Pivato Alberto, Lavagnolo Maria Cristina, Manachini Barbara, Vanin Stefano, Raga Roberto, Beggio Giovanni
DII - Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Padova, via Marzolo n 9, 35131 Padova, Italy.
Dipartimento Scienze e Tecnologie Biologiche Chimiche e Farmaceutiche "STEBICEF" Via Archirafi, 18 - 90123 Palermo, Italy.
Heliyon. 2017 Apr 3;3(4):e00284. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2017.e00284. eCollection 2017 Apr.
The Italian legislation on contaminated soils does not include the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) and this deficiency has important consequences for the sustainable management of agricultural soils. The present research compares the results of two ERA procedures applied to agriculture (i) one based on the "substance-based" approach and (ii) a second based on the "matrix-based" approach. In the former the soil screening values (SVs) for individual substances were derived according to institutional foreign guidelines. In the latter, the SVs characterizing the whole-matrix were derived originally by the authors by means of experimental activity. The results indicate that the "matrix-based" approach can be efficiently implemented in the Italian legislation for the ERA of agricultural soils. This method, if compared to the institutionalized "substance based" approach is (i) comparable in economic terms and in testing time, (ii) is site specific and assesses the real effect of the investigated soil on a battery of bioassays, (iii) accounts for phenomena that may radically modify the exposure of the organisms to the totality of contaminants and (iv) can be considered sufficiently conservative.
意大利关于受污染土壤的立法不包括生态风险评估（ERA），这一缺陷对农业土壤的可持续管理具有重要影响。本研究比较了应用于农业的两种ERA程序的结果：（i）一种基于“基于物质”的方法，（ii）另一种基于“基于基质”的方法。在前者中，根据国外机构指南得出个别物质的土壤筛选值（SVs）。在后者中，表征整个基质的SVs最初由作者通过实验活动得出。结果表明，“基于基质”的方法可以在意大利农业土壤ERA立法中有效实施。与制度化的“基于物质”方法相比，该方法（i）在经济成本和测试时间方面具有可比性，（ii）具有场地特异性，并通过一系列生物测定评估被调查土壤的实际影响，（iii）考虑了可能从根本上改变生物体接触全部污染物情况的现象，（iv）可以认为足够保守。
