Index System and Evaluation Method of Geological Environment Suitability for Human Health

JIAO Xingchun; ZHANG Zhaohe; FANG Wei; LI Ruimin; LIU Jiuchen; JIA Wenbin

doi:10.15898/j.ykcs.202211090214

Rock and Mineral Analysis > 2023 > 42(3): 433-444. > DOI: 10.15898/j.ykcs.202211090214

JIAO Xingchun，ZHANG Zhaohe，FANG Wei，et al. Index System and Evaluation Method of Geological Environment Suitability for Human Health[J]. Rock and Mineral Analysis，2023，42（3）：433−444. DOI: 10.15898/j.ykcs.202211090214

Citation:

PDF (656 KB)

Index System and Evaluation Method of Geological Environment Suitability for Human Health

1.
National Research Center for Geoanalysis, Key Laboratory of Ministry of Natural Resources for Eco-Geochemistry, Beijing 100037, China
2.
School of Earth Sciences and Resources, China University of Geoscience (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China
3.
School of Economics and Management, China University of Geoscience (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China
4.
China Institute of Geological Environment Monitoring, Chinese Geological Survey, Beijing 100081, China

More Information

Received Date: November 08, 2022
Revised Date: January 17, 2023
Accepted Date: March 29, 2023
Available Online: May 29, 2023

Abstract

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND
Human health is closely related to the geological environment. There’re various geological environment factors affecting human health in a composite way. Geological background characteristics, including tectonic structure, lithologic features, and landform configuration shape the living conditions of human being. Climate conditions and the spatial and temporal variation characteristics influence the comfortable level for habitation. More importantly, the direct and indirect impacts of elements and chemicals in rock, soil, water, and air and biosphere on human health are comprehensive and significant. In addition, various human activities have increasingly influenced geological substances and geological processes since the Industrial Revolution, which together with natural geological factors contribute to the unique public health characteristics of a region. (Fig.1). Quantifying the impact of geological environment on human health has always been a hot topic in the study of environment, geology, and other disciplines. In terms of environmental health impact assessment, many scholars or organizations have developed different evaluation indicator systems from different research perspectives. Existing studies focus on assessing health risks from a single perspective, such as chemical substances or engineering construction, while comprehensive evaluation of the health impact of the geological environment from the perspective of the earth system is still rare. In today’s world of rapid socio-economic development, the relationship between human health and geological environment is even more complex, and single methods of evaluating environmental and population health are increasingly inadequate to cope with the increasingly complex health factors. The study of the suitability of geological environment for human health is rapidly progressing under a new theoretical framework.
RESULTS
(1) The evaluation index system. A comprehensive geological environmental health suitability evaluation index system was developed based on a composite perspective, taking into account multiple dimensions such as environmental geochemistry, regional geological background, climate conditions, and intensity of human activities. The rock strata, topography, climate conditions, as well as the geochemical quality of multiple media such as soil, water, and crops in a certain area, shape the specific lifestyle and behavioral habits of the regional population, resulting in unique regional health characteristics.　　(2) GHI evaluation method. The geological health index (GHI) evaluation method was established, which divides the health suitability of regional geological environments into five grades based on GHI scores: excellent (85 points or above), good (75-85), fair (60-75), poor (50-60), and very poor, representing the conditions of extremely suitable, suitable, moderately suitable, possibly suitable, and unsuitable for human health.　　(3) Case study. A case study was conducted in Anji and Longyou counties of Zhejiang Province using the GHI method. The overall GHI scores of the two regions indicated that the health suitability of the geological environment in Anji county was rated as “good” (78.16), while Longyou county was rated as “excellent” (85.50). The evaluation results reflected the health suitability of the regional geological environment, and could provide guidance for rational utilization of geological resources beneficial to health and avoidance of geological risks adverse to health.
DISCUSSION
(1) Principles for choosing indicators. The assessment index system was established following scientific principles, making sure the indicators are representative for general geological environment and closely related to human health. The influence of each indicator on health should be based on evidence, which can objectively reflect the difference of geological environment on population health. Furthermore, the indicators should be available in most settings and be simple to calculate. It is beneficial to have the current environmental industry or health industry standards as a reference.　　(2) Composition of the index system. The GHI index system included 15 specific indicators, which were listed in Table 1. Four sub-indexes were classified to represent the influencing factors of geological environment on human health, which were climate, geological background, environmental geochemistry characteristics and human activities. Two indicators of human comfort level, representing integrated influence of air temperature, humidity and wind, and incidence of extreme weather, were used to characterize the climate factors that affect human health. Four indicators, including regional crustal stability, natural environmental radioactivity, altitude and vegetation coverage, which were closely related to population health, were extracted to characterize the suitability of spatial characteristics of structure, rock, strata and epigenetic systems to population health. Seven indicators including environmental air quality, drinking water quality, irrigation water quality, cultivated land soil quality, agricultural product quality, water resource quantity and land resource quantity were used to characterize the environmental geochemical elements that have an important impact on population health. Human activities have influenced and changed the natural substances at global and regional scales, which have brought about significant impacts on the survival of organisms and human health. In this study, population density and per capita gross industrial and agricultural product were used to characterize the intensity of human activities.　　(3) GHI evaluation method. The evaluation of the health suitability of the geological environment was performed following the processes of data standardization, weight assignment, index score calculation and evaluation level classification. A two-step method was proposed to standardize data processing to complete the evaluation process of health suitability of the geological environment. Firstly, the environmental quality level corresponding to all indicators was determined by comparing with the national average level, national and industrial standards and specifications. Secondly, the impact of different levels of geological environmental quality on population health was evaluated with reference to literature, world and national health standards, and the degree of impact is measured with 0-100 points. The weights were assigned to each indicator according to analytic hierarchy procedure (AHP). The scores of each sub-index and total GHI index were calculated according to corresponding equation. Finally, the health suitability of regional geological environment is divided into five levels: excellent (85 points and above), good (75-85), general (60-75), poor (50-60) and bad (below 50), which respectively represent the state of extremely suitable, suitable, relatively suitable, possibly suitable and unsuitable to population health in certain regional geological environment.　　(4) Case study. A case study was conducted in Anji and Longyou counties of Zhejiang Province using the GHI method. The results showed that the two regions scored similarly in the three sub-indices of “climate conditions”, “geological background”, and “human activity intensity”, while there was a significant difference in the sub-index of “environmental geochemistry”. This was because the agricultural products in the selenium-enriched area of Anji were severely contaminated with heavy metals, while there was no such phenomenon in the selenium-enriched land of Longyou County. The overall GHI scores of the two regions indicated that the health suitability of the geological environment in Anji county was rated as “good” (78.16), while Longyou County was rated as “excellent” (85.50). However, the investigation found little difference in the health status of the residents in the two areas, with the average life expectancy of the residents in both areas higher than the national average. This suggests that although the geological environment in Anji County has high geochemical characteristics of Cd and Ni, the selenium-enriched environment has played a certain compensatory role, and Anji County still maintains an overall level of “suitable” for human health.　　(5) Limitations and future research prospects. With the rapid development of global society and economy, the relationship between population health and geological environment is complicated, and the evaluation method with single dimension is difficult to adapt to the increasingly complicated situation of health influencing factors. In this study, the GHI method is proposed to evaluate the health suitability of geological environment. Based on the multi-dimension of environmental geochemistry, regional geological background, climate condition and human activity intensity, the evaluation index system and evaluation method of geological environmental health suitability are studied from a composite perspective. The GHI evaluation method could be used for regional geological environment evaluation and zoning, and the evaluation results could help manage a more habitable environment and improve the health level of the population. However, there are still some limitations to this approach: ①There is no grouping of the target population. ②The exposure time is not considered. ③The actual intake of water and food is not confirmed. To sum up, the method will be continuously improved by refining the index system, to develop a health suitability assessment method with greater spatial heterogeneity that could meet the needs of the public and government to the greatest extent.

FullText(HTML)

References (60)

References

[1]	Selinus O, Alloway B, Centeno J A, et al. Essentials of medical geology: Revised edition[M]. Springer: Springer Netherlands, 2013: 1−805.
[2]	US EPA. Exposure factors handbook[S]. Washington DC: US EPA, 2011.
[3]	US EPA. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I human health evaluation manual （Part A）[S]. Washington DC: US EPA, 1989.
[4]	European Commission Joint Research Center, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection. Exposure factors sourcebook for Europe[S]. 2006.
[5]	蒋玉丹,王建生,黄炳昭,等. 国外环境健康风险管理实践与启示[J]. 环境与可持续发展,2019,44(5):9−14. doi: 10.19758/j.cnki.issn1673-288x.201905009 Jiang Y D,Wang J S,Huang B Z,et al. Environmental health risk management practices in developed countries and its implications[J]. Environment and Sustainable Development, 2019, 44(5):9−14. doi: 10.19758/j.cnki.issn1673-288x.201905009
[6]	David J B. A framework for integrated environmental health impact assessment of systemic risks[J]. Environmental Health, 2008(7):61.
[7]	Farland W H. The United-States—Environmental-protection—Risk assessment guidelines—Current status and future—Directions[J]. Toxicology and Industrial Health, 1992, 8(3):205−212. doi: 10.1177/074823379200800306
[8]	王秀峰. 我国健康影响评估现状与问题件及建议[J]. 人口与健康,2019(4):16−19. Wang X F. Health impact assessment status quo and problems and suggestions[J]. Population and Health, 2019(4):16−19.
[9]	Bundschuh J,Maity J P,Mushtaq S,et al. Medical geology in the framework of the sustainable development goals[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2017(581-582):87−104.
[10]	王焰新. “同一健康”视角下医学地质学的创新发展[J]. 地球科学,2020,45(4):1093−1102. Wang Y X. Innovative development of medical geology:A one health perspective[J]. Earth Science, 2020, 45(4):1093−1102.
[11]	舒良树. 普通地质学（第4版）[M]. 北京: 地质出版社, 2020: 1−326. Shu L S. Physical geology （The 4th edition）[M]. Beijing: Geological Publishing House, 2020: 1−326.
[12]	罗卫,黄满湘. 地质环境与地方病[J]. 地质灾害与环境保护,2004(4):1−4,14. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4362.2004.04.001 Luo W,Huang M X. Geological environment and endemic diseases[J]. Journal of Geological Hazards and Environment Preservation, 2004(4):1−4,14. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4362.2004.04.001
[13]	Romanello M, Napoli C, Drummond P, et al. The 2022 report of the Lancet countdown on health and climate change: Health at the mercy of fossil fuels[J]. Lancet, 2022, 400:1619−1654. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01540-9
[14]	Price T R V,Barua S K. Identifying vulnerable populations and transmission pathways by geographic correlation of the environment to human health[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 779:14626.
[15]	Brevik P,Anenberg S C,Neumann J E,et al. Effects of increasing aridity on ambient dust and public health in the U. S. southwest under climate change[J]. GeoHealth, 2019, 3(5):127−144. doi: 10.1029/2019GH000187
[16]	李振林,翟晓燕. 浅析影响人类健康的地质环境[J]. 陕西煤炭,2004(2):6−8. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-749X.2004.02.002 Li Z L,Zhai X Y. Simply analysis on the influence of geological environment on human health[J]. Shaanxi Coal, 2004(2):6−8. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-749X.2004.02.002
[17]	Wardrop N A,le Blond J S. Assessing correlations between geological hazards and health outcomes:Addressing complexity in medical geology[J]. Environment International, 2015(84):90−93.
[18]	张文忠. 宜居城市建设的核心框架[J]. 地理研究,2016,35(2):205−213. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201602001 Zhang W Z. The core framework of the livable city construction[J]. Geographical Research, 2016, 35(2):205−213. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201602001
[19]	张文忠,湛东升. “国际一流的和谐宜居之都”的内涵及评价指标[J]. 城市发展研究,2017,24(6):116−124,132. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-3862.2017.06.016 Zhang W Z,Zhan D S. Study on connotation and evaluation index of world-class metropolis of harmony and livability[J]. Urban Development Studies, 2017, 24(6):116−124,132. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-3862.2017.06.016
[20]	王秀峰,苏剑楠,王昊. “健康中国”建设监测评估框架和指标体系研究[J]. 卫生经济研究,2020,37(3):3−6. doi: 10.14055/j.cnki.33-1056/f.2020.03.001 Wang X F,Su J N,Wang H. Research on the monitoring and evaluation framework and indicator system of “Healthy China”[J]. Health Economics Research, 2020, 37(3):3−6. doi: 10.14055/j.cnki.33-1056/f.2020.03.001
[21]	吴初国, 刘树臣, 刘迪, 等. 国土资源可持续发展指标体系探索与实践[J]. 北京:地质出版社,2006:1−315. Wu C G, Liu S C, Liu D, et al. Exploration and practice of indicator system for sustainable development of land and resources[J]. Beijing: Geological Publishing House, 2006:1−315.
[22]	Cavicchioli R,Ripple W J,Timmis K N,et al. Scientists’ warning to humanity:Microorganisms and climate change[J]. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 2019(17):569−586.
[23]	McMichael A J,Woodruff R E,Hales S. Climate change and human health:Present and future risks[J]. Lancet, 2006, 367(9513):859−869. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68079-3
[24]	刘方,张金良. 气象因素对人类健康的影响[J]. 中国公共卫生杂志,2005,21(3):367−369. Liu F,Zhang J L. Impact of meteorological factors on human health[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2005, 21(3):367−369.
[25]	陶芳芳,阚海东,董晨,等. 上海市流感样病例与气象因素关系的研究[J]. 中华流行病学杂志,2010(12):1448−1449. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2010.12.035 Tao F F,Kan H D,Dong C,et al. Analysis on the relationship between influenza and meteorology and the establishment of early warning model[J]. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology, 2010(12):1448−1449. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2010.12.035
[26]	李山,孙美淑,张伟佳,等. 中国大陆1961—2010年间气候舒适期的空间格局及其演变[J]. 地理研究,2016(35):2053−2070. Li S,Sun M S,Zhang W J,et al. Spatial patterns and evolving characteristics of climate comfortable period in the mainland of China:1961—2010[J]. Geographical Research, 2016(35):2053−2070.
[27]	翟盘茂,周佰铨,陈阳,等. 气候变化科学方面的几个最新认知[J]. 气候变化研究进展,2021,17(6):629−635. Zhai P M,Zhou B Q,Chen Y,et al. Several new understandings in the climate change science[J]. Climate Change Research, 2021, 17(6):629−635.
[28]	Wang Y,Wang A,Zhai J,et al. Tens of thousands additional deaths annually in cities of China between 1.5℃ and 2.0℃ warming[J]. Nature Communications, 2019, 10(1):1−7. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07882-8
[29]	舒章康,李文鑫,张建云,等. 中国极端降水和高温历史变化及未来趋势[J]. 中国工程科学,2022(5):116−125. Shu Z K,Li W X,Zhang J Y,et al. Historical changes and future trends of extreme precipitation and high temperature in China[J]. Strategic Study of CAE, 2022(5):116−125.
[30]	许志琴,杨经绥,朱文斌. 再论大陆动力学发展面临的重大挑战[J]. 地质学报,2021,95(1):2−3. Xu Z Q,Yang J S,Zhu W B. Introduction:Re-exploration the major challenge of the development on continental dynamics[J]. Acta Geologica Sinica, 2021, 95(1):2−3.
[31]	Wang Y X,Wang Q R,Deng Y M,et al. Assessment of the impact of geogenic and climatic factors on global risk of urinary stone disease[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 721:137769. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137769
[32]	Gwenzi W. Occurrence,behaviour,and human exposure pathways and health risks of toxic geogenic contaminants in serpentinitic ultramafic geological environments (SUGEs):A medical geology perspective[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2020(700):134622.
[33]	马绪宣, 刘飞, 黄河, 等. 花岗岩、氡气与人类肺癌[J/OL]. 地质学报(2022-11-23)[2023-01-18]. doi: 10.19762/j.cnki.dizhixuebao.2022186. Ma X X, Liu F, Huang H, et al. Granite, radongas and human lung cancer[J/OL]. Acta Geologica Sinica (2022-11-23)[2023-01-18]. doi: 10.19762/j.cnki.dizhixuebao.2022186.
[34]	Zeeb H, Shannoun F. WHO handbook on indoor radon: A public health perspective[M]. Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2009: 42−47.
[35]	马婧婧,曾菊新. 中国乡村长寿现象与人居环境研究:以湖北钟祥为例[J]. 地理研究,2012,31(3):450−460. Ma J J,Zeng J X. Study on the longevity phenomena and human settlements in rural China:Taking Zhongxiang City as an example[J]. Geographical Research, 2012, 31(3):450−460.
[36]	郭郑旻,黄付敏,陆慧,等. 不同海拔高度对健康成年男性心脏血流动力学和心电图的影响[J]. 中国应用生理学杂志,2012,28(1):1−4. doi: 10.13459/j.cnki.cjap.2012.01.003 Guo Z M,Huang F M,Lu H,et al. Effects of different altitudes on cardiac hemodynamics and electrocardiogram of healthy male adults[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Physiology, 2012, 28(1):1−4. doi: 10.13459/j.cnki.cjap.2012.01.003
[37]	Mairer K,Wille M,Bucher T,et al. The prevalence of and risk factors for acute mountain sickness in the eastern and western Alps[J]. High Altitude Medicine & Biology, 2010, 11(4):343−348.
[38]	Calderon-Gerstein H,Torres-Samaniego G. High altitude and cancer:An old controversy[J]. Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology, 2021, 289:103655.
[39]	Mairer K,Wille M,Bucher T,et al. Prevalence of acute mountain sickness in the eastern Alps[J]. High Altitude Medicine & Biology, 2009, 10(3):239−245.
[40]	Najafi E,Khanjani N,Ghotbi M R,et al. The association of gastrointestinal cancers (esophagus,stomach,and colon) with solar ultraviolet radiation in Iran — An ecological study[J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2019, 191(3):152. doi: 10.1007/s10661-019-7263-0
[41]	Diener A,Mudu P. How can vegetation protect us from air pollution? A critical review on green spaces’ mitigation abilities foe air-borne particles from a public health perspective-with implications for urban planning[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 796:148605. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148605
[42]	Kumar P,Druckman A,Gallagher J,et al. The nexus between air pollution,green infrastructure and human health[J]. Environmental International, 2019, 133:105181. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105181
[43]	Pugh T A M,MacKenzie A R,Whyatt J D,et al. Effectiveness of green infrastructure for improvement of air quality in urban street canyons[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012, 4(14):7692−7699.
[44]	王学求,柳青青,刘汉粮,等. 关键元素与生命健康:中国耕地缺硒吗?[J]. 地学前缘,2021,28(3):412−423. doi: 10.13745/j.esf.sf.2021.1.13 Wang X Q,Liu Q Q,Liu H L,et al. Key elements and human health:Is China’s arable land selenium-deficient?[J]. Earth Science Frontiers, 2021,28(3):412−423. doi: 10.13745/j.esf.sf.2021.1.13
[45]	Tan J A,Zhu W Y,Wang W Y,et al. Selenium in soil and endemic diseases in China[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2002, 284:227−235. doi: 10.1016/S0048-9697(01)00889-0
[46]	Cong X,Xu X,Xu L,et al. Elevated biomarkers of sympatho-adrenomedullary activity linked to e-waste air pollutant exposure in preschool children[J]. Environment International, 2018, 115:117−126. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.03.011
[47]	Ren X,Yao L,Xue Q,et al. Binding and activity of tetrabromobisphenol A mono-ether structural analogs to thyroid hormone transport proteins and receptors[J]. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2020, 128(10):107008−1. doi: 10.1289/EHP6498
[48]	邰苏日噶拉,李永春,周文辉,等. 宁夏固原市原州区高氟地区氟对人体健康的影响[J]. 岩矿测试,2021,40(6):919−929. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0254-5357.2021.6.ykcs202106011 Tai Surigala,Li Y C,Zhou W H,et al. Effect of fluorine on human health in high-fluorine areas in Yuanzhou District,Guyuan City,Ningxia Autonomous Region[J]. Rock and Mineral Analysis, 2021, 40(6):919−929. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0254-5357.2021.6.ykcs202106011
[49]	Lin X,Xu X,Zeng X,et al. Decreased vaccine antibody titers following exposure to multiple metals and metalloids in e-waste-exposed preschool children[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2017, 220(Part A):354−363.
[50]	Morrison J M,Goldhaber M B,Mills C T,et al. Weathering and transport of chromium and nickel from serpentinite in the coast range ophiolite to the Sacramento Valley,California,USA[J]. Applied Geochemistry, 2015, 61:72−86. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2015.05.018
[51]	Majumder S,Banik P. Geographical variation of arsenic distribution in paddy soil,rice and ricebased products:A meta-analytic approach and implications to human health[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2019, 233:184−199.
[52]	Fordyce F M,Brereton N,Hughes J,et al. An initial study to assess the use of geological parent materials to predict the Se concentration in overlying soils and in five staple foodstuffs produced on them in Scotland[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2010, 408(22):5295−5305. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.08.007
[53]	Mohtashami R,Dehnavi M M,Balouchi H,et al. Improving yield,oil content and water productivity of dryland canola by supplementary irrigation and selenium spraying[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2020, 232:106046. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106046
[54]	Li D,Liu H,Gao M,et al. Effects of soil amendments,foliar sprayings of silicon and selenium and their combinations on the reduction of cadmium accumulation in rice[J]. Pedosphere, 2022, 32(4):649−659. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(21)60052-8
[55]	Kanem N,Murray C J L,Horton R. The Lancet commission on 21st-Century global health threats[J]. The Lancet, 2022, 401:10−11.
[56]	宋明义. 浙西地区下寒武统黑色岩系中硒与重金属的表生地球化学及环境效应[D]. 合肥: 合肥工业大学, 2009: 1−143. Song M Y. Supergenic geochemistry and environmental effects of selenium and heavy metals in the lower Cambrian black series of western Zhejiang Province, China[D]. Hefei: Hefei University of Technology, 2009: 1−143.
[57]	胡艳华,王加恩,蔡子华,等. 浙北嘉善地区土壤硒的含量、分布及其影响因素初探[J]. 地质科技情报,2010,29(6):84−88. Hu Y H,Wang J E,Cai Z H,et al. Content distribution and influencing factors of selenium in soil of Jiashan area northern Zhejiang Province[J]. Geological Science and Technology Information, 2010, 29(6):84−88.
[58]	胡艳华,王加恩,颜铁增,等. 浙北平原区土壤硒地球化学研究[J]. 上海地质,2010,31(S1):103−106. Hu Y H,Wang J E,Yan T Z,et al. Preliminary geochemistry research about selenium in soil,northern plain area of Zhejiang Province[J]. Shanghai Geology, 2010, 31(S1):103−106.
[59]	Alahuhta J,Tukiainen H,Toivanen M,et al. Acknowledging geodiversity in safeguarding biodiversity and human health[J]. Lancet Planet Health, 2022, 6:e987−e992. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00259-5
[60]	伊芹,程皝,尚文郁. 土壤硒的存在特征及分析测试技术研究进展[J]. 岩矿测试,2021,40(4):461−475. doi: 10.15898/j.cnki.11-2131/td.202006230095 Yi Q,Cheng H,Shang W Y. Review on characteristics of selenium in soil and related analytical techniques[J]. Rock and Mineral Analysis, 2021, 40(4):461−475. doi: 10.15898/j.cnki.11-2131/td.202006230095