# Mapping risks associated with soil copper contamination using availability and bio-availability proxies at the European scale

Laura Sereni, Bertrand Guenet, Isabelle Lamy

► To cite this version:

Laura Sereni, Bertrand Guenet, Isabelle Lamy. Mapping risks associated with soil copper contamination using availability and bio-availability proxies at the European scale. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2023, 30, pp.19828 - 19844. 10.1007/s11356-022-23046-0. hal-04017546

HAL Id: hal-04017546

https://hal.science/hal-04017546

Submitted on 7 Mar 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Mapping risks associated with soil copper contamination using availability and bio-availability proxies at the European scale

Laura Sereni<fnref n="1" />☐, Bertrand Guenet<fnref n="2" />, Isabelle Lamy<fnref n="1" />

Received: 8 November 2021 / Accepted: 12 September 2022

© The Author(s) 2022

## Abstract

Soil contamination by trace elements like copper (Cu) can affect soil functioning. Environmental policies with guidelines and soil survey measurements still refer to the total content of Cu in soils. However, Cu content in soil solution or free Cu content have been shown to be better proxies of risks of Cu mobility or (bio-)availability for soil organisms. Several empirical equations have been defined at the local scale to predict the amount of Cu in soil solution based on both total soil Cu content and main soil parameters involved in the soil/solution partitioning. Nevertheless, despite the relevance for risk assessment, these equations are not applied at a large spatial scale due to difficulties to perform changes from local to regional. To progress in this challenge, we collected several empirical equations from literature and selected those allowing estimation of the amount of Cu in solution, used as a proxy of available Cu, from the knowledge of both total soil Cu content and soil parameters. We did the same for the estimation of free Cu in solution, used as a proxy of bio-available Cu. These equations were used to provide European maps of (bio-)available Cu based on the one of total soil Cu over Europe. Results allowed comparing the maps of available and bio-available Cu at the European scale. This was done with respective median values of each form of Cu to identify specific areas of risks linked to these two proxies. Higher discrepancies were highlighted between the map of bio-available Cu and the map of total Cu compared to the Cu available map. Such results can be used to assess environmental-related issues for land use planning.

**Keywords** Trace element · Mobility · Transfer function · Risk assessment · Diffuse contamination · Regional assessment

Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues

## Highlights

* Mapping of risks due to soil copper contamination was made at the European scale.

* We used soil Cu maps and partitioning equations to derive risk assessment maps.

* We provided maps of available and bio-available risks.

* Risk estimation for available Cu and total Cu differs in 26% of the grid points.

* Risk estimation for bio-available Cu and total Cu differs in 69% of the grid points.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Laura Sereni
laurasereni@yahoo.fr

## Introduction

From a spatial point of view, native indigenous trace elements in soils largely vary around the world due to bedrock. In addition, atmospheric deposition, agriculture, mine tailing, or industrial activities can be important exogenous sources of soil trace element contamination (Hong et al. 1996; Nicholson et al. 2003). Fluxes of trace elements in ecosystems include their accumulation in surface soil horizons and their release to the soil solution, to the organisms or until the aquifers. While trace elements are often required for biological systems, large amount may have toxic effects (Flemming and Trevors 1989; Shabbir et al. 2020). Among the trace elements, copper (Cu) is widely used in industrial and agricultural sectors. In the absence of contamination, Cu is found as a native trace element at various total concentrations in soils, typically from 5 until 50 mg. kg⁻<fnref n="1" /> of Cu depending on the bedrock, but concentrations above 100 mg. kg⁻<fnref n="1" /> of Cu can be observed in Australia or in Baltic shield (Salminen and Gregorauskiene 2000). Additionally, inputs

<footnote n="1">¹ UMR 1402 ECOSYS, Ecotoxicology Team, Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, 78026 Versailles, AgroParisTech, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Laboratoire de Géologie de L'ENS, UMR 8538, PSL Research University, CNRS, IPSL, Paris, France</footnote>
from different sources like manure, pesticides, or fertilizers are regularly added, leading at a spatial scale to various total soil content at least in the surface soil horizon. The annual amount of Cu deposited on soils through atmospheric contamination or for agronomical purposes were estimated around 3900 gCu. km⁻² year⁻¹ (~0.01 mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu) for atmospheric deposition and between 100 and 800 g. km⁻² year⁻¹ of Cu (respectively 0.003 and 0.025 mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu) for agricultural inputs depending on the fertilizers and crop type (Azimi et al. 2004). Outputs by crops or leaching waters are more difficult to estimate (Romkens et al. 2004), but globally general pattern leads to Cu accumulation in surface horizons. Thus, most of the environmental quality standard are defined on the basis of the total soil metal content in the surface horizon, while the relevance of such a value in terms of risks for metal mobility or bio-availability had been questioned (Kördel et al. 2013).

Indeed, total soil Cu content can be schematically divided into a pool of sorbed Cu on the solid phase and a pool of Cu present in the liquid phase, both in equilibrium. Cu in solution can also be divided into a pool of Cu complexed to either organic or mineral species and a pool of Cu in the free Cu²⁺ form (e.g., Cu in solution not bound to organic nor to mineral anions; see Fig. 1). Concerning this later pool, the free ion activity model (FIAM) argues that the free form of a trace metal (M) element as Mⁿ⁺ is the most biologically impacting form (Parker et al. 2001). Thus, the small and labile fraction of free Cu can be used to advantage as a proxy of bio-available Cu (Lanno et al. 2004; Thakali et al. 2006). However, the knowledge of the total amount of Cu in solution is also important because it is the most likely total pool of Cu that can easily exchange and be available for organisms or for exportation through runoff. Total content of Cu in solution is therefore assimilated to a pool of environmentally available Cu. But when the total trace element

content in soil is the only available data, this value is used by default to express the risks even if overestimated (Ministry of the Environment 2007; Oorts et al. 2006b; Smolders et al. 2009). Several studies have underlined the importance of the knowledge of soil parameters (organic matter content, pH, ionic strength, or dissolved organic carbon) to calculate the Cu speciation, i.e. the repartition of Cu in its different forms (Degryse et al. 2009; Mondaca et al. 2015; Sauvé et al. 2000b). In the literature, three main ways can be identified to calculate total Cu in solution and/or free Cu²⁺ forms from the knowledge of total soil Cu content, two of them being based on empirical statistical relationships and one of them on thermodynamic mechanistic models.

From a mechanistic point of view, thermodynamic models allow the calculation of the speciation of Cu in solution using the total soil Cu content and a detailed composition of the soil solution with organic and inorganic compounds as input data. This is currently made with models such as WHAM or Vminteq (Kinniburgh et al. 1996; Tipping 1998) which iteratively compute total Cu concentration under its different chemical forms providing the knowledge of the equilibrium constants of all the potential species. Many hypotheses have to be made to take into account the polyelectrolytic nature of organic matter, the surface geometry, and the electrostatic interactions for complexation and adsorption processes. If such modellings allow a detailed and precise estimation of the different forms of Cu in solution, their use at large scale is complex and challenged due to the number of input data needed. For that, empirical equations can be advantageously used compared to thermodynamic modelling when all the different data are not available.

Empirical relationships result from statistics regressions based on large field-data sets. One approach is to estimate coefficients of partition between solid and solution phases

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Schematic view of the different forms of Cu in soil systems, POM being particulate organic matter in the solid phase to which Cu can be sorbed, DOM being dissolved organic matter in the soil solution, which binds Cu</figcaption></figure>
or between solid and free Cu, the other to estimate directly either Cu in solution or free Cu as a sum of several soil parameters. For our purpose, the use of coefficient of partition is few robust because of the assumption that the different forms of Cu are at the equilibrium. Hence, we rather focused on the direct expression of Cu in solution or of free Cu. Numerous empirical equations have been developed to estimate Cu in solution or free Cu based on local measurements or data collections, and variables are traditionally log transformed with a generic expression as following: (Groenenberg et al. 2010)

$$ \log_{10}\text{Cu}_f = c_0 + c_1\log_{10}(\text{Cu}_{\text{total}}) + \sum c_i\log_{10}(X_i) \quad (1) $$

where $X_i$ are the different soil parameters and f is the form of Cu (free or in solution) considered.

Recent soil survey from the Joint Research Center (JRC) was performed, and maps of total metal soil content at the European Union scale were produced. These maps underlined large diffuse soil Cu contamination with some hot spots of high total soil Cu concentrations (Ballabio et al. 2018). Applied to Cu, the application of the previous equation could fill the gap of the absence of knowledge of the large-scale distribution of Cu availability, using Cu in solution as a proxy, and the absence of knowledge of the large-scale distribution of Cu bio-availability, using free Cu²⁺ as a proxy. Indeed, availability or bio-availability are data still not documented despite their importance for risk estimation and land management.

In this context, the aim of this work was threefold: (1) provide a literature review of statistical empirical relationships established for estimation of available Cu (Cu in solution) or bio-available Cu (free Cu); (2) estimate, at the European scale, areas of potential risks e.g. of Cu environmental availability or of Cu biological toxicity; and (3) link, at the European scale, the risk due to the presence of a soil Cu contamination to the risk of Cu availability and of Cu bio-availability. We decided not to explore the use of mechanistic models but rather to focus on empirical equations easier to use at larger spatial scales. Based on the literature review, we choose the more appropriate relationships in the objective of application to a European database of total Cu measurements. We highlighted areas of risks of (i) available Cu (Cu in solution) and (ii) bio-available Cu (free Cu) with the comparison of the two values at each grid point with their respective median. This allowed us to define areas of risks without using debated threshold values (Carlon 2007). Furthermore, the use of relative variations through comparisons with median limited misinterpretation due to intercept effects in the chosen empirical equation and allowed underlining the effects of pedological factors. Finally, we identified

areas with conflicting or converging risk assessment of availability or of bio-availability compared to the total Cu risk assessment.

# Material and methods

## Equation's review

In order to provide estimates of Cu forms relevant for risks assessment at the European scale, we collected empirical equations from the literature estimating Cu in solution or free Cu using a two steps approach. We first ran (at the date December 2020) bibliographic research on WOS looking for Cu AND (availab*) AND soil AND TOPIC function. We then completed this research using the references of the collected articles. This allowed gathering the relationships to estimate Cu in solution and free Cu on the basis of soil pedo-geochemical characteristics. We only selected relationships using pedogeochemical characteristics commonly measured such as soil organic matter (OM) or soil organic C, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), cationic exchange capacity (CEC), clay percentage, and pH.

Statistical empirical equations mostly provided estimations of Cu content in solution and free Cu concentrations based on total Cu content and other soil parameters. Some empirical equations estimated the so-called “dissolved” trace metal i.e. trace metal in solution after filtration at 0.45 µm. But contrarily to other heavy metals, few Cu is associated to large colloids removed with filtration (Jensen et al. 1999). Since our study focused on the application of transfer functions to estimate (bio-)available risks, we focused on the application of equations for Cu in solution and for free Cu including both the calculation of Cu in solution or dissolved Cu that we considered equally.

To provide a generic guide to select empirical equations while reviewing, we listed the transfer functions together with (1) measurement protocols to acquire Cu data, (2) the number of data used to establish the statistical relationship, (3) their associated R2, (4) the range of soil properties used to define the relationships, (5) the number of times they have been cited, and (6) the number of citations per year. Indeed, among papers, the protocols to acquire Cu data were not uniforms. Measurements of total soil Cu content were made using different methods, (i) after a total HF soil mineralization thus including Cu pedological background or (ii) after a “pseudo-total” soil digestion, thanks to aqua regia or (iii) after a 0.43-M HNO₃ extraction. It is recognized that the two last extractions approximate total Cu soil content (ISO 2006; Sastre et al. 2002; USEPA 2007). The dilute acid extraction has also been established as an ISO 17586:2016 norm to analyze potential environmental available trace elements.
Similarly, to determine Cu in solution, we found in the collected papers several methods to extract soil solution while various types of extraction are known to give different kinds of soil solution (Weihermüller et al. 2007). Finally, because the experimental free Cu measurement requires specific equipment (a selective Cu electrode or a device with Donnan membrane (Minnich and McBride 1987; Pampura et al. 2006)), several studies used theoretical results from spe- ciation modelling software rather than direct experimental measurements.

## Estimation of (bio)-available Cu maps

In this study, we used the European soil Cu survey from the LUCAS database provided by the JRC from which total Cu is based on the aqua regia protocol (Ballabio et al. 2018; Tóth et al. 2016). Hence, we selected from our provided generic guide the transfer functions issued from studies using aqua regia protocols to measure total Cu.

With these collected empirical equations, the estimations of Cu content in solution and of free Cu content in solution allowed building respectively maps of so-called available and bio-available Cu based on pedological mapping provided by the JRC at a 0.5-km scale. The total Cu map was downloaded from https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/copper-distribution-topsoils (Ballabio et al. 2018), pH was downloaded from https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/chemical-properties-european-scale-based-lucas-topsoil-data (Ballabio et al. 2019), clay values were obtained from https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/topsoil-physical-proporties-europe-based-lucas-topsoil-data (Ballabio et al. 2016), and total organic carbon (Corga) data were obtained from https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/topsoil-soil-organic-carbon-lucas-eu25 (de Brogniez et al. 2015) and are represented in suppl. Figure 1 and 2, respectively, for soil Corga and pH. Soil OM values were converted to soil Corga content using Corga = OM/2 (Pribyl 2010). For computational time purpose, we used the climate data operator software cdo (Schulzweida 2017) to remap at 0.01° the data originally at the 0.5-km scale.

## Risk assessment

For each proxy associated to Cu (available, bio-available, and total soil content), high-risk areas were identified by computing a risk indicator (RI) in % defined through a comparison with the median value (Eq. 2).

$$RI_f = \frac{|Cu_{f,k}| - |Cu_{f,Med}|}{|Cu_{f,Med}|} \times 100 \quad (2)$$

where f is the proxy of Cu risk (available, bio-available or total), $|Cu_{Med}|$ is the absolute value of its median value, and $|Cu_{f,k}|$ is the absolute value of the form f of Cu for the grid point k. $RI_f$ are represented in suppl. Figure 3, 4 and 5 for total, available, and bio-available Cu respectively.

We chose the median rather than the mean value as the reference because of the presence of very few points having high Cu values that pushed up the average (see “Selected regression and computed maps”). Following Reimann et al. (2005), we also identified areas with concentrations of total Cu, available Cu, and bio-available Cu smaller or higher than the median ± 2 times the median average deviations.

The relevance of total Cu to assess soil risk was checked by the comparison of $RI_{total}$ with $RI_f$ (with f = Cu available or bio-available). Three main classes were defined for total Cu with a risk index higher, lower, or similar to the risk index of the (bio-)available forms, together with 5 subdivisions cases as following:

$$(1) \quad RI_{total} \gg RI_f$$

(A) $RI_{total} > 0$ and $RI_f < 0$

(B) $RI_f < RI_{total}$ and $RI_{total} - RI_f > \text{median}$ ($RI_{total} - RI_f) + 2 \times \text{mean average deviation}$ ($RI_{total} - RI_f$)

(2) $RI_{total} \ll RI_f$ (A) $RI_{total} < 0$ and $RI_f > 0$

(B) $RI_f > RI_{total}$ and $RI_f - RI_f > \text{median}$ ($RI_{total} - RI_f) + 2 \times \text{mean average deviation}$ ($RI_{total} - RI_f$)

$$(3) \quad RI_{total} \sim RI_f \text{ defined as } |RI_{total} - RI_f| < \text{median} (RI_{total} - RI_f) + 2 \times \text{mean average deviation} (RI_{total} - RI_f)$$

These classes and their subdivisions were defined to highlight the areas where risk assessment based on total Cu differs from those based on available Cu or on bio-available Cu.

The first class ($RI_{total} \gg RI_f$) refers to cases where the calculations from the grid points indicated that soil may be considered at risk when considering total Cu measurements but not considering (bio)-available Cu (depending on the f Cu form). For 1 (A), the soil may be considered at risk when considering total but not (bio)-available Cu. For 1 (B), the soil is considered at risk for the two indicators, but the risk may be largely underestimated considering (bio)-available Cu in comparison to total Cu. The second class ($RI_{total} \ll RI_f$) refers to cases where soil may be considered without risk when considering total Cu but at risk considering (bio)-available Cu. For 2 (A), the soil may be considered without risk when considering total Cu content but at risk when considering (bio)-available Cu. For 2 (B), the soil is considered at risk for the two indicators but the risk may be largely
underestimated considering total Cu in comparison to (bio)-
available Cu. The third situation ($RI_{total} \sim RI_{f}$) refers to cases
where the differences between total and (bio)-available Cu
content are rather small.

Maps and statistical analysis were calculated using R ver-
sion 3.5 (R Core Team 2018).

Results

Literature review of empirical equations

We collected 29 relationships aiming at estimating (bio-) available Cu using total Cu content and soil parameters from 16 references compiled in Table 1. From those 16 references, 1 was produced as part of a report for the environmental research institute of Wageningen (Alterra) (Römkens et al. 2004) on a Dutch soil survey with rather low Cu concentrations close to the local diffuse agricultural contamination in Cu (maximal values around 321 mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu while other equations are built on contamination up to a few thousand mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu) and with a significant number of data (416). However, the measurements of available Cu were made with a DTPA extraction rather than with dilute salts and the estimation of the total soil Cu content was based on a 0.43-M HNO₃ extraction. Although interesting, the data from Romkens et al. were not further investigated in this paper.

The oldest equation specifically applied to Cu was pro-
vided by Lexmond (1980) (see Eq. 11 in Table 1) to estimate
bio-available Cu (expressed as – log(Cu) = pCu), and the last
equation we found was designed by Li et al. (2017a, b) (see
Eq. 10 in Table 1) to estimate bio-available Cu. Among these
29 relationships, we found 13 equations aiming at estimating
specifically the available Cu (Cu in solution) and 16 estimat-
ing the bio-available Cu (free Cu). Assuming that yearly
rate of citations is a proxy for a scientific consensus and/or
the easy-to-use, we found that many studies used the Sauvé
et al. (2000a) approach with 61 citations/year (see Eq. 6 in
Tables 1, 2, and 3), or the McBride et al. (1997) approach
with 37 citations/year (see Eq. 3 in Tables 1, 2, and 3) fol-
lowed by those of the Tipping et al. (2003) approach with
23 citations/year (see Eq. 14 in Tables 1, 2, and 3). Total soil
Cu was the most frequent predictor to calculate available Cu
with 11/13 equations using total Cu, while pH was the most
frequent predictor to calculate bio-available Cu with 16/16
equations based on pH.

Selection of the empirical equation to build the available
Cu map

Table 2 provides the collected 15 equations of the literature
estimating the amount of Cu in solution used here as a proxy
for available Cu, and taken into account soil properties. The

corresponding soil solution extraction and total Cu minerali-
zation methods are reported in Table 1. Total soil Cu content
is the most frequent explaining variable, found as a reliable
predictor for all except one relationship. All the relationships
showed that available Cu decreases when soil pH increases,
so that there are more available Cu under acid soil condi-
tions. DOC's partial slope is mostly found as non-significant
or positive, indicating that dissolved organic carbon can bind
Cu in solution through organic complexes On the other hand,
the equation performed for Cu by Sauvé et al. (2000a) was
fitted on more than 350 data collected in the literature, and
seem to be the most robust empirical equations in estimation
of dissolved Cu. It is also the most cited equation preferen-
tially used to convert a large range of soil Cu total content
into dissolved Cu values. The willing to include as much
data point originating from various databases is however
coupled with the lack of information about the measurement
techniques involved. In fact, "total" Cu is mentioned without
specifying the soil digestion method. In complement, we
also noted the empirical equation of Mondaca et al. (2015)
(Table 2, Eq. 9) which was fitted with data from Chili and
can thus be more appropriate for semi-arid region and their
typical pedological characteristics and climate compare to
Europe (Garcia et al. 2017; Steven 2017). Finally, among
the collected equations, those from McBride et al. (1997)
(Table 2, Eq. 3 a-c) are among the most commonly used
with more than 36 citations/year. The authors provided two
main regressions with exclusion or inclusion of data points
(Table 2, Eq. 3a.) with highest (> 100 g. kg⁻¹) OM content
(Table 2, Eq. 3b.). Equations 3 a, b were built on the basis
of a 70-point dataset including a long-term contamination
due to sludge inputs or industrial activities deposition. For
Eq. 3a (Table 2), a maximal total soil Cu concentration
around 3000 mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu was achieved, whereas Eq. 3c
was based on a dataset with Cu contamination from 7 to
1000 mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu. Total soil Cu concentrations were
measured with acid micro-wave digestion providing values
close to aqua regia extraction, whereas available Cu values
came from 0.01 M CaCl₂ extractions (Eq. 3 a, b) or water
extractions (3c). Moreover, all the variables of the equations
are available in the LUCAS database we intend to use. We
therefore selected Eq. 3b that fitted more data points to cal-
culate the available Cu at the European scale.

Selection of the empirical equation to build
the bio-available Cu map

Considering that bio-available Cu can be approximated by
the content of free Cu in solution, we gathered the equa-
tions predicting pCu (= – log₁₀[Cu²⁺]) from literature which
are reported in Table 3. We took into account an impor-
tant parameter when comparing the equations, specified
in Table 1: the fact that bio-available Cu is experimentally
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Table 1** Sources of transfer functions, number of citations on 29.07.2021, measured variables, extraction procedure, and no. of equation (for correspondence with Tables 2 and 3) collected from the selected papers. Cu-ISE=copper ion-selective electrode, DPASV=differential pulse anodic stripping voltammetry</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>DOI</th><th>Authors</th><th>Year of publication</th><th>Times cited</th><th>Yearly citation rate</th><th>"Total" Cu measurement</th><th>Solution extraction</th><th>Free Cu estimation</th><th>Response variable</th><th>No. of equation in the next tables</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>10.18174/njas.v28i3.17030</td><td>Lexmond et al</td><td>1980</td><td>114</td><td>2.8</td><td>HNO<sub>3</sub>, HClO<sub>4</sub>, and H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub> in a ratio of 40:4:1</td><td>0.01 M CaCl<sub>2</sub></td><td>Resine extraction</td><td>pCu</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>10.1111/j.1365-2389.1997.tb00554.x</td><td>McBride et al</td><td>1997</td><td>882</td><td>36.8</td><td>Nitric acid microwave digestion and H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub>-HNO<sub>3</sub> (1:1 by volume), completing digestion with a few drops of HCIO</td><td>Water extract and 0.01 M CaCl<sub>2</sub></td><td>Cu-ISE</td><td>pCu; Cu solution</td><td>3a-e</td></tr><tr><td>10.1023/A:1.018,312,109,677</td><td>Sauvé et al</td><td>1997</td><td>383</td><td>16</td><td>HNO<sub>3</sub> microwave</td><td>0.01 M CaCl<sub>2</sub></td><td>Cu-ISE</td><td>pCu</td><td>5a, 5b</td></tr><tr><td>10.1021/es9907764</td><td>Sauvé et al</td><td>2000</td><td>1279</td><td>60.9</td><td>Review of "total"</td><td>Water displacement, lysimeter, and water or neutral salt extractions</td><td>Cu-ISE</td><td>Cu solution</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>10.1021/es0000910</td><td>Vulkan et al</td><td>2000</td><td>180</td><td>8.6</td><td>Aqua regia</td><td>Soil pore water</td><td>Cu-ISE</td><td>pCu</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>10.1016/S0269-7491(03)00058-7</td><td>Tipping et al</td><td>2003</td><td>405</td><td>22.5</td><td>Nitric and per-chloric acids, followed by leaching of the residues with 5 mol l<sup>-1</sup> HCl, and analysis by ICP-AES</td><td>2% HNO<sub>3</sub></td><td>WHAM</td><td>pCu</td><td>14a-b</td></tr><tr><td>10.1021/es030155h</td><td>Lofts et al</td><td>2004</td><td>219</td><td>12.8</td><td>EDTA</td><td>0.02 M CaCl<sub>2</sub>, + data from Tipping 2003, Sauvé 1997</td><td>CU-ISE and WHAM</td><td>pCu</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Alterra Report 305, May 2004 http://edepot.wur.nl/16988</td><td>Römkens et al</td><td>2004</td><td>66</td><td>3.8</td><td>0.43 HNO<sub>3</sub></td><td>0.05 mol L Ca-EDTA</td><td>CHARON model</td><td>Cu solution; pCu</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10.1016/S1001-0742(06)60,016-8</td><td>Luo et al</td><td>2006</td><td>18</td><td>1.2</td><td>HF, HClO<sub>4</sub> and HNO<sub>3</sub> with a ratio of 3:1:1</td><td>0.01 KCl</td><td>Electrode (DPASV)</td><td>Cu solution; pCu</td><td>7a-b</td></tr><tr><td>10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.09.033</td><td>Luo et al</td><td>2006</td><td>84</td><td>5.6</td><td>HF, HClO<sub>4</sub> and HNO<sub>3</sub> with a ratio of 3:1:1</td><td>0.01 KCl</td><td>Electrode (DPASV)</td><td>Cu solution; pCu</td><td>8</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 1 (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>DOI</th><th>Authors</th><th>Year of publication</th><th>Times cited</th><th>Yearly citation rate</th><th>"Total" Cu measurement</th><th>Solution extraction</th><th>Free Cu estimation</th><th>Response variable</th><th>No. of equation in the next tables</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>10.1097/SS.0b013e3181b2f2f52</td><td>Unanumo et al</td><td>2009</td><td>12</td><td>0.8</td><td>Aqua regia</td><td>0.01 M CaCl<sub>2</sub></td><td>WHAM</td><td>pCu</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>10.1111/j.1365-2389.2009.01201.x</td><td>Groenenberg et al</td><td>2010</td><td>102</td><td>9.3</td><td>0.43 HNO<sub>3</sub></td><td>0.01 ou 0.02 CaCl<sub>2</sub></td><td>WHAM-and Cu-ISE for partial data</td><td>pCu</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>10.1080/09064710.2013.785586</td><td>Ivezic et al</td><td>2012</td><td>6</td><td>0.7</td><td>1:15 HNO<sub>3</sub></td><td>Water 1:10</td><td>WHAM</td><td>Cu solution</td><td>4a</td></tr><tr><td>10.1002/jpln.201400349</td><td>Mondaca et al</td><td>2015</td><td>15</td><td>2.5</td><td>Were digested in boiling nitric acid followed by perchloric acid addition</td><td>0.1 MKNO<sub>3</sub></td><td>Cu-ISE</td><td>Cu solution; pCu</td><td>9a-c</td></tr><tr><td>10.1080/09542299.2017.1404437</td><td>Li et al</td><td>2017</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>Aqua regia</td><td>Filtered pore water</td><td>Cu-ISE</td><td>Cu solution; pCu</td><td>10a-c</td></tr></tbody></table>

measured or theoretically predicted by speciation software. Ten studies were based on measurements and six on modelling. In all the resulting empirical equations, pCu is negatively correlated to total soil Cu content and positively correlated to pH and OM. This means that there are more bio-available Cu when the total soil Cu content is high and when the soil organic content is low. Interestingly, in almost all the empirical equations with pCu, the parameters associated to pH and total Cu coefficients are roughly of equal importance. On the contrary, the parameters associated to total Cu are from 4 to 40 times more important than that of pH in relationships to calculate available Cu.

McBride et al. (1997) and Tipping et al. (2003) reported the most commonly used equations to determine free Cu. Their regressions were based respectively on 70 (Table 3, Eq. 3d, 3e) and 165 samples (Table 3, Eq. 14a, 14b.) from long-term contaminated soils with a large range of contamination going up to 3000 mg. kg soil⁻¹ of Cu. It is important to note that the two studies used the same data set than that of Sauvé et al. (1997) for the Eq. 5b (Table 3). McBride et al (1997) built their regression on the 70 data of Sauvé et al. (1997) with inclusion of pH, total Cu and OM. This last parameter was excluded by Sauvé et al. (1997) in the equation they proposed (Eq. 5b) because it was shown to be strongly related to soil Cu content. Tipping et al. (2003) proposed an equation using an extension of the Sauvé's dataset adding 98 points from moorland soils (Table 3, Eq. 14b). They also provided an empirical equation restricted on the moorland soils (Table 3, Eq. 14a) which can be particularly useful for soils with high OM content; this parameter has been found to significantly impact Cu availability and equation's parameter values. Finally, we chose to use Eq. 14b from Tipping et al. (2003) since it was based on the largest dataset and the pCu data were measured and not estimated using a mechanistic model.

## Application to Europe mapping

### Selected regression and computed maps

The total Cu concentration in the LUCAS database provided by the JRC varied from 1 to 130 mg. kg soil⁻¹ of Cu with most (75%) of the values below 20 mg. kg soil⁻¹ of Cu and 99.9% below 52 mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu (Table 4; Fig. 2). With the definition of geochemical baselines as values in the range of median ± two times the average deviation (Reimann et al. 2005), we considered that 1.5% of the soils are over-concentrated with a total soil Cu content > 28 mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu, and that none are depleted. The range of risk index for total Cu was RI<sub>total</sub> [−94 to 883%]. Roughly, 25% of the grid points had RI<sub>total</sub> > 50% meaning a total soil Cu content higher than two times the median European value. Furthermore, less
<table><caption>**Table 2** Transfer functions for Cu available reviewed from literature under the form $log_{10}Cu_{solution} = a \log_{10}Cutot + b \log_{10}OM + c \log_{10}clay + d \log_{10}pH + e$. Cu is expressed in mg. kg soil⁻¹ of Cu, OM is expressed in g. kg soil⁻¹ of OM or in % of OM (specified in the row), and DOC is expressed in mg. kg⁻¹ of C and clay in %. When parameters' incertitudes were provided, they have been reported in the table</caption><thead><tr><th>Source</th><th>No</th><th>R.V</th><th>e</th><th>Log (Cu tot)</th><th>pH</th><th>Log (OM)</th><th>Log (DOC)</th><th>Log (clay)</th><th>R2</th><th>Number of data</th><th>Range Cu tot (mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu)</th><th>Range OM (g. kg⁻¹ of OM)</th><th>Range pH</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">McBride et al. (1997)</td><td>3a</td><td>Log (Cu<sub>solution</sub>) (µg. L<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>0.699</td><td>0.86</td><td>-0.11</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.87</td><td>67</td><td>14-2600</td><td>3.3-6.6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3b</td><td>Log (Cu<sub>solution</sub>) (µg. L<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>1.42</td><td>0.94</td><td>-0.1</td><td>-0.68 (g. kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.85</td><td>70</td><td>14-2600</td><td>3.3-6.6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3c</td><td>Log (Cu<sub>solution</sub>) (µg. L<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.76</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.86</td><td>31</td><td>7-1010</td><td>2.4-27.4</td><td>4.2-7.8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Ivezić et al. (2012)</td><td>4a</td><td>Log (Cu<sub>solution</sub>)</td><td>-0.24</td><td>0.80</td><td>-0.02</td><td>-0.53 (%)</td><td>0.54</td><td></td><td>0.42</td><td>74</td><td>5.7-141</td><td>1.8-20.4</td><td>4.3-8.1</td></tr><tr><td>4b</td><td>Log (Cu<sub>solution</sub>) (µg. L<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>-0.45</td><td>0.77</td><td></td><td>-0.62 (%)</td><td>0.65</td><td></td><td>0.42</td><td>74</td><td>5.7-141</td><td>1.8-20.4</td><td>4.3-8.1</td></tr><tr><td>Sauvé et al. (1997)</td><td>5a</td><td>Log (Cu<sub>solution</sub>) (µg. L<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>13.2 (±7.9)</td><td>0.32 (±0.01)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.89</td><td>66</td><td>14-3083</td><td>4.1-554.6</td><td>3.3-7.6</td></tr><tr><td>Sauvé et al. (2000a, b)</td><td>6a</td><td>Log (Cu<sub>solution</sub>)</td><td>1.37 (±0.14)</td><td>0.931 (±0.05)</td><td>-0.21 (±0.02)</td><td>-0.21<sup>a</sup> (±0.02)</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.611</td><td>353</td><td></td><td></td><td>2-9</td></tr><tr><td>Luo et al. (2006b)</td><td>7a</td><td>Log (Cu<sub>solution</sub>) (µg. L<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>1.21 (±0.45)</td><td>0.32 (±0.16)</td><td></td><td>1.08 (±0.33) (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.32</td><td>39</td><td>280-1752</td><td></td><td>5.3-7.61</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Luo et al. (2006a)</td><td>7b</td><td>Log (Cu<sub>solution</sub>) (µg. L<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>2.08 (±0.11)</td><td></td><td></td><td>1.33 (±0.32) (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.38</td><td>39</td><td>280-1752</td><td></td><td>5.3-7.61</td></tr><tr><td>8a</td><td>Log (Cu<sub>solution</sub>) (µg. L<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>2.20 (±0.11)</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.88 (±0.28) (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.205</td><td>40</td><td>280-1930</td><td>26-62</td><td>5.5-7.8</td></tr><tr><td>Mondaca et al. (2015)</td><td>9a</td><td>Log (Cu<sub>solution</sub>) (µg. L<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.5</td><td></td><td>0.73</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.36</td><td>86</td><td>56-4441</td><td>12.0-62</td><td>6.2-7.8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Li et al. (2017a, b)</td><td>9b</td><td>Log (Cu<sub>solution</sub>) (µg. L<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>-1.01</td><td>0.75</td><td></td><td>0.95</td><td></td><td></td><td>1.23</td><td>0.70</td><td>56-4441</td><td>12.0-62</td><td>6.2-7.8</td></tr><tr><td>10a</td><td>Log (Cu<sub>solution</sub>) (µmol. L<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>-2.976</td><td>0.515</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1.23</td><td>0.63</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Data expressed in percentage of C<sup>b</sup> Data expressed in mg.kg⁻¹ soil⁻¹ of Cu</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 3** Transfer functions for bio-available Cu reviewed from literature for estimation of pCu (units in brackets). pCu=a log₁₀Ctot+b log₁₀OM+c log₁₀clay+d log₁₀pH+e. R.V is for response variable and e. for intercept. Total Cu is expressed in mg·kg⁻¹ of Cu, OM in g·kg⁻¹ of OM or percentage (precision in the row), and clay in percentage</caption><thead><tr><th>Source</th><th>Eq</th><th>R.V</th><th>e</th><th>Log (Cu tot)</th><th>pH</th><th>Log (OM)</th><th>Log (clay)</th><th>R2</th><th>Number of data</th><th>Range Cu Tot (mg·kg⁻¹ of Cu)</th><th>Range OM (g·kg⁻¹ of OM)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lexmond (1980)</td><td>11</td><td>pCu (mol·L⁻¹)</td><td>5.08</td><td>-2.38</td><td>1.07<sup>a</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.989</td><td>16</td><td>10–400</td><td>16.8</td><td>3.9–6.2<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>(McBride et al. (1997))</td><td>3d</td><td>pCu (µg·L⁻¹)</td><td>1.28</td><td>-1.95</td><td>1.37</td><td>1.95 (g·kg⁻¹)</td><td></td><td>0.897</td><td>70</td><td>17–2600</td><td></td><td>3.3–6.6</td></tr><tr><td>McBride et al. (1997)</td><td>3e</td><td>pCu (µg·L⁻¹)</td><td>1.8</td><td>-1.1</td><td>1.6</td><td>1.8 (g·kg⁻¹)</td><td></td><td>0.91</td><td>10</td><td>6–1440</td><td>15–395</td><td>4.5–7.2</td></tr><tr><td>Sauvé et al. (1997)</td><td>5b</td><td>pCu (µg·L⁻¹)</td><td>3.42 (±0.5)</td><td>-1.7 (±0.12)</td><td>1.4 (±0.08)</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.848</td><td>66</td><td>14–3083</td><td>4.1–554.6</td><td>3.3–7.6</td></tr><tr><td>Unamuno et al. (2009)</td><td>12a</td><td>Log (Cu<sup>2+</sup> (mg·kg⁻¹))</td><td>-2.1</td><td></td><td>0.085</td><td></td><td>0.005</td><td>29</td><td>18–10,389</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unamuno et al. (2009)</td><td>12b</td><td>Log (Cu<sup>2+</sup> (mg·kg⁻¹))</td><td>-2.079</td><td>0.593</td><td>-0.053</td><td></td><td>0.73</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unamuno et al. (2009)</td><td>12c</td><td>Log (Cu<sup>2+</sup> (mg·kg⁻¹))</td><td>-2.259</td><td>0.594</td><td>-0.058</td><td>0.09 (g·kg⁻¹)</td><td>0.732</td><td>29</td><td>18–10,389</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Vulkan et al. (2000)</td><td>13a</td><td>pCu (µg·L⁻¹)</td><td>-0.53</td><td>-1.47</td><td>1.79</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.89</td><td>22</td><td>19.4–8645</td><td>98–698</td><td>5.5–8</td></tr><tr><td>Tipping et al. (2003)</td><td>14a</td><td>pCu (µg·kg⁻¹)</td><td>-1.34</td><td>-0.54 (µmol·g⁻¹)</td><td>1.15</td><td>0.40 (%)</td><td></td><td>0.94</td><td>98</td><td></td><td>100–1000</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tipping et al. (2003)</td><td>14b</td><td>pCu (µg·kg⁻¹)</td><td>-5.35</td><td>-1.09 (µmol·g⁻¹)</td><td>1.17</td><td>0.52 (%)</td><td></td><td>0.87</td><td>165</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lofts et al. (2004)</td><td>15</td><td>pCu (nM)</td><td>-4.99</td><td>-0.93</td><td>1.26</td><td>0.63(%)</td><td></td><td>0.9</td><td>151</td><td>0.96–637</td><td>0.41–97.8</td><td>3.35–8.27</td></tr><tr><td>Luo et al. (2006b)</td><td>7b</td><td>pCu (µg·L⁻¹) (±0.96)</td><td>-2.24</td><td></td><td>1.47 (±0.14)</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.76</td><td>39</td><td>280–1752</td><td></td><td>5.3–7.61</td></tr><tr><td>Groenenberg et al. (2010)</td><td>16</td><td>pCu (mol·L⁻¹)</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.81</td><td>-1</td><td>-0.89 (%)</td><td>0.83</td><td>216</td><td>0.6–326</td><td>2–97.8</td><td></td><td>3.3–8.3</td></tr><tr><td>Mondaca et al. (2015)</td><td></td><td>pCu (µg·L⁻¹)</td><td>5.54</td><td>-0.74</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.75(%)</td><td></td><td>0.58</td><td>86</td><td>56–4441</td><td>12.0–62</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Li et al. (2017a, b)</td><td>10b</td><td>pCu (mol·L⁻¹)</td><td>-4.303</td><td>-1.639</td><td>1.171</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.65</td><td>34</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Li et al. (2017a, b)</td><td>10c</td><td>pCu (mol·L⁻¹)</td><td>-0.783</td><td>-1.6 log(Cu solution, µg·L⁻¹)</td><td>1.3 log(Cu solution, µg·L⁻¹)</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.65</td><td>34</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<footnote><sup>a</sup>pH in the resin extraction</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>pH in soil solution determined by CaCl₂</footnote>
than 10% of the grid points had $RI_{total} > 100\%$ and around 10% of the grid points had $RI_{total} < -50\%$ (suppl table 2).

Based on the choice of transfer functions and the data provided by the JRC, we calculated and edited two different maps at the European union scale: one of the available Cu based on the McBride et al (1997) estimation (eq. n° 3b) to derive available Cu in solution (Fig. 3) and one of the bio-available Cu based on the Tipping et al. (2003) regression to derive pCu (eq n°14b) (Fig. 4).

Due to the lack of Corga measurements in mountain soils, there is part of the European territory without estimation of (bio-)available Cu. Estimation of available Cu varied from 0.2 to 45 µg. L⁻¹ of Cu with 75% of the values below 5.6 µg. L⁻¹ of Cu and 99% below 15 µg. L⁻¹ of Cu (Table 4). With the definition of geochemical baselines as values in the range of median ± two times the average deviation (Reimann et al. 2005), 10% of the soils are considered as over-concentrated with available Cu > 8.5 µg. L⁻¹ of Cu and none are considered as depleted.

Bio-available Cu varies from $1.79 \times 10^{-9}$ to 0.002 mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu with 75% of the values below 2.80 $10^{-5}$ mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu and 99% below $1.80 \times 10^{-4}$ mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu (Table 4). 1.87% of the grid points have bio-available Cu defined as below the geochemical baseline and 0.01% above.

An area of high concentration for one form of Cu is not systematically highly concentrated if we considered another Cu form. For instance, the region with higher bio-available Cu (pCu < -0.4, 95% decile, in North West Spain or Austria) have total Cu ranging from 2.2 (<1% decile) to 90 mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu soil (99% decile) and available Cu from 0.6 (1% decile) to 35.6 µg. L⁻¹ of Cu (>99% decile) (suppl. table 1). In this example, high bio-available Cu is linked to low total Cu or low available Cu, highlighting that the three proxies do not necessarily follow the same pattern.

## Spatialization of available Cu risks and comparison of risk index with the total Cu map

The range of variations compared to the median values is similar between total Cu and available Cu (suppl. Table 2 and 3). For available Cu, the range of $RI_{available Cu}$ is [-94 to 1241%]. Roughly, 30% of the grid points had $RI_{available Cu} > 50\%$, 10% had $RI_{available Cu} > 150\%$, and 20% had $RI_{available Cu} < -50\%$ (suppl table 3). Total Cu and available Cu show similar pattern of highest/lowest concentrations (suppl. Figure 4 and 5). Highest concentrations are mostly found in Eastern Europe, South of Spain, Portugal, parts of West France, and of England, but there are also some small areas in North West of Norway and South of Sweden (Figs. 2 and 3).

The comparison between $RI_{available Cu}$ and $RI_{total}$ is shown in Fig. 5. This map highlights important differences in risk consideration. Only 6.0% of the grid points fitted with

<table><caption>Table 4 Deciles of concentration for total soil Cu contents (mg. kg<sup>-1</sup> of Cu), Cu in solution (µg. L<sup>-1</sup> of Cu), and free Cu (mg. kg<sup>-1</sup> of Cu), also expressed as pCu (–log(freeCu))</caption><thead><tr><th>decile</th><th>0.00</th><th>0.01</th><th>0.05</th><th>0.10</th><th>0.15</th><th>0.20</th><th>0.25</th><th>0.40</th><th>0.50</th><th>0.60</th><th>0.70</th><th>0.75</th><th>0.8</th><th>0.90</th><th>0.95</th><th>0.99</th><th>1.00</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>total Cu</th><td>0.81</td><td>3.44</td><td>5.03</td><td>6.25</td><td>7.23</td><td>8.08</td><td>8.89</td><td>11.36</td><td>13.21</td><td>15.35</td><td>17.94</td><td>19.56</td><td>21.65</td><td>28.38</td><td>36.8</td><td>28.38</td><td>129.95</td></tr><tr><th>Cu solution</th><td>0.20</td><td>0.68</td><td>1.01</td><td>1.26</td><td>1.45</td><td>1.63</td><td>1.83</td><td>2.63</td><td>3.36</td><td>4.17</td><td>5.08</td><td>5.64</td><td>6.33</td><td>8.49</td><td>10.71</td><td>15.60</td><td>45.05</td></tr><tr><th>pCu</th><td>-2.01</td><td>-0.78</td><td>-0.45</td><td>-0.28</td><td>-0.15</td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.78</td><td>1.07</td><td>1.38</td><td>1.56</td><td>1.77</td><td>2.25</td><td>2.58</td><td>3.14</td><td>4.02</td></tr><tr><th>free Cu</th><td>9.48 E-05</td><td>0.001</td><td>0.003</td><td>0.006</td><td>0.010</td><td>0.017</td><td>0.028</td><td>0.085</td><td>0.165</td><td>0.324</td><td>0.636</td><td>0.845</td><td>1.095</td><td>1.892</td><td>2.823</td><td>5.965</td><td>101.771</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** European map of total Cu in soils (mg.kg soil⁻¹ of Cu) after conversion at 0.01°, using the data from the JRC, extracted from https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/copper-distribution-topsoils (Ballabio et al. 2018)</figcaption></figure>

situation 1 as described in the material and method section, indicating that the risk assessment based on total Cu may be overestimated compared to the risk assessment based on available Cu. Indeed, we have $RI_{total} \gg RI_{available Cu}$ for 5.3% of the grid points (case 1A) and opposite signs with positive $RI_{total Cu}$ for 0.7% of the grid points (case 1B). This was mainly assessed for Ireland, North West of Norway, and South of Finland and for isolated points in Germany. More grid points (19.6%) fitted the situation 2, indicating that risk assessment based on total Cu is underestimated compared to risk assessment based on available Cu. Indeed, we have $RI_{total} \ll RI_{available Cu}$ for 10.7% of the grid points (case 2A) and $RI_{total Cu} < 0$, but $RI_{available Cu} > 0$ for 8.9% of the grid points (case 2B). These situations mostly occurred in central Spain, central France and North East Germany, south Spain, Italy, and central East Europe. Comparable RI for total and for available Cu (see situation 3 in “Risk assessment”) were mostly found in Scandinavia, Brittany (France), Germany, and central Italy. As a consequence, 25.6% of the grid points present discrepancies when risk assessment is based on total Cu or based on available Cu.

## Spatialization of bio-available Cu risks and comparison of risk index with the total Cu map

The computed map of bio-available Cu expressed as pCu is given in Fig. 4. This map differs from the map of total Cu (Fig. 2) and that of available Cu (Fig. 3) with hotspots in

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** European map of available Cu (taken Cu contents in soil solution as a proxy in µg. L⁻¹ of Cu) at 0.01° estimated using the empirical equation of McBride et al (1997) (Eq. 3b, Table 2) and the map of total Cu (Fig. 1) with pH and Corga provided by the JRC. Vertical color scale is for available Cu concentrations (µg. L⁻¹ of Cu)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** European map of bio-available Cu (taken free Cu contents in soil solution as a proxy expressed in term of pCu) at 0.01° based on Tipping et al. (2003) empirical equation (Eq. 14b, Table 3) and the map of total Cu, and with pH and Corga provided by the JRC. Vertical scale is for bio-available Cu concentration expressed in $pCu = -\log[Cu^{2+}]$</figcaption></figure>
Galicia (North West of Spain), parts of West England, and Roma region but no other areas in Italy. Germany and West ex former Union present high bio-available Cu concentrations despite relatively low total Cu (Figs. 2 and 4). High bio-available Cu contents observed in West Iberian, Germany, and South Scandinavia coincide with areas of low pH and emphasize the strong dependency of bio-available Cu to pH. Indeed, because pH is high in the Adriatic coast of Italy and Lombardy, there are low bio-available Cu content despite relatively high soil total Cu content (Figs. 2 and 4; suppl. Figure 2). The range of variations in bio-available Cu are largest than the variations in total or in available Cu with RI<sub>bio-available Cu</sub> varying from [−99.9 to 61,679%]. Moreover, numerous grid-points are far from the median. Indeed, RI<sub>bio-available Cu</sub> was <−58% for 40% of the grid points and RI<sub>bio-available Cu</sub> > 1000% for more than 10% of the grid points. For 1% of the grid points, mostly in West Iberia, RI<sub>bio-available Cu</sub> was > 3520% (suppl table 4). Areas of RI<sub>bio-available Cu</sub> are much narrowed than those of RI<sub>available Cu</sub>, so that central and East Spain, centre West of France, and North-East coast of Italy would be under- rather than over-concentrated in bio-available Cu. Besides, large parts of Scandinavia have high levels of bio-available Cu (suppl Fig. 4).

The comparison of RI<sub>bio-available Cu</sub> with RI<sub>total</sub> in Fig. 6 shows important differences in risk consideration. 28.9% of the grid points fitted with situation 1, indicating that the risk assessment based on total Cu may be overestimated compared to the risk assessment based on bio-available Cu. Almost all of this 28.9% of the grid-points have RI<sub>total Cu</sub} > 0 but RI<sub>bio- available Cu</sub} < 0 (case 1A in “Risk assessment”). On

the contrary, 39.5% of the grid points fitted with case 2 indi-
cating that the risk assessment based on total Cu may be
underestimated compared to the risk assessment based on
bio-available Cu. In details, 34.3% of the grid points have
RI<sub>total Cu</sub> < 0 but RI<sub>available Cu</sub> > 0 (case 2A in "Risk assess-
ment") and 5.2% RI<sub>total</sub> ≪ RI<sub>available Cu</sub> (case 2B). These situ-
ations mostly occur in Scandinavia, West Iberian Peninsula,
and North of Central Europe. Comparable RI for total and
for bio-available Cu (situation 3 in "Risk assessment") were
mostly found in central Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, or
Slovakia. Therefore, 68.4% of the grid points present dis-
crepancies when risk assessment is based on total Cu instead
of bio-available Cu.

Discussion

Generic purpose of empirical equations

The present study was mostly focused on the determination
of the available Cu pool (assimilated to the Cu content in
solution) and of the bio-available Cu pool (assimilated to the
free Cu content in solution). We showed that the collected
empirical equations were defined on measurements based
on different extractions procedures for available Cu. Besides
site-specific properties, the differences in experimental pro-
cedures can explain the differences in fitted coefficients.
There is, however, a good agreement between studies in their
selection of variables considering pH, total soil Cu, soil OM,
DOC, or clay as key variables to predict (bio-)available Cu.
In fact, pH was found to be the most important predictor

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5** Map of risk assess-
ment showing the comparison
between total and available Cu
at 0.01° based on the RI<sub>total Cu</sub>
and RI<sub>available Cu</sub> following the 5
cases defined in "Risk assess-
ment", from purple meaning an
underestimation of risk based
on total rather to available Cu to
green meaning an overestima-
tion of risk based on total rather
than to available Cu</figcaption></figure>
with 24 empirical equations involving all the forms of Cu (dissolved or free) using pH as a predictor followed by OM and total Cu, whereas CEC or clay were more rarely found as predictors of interest. The importance of pH in cation partitioning is well recognized (Buchter et al. 1989; Fleming and Trevors 1989; Sauvé et al. 2000a) and the effect of pH can be explained with a semi mechanistic approach which assumes that free cation such as Cu²⁺ and H⁺ compete for adsorption on carbonates or OM (Basta et al. 1993; Harter and Naidu 1995; McBride et al. 1997; Bradl 2004). The relative weight of OM, pH or total Cu in empirical equations were however different between equations for available Cu or for bio-available Cu (Tables 2 and 3). Indeed, the log of available Cu increases of roughly 1 unit per unit of increase in total Cu or per 5 units of decrease in pH, while bio-available Cu (pCu) decreases of roughly 1 unit per unit of increase in log of total Cu or per unit of decrease in pH. Thus, due to the low pH in North Spain, Norway, Germany and West England, bio-available Cu is particularly high (i.e. with low pCu values) in these regions despite low total Cu content (around 10 mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu).

Our results are consistent with the competition between H⁺ and Cu²⁺ for sorption onto soil OM only in the case of available Cu, but for sorption onto both soil OM and DOC in the case of bio-available Cu. However, cation availability cannot be limited to a first order relationship of binding with organic matter because the decrease in available Cu in solution with the increase in pH involves different processes. For instance, above pH 7.7, most of Cu in solution is expected to be found as Cu(OH)₂ and is about to precipitate (Ma et al. 2006b); on the other hand, studies found that between

pH=4.5 and 7.7, Cu would be retained by ferric hydroxide coated sands (Al-Sewailem et al. 1999). The aim of the empirical equations we collected here was to provide generic equations valid over a wide range of parameters for application at a large scale (Cavallaro and McBride 1978) despite these different processes. Thus, apart from complete specification models which require numerous parameters including the nature of the reactive dissolved organic matter, some equations as those provided by Römkens et al. (2004) complete the classical parameters with Fe or Al oxides content. In their study the improvement is however limited (r² from 0.65 to 0.66 when adding Fe and Al oxides) which suggests punctual outliers rather than generic predictors. On the contrary, the good fits of new coefficients with the empirical equations based on a restricted number of predictors (pH, total Cu, soil OM) selected by other studies (Lofts et al. 2004) confirm their genericity consistent with an extrapolation for upscaling to Europe maps. In order to validate our estimations, we looked for studies using local Cu content independent from the data set we used to calibrate the empirical equations. For example, Buccolieri et al. (2010) measured both total Cu and available Cu (as a DTPA-extract) in several sites in South Italy, and found in mean, respectively, 70 mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu (from 4.5 to 280 mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu) and 5 mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu (from 0.38 to 25 mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu). From the JRC maps, we can extract for this region a mean of total soil Cu value around 36 mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu (values from 12 to 64 mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu) and our estimation of available Cu with the empirical relationship was consistent with the experimental value of Buccolieri et al. (2010), with a mean value of 11 mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu (values from 3 to 21 mg. kg⁻¹ of Cu).

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6** Map of risk assessment showing the comparison between the RI total Cu and RI bio-available Cu following the 5 cases defined in "Risk assessment", from purple meaning an underestimation of risk based on total rather to bio-available Cu to green meaning an overestimation of risk based on total rather than to bio-available Cu</figcaption></figure>
Our results are also in line with the ratio between bio-
available Cu (the so-called fraction measured in an EDTA-
extract) and total Cu estimated by Tarvainen and Kallio
(2002) over Finland who estimated that in mean bio-avail-
able Cu account for 7.7% of total Cu. Based on JRC map
and our estimation of bio-available Cu, our mean ratio of
bio-available over total Cu is 15% with 50% between 0.07
and 13% of total Cu being bio-available.

What is the usefulness of using Cu in solution or free
Cu to characterize risk assessment?

Our results show a large variability in Europe considering
all the forms of Cu. For both available and bio-available Cu,
we identified patterns of high concentrations at the regional
scale. However, in both cases the 1% points that are more
concentrated were isolated rather than regionally located,
suggesting hot spots. For available Cu, these most concen-
trated grid points were mostly in North Italy and South East
of France but we could not precisely delimitate an area of
concern. For bio-available Cu these local hot spots were
rather in Austria, North Spain, and South-West Finland. The
total Cu survey performed by the JRC (Ballabio et al. 2018)
identified that Nomenclature of Territorial Units 2 (NUTS
2, regional scale) was one of the most determinant factor to
explain total Cu concentration at the European scale. Thus,
wine producing regions have globally high Cu concentration
because of the use of “bouillie Bordelaise” for vineyards,
but environmental guidelines of each local administration
also limit total Cu concentration. In our study, we found that
co-factors like soil OM and pH largely affect Cu availability
even at a large scale, and that pH was in equal importance
than total Cu to explain bio-available Cu variations. In addi-
tion, areas like Scandinavia with moderate total Cu but low
pH exhibit high bio-available Cu values so that the associ-
ated risk is higher with this last proxy.

Besides, with the assumption that Cu in solution could
be exported through runoff to downstream ecosystem, the
amount of rainfall would be of major importance to con-
sider risk at both local and regional scales (Lefrancq et al.
2014; Xu et al. 2014). Most of the areas with high concen-
trations of available or bio-available Cu are located around
the Mediterranean Sea, where summer are usually dry with
intense thunderstorms and cold and wet winters. Climatic
scenario forecast a global decrease in precipitation in these
regions, but also that rainfall events will be more intense
(Christensen and Christensen 2003; Giorgi and Lionello
2008). Thus, if the average export could decrease with a
decrease in rainfall, flushes of higher intensities coupled
with erosion could arise (Imfeld et al. 2020; van der Knijff
et al. 2000). Thus, a new question we may answer is the
availability of Cu in the retention ponds where concentra-
tions will increase due to upstream exports. In parallel, we

found that bio-available Cu was particularly high in Por-
tugal and Scandinavia where climatic prevision forecasts
particularly a high temperature rise, drought for Portugal
and higher rainfall patterns for Scandinavia (Christensen and
Christensen 2003). These modifications in climate may thus
affect plants and soil micro-organisms to the Cu stress and
affect their response to soil Cu (J. Li et al. 2017a, b; Tobor-
Kaplon et al. 2006). Here, we highlighted that contamina-
tion assessment based on total Cu differs from the assess-
ment based on (bio-)available Cu, even at the regional scale.
Thus, it might help to take into account the expected climate
change to gain in robustness when assessing the evolution
of soil contamination.

Are contaminated soils at equilibrium?

The equations we reviewed here were mostly constructed
on data from long-term contaminated soils where Cu spe-
cies were supposed to be in field at equilibrium. However,
in this study, we used total Cu data acquired during field
campaigns without precision on the temporality of the Cu
inputs nor on the delay after Cu applications. However, sev-
eral studies show that extractability of Cu decreases with
time after addition of Cu due to a so-called “ageing process”
(Oorts et al. 2006a; Tom-Petersen et al. 2004). To take into
account the time after contamination in Cu solubilization,
kinetic descriptions of Cu availability have emerged (Ma
et al. 2006a, b; Zeng et al. 2017). These studies showed
that not only the final distribution of Cu but also the kinet-
ics of availability also depend on soil factors. Two different
kinetics were identified. One concerns a rapid diffusion of
Cu (from minutes to month) mostly controlled by diffusion
processes and associated nucleation — precipitation —
which will rather depend on soil structure (Ma et al. 2006a;
Zeng et al. 2017). The second concerns a slow diffusion of
Cu (months to decades) also controlled by the temperature,
the pH and soil OM with a faster decrease in availability
(e.g. less Cu in soil solution) at higher pH or higher OM
(Ma et al. 2006b; Zeng et al. 2017). The soils with low OM
content or low pH are hence not only the more prone to
exhibit the highest (bio-)available Cu, but they are also the
more prone to exhibit it longer (months rather than days or
week) after contamination. Thus, in the case of regular Cu
input the (bio-)available Cu amount might be higher than
estimated in the present study due to non-equilibrium after
contamination.

Conclusion

In this study, we reviewed the empirical equations to esti-
mate available and bio-available Cu from soil total Cu and
pedological factors currently measured. On the basis of 29

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
equations, our results emphasize the dependence of avail-
able Cu to pH but also that bio-available Cu is much more
dependent on pH than available Cu. The application of the
equations at the European scale highlighted similarities as
well as differences between areas of risks regarding three
different metrics. Areas with a high level of total Cu and
high risks of available Cu were more similar than those with
bio-available Cu. Indeed, around 74% of the grid points
exhibited comparable risks in term of either total or available
Cu against 31.5% of the grid points exhibiting comparable
risks in term of either total or bio-available Cu. Besides, at
the European scale, some regions that classified without risk
regarding their total Cu concentration may in turn be con-
sidered at risk considering available Cu or considering bio-
available Cu. Our computational results show that about 20%
of the grid points may be concerned by an underestimation
of risk regarding total Cu against available Cu and 39% may
be concerned by an underestimation of risk regarding total
Cu against bio-available Cu. These areas are non-negligible
and underlined the need to estimate local risks beyond the
total Cu soil content, with regard to a specific effect in our
case biological availability or environmental availability.

**Supplementary Information** The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23046-0.

**Acknowledgements** The author thanks the LabeX BASC for its fund-
ing through the CONNEXION project. Laura Sereni also thanks the
ENS for her grant.

**Author contribution** The authors contributed as follows: Laura Sereni: methodology, formal analysis, data processing, writing original draft. Bertrand Guenet: methodology, conceptualization, writing — review and editing, supervision. Isabelle Lamy: methodology, conceptualiza- tion, writing — review and editing, supervision project administration, funding acquisition.

**Funding** The study was funded by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche with the LabEx BASC (ANR-11-LABX-0034) and the CONNEXION project.

**Data availability** The datasets generated and analyzed during the cur-
rent study are available in the DataINRAe repository, https://data.inrae.
fr/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=10.15454/OWI8JR

Declarations

**Ethical approval** This paper has no ethical issue (not working on ani-
mal or human issues).

**Consent to participate** All authors consent to participate to this sci-
entific publication done with the results of the study performed within
the framework of the CONNEXION project funded by the Agence
National de la Recherche.

**Consent for publication** All of the authors have read and approved the
paper for publication. We confirmed that it has not been published pre-
viously nor is it being considered by any other peer-reviewed journal.

**Competing interests** The authors declare no competing interests.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptap-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

References

AI-Sewailem MS, Khaled EM, Mashhady AS (1999) Retention of copper by desert sands coated with ferric hydroxides. Geoderma. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(98)00082-2

Azimi S, Cambier P, Lecuyer I, Thevenot D (2004) Heavy metal determination in atmospheric deposition and other fluxes in northern France agrosystems. Water Air Soil Pollut 157:295-313. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:WATE.0000038903.25700.5a

Ballabio C, Panagos P, Monatanarella L (2016) Mapping topsoil physi-
cal properties at European scale using the LUCAS database. Geo-
derma. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.07.006

Ballabio C, Panagos P, Lugato E, Huang JH, Orgiazzi A, Jones A, Fernández-Ugalde O, Borrelli P, Montanarella L (2018) Copper distribution in European topsoils: an assessment based on LUCAS soil survey. Sci Total Environ 636:282-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.268

Ballabio C, Lugato E, Fernández-Ugalde O, Orgiazzi A, Jones A, Borrelli P, Montanarella L, Panagos P (2019) Mapping LUCAS topsoil chemical properties at European scale using Gaussian process regression. Geoderma. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.113912

Basta NT, Pantone DJ, Tabatabai MA (1993) Path analysis of heavy metal adsorption by soil. Agron J. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1993.00021962008500050018x

Bradl HB (2004) Adsorption of heavy metal ions on soils and soils constituents. J Colloid Interface Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2004.04.005

Buccolieri A, Buccolieri G, Dell'Atti A, Strisciullo G, Gagliano-Candela R (2010) Monitoring of total and bioavailable heavy metals concentration in agricultural soils. Environ Monit Assess 168:547-560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-009-1133-0

Buchter B, Davidoff B, Amacher MC, Hinz C, Iskandar IK, Selim HM (1989) Correlation of Freundlich Kd and n retention parameters with soils and elements. Soil Sci. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-198911000-00008

Carlon, C (2007) Derivation methods of soil screening values in
europe. a review and evaluation of national procedures towards
harmonisation, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. EUR
22805_EN

Cavallaro N, McBride MB (1978) Copper and cadmium adsorption
characteristics of selected acid and calcareous soils. Soil Sci Soc
Am J 42:550. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1978.0361599500
4200040003x

Christensen JH, Christensen OB (2003) Severe summertime flooding in Europe. Nature 421:805-806. https://doi.org/10.1038/421805a

de Brogniez D, Ballabio C, Stevens A, Jones RJA, Montanarella L, van Wesemael B (2015) A map of the topsoil organic carbon content of Europe generated by a generalized additive model. Eur J Soil Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12193
Degryse F, Smolders E, Parker DR (2009) Partitioning of metals (Cd Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn) in soils: concepts, methodologies, prediction and applications — a review. Eur J Soil Sci 60:590–612. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2009.01142.x

Flemming CA, Trevors JT (1989) Copper toxicity and chemistry in the environment: a review. Water Air Soil Pollut 44:143–158. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF00228784

Garcia C, Moreno JL, Hernandez T, Bastida F (2017) Soils in arid and semiarid environments: the importance of organic carbon and microbial populations. Facing the future. Biol Arid Soils 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110419047-002

Giorgi F, Lionello P (2008) Climate change projections for the Mediterranean region. Glob Planet Change 63:90–104. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2007.09.005

Groenenberg JE, Römkens PFAM, Comans RNJ, Luster J, Pampura T, Shotbolt L, Tipping E, De Vries W (2010) Transfer functions for solid-solution partitioning of cadmium, copper, nickel, lead and zinc in soils: Derivation of relationships for free metal ion activities and validation with independent data. Eur J Soil Sci 61:58–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2009.01201.x

Harter RD, Naidu R (1995) Role of Metal-Organic complexation in metal sorption by Soils. Adv Agron. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0065-2113(08)60541-6

Hong S, Candelone JP, Soutif M, Boutron CF (1996) A reconstruction of changes in copper production and copper emissions to the atmosphere during the past 7000 years. Sci Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(96)05171-6

Imfeld G, Meite F, Wiegert C, Guyot B, Masbou J, Payraveau S (2020) Do rainfall characteristics affect the export of copper, zinc and synthetic pesticides in surface runoff from headwater catchments? Sci Total Environ 741:140437. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140437

ISO (2006) Soil quality- Extraction of trace elements soluble in aqua regia. 61010–1 © Iec2001 2006, 13.

Ivezić V, Almås ÅR, Singh BR (2012) Predicting the solubility of Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn in uncontaminated Croatian soils under different land uses by applying established regression models. Geoderma 170:89–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma. 2011.11.024

Jensen DL, Ledin A, Christensen TH (1999) Speciation of heavy metals in landfill-leachate polluted groundwater. Water Res 33:2642– 2650. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00486-2

Kinniburgh DG, Milne CJ, Benedetti MF, Pinheiro JP, Filius J, Koopal LK, Van Riemsdijk WH (1996) Metal ion binding by humic acid: application of the NICA-Donnan model. Environ Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1021/es950695h

Kördel W, Bernhardt C, Derz K, Hund-Rinke K, Harmsen J, Peijnenburg W, Comans R, Terytze K (2013) Incorporating availability/ bioavailability in risk assessment and decision making of polluted sites, using Germany as an example. J Hazard Mater 261:854–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.05.017

Lanno R, Wells J, Conder J, Bradham K, Basta N (2004) The bio-
availability of chemicals in soil for earthworms, in: Ecotoxicol-
ogy and Environmental Safety. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.
2003.08.014

Lefrancq M, Payraveau S, García Verdú AJ, Maillard E, Millet M, Imfeld G (2014) Fungicides transport in runoff from vineyard plot and catchment: contribution of non-target areas. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:4871–4882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1866-8

Lexmond TM (1980) The effect of soil pH on copper toxicity to forage maize grown under field conditions. Netherlands J Agric Sci 28:164–184. https://doi.org/10.18174/njas.v28i3.17030

Li B, Ma Y, Yang J (2017) Is the computed speciation of copper in a wide range of Chinese soils reliable? Chem Speciat Bioavailab 29:205–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/09542299.2017.1404437

Li J, Liu YR, Cui LJ, Hu HW, Wang JT, He JZ (2017) Copper pol-
lution increases the resistance of soil archaeal community to
changes in water regime. Microb Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00248-017-0992-0

Lofts S, Spurgeon DJ, Svendsen C, Tipping E (2004) Deriving soil critical limits for Cu, Zn, Cd, and Ph: a method based on free ion concentrations. Environ Sci Technol 38:3623–3631. https://doi. org/10.1021/es030155h

Luo XS, Zhou DM, Liu XH, Wang YJ (2006) Solid/solution partitioning and speciation of heavy metals in the contaminated agricultural soils around a copper mine in eastern Nanjing city, China. J Hazard Mater 131:19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.09.033

Luo XS, Zhou DM, Wang YJ (2006) Free cupric ions in contaminated agricultural soils around a copper mine in eastern Nanjing City, China. J Environ Sci (china) 18:927–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1001-0742(06)60016-8

Ma Y, Lombi E, Nolan AL, McLaughlin MJ (2006) Short-term natural attenuation of copper in soils: effects of time, temperature, and soil characteristics. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:652–658. https:// doi.org/10.1897/04-601R.1

Ma Y, Lombi E, Oliver IW, Nolan AL, McLaughlin MJ (2006) Long-term aging of copper added to soils. Environ Sci Technol 40:6310–6317. https://doi.org/10.1021/es060306r

McBride M, Sauvé S, Hendershot W (1997) Solubility control of Cu, Zn, Cd and Pb in contaminated soils. Eur J Soil Sci 48:337–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1997.tb00554.x

Ministry of the Environment, F (2007) Threshold and guideline values for harmful substances in soil. Gov. Decree Assess. Soil Contam. Remediat. Needs 6.

Minnich MM, McBride MB (1987) Copper activity in soil solution: I. Measurement by ion-selective electrode and Donnan dialysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1987.0361599500 5100030003x

Mondaca P, Neaman A, Sauvé S, Salgado E, Bravo M (2015) Solubility, partitioning, and activity of copper-contaminated soils in a semiarid region. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 178:452–459. https://doi. org/10.1002/jpln.201400349

Nicholson FA, Smith SR, Alloway BJ, Carlton-Smith C, Chambers BJ (2003) An inventory of heavy metals inputs to agricultural soils in England and Wales. Sci Total Environ 311:205–219. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0048-9697(03)00139-6

Oorts K, Ghesquiere U, Swinnen K, Smolders E (2006) Soil properties affecting the toxicity of CuCl2 and NiCl 2 for soil microbial processes in freshly spiked soils. Environ Toxicol Chem. https:// doi.org/10.1897/04-672R.1

Oorts K, Bronckaers H, Smolders E (2006a) Discrepancy of the micro-
bial response to elevated copper between freshly spiked and long-
term contaminated soils. Environ Toxicol Chem 845–853. https://
doi.org/10.1897/04-673R.1

Pampura T, Groenenberg JE, Rietra RPJJ (2006) Comparison of meth-
ods for copper free ion activity determination in soil solutions
of contaminated and background soils. For Snow Landsc Res
80:305–322

Parker DR, Pedler JF, Ahnstrom ZAS, Resketo M (2001) Reevaluating the free-ion activity model of trace metal toxicity toward higher plants: experimental evidence with copper and zinc. Environ Toxi- col Chem. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620200426

Pribyl DW (2010) A critical review of the conventional SOC to SOM conversion factor. Geoderma 156:75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. geoderma.2010.02.003

R Core Team (2018) R software: Version 3.5.1. R Found. Stat Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74686-7

Reimann C, Filzmoser P, Garrett RG (2005) Background and thresh-
old: critical comparison of methods of determination. Sci Total
Environ 346:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.11.023
Römkens PFAM, Groenenberg JE, Bonten LTC, de Vries W, Bril J (2004) Derivation of partition relationships to calculate Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn solubility and activity in soil solutions. Alterra 305, 75. Available at: http://edepot.wur.nl/16988

Romkens PFAM, Bonten LTC, Rietra RPIJ (2004) Copper leaching from soils: an inventory of available data and model concepts. Alterra 1–60

Salminen R, Gregorauskiene V (2000) Considerations regarding the definition of a geochemical baseline of elements in the surficial materials in areas differing in basic geology. Appl Geochemistry. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-2927(99)00077-3

Sastre J, Sahuquillo A, Vidal M, Rauret G (2002) Determination of Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn in environmental samples: microwave-assisted total digestion versus aqua regia and nitric acid extraction. Anal Chim Acta. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(02)00307-0

Sauvé S, Hendershot W, Allen HE (2000) Solid-solution partitioning of metals in contaminated soils: dependence on pH, total metal burden, and organic matter. Environ Sci Technol 34:1125–1131. https://doi.org/10.1021/es9907764

Sauvé S, Hendershot W, Herbert EA (2000b) Solid-solution partitioning of metals in contaminated soils: dependence on pH, total metal burden, and organic matter. Am Chem Soc 1125–1131. https://doi.org/10.1021/es9907764

Schulzweida U (2017) CDO User's Guide. Guide 1–206.

Sébastien Sauvé, Murray MB, Wendell AN, William HH (1997) Copper solubility and speciation of in situ contaminated soils: effects of copper level, pH and organic matter. Water Air Soil Pollut 100:133–149

Shabbir Z, Sardar A, Shabbir A, Abbas G, Shamshad S, Khalid S, Natasha, Murtaza G, Dumat C, Shahid M (2020) Copper uptake, essentiality, toxicity, detoxification and risk assessment in soil-plant environment. Chemosphere 259:127436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127436

Smolders E, Oorts K, Van Sprang P, Schoeters I, Janssen CR, McGrath SP, McLaughlin MJ (2009) Toxicity of trace metals in soil as affected by soil type and aging after contamination: using calibrated bioavailability models to set ecological soil standards. Environ Toxicol Chem. https://doi.org/10.1897/08-592.1

Steven B (2017) An introduction to arid soils and their biology. Biol Arid Soils 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110419047-001

Tarvainen T, Kallio E (2002) Baselines of certain bioavailable and total heavy metal concentrations in Finland. Appl Geochemistry 17:975–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-2927(02)00003-3

Thakali S, Allen HE, Di Toro DM, Ponizovsky AA, Rooney CP, Zhao FJ, McGrath SP, Criel P, Van Eeckhout H, Janssen CR, Oorts K, Smolders E (2006) Terrestrial biotic ligand model. 2. Application to Ni and Cu toxicities to plants, invertebrates, and microbes in soil. Environ Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1021/es061173c

Tipping E (1998) Humic ion-binding model VI: An improved description of the interactions of protons and metal ions with humic

substances. Aquat Geochemistry. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009627214459

Tipping E, Rieuwerts J, Pan G, Ashmore MR, Lofts S, Hill MTR, Farago ME, Thornton I (2003) The solid-solution partitioning of heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Cd, Pb) in upland soils of England and Wales. Environ Pollut 125:213–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(03)00058-7

Tobor-Kaplon MA, Bloem J, De Ruiter PC (2006) Functional stability of microbial communities from long-term stressed soils to additional disturbance. Environ Toxicol Chem. https://doi.org/10.1897/05-398R1.1

Tom-Petersen A, Hansen HCB, Nybroe O (2004) Time and moisture effects on total and bioavailable copper in soil water extracts. J Environ Qual. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2004.5050

Tóth G, Hermann T, Szatmári G, Pásztor L (2016) Maps of heavy metals in the soils of the European Union and proposed priority areas for detailed assessment. Sci Total Environ 565:1054–1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.115

Unamuno VIR, Meers E, Du Laing G, Tack FMG (2009) Effect of physicochemical soil characteristics on copper and lead solubility in polluted and unpolluted soils. Soil Sci 174:601–610. https://doi.org/10.1097/SS.0b013e3181bf2f52

USEPA (2007) Microwave assisted acid digestion of sediments, sludges, soils, and oils. Method 3051a. In Test methods for evaluating solid waste. US Environ Prot Agency Off Solid Waste Econ Methods Risk Anal Div 1–30. Washington, DC, USA. http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/online/3_series.htm

van der Knijff JM, Jones RJA, Montanarella L (2000) Soil erosion risk assessment in Europe. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

Vulkan R, Zhao FJ, Barbosa-Jefferson V, Preston S, Paton GI, Tipping E et al (2000) Copper speciation and impacts on bacterial biosensors in the pore water of copper-contaminated soils. Environ Sci Technol 34:5115–5121. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0000910

Weihermüller L, Siemens J, Deurer M, Knoblauch S, Rupp H, Göttlein A, Pütz T (2007) In situ soil water extraction: a review. J Environ Qual 36:1735–1748. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2007.0218

Xu J, Wei Q, Yu Y, Peng S, Yang S (2014) Leaching of heavy metals from rice fields with different irrigation management. Polish J Environ Stud 23:2279–2286

Zeng S, Li J, Wei D, Ma Y (2017) A new model integrating short- and long-term aging of copper added to soils. PLoS One 12:19–24. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182944

**Publisher's note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.