Are Soils Forming on Buildings Indicators of Pollution in The City? A Case Study from Lublin (Eastern Poland)

Profile	Location	Type of building	Position			Technogenic parent material	Existing vegetation
			Fragment of the building	Height above ground level	City district
			Fragment of the building	[m]	City district
1LU	51.216N	Watermill*	Brick wall	4	Residential	Brick, mortar	Geum urbanum L.
1LU	22.544E	Watermill*	Brick wall	4	Residential	Brick, mortar	Geum urbanum L.
2LU	51.255N	Wall*	Brick wall	1	Residential	Brick, mortar	Acer negundo L.
2LU	22.565E	Wall*	Brick wall	1	Residential	Brick, mortar	Acer negundo L.
3LU	51.243N	Industrial plant (dyework)*	Brick wall	3.5	Residential	Brick, mortar	Calamagrostis epigejos L.
3LU	22.570E	Industrial plant (dyework)*	Brick wall	3.5	Residential	Brick, mortar	Solidago canadensis L.
4LU	51.239N	Railway outbuilding*	Gap in concrete ceiling	2.5	Industrial	Concrete	Solidago canadensis L.
4LU	22.608E	Railway outbuilding*	Gap in concrete ceiling	2.5	Industrial	Concrete	Poa annua L.
5LU	51.211N	Industrial plant	Gutter	4	Industrial	n.d.	Poa pratensis L.
5LU	20.570E	Industrial plant	Gutter	4	Industrial	n.d.	Poa pratensis L.
6LU	51.263N	Car garage	Gutter	3	Residential	n.d.	Alliaria petiolata
6LU	22.568E	Car garage	Gutter	3	Residential	n.d.	Alliaria petiolata
7LU	51.234N	Railway ramp next to an industrial plant*	Concrete railway ramp	1	Industrial	Concrete	Calamagrostis epigejos L.
7LU	22.607E	Railway ramp next to an industrial plant*	Concrete railway ramp	1	Industrial	Concrete	Solidago canadensis L.
8LU	51.255N	Road bridge*	Concrete bridge pillar	1	Industrial	Concrete	Solidago canadensis L.
8LU	22.599E	Road bridge*	Concrete bridge pillar	1	Industrial	Concrete	Acer tataricum L.

1* building abandoned or in a state of disrepair. n.d. – not determined.

1 n.d. – not determined.

Analysed soils: 1LU – watermill, 2LU – brick wall, 3LU – industrial plant (dyehouse), 4LU – railway outbuilding, 5LU – industrial plant, 6LU – car garage, 7LU – railway ramp, 8LU – concrete bridge pillar.

A) Type of artefacts and the percentage of edifisols in them (% vol.). B) Examples of artefacts in edifisols: 1 – metal components, 2 – roofing felt, 3 – integrated circuit, 4 – trash (bottle stoper), 5 – slag, 6 – glass shards, 7 – plastic elements.

Table 2.

Granulometric composition and chemical properties of the studied soils.

Horizon	Depth	Skeleton	Fraction			Soil texture (USDA)	pH [H₂O]	OC	CaCO₃
			Sand	Silt	Clay
			(2.0–0.05 mm)	(0.05–0.002 mm)	(<0.002 mm)
	[cm]	[%]				[–]		[%]
1LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – brick wall (watermill)
Auh	0–6	54.9	43.6	51.4	5.0	SiL	7.1	8.0	2.1
2LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – brick wall
Au	0–3	42.9	51.4	46.1	2.5	SL	7.8	1.2	5.6
Cu	3–6	5.1	64.6	32.9	2.5	SL	8.1	0.5	6.8
3LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – brick wall (dyework)
Au	0–7	37.6	81.3	16.2	2.5	LS	8.0	1.5	12.4
AuCu	7–10	20.0	81.8	15.7	2.5	LS	8.2	0.3	6.8
4LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – roof of outbuilding (gap)
Au	0–5	26.6	70.4	29.6	0.0	LS	7.9	3.5	2.8
5LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – gutter on an industrial plant
Auh1	0–4	0.0	67.4	32.6	0.0	SL	7.7	6.8	n.d.
Auh2	4–8	0.0	62.3	37.7	0.0	SL	7.4	6.5	n.d.
6LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – gutter on a car garage
Auh	0–4	0.0	60.5	39.5	0.0	SL	7.3	5.5	n.d.
Au1	4–8	0.0	64.1	35.9	0.0	SL	7.7	3.8	n.d.
Au2	8–10	0.0	43.5	56.5	0.0	SiL	7.2	3.8	n.d.
7LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – concrete railway ramp
Auh	0–6	44.9	62.6	37.4	0.0	SL	7.8	5.2	3.3
8LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – concrete bridge pillar
Au1	0–6	19.5	73.0	27.0	0.0	LS	7.7	2.2	1.5
Au2	6–12	20.4	71.3	28.7	0.0	LS	7.8	2.8	2.2

1 n.d. – not determined.

Table 3.

Cation exchange properties.

Horizon	Depth	Ca²⁺	Mg²⁺	Na⁺	K⁺	HA	BEC	ECEC	BS
Horizon	[cm]	[cmol·kg⁻¹]							[%]
1LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – brick wall (watermill)
Ada	0–6	73.00	11.02	1.65	0.96	5.10	86.63	91.73	94.44
2LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – brick wall
Aca	0–3	65.80	6.75	1.98	0.61	1.65	75.14	76.79	97.85
Ca	3–6	90.80	5.00	1.08	0.49	1.25	97.37	98.62	98.74
3LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – brick wall (dyework)
Aa	0–7	88.20	3.69	1.72	0.38	1.02	93.99	95.01	98.93
AC(Ca)	7–10	104.00	1.94	1.60	0.28	1.38	107.82	109.20	98.74
4LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – roof of outbuilding (gap)
Ada	0–5	33.76	0.02	0.14	1.02	0.96	34.95	35.91	97.33
5LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – gutter on an industrial plant
A	0–4	4.35	0.02	0.10	0.09	2.04	4.56	6.60	69.10
Ada	4–8	7.39	0.01	0.12	0.11	1.53	7.63	9.16	83.29
6LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – gutter on a car garage
Ada	0–4	6.34	0.01	0.11	0.23	1.74	6.68	8.42	79.34
Aca	4–8	3.33	0.01	0.10	0.09	1.88	3.54	5.41	65.36
Ca	8–10	8.67	0.01	0.10	0.13	1.23	8.92	10.15	87.88
7LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – concrete railway ramp
Ada	0–6	23.37	0.01	0.14	0.05	0.89	23.58	24.46	96.38
8LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – concrete bridge pillar
A	0–6	17.79	0.01	0.11	0.35	1.20	18.26	19.46	93.83
Ada	6–10	21.18	0.01	0.13	0.37	0.86	21.68	22.54	96.21

Table 4.

Heavy metal content.

Horizon	Depth	Cd	Cu	Mn	Pb	Zn	Ni	Cr	Fe
Horizon	[cm]	[mg·kg⁻¹]							[g·kg⁻¹]
1LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – brick wall (watermill)
Ada	0–6	2.2	16.2	181.8	n.d.	257.3	n.d.	43.0	8.8
2LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – brick wall
Aca	0–3	1.8	9.6	150.2	n.d.	77.3	n.d.	39.6	6.5
Ca	3–6	2.0	6.2	125.9	n.d.	26.3	n.d.	36.5	5.2
3LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – brick wall (dyework)
Aa	0–7	2.7	13.5	158.6	n.d.	220.1	n.d.	29.8	4.8
AC(Ca)	7–10	1.6	2.9	72.8	n.d.	24.5	n.d.	21.0	2.5
4LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – roof of outbuilding (gap)
Ada	0–5	1.2	29.4	292.5	16.2	150.6	29.1	27.6	14.1
5LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – gutter on an industrial plant
A	0–4	1.6	45.6	794.8	34.5	670.0	60.9	95.8	39.0
Ada	4–8	1.5	44.8	744.1	30.5	436.6	53.1	80.2	36.4
6LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – gutter on a car garage
Ada	0–4	1.2	34.0	758.6	21.1	340.4	38.8	43.9	25.8
ACa	4–8	1.6	41.0	449.6	45.0	698.1	38.8	47.4	28.7
Ca	8–10	2.2	52.0	355.0	80.6	1177.0	51.7	45.3	34.9
7LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – concrete railway ramp
Ada	0–6	3.3	34.8	457.7	116.9	432.6	39.3	42.2	22.4
8LU Isolatic Linic Technosol – concrete bridge pillar
A	0–6	6.0	55.2	258.6	759.6	359.7	21.5	31.2	14.8
Ada	6–12	6.1	33.9	310.0	475.8	275.4	20.3	28.0	15.6
mean		2.5	29.9	365.0	112.9	367.6	25.2	43.7	18.5
standard deviation		1.6	16.8	236.6	215.5	301.6	21.6	19.8	12.2
kurtosis		0.3	0.1	0.2	0.5	0.3	0.1	0.3	0.1
skewness		82.2	-12948.0	131032176.9	308047370.4	474593294.9	12534.4	165749.3	8191.8
Local geochemical background		0.5	3.0	120.0	10.0	25.0	3.0	3.0	9200.0
Local geochemical background		[mg·kg⁻¹]

1 n.d. – not determined.

A) Results of PCA; B) results of cluster analysis.

Heavy metal content as determined by the indicator I_geo.

Table 5.

Geoaccumulation index, enrichment factor and potential environmental risk index.

0.00	Cd	Ni	Cu	Zn	Cr	Mn	Pb
Geoaccumulation Index (Igeo)
Mean	1.34	1.81	2.21	2.26	3.13	0.70	1.32
Max	3.01	3.66	3.33	4.12	4.28	2.10	5.32
Min	0.67	0.00	0.46	0.12	2.57	-0.56	0.00
SD	0.81	1.56	1.25	1.60	0.56	0.90	1.91
Enrichment Factor (EF)
Mean	3.72	3.13	5.12	6.10	10.57	1.71	5.71
Max	8.50	6.41	9.04	8.74	20.02	2.24	37.60
Min	0.76	0.00	3.67	2.66	4.76	1.41	0.00
SD	2.90	2.68	1.83	2.05	6.49	0.29	12.98
Potential Environmental Risk Index
Profile	Cd	Ni	Cu	Zn	Cr	Mn	Pb
1LU	87.60	0.00	17.90	5.50	28.70	n.d.	0.00
2LU	90.60	0.00	12.30	1.80	24.10	n.d.	0.00
3LU	106.80	0.00	12.50	3.60	18.00	n.d.	0.00
4LU	71.60	48.50	49.00	6.00	18.40	n.d.	8.10
5LU	93.10	95.00	75.30	22.10	58.70	n.d.	16.20
6LU	100.60	71.80	70.60	29.50	30.30	n.d.	24.40
7LU	195.40	65.50	57.90	17.30	28.10	n.d.	58.40
8LU	363.70	60.60	74.20	12.70	19.70	n.d.	308.80

1 n.d. – not determined.

Heavy metal content determined by the factor EF.

Potential ecological risks for the soil profiles studied.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/quageo-2025-0001 | Journal eISSN: 2081-6383 | Journal ISSN: 2082-2103 (formerly 0137-477X)

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 5 - 20

Submitted on: Apr 21, 2024

Published on: Mar 31, 2025

Published by: Adam Mickiewicz University

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

Related subjects:

© 2025 Tomasz Szafran, Andrzej Plak, Jacek Chodorowski, Małgorzata Telecka, published by Adam Mickiewicz University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 44 (2025): Issue 1 (March 2025)

Are Soils Forming on Buildings Indicators of Pollution in The City? A Case Study from Lublin (Eastern Poland)

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1.

Table 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Table 5.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 8.

Paradigm

My account