20.0 26.0 36.5 46.0 16.9 18.9 21.0 25.5 29.3 294 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Mäntylahti, V. & Laakso, P. Arsenic and heavy metal concentrations in agricultural soils T ab le 8 . A rs en ic a nd h ea vy m et al c on ce nt ra ti on s in th e so il te xt ur e gr ou ps e xt ra ct ed w it h aq ua r eg ia . M ea ns , s ta nd ar d de vi at io ns ( in p ar en th es es ), r an ge s an d co ef fi ci en t of v ar ia ti on a re g iv en . S oi l te xt ur e gr ou p N um be r A s C d C r C u H g N i P b Z n of m g l– 1 m g l– 1 m g l– 1 m g l– 1 m g l– 1 m g l– 1 m g l– 1 m g l– 1 sa m pl es × (s ) × (s ) × (s ) × (s ) × (s ) × (s ) × (s ) × (s ) C la y so il s S il ty c la y 2 2. 78 (0 .0 3) 0. 05 6 (0 .0 10 ) 45 .5 (0 .2 ) 15 .7 (1 .6 ) 0. 05 3 (0 .0 05 ) 17 .3 (1 .5 ) 13 .3 (0 .5 ) 58 .7 (0 .6 ) C la y lo am 1 2. 9 0 (– 0. 07 0 (– 30 .6 (– 21 .5 (– 0. 11 0 (– 14 .4 (– 11 .7 (– 33 .8 (– C oa rs e- te xt ur ed m in er al s oi ls S il t 1 2. 5 0 (– 0. 12 0 (– 11 .7 (– 20 .3 ( – 0. 05 0 (– 4. 3 0 (– 8. 6 0 (– 20 .2 (– L oa m 3 1. 57 (0 .4 7) 0. 08 2 (0 .0 33 ) 34 .7 (2 .0 ) 16 .7 (2 .6 ) 0. 07 9 (0 .0 09 ) 14 .3 (1 .4 ) 10 .9 (2 .4 ) 43 .6 0( 9. 2) V er y fi ne s an d 10 2. 92 (1 .3 0) 0. 10 5 (0 .0 53 ) 20 .5 (7 .9 ) 15 .1 (6 .4 ) 0. 06 9 (0 .0 14 ) 6. 9 0( 3. 0) 7. 8 0 (1 .7 ) 32 .9 (1 2. 7) M ed iu m f in e sa nd 13 6 3. 34 (2 .6 7) 0. 10 2 (0 .0 47 ) 19 .3 (5 .6 ) 14 .5 (5 .6 ) 0. 07 2 (0 .0 20 ) 6. 7 0( 2. 0) 8. 5 0 (2 .4 ) 38 .7 (1 5. 7) M ed iu m c oa rs e sa nd 32 3. 00 (1 .7 8) 0. 09 6 (0 .0 37 ) 14 .9 (4 .9 ) 14 .3 (7 .2 ) 0. 07 5 (0 .0 19 ) 5. 5 0( 1. 0) 7. 3 0 (2 .4 ) 28 .9 (1 3. 9) T il l F in e sa nd y ti ll 68 4. 08 (1 .7 9) 0. 11 5 (0 .0 56 ) 20 .3 (4 .3 ) 16 .1 (6 .0 ) 0. 07 8 (0 .0 30 ) 6. 8 0( 1. 5) 9. 6 0 (2 .5 ) 48 .9 (1 4. 1) S an dy t il l 21 3. 79 (1 .7 2) 0. 08 9 (0 .0 36 ) 16 .5 (4 .7 ) 11 .5 (4 .8 ) 0. 06 4 (0 .0 06 ) 6. 6 0( 1. 2) 8. 7 0 (2 .1 ) 44 .8 (1 6. 0) M in er al s oi ls 27 4 M ea n (s ta nd ar d de vi at io n) 3. 47 (2 .2 6) 0. 10 3 (0 .0 48 ) 19 .2 (6 .2 ) 14 .7 (5 .9 ) 0. 07 3 (0 .0 22 ) 6. 7 0( 2. 2) 8. 7 0 (2 .5 ) 40 .4 (1 6. 1) R an ge 0. 85 –2 9. 4 0. 04 5– 0. 42 6 6. 6– 45 .6 4. 9– 33 .0 0. 04 6– 0. 29 1 3. 6– 18 .3 3. 1– 18 .4 9. 9– 95 .0 V ar ia ti on % 65 .2 46 .4 32 .0 40 .2 30 .5 32 .8 28 .6 39 .9 M ed ia n 3. 06 0. 09 0 18 .6 13 .8 0. 06 6 6. 0 8. 4 39 .2 95 % C on fi de nc e in te rv al fo r m ea n 3. 20 –3 .7 4 0. 09 7– 0. 10 8 18 .5 –1 9. 9 14 .0 –1 5. 4 0. 07 0– 0. 07 5 6. 4– 7. 0 8. 4– 9. 0 38 .5 –4 2. 3 O rg an og en ic s oi ls M ul l 24 3. 24 (4 .3 7) 0. 14 2 (0 .0 60 ) 9. 7 0 (3 .5 ) 16 .8 (1 0. 1) 0. 10 2 (0 .0 41 ) 4. 3 0( 2. 0) 7. 2 0 (7 .6 ) 17 .2 0( 7. 5) W el l- de co m po se d pe at 14 1. 57 (1 .4 5) 0. 15 8 (0 .0 50 ) 6. 2 0 (1 .6 ) 22 .4 (1 2. 1) 0. 11 7 (0 .0 25 ) 3. 2 0( 0. 9) 5. 1 0 (2 .0 ) 11 .9 0( 3. 3) O rg an og en ic s oi ls 38 M ea n (s ta nd ar d de vi at io n) 2. 63 (3 .6 4) 0. 14 8 (0 .0 56 ) 8. 4 0 (3 .4 ) 8. 8 (1 1. 1) 0. 10 7 (0 .0 36 ) 3. 8 0( 1. 7) 6. 4 0 (6 .2 ) 15 .2 0( 6. 8) R an ge 0. 45 –2 0. 2 0. 03 3– 0. 30 5 3. 9– 19 .9 4. 0– 51 .9 0. 04 6– 0. 18 4 1. 6– 10 .7 2. 5– 42 5. 4– 40 .5 V ar ia ti on % 13 9 37 .9 40 .0 58 .8 33 .9 44 .0 95 .9 44 .3 M ed ia n 1. 45 0. 14 7 7. 7 15 .3 0. 10 9 3. 3 5. 4 13 .5 95 % C on fi de nc e in te rv al fo r m ea n 1. 43 –3 .8 2 0. 12 9– 0. 16 6 7. 3– 9. 5 15 .1 –2 2. 4 0. 09 5– 0. 11 9 3. 3– 4. 4 4. 4– 8. 4 13 .0 –1 7. 4 295 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 11 (2002): 285–300. tion) were reported by Nenonen and Nikkarinen (1995) and Tarvainen and Kallio (1999). Accord- ing to their results, the median for arsenic con- centration was lower than the limit of quantifi- cation (2.0 mg kg–1). Furthermore, the median for cadmium concentration also fell below the limit of quantification (0.5 mg kg–1). The medi- ans for the other heavy metal concentrations were: Cr 30.5 mg kg–1, Cu 15.7 mg kg–1, Ni 14.1 mg kg–1, Pb 10.6 mg kg–1 and Zn 24.6 mg kg–1. The concentrations of chromium and nickel were slightly higher than those obtained in this study. Arsenic and heavy metal concentrations in the Nordic countries have been reported by Es- ser (1996) in Norway, Jeng and Bergseth (1992) in Finland, Norway and Sweden, and Eriksson et al. (1997) in Sweden. The medians and means presented in those reports are in good agreement with these. However, the arsenic and heavy metal concentrations were essentially higher in soils that developed on alum shales and in till soils overlying alum shale bedrock (Jeng and Berg- seth 1992). Arsenic and heavy metal concentrations have been investigated extensively in countries in- cluding Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Po- land and Scotland (Aichberger et al. 1982, Hoff- mann et al. 1982, van Driel and Smilde 1982, Berrow and Reaves 1984, Grupe 1989, Chlo- pecka et al. 1996, Hornburg and Lüer 1999). The values reported were characterized by substan- tial variation and much higher values for skew- ness (e.g. Berrow and Reaves 1984) than those reported in this study. The arsenic and heavy metal concentrations in soils of South Savo province were at approx- imately the same level as those in other Finnish soils. The concentrations were also relatively similar to those reported in other Nordic studies and slightly lower than those for Central Europe (e.g. Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Scotland). Table 9. The number of extreme values for arsenic and heavy metals. The limit value from which the values were grouped into the extremes is given in parentheses. Element Analysis values expressed as Analysis values expressed as mg kg–1 mg l–1 Mineral Org. Mineral Org. soils soils soils soils Arsenic 13 6 12 6 (> 6.5 mg kg–1) (> 7.1 mg kg–1) (> 7.5 mg l–1) (> 5.4 mg l–1) Cadmium 10 – 5 2 (> 0.210 mg kg–1) (> 0.218 mg l–1) (> 0.27 mg l–1) Chromium 13 2 8 3 (> 29 mg kg–1) (> 25 mg kg–1) (> 34 mg l–1) (> 14.8 mg l–1) Copper 5 4 2 2 (> 32 mg kg–1) (> 85 mg kg–1) (> 33 mg l–1) (> 47 mg l–1) Mercury 15 – 8 – (> 0.120 mg kg–1) (> 0.121 mg l–1) Nickel 23 3 27 2 (> 9.2 mg kg–1) (> 13 mg kg–1) (> 9.7 mg l–1) (> 7.2 mg l–1) Lead 5 2 3 2 (> 15 mg kg–1) (> 23 mg kg–1) (> 15.6 mg l–1) (> 9.9 mg l–1) Zinc 3 3 4 2 (> 78 mg kg–1) (> 42 mg kg–1) (> 85 mg l–1) (> 29 mg l–1) 296 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Mäntylahti, V. & Laakso, P. Arsenic and heavy metal concentrations in agricultural soils Element enrichment in mineral or organogenic soils The median zinc concentration in the organogen- ic soil group was lower than that in the mineral soil group. Analogously the medians of the ar- senic, chromium and nickel concentrations were at approximately the same level in both the min- eral and organogenic soil groups, while those of cadmium, copper, mercury and lead were high- er in the organogenic soil group than in the min- eral soil group (Table 6). The differences be- tween the mineral and organogenic soil groups would be larger if the values below the limit of quantification were replaced by the actual con- centrations. Accordingly, the medians for cad- mium, copper, mercury and nickel concentra- tions in the organogenic soil group were higher than those in the mineral soil group. The cadmi- um, copper and mercury concentrations (medi- ans) in the organogenic soil group were nearly three times higher than those of the other ele- ments (Table 6). This finding is in good agree- ment with the concept of element enrichment. Van Driel and Smilde (1982) reported the en- richment of cadmium, lead and to some extent also arsenic in fen-peat soils compared with min- eral soils, but the results of Tarvainen and Kuu- sisto (1999) did not reveal a corresponding trend. The enrichment of elements (e.g. arsenic, cad- mium, and lead) in topsoil (Aichberger et al. 1982, Kabata-Pendias and Adriano 1995) and the use of agrochemicals (e.g. Mäkelä-Kurtto 1998) explained the higher concentrations of cadmi- um, copper and mercury in organogenic soils because the chemicals were spread in units of grams (or kilograms) per hectare and the results of the soil analysis were calculated in units of mg kg–1 soil. Typical concentrations of trace elements in South Savo Element concentrations are frequently classified on the basis of the typical background concen- trations in uncontaminated soils (e.g. Hoffmann et al. 1982, van Driel and Smilde 1982, Berrow and Reaves 1984, Smit 1997, Terelak et al. 1997). However, the background values vary, and many different classes have been presented for differ- ent soil groups, pH levels, clay contents and or- ganic matter contents (e.g. Kabata-Pendias and Adriano 1995, Smit 1997, Terelak et al. 1997, Ympäristöministeriö 2000). The Finnish Ministry of the Environment (Ympäristöministeriö 2000) proposed a draft for the normative and target values for heavy met- als in Finnish soils. The adjusted target values depend on the clay content (particles < 0.002 mm) and organic matter content of the soil. The formula is based on Dutch target values (Smit 1997) but relies on smaller constants. The re- sults from this study were compared with the target values (Table 10). All the average concen- trations of elements in the mineral soil group fell below the normative value, but the mercury con- centration of the organogenic soils exceeded the normative value. Thus the results included val- ues that exceeded the target values. Detailed analysis of the results indicated that the norma- tive value (10 mg kg–1) of arsenic was exceeded in both the mineral soil group (2 samples) and the organogenic soil group (3 samples). The ad- justed target value, but not the limit value (As 60 mg kg–1) was exceeded in 26 mineral soil sam- ples and one organogenic soil sample. More- over, the normative value for the cadmium con- centration (Cd 0.5 mg kg–1) was exceeded in one organogenic soil sample. The adjusted target value, but not the limit value (Cd 10 mg kg–1), was also exceeded in the sample. The normative value for mercury (Hg 0.2 mg kg–1), as well as the adjusted target value was exceeded in one mineral soil sample, but the limit value (Hg 5 mg kg–1) was not. In the organogenic soil group there were 18 samples for which the normative value was exceeded. The results from eight samples exceeded the adjusted target value but not the limit value. Nenonen and Nikkarinen (1995) analyzed the < 0.06 mm fraction of the subsoil in Finnish glacial till and reported concentrations of arsenic, chromium and nickel that exceeded 297 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 11 (2002): 285–300. the normative and limit values issued by the Ministry of the Environment. Tarvainen (1996) estimated the element concentrations in the coarse fraction (< 2 mm) of Finnish till and re- ported that the natural concentrations of chro- mium, copper, nickel, and zinc exceeded the normative and limit values. The results of the study indicated that the average concentrations of all the elements in the mineral soil group were smaller than the pro- posed limit for “Clean Soil”. However, in the organogenic soils the average concentrations of cadmium and mercury exceeded the proposed level for “Clean Soil”. The conversion of the results into units of mg l–1 reduced the problem, but did not eliminate it for mercury. On the oth- er hand, the results indicated that the cadmium and mercury concentrations in the soils of South Savo province were at a slightly higher level than those reported in other Finnish studies. Conclusions In most cases the concentrations of arsenic and heavy metals were at the same level as those re- ported in other Nordic studies. In most cases the concentrations were lower and the ranges were narrower than those of soils in Austria, Germa- ny, the Netherlands, Poland and Scotland. How- ever, some special features were found for cad- mium and mercury. The mercury concentration of the soils in South Savo province was relatively higher than for other elements when compared with results obtained previously in Finland. The group of organogenic soils also had relatively higher mercury concentrations than those report- ed in other Finnish studies. Expressing the val- ues on the basis of the clay content and the or- ganic matter content did not eliminate all the values that exceeded the normative values, but it did decrease the number of samples for which the value was exceeded. The criteria developed in this study to deter- mine the limit values for a “Clean Soil” were in good agreement with those proposed by Soil Analysis Service Ltd (Viljavuuspalvelu 2000). The method used to determine the target values was identical in this study and in that carried out by Soil Analysis Service Ltd. The target values are presented with some modifications in Ta- ble 11. The results indicated that there are many Table 10. Limit values for arsenic and heavy metals compared with published values and those in the Draft of the Finnish Ministry of the Environment. Element This study Viljavuus- The Finnish Ministry of the Environment, “Limit value for Clean Soil” palvelu Draft 24.3.2000 Mean + standard deviation Oy 2000 Adjusted target Based on the Target Norma- value mg kg–1 formula(preced- value for tive (s = clay content %, ing column), Limit Clean Soil value o=organic matter All soils value mg kg–1 mg l–1 mg kg–1 mg l–1 mg kg–1 mg kg–1 content %) mg kg–1 mg kg–1 Arsenic 5.68 5.73 9.47 6.27 – 10 2 + 0.4 (s + o) 7.82 (5.18) 060 Cadmium 0.144 0.151 0.407 0.204 0.30 0.5 0.1 + 0.007 (s + 3o) 0.352 (0.262) 010 Chromium 24.5 25.4 19.1 11.8 70 100 30 + 2s 37.6 (9.3) 400 Copper 20.3 20.6 59.4 29.9 35 100 15 + 0.6 (s + o) 23.7 (7.8) 400 Mercury 0.094 0.095 0.289 0.143 0.10 0.2 0.1 + 0.0017 (2s + o) 0.131 (0.025) 005 Nickel 8.8 8.9 9.5 5.5 35 60 15 + s 18.8 (4.6) 300 Lead 10.5 11.2 19.8 12.6 20 60 10 + (s + o) 24.6 (13.0) 300 Zinc 50.9 56.5 35.9 22.0 110 150 10 + 1.5 (2s + o) 37.5 (22.4) 700 Mineral soils Organogenic soils 298 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Mäntylahti, V. & Laakso, P. Arsenic and heavy metal concentrations in agricultural soils Table 11. The draft of the target values for “Clean Soil”. Element Mineral soils Organogenic soils mg kg–1 mg l–1 Arsenic 10 10 Cadmium 0.30 0.30 Chromium 70 70 Copper 35 35 Mercury 0.10 0.15 Nickel 35 25 Lead 20 20 Zinc 100 100 fields in South Savo province that contain only very small amounts of arsenic and heavy met- als. These fields could be used for crop produc- tion and provided with the “Clean Soil” hall- mark. The same classification could be used for all soils with low trace element concentrations. Acknowledgements. We thank the Mikkeli Rural Advisory Centre and Vapo Oy for their excellent cooperation during the study. The work was funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Objective 1. References Grupe, M. 1989. Schwermetallgehalte in Böden in Ab- hängigkeit vom Ausgangssubstrat. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Bodenkundlichen Gesellschaft 59: 895– 896. Hoffmann, G.G., Schweiger, P., Scholl, W. & Schmied R. 1982. Grundbelastung der Böden von Baden-Wür- temberg mit Schwermetallen. Landwirtschaftliche Forschung, Sonderheft 35: 324–337. Hornburg, V. & Lüer, B. 1999. Vergleich zwischen Total- und königswasserextrahierbaren Elementhalten in naturlichen Böden und Sedimenten. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenernährung und Bodenkunde 162: 131–137. ISO 11047. Soil quality – Determination of cadmium, chro- mium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, nickel and zinc in aqua regia extracts of soil – Flame and elec- trothermal atomic absorption spectrometric methods. International Organization for Standardization 1998. ISO 11464. Soil quality – Pretreatment of samples for physico-chemical analyses. International Organiza- tion for Standardization 1994. ISO 11466. Soil quality – Extraction of trace elements soluble in aqua regia. International Organization for Standardization 1995. Jeng, A.S. & Bergseth, H. 1992. Chemical and minera- logical properties of Norwegian alum shale soils, with special emphasis on heavy metal concentration and availability. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica. Section B, Soil and Plant Science 42: 88–93. Kabata-Pendias, A. & Adriano, D.C. 1995. Trace metals. In: Rechcigl, J.E. (ed.). Soil amendments and envi- ronmental quality. Boca Raton USA. p. 139–167. Kähäri, J, Mäntylahti, V. & Rannikko, M. 1987. Suomen peltojen viljavuus 1981–1985. Summary: Soil fertili- ty of Finnish cultivated soils in 1981–1985. Helsinki. Viljavuuspalvelu Oy. 105 p. Lahdenperä, A.-M., Tamminen, P. & Tarvainen, T. 2001. Relationships between geochemistry of basal till and chemistry of surface soil at forested sites in Finland. Applied Geochemistry 16: 123–136. Lakanen, E. & Erviö, R. 1971. A comparison of eight Aaltonen, V.T., Aarnio, B., Hyyppä, E., Kaitera, P., Keso, L., Kivinen, E., Kokkonen, P., Kotilainen M.J., Sau- ramo, M., Tuorila, P. & Vuorinen, J. 1949. Summary: A critical review of soil terminology and soil classifi- cation in Finland in the year 1949. Journal of the Scientific Agricultural Society of Finland 21: 37–66. Aichberger, K., Bachler, W. & Pichler, H. 1982. Schwer- m e t a l l e i n B ö d e n O b e r ö s t e r r e i c h s u n d d e r e n Verteilung im Bodenprofil. Landwirtschaftliche For- schung, Sonderheft 35: 350–362. ASTM 1997. Standard practice for using significant dig- its in test data to determine conformance with spec- ifications. Annual book of ASTM standards. Volume 14.02, E29: 19–22. Berrow, M.L. & Reaves, G.A. 1984. Background levels of trace elements in soils. In: Environmental contam- ination United Nations environment programme. p. 333–340. Chlopecka, A., Bacon, J.R., Wilson, M.J. & Kay, J. 1996. Forms of cadmium, lead, and zinc in contaminated soils from southwest Poland. Journal of Environmen- tal Quality 25: 69–79. Directive 86/278/EEC. Council directive on the use of sewage sludge on agricultural land. Official Journal L181: 6–12. Van Driel, W. & Smilde, K.W. 1982. Heavy-metal con- centrations of Dutch arable soils. Landwirtschaftliche Forschung, Sonderheft 35: 305–313. Elonen, P. 1971. Particle-size analysis of soil. Acta Agralia Fennica 122: 1–122. Eriksson, J., Andersson, A. & Andersson, R. 1997. Till- ståndet i svensk åkermark. Naturvårdverket, Rapport 4778. p. 1–59. Esser, K. 1996. Reference concentrations for heavy met- als in mineral soils, oat, and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata) from three agricultural regions in Norway. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 89: 375–397. Graham, E.R. 1948. Determination of soil organic matter by means of a photoelectric colorimeter. Soil Science 65: 181–183. 299 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 11 (2002): 285–300. extractants for the determination of plant available micronutrients in soils. Acta Agralia Fennica 122: 223–232. Mäkelä-Kurtto, R. 1998. Raskasmetalliriskit ja niiden hallinta maataloudessa. In: Salo, R. (ed.). Sata vuotta maataloustutkimusta: Mihin tutkimus johtaa tuotan- toa? MTT:n julkaisuja. Sarja A 38. p. 57–64. Mäkelä-Kurtto, R. & Sippola, J. 1986. Viljelysmaittemme elohopeapitoisuus. Koetoiminta ja käytäntö 43: 9. Mohammadi, O., Yli-Halla, M. & Mäntylahti, V. 1991. Determination of plant-available manganese from soils by acid ammonium acetate-EDTA extraction. Journal of Agricultural Science in Finland 63: 85–92. Nenonen, K. & Nikkarinen, M. 1995. Natural arsenic, chromium and nickel concentrations in Finnish soil. Is Finnish soil naturally clean? In: Saski, E. & Saari- nen, T. (eds.). Proceedings of the second Finnish con- ference of environmental sciences, Helsinki, 16–18 November 1995. Microbiological Publications 43: 304–310. Nykänen-Kurki, P., Mäkelä-Kurtto, R., Mäkinen-Aakula, M., Tontti, T. & Mäntylahti, V. 2001. Mikkelin kaupun- gin puhdistamolietteen käyttömahdollisuus maatalou- dessa. Abstract: Agricultural use of sludge from sew- age treatment plant of the City of Mikkeli. MTT publi- cations. Series A 95. Jokioinen: MTT. 38 p + 1 app. Salminen, R. 1995. (ed.). Alueellinen geokemiallinen kar- toitus Suomessa vuosina 1982–1994. English sum- mary: Regional geochemical mapping in Finland in 1982–1994. Geological Survey of Finland, Report of Investigation 130. 44 p + 24 app. Salminen, R. & Lampio, E. 1995. Tulokset. Alueellinen geokemiallinen kartoitus Suomessa vuosina 1982– 1994. Geologian tutkimuskeskus, Tutkimusraportti 130. p. 41–42. Sillanpää, M. 1982. Micronutrients and the nutrient sta- tus of soils: A global study. FAO Soils bulletin 48. Rome. 444 p. Sippola, J. & Mäkelä-Kurtto, R. 1986. Cadmium in cul- tivated Finnish soils. Annales Agriculturae Fenniae 25: 255–263. Sippola, J. & Mäkelä-Kurtto, R. 1993. Decreasing lead levels in cultivated soils in Finland. International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry 51: 201–203. Smit, H. 1997. Contaminated soils. Proceedings of Col- loquium 3. International Conference on the Biochem- istry of Trace Elements, Paris, May 15–19, 1995. INRA 1997. 6 p. Tamminen, P. & Starr, M. 1990. A survey of forest soil properties related to soil acidification in southern Fin- land. In: Kauppi, P. et al. (eds.). Acidification in Fin- land. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. p. 235–251. Tarvainen, T. 1995. The geochemical correlation between coarse and fine fractions of till in southern Finland. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 54: 187–198. Tarvainen, T. 1996. Environmental applications of geo- chemical databases in Finland. Espoo: Geological Survey of Finland. 75 p. Tarvainen, T. & Kallio, E. 1999. Baselines of certain bio- available and total heavy metal concentrations in Fin- land. Water and Environmental Engineering. Report 9: 220–223. Tarvainen, T. & Kuusisto, E. 1999. Baltic soil survey: Finn- ish results. Geological Survey of Finland, Special Paper 27. p. 69–77. Tarvainen, T., Lahermo, P. & Mannio, J. 1997. Sources of trace metals in streams and headwater lakes in Finland. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 94: 1–32. Terelak, H., Stuczynski, T. & Piotrowska, M. 1997. Heavy metals in agricultural soils in Poland. Polish Journal of Soil Science 30: 35–42. Ure, A.M. 1990. Methods of analysis of heavy metals in soils. In: Alloway, B.J. (ed.). Heavy metals in soils. East Kilbride, Scotland. p. 40–80. Viljavuuspalvelu 2000. Viljavuustutkimuksen tulkinta pel- toviljelyssä. Mikkeli. 31 p. Vuorinen, J. & Mäkitie, O. 1955. The method of soil test- ing in use in Finland. Agrogeological Publications 63: 1–44. Yläranta, T. 1996. Uptake of heavy metals by plants from airborne deposition and polluted soils. Agricultural Science in Finland 5: 431–447. Ympäristöministeriö 2000. Ehdotus valtioneuvoston ase- tukseksi maa-alueen maaperän pilaantuneisuuden selvittämisestä ja puhdistustarpeen arvioinnista. Ympäristöministeriö, Muistio 24.3.2000, Luonnos. 14 p. 300 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Mäntylahti, V. & Laakso, P. Arsenic and heavy metal concentrations in agricultural soils SELOSTUS Etelä-Savon viljelysmaan arseeni- ja raskasmetallipitoisuudet Väinö Mäntylahti ja Pirkko Laakso Viljavuuspalvelu Oy Syksyllä 2000 kerättiin Etelä-Savosta Maaseutukes- kus Mikkelin alueelta 23 tilalta 274 näytettä kiven- näismaista ja 38 näytettä eloperäisistä maista. Näyt- teet otettiin tavanomaisilta viljelysmailta, ja niistä määritettiin kuningasveteen uuttuvien arseenin, kro- min, kadmiumin, kuparin, elohopean, nikkelin, lyi- jyn ja sinkin pitoisuudet. Alkuainepitoisuudet lasket- tiin perinteisesti yksikköinä mg/kg, mutta myös yk- sikköinä mg/l, koska maan irtotiheyden oletettiin vai- kuttavan tuloksiin. Alkuainepitoisuuksien mediaanit olivat: As 2,90 mg/kg, Cd 0,084 mg/kg, Cr 17,0 mg/kg, Cu 13,0 mg/ kg, Hg 0,060 mg/kg, Ni 5,4 mg/kg, Pb 7,7 mg/kg, Zn 36,5 mg/kg. Eloperäisillä mailla vastaavat tulokset olivat: As 2,80 mg/kg, Cd 0,265 mg/kg, Cr 15,0 mg/ kg, Cu 29,0 mg/kg, Hg 0,200 mg/kg, Ni 5,9 mg/kg, Pb 11,0 mg/kg, Zn 25,5 mg/kg. Kivennäismaiden ja eloperäisten maiden kadmium- ja elohopeapitoisuu- det poikkesivat toisistaan. Muutamat arseenin, kad- miumin ja elohopean pitoisuudet ylittivät ns. tausta- arvot, mutta eivät saastuneiden maiden raja-arvoja. Useimmissa Etelä-Savon pelloissa oli vain pieniä määriä arseenia ja raskasmetalleja, kun pitoisuuksia verrattiin Suomen, muiden Pohjoismaiden ja Keski- Euroopan viljelysmaihin. Näitä Etelä-Savon peltoja voitaisiin käyttää erikoisviljelyyn varustaen ne Puh- das maa -merkinnällä. Title Introduction Material and methods Results and discussion Conclusions References SELOSTUS