Evidence Hub

Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Human Health Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements in Global Urban Soils: A Systematic Meta-Analysis

Cui J, Lu J, Lai Y, Wei Q, Zhao X

Toxics, 2026

10,000 participants

Abstract

Urban soil contamination by potentially toxic elements (PTEs) is a recognized health concern in densely populated urban environments. Through a systematic meta-analysis of 91 peer-reviewed studies (2000-2025) reporting 12,174 sampling sites in capital and core cities, we characterized regional patterns in the spatiotemporal dynamics and health risks of eight PTEs across two well-represented continental subsets (Asia, k = 18-36 per element; Europe, k = 11-23 per element) with comparative reference to the Americas, Africa, and Oceania. Given the uneven geographic distribution of qualifying primary studies, continental comparisons should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating: Asia (k = 18-36 per element) and Europe (k = 11-23 per element) provide the statistically robust core of the synthesis, while results for the Americas (k = 3-7 for several elements), Africa (k = 4-15), and Oceania (k = 2) are presented as illustrative rather than statistically representative. Pooled concentrations followed Zn (138.59) > Pb (56.97) > Cr (54.26) > Cu (47.00) > Ni (31.94) > As (8.56) > Hg (3.13) > Cd (1.23) mg·kg-1. Within the well-represented Asian and European subsets, Asian cities showed the most severe enrichment of As, Cd, Cr, and Hg (Igeo > 4 in hotspots such as Kathmandu Igeo (Cd) = 7.06 and Jinan Igeo (Hg) = 5.27), whereas European centres exhibited substantial legacy Pb accumulation (pooled mean 87.69 mg·kg-1). A reproducible pollution gradient was identified across functional…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 10,000 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free