Do we need to redefine (background levels) to account for pervasive anthropogenic influences? and .... Does the use of site-specific baselines provide a more accurate framework for environmental assessments in metropolitan regions or global reference values such as the average shales or upper continental when dealing with heavy metals?
Please check a few things before you make comparison and assessing - 1. Each urban area is unique due to the cultural and economic background. 2. You need to attempt zoning based on this background 3. Lifestyle and administrative efficiency - pollution control effectiveness.
Since you are talking about geochemical baseline - geology of each area is entirely different and soil being the derivative differs in filtering/retaining the pollutants. You may extend your thoughts beyond these few thoughts depending upon the exact objective of research.
Indeed, redefining background levels is crucial to address the extensive anthropogenic impacts, as human activities have notably changed the natural geochemical baselines.
Employing site-specific baselines typically offers a more precise framework for environmental assessments in urban areas, as they consider local pollution sources and historical land use. While global reference values (like average shales or the upper continental crust) can provide general comparisons, they may not accurately reflect contamination levels in urban settings, particularly concerning heavy metals
A comparison between the site specific background values and geochemical crustal background values yields the best results.
I think you may follow the suggestion of Mavia Anjum Abbassi.
Kind greetings Adrian
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Bioecology
- Systems Ecology
- Landscape Ecology
- Connectivity