ࡱ> q`ubjbjqPqP .::( h4$=$=$=8\=PB\B(B(CCCCCC$h \[CC\[\[ CCF*zzz\[ C Cz\[zz} }CB  $=u}c4p<}w(}}v cCKzmQUkCCCzCCC\[\[\[\[:: D ld  Multiple discriminant analysis of the Drava River alluvial plain sediments Zoran Peh1 (corresponding author), Robert `ajn2, Josip Halami1 and Lidija Galovi1 Abstract: Three discriminant function models are raised and cross-compared in order to distinguish geochemical patterns characteristic for the Drava River floodplain sediments. Based on data representing total element concentrations in samples collected from alluvium (A), terrace (T), and unconsolidated bedrock (B) at the border of a floodplain, four element clusters emerged accounting for discrimination between the referred groups of sediments. The most prominent is contaminant/carbonate cluster characteristic for alluvium. The other two are: silicate cluster typical for unconsolidated geological substrate (Neogene sedimentary rocks); and naturally dispersed heavy metal cluster separating terrace from the former two groups. Models introducing depth intervals and single profiles as grouping criteria reveal identical sediment-heavy metal matrices. The second important issue of this paper is possibility of reclassification of samples originally assigned to one of the a priori defined groups of sediments, based on established geochemical pattern. The mapped geological units can be reconsidered by the post hoc assignments to a different group if geological border between alluvium and terrace or between terrace and bedrock can not be established geologically with absolute certainty. Key words: floodplain sediments, heavy metals, multiple discriminant analysis, Drava River, Slovenia, Croatia 1Z. Peh (() ( J. Halami ( L. Galovi Croatian Geological Institute, Sachsova 2, P.O. Box 268, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia E-mail:  HYPERLINK "mailto:zpeh@hgi-cgs.hr" zpeh@hgi-cgs.hr Tel.:+385 (1) 6160-753 Fax: +385 (1) 6144-718 2R. `ajn Geological Survey of Slovenia, Dimi eva 14, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail:  HYPERLINK "mailto:robert.sajn@geo-zs.si" robert.sajn@geo-zs.si 1. INTRODUCTION The modern floodplains are potential repositories for a wide range of contaminants among which heavy metals represent by far the greatest threat to human health and environment. The release of metal-rich waste into the fluvial environment often combines various anthropogenic sources such as mining operations, industrial and urban wastes, transport, agricultural activity, deforestation, and others. This impact is recorded in the vertical overbank profiles of river alluvium, sometimes with dramatic increase of heavy metal concentration, mainly in the upper part (e.g. Macklin et al. 1994, 2006; Swennen et al. 1994; Swennen et al. 1998; Swennen and Van Der Sluys 2002; Langedall and Ottesen 1998; Ciszewski 2002; Blviken et al. 2004; Pavlovic et al. 2004; Cappuyns et al. 2006), or, generally, in depth-integrated surficial overbank sediment samples or topsoil developed on floodplains (e.g. Ottesen et al. 1989; McConnel et al. 1993; dor et al. 1997; Rognerud et al. 2000; Bidovec et al. 1999; Halami et al. 2003; Romic and Romic 2003). However, in longer terms, heavy metals may be also introduced into the soil and hydrosphere by natural processes weathering, erosion and transport easily blending anthropogenic signal with a natural one and causing the pattern of metal distribution in alluvial plain sediments more difficult to assess. The problem is magnified by the fact that floodplains join together various distinct geomorphic and hydrologic features which directly influence their geochemical signature. It has long been recognized that dispersion patterns, storage and remobilization of heavy metals in the fluvial system are directly associated with processes of sediment transport (e.g. Foster and Charlesworth 1996; Macklin et al. 2006). Floods regularly rejuvenate the lowest extensive land surfaces by lateral and vertical accretion (overbank deposition) of mixed recent material. Conversely, relatively flat surfaces, or terraces, lying above the modern floodplain may escape inundation and thus (largely) preserve the geochemical signature from the time of their origin. Since these are no longer in direct relation to recent hydrological conditions (especially flood events), distinguishing between alluvium and terrace may be focused on difference between current and historic geochemical patterns which may be useful in mapping young terraces close in altitude to the modern floodplain but showing no visible scarp. This is particularly important since various studies show that, in general, variations in the heavy metal concentration across terraced floodplains are more strongly associated with terrace height than with terrace age (Lambert and Walling 19781987: Brewer and Taylor 1997). By the same token terraces can be contrasted with bedrock if boundary between floodplain and upland is difficult to trace due to unconsolidated material and poorly dissected relief which indicate the latter. In this case different geochemical signals can be expected on account of diverse nature of the geological substrate: overbank sediment filling the alluvial plain versus soil developed on unconsolidated bedrock. It must be also borne in mind that during dry times floodplain sediments, especially on higher terrace levels, are subject to various external influences including soil formation processes which can substantially alter element concentrations (Volden et al. 19961997; Rognerud et al. 2000). The general aim of this research was to find geochemical contrast between the recent and historic sedimentary material (alluvium and terrace) deposited on alluvial plain of a great river during its long fluvial history, and both against the older, Upper Miocene/Pliocene weakly consolidated sedimentary rocks (bedrock) underlying the floodplain. In this light the presented study can be viewed as a multivariate statistics variant of the geomorphological-geochemical approach to provenance analysis, based on the chemical composition of Holocene-Pleistocene fluvial sediments as the main carriers of the heavy metal load. The study draws on the premise that chemical (and physical) properties of the sediment can be used to infer its provenance although the applied method is based on indirect observation rather than direct comparison of floodplain sediments with individual potential sources as in the case of classical fingerprinting technique using multiple discriminant functions (e.g. Molinaroli and Basu 1993: Collins et al. 1997; 1998; Owens et al. 1999; Bottrill et al. 1999). This approach is deemed appropriate due to different age of floodplain sediments and the lack of precise terrace chronology. Again, it differs from the line using direct comparison of a number of well defined predictors (diagnostic properties) with defined hierarchical relationship (e.g. lithology-mineralogy-geochemistry) such as in canonical correlation analysis where each element, mineral and lithologic unit represents a family of fingerprint properties ( ovi 2003; unpublished MSc thesis). A multivariate statistical assessment of primary geochemical pattern distinguishing between a priori defined groups of lithological units ( lithology )  alluvium, terrace and bedrock  was performed preferring multiple discriminant analysis (MDA) as the most helpful mathematical tool. Additional discriminant models were constructed in order to examine the influence of depth (depth-lithology) and local variations (profile) on primary geochemical signature defined by distinctive variable clusters, especially the families of heavy metals. 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA The study area lies between 1455 and 1655 E longitude and 46129 13 and 4638 N latitude. It occupies the large portion of the Drava River drainage area spreading from lead-zinc mining and smelting region in northeastern Slovenia (Me~ica) to the mostly agricultural lowlands (Drava alluvial plain) of northern Croatia (Fig. 1). The upstream, Slovenian, part is built predominantly of igneous and metamorphic rocks (Palaeozoic) with rare occurrences of sedimentary rocks (mostly Mesozoic) (e.g Mio  and }nidar i  1977) while downstream, towards Croatia, the terrain is geologically substantially different, being composed almost solely of sedimentary rocks of the Tertiary and Quaternary age (e.g Mio  and Markovi 1998). The youngest, alluvial, sediments along the Drava River are notorious for their increased heavy metal composition which may be either naturally dispersed by Drava tributaries draining the Pb-Zn (Cu, As, Cd) mineral occurrences and deposits hosted in Triassic sedimentary rocks (mostly limestones and dolomites) and Palaeozoic igneous-metamorphic (Palaeozoic) complex, or may draw its origin from anthropogenic input. The latter case is of special concern for the study area because heavy metals are released into the Drava fluvial system for a long time being by erosion of the mine spoils, tailings and contaminated topsoil (Me~ica) or in the forms of contaminated aqueous effluents from the metal processing facilities situated in the upstream reaches of the Drava River. Diffuse inputs of airborne metal particulates from the furnace stacks (e.g., Prevalje, Ravne, Kidri evo) can also contribute to overall pollution (`ajn 2002; 2003; Vre a et al. 2001; `ajn and Gosar, 2004). 3. FIELD AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 3.1 Sampling During earlier investigations carried out for the purpose of the Basic Geochemical Maps of Slovenia and Croatia, anomalous values for Pb, Zn, As, and Cd were obtained from the chemical analysis of soil samples (topsoil A0-25) collected in the area encompassing Drava River valley and its tributary valleys (Andjelov 1993; ajn et al. 2000, 2005; Miko et al. 2001; Halami et al. 2003; 2005). In order to carry the research further for origin and distribution of anomalous elements six profiles lines in Slovenia (Dravograd  DR; Me~ica  ME, Radlje  RA; Maribor  MB; Ptuj  PT and Zlatoli je  ZL) and three in Croatia (Sra inec  SR; Belica  BE and Legrad  LE) in a downstream sequence were sampled more or less perpendicularly to the river course before the confluence with the Mura River. The tenth profile line Ormo~ (OR), placed between ZL and SR was common for both Slovenian and Croatian part and was sampled separately by each research team (Fig. 1). Sampling was carried out according to recommendations of the IGCP and FOREGS task group for the geochemical mapping (Darnley et al. 1995; Salminen et al. 1998). The total of 47 boreholes (individual profile points) of various depths was drilled along the selected profile lines providing as much as 333 samples for chemical analysis. Boreholes were located in a pre-designed scheme set across the river valley to include each terrace level on the both sides of the river bed and alluvial sediments in the middle. The peripheral boreholes were located on the bedrock. As the hand-operated drilling device could not go through gravel drilling was halted as soon as the first thick gravel layer was reached. The samples were taken at 20 cm intervals as a composite, while the maximum depth varied between 60 cm (PT) and 260 cm (DR). 3.2 Sample preparation and analysis Samples were air-dried at temperature <400C for approximately three months to prevent the loss of volatile components and then sieved to the <0.125 mm fraction and finally homogenized in agate mortar. The <0.125 mm fraction was used following some earlier investigations which have shown that high content of most elements, particularly the trace elements, is present in the fine-grained fraction (e.g. Whitney 1975; Gibbs 1977; Frstner and Whitmann 1981; Foster and Charlesworth 1996; Sutherland 1998; Singh et al. 1999; Rhoads and Cahill 1999). Also, this fraction usually contributes to more than 95% of the particles in most samples (Swennen et al. 1998). All analytical work was carried out at the ACME Analytical Laboratories in Vancouver (Canada). Samples were analyzed by inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) after total hot 4-acid (HCl-HNO3-HF-HClO4) digestion at temperature of 200(C on the set of 41 elements. The digestion was only partial for some Cr and Ba minerals and some Al, Hf, Mn, Sn, Ta and Zr oxides. The volatilization during fuming may have also resulted in some loss of As, Sb and Au. Mercury was determined with cold vapour atomic absorption spectrometry (CV-AAS) after aqua regia digestion. 3.3 Accuracy and precision Accuracy was controlled by certified geological reference materials (DST6/DS6 ACME Laboratory). For most elements analyzed in reference soil materials accuracy was found in the range of 10% of the certified values, except for Ag (25%). Precision was determined by repeated analysis of both certified reference samples and randomly selected soil samples (16 duplicated samples). The resulting coefficient of variation was, on average, approximately 5%. 4. DATA PROCESSING Univariate statistics and data transformation A suite of 27 elements including 8 major and 19 trace elements were selected as predictor variables in computing discriminant functions. Summary statistical results for the whole dataset prior to the multivariate statistical procedure are given in Table 1 (minimum, maximum, median, mean, standard deviation and skewness). Taking into account that most variables are characterized by non-normal, mostly positively skewed frequency distributions (except Al and Na which are negatively skewed), appropriate transformations were found necessary to get more symmetric distribution for most elements. As a general rule, most geochemical and environmental data do not follow normal (neither lognormal) distribution (e.g. Matschullat et al. 2000; Reimann and Filzmoser 2000; Reimann et al. 2005), which is the outcome of complex non-linear dynamics, feedbacks and thresholds resulting in outliers within investigated system (sample media such as, for example, soils, stream- or overbank sediments) represented by the particular set of variables (e.g. Hugget 1998; Phillips 1999). To stabilize their variance the usual remedy in environmental and geochemical exploration was applied in this work represented by conventional normalization procedure using log-, ln-, and sqrt-transformations, which included all elements except Al and K. Distributional characteristics of the input data were examined by the test of normality (Table 1). According to the applied Shapiro-Wilks (S-W) statistical test only two original variables exhibit normal distribution (p>0.05, marked by the asterisk). Even after the different transformation methods were used to approach the normal distribution, normalization procedure failed to improve normality of a number of elements. In the case where applied transformation produced even greater skew than original (such as with V) the data were rather left untransformed. 4.2 The Strategy of Analysis Multiple (multi-group) discrimination analysis (MDA) can be particularly useful multivariate method when applied to the data scattered within and across various spatial boundaries such as geological (lithological) units, depth intervals, or profile lines, being composed of the same suite of observed attributes. Its primary purpose is to establish the major sources of between-group differences (Dillon and Goldstein 1984; Rock, 1988) often represented, in environmental studies, by accumulation of heavy metals in various geologic (sampling) media distributed horizontally and vertically from the focal point, or line of dispersion. Data collected from a number of profile lines set across the investigated part of the Drava valley can be organized in several ways as the grouping criteria can follow different conceptions. The most obvious approach to grouping is based on the underlying (mostly Quaternary) geology as well as on the depth intervals from which the samples were collected, after which the two types of divisions (models) can be formed, namely LITHOLOGY and DEPTH. The first of such a priori groupings can be accepted as most genuine, so that basic differences between the groups can be easily inspected provided that the data variability is great enough to disclose them. It must be noted, however, that sampling procedure skipping the natural boundaries between the soil horizons may decrease the between- against within-group variability rendering the geochemical depth differences more difficult to understand. The noise can be partly reduced by combining the two divisions in such a way that newly formed groups more clearly indicate differences between the top and the deeper intervals, for example DEPTH-LITHOLOGY. This approach is introduced into analysis to dispel ambiguity between upper intervals sampled in areas further from the most possible source of pollution on the one side and deeper intervals nearer to water course exposed to recurrent flooding on the other. However, with groups thus formed their mutual relationship can not be represented meaningfully on relevant field maps since there is not enough mapping points to lay a grid. Also, the profile data are arranged in intervals rendering their representation, unless portrayed in a cross-section, largely abstract. To avoid this problem and, possibly, to focus on a narrower stand such as the single profile, the groups can be reshaped by combining single profiles (sampling points, or boreholes) with LITHOLOGY or DEPTH, or both. Thus, each profile point can be portrayed as a group of its own, its intervals representing objects (samples). By this rearrangement, the new groups can be created (PROFILE) following the adjusted grouping criterion and represented on a map via the relevant profile locations. However, being arbitrarily created, these groups can introduce a sort of (additional) artificiality into original data. In such a case interpretation must be exercised with great care since differences between larger groups, following the criteria of LITHOLOGY or DEPTH, can be easily offset by the variations within the smaller ones, localized in individual profiles. More than one MDA can be independently performed following the modes of data grouping discussed above. First and foremost, the data are arranged in such a way that sources of variation between the geochemistry of underlying lithological units (LITHOLOGY) alluvium (A), terrace (T) and bedrock (B) can be examined (3 groups). The second grouping criterion deals with differences between combination of lithological units and three depth intervals (top, middle and bottom) at which the samples were collected (DEPTH-LITHOLOGY) including 9 groups altogether which are composed of 20 cm intervals (0-20, 20-40, and 40 to the bottom). The third model is a depth-profile combination which is extended to all three lithological units and contains 47 groups of profiles (PROFILE). This last approach was designed to highlight the possible variations within the single profiles. The accuracy of the group affiliation can be later easily examined by comparison of the a priori (observed) and mathematically computed (post hoc) classification for each object. In all three cases the same set of objects (N=333) and variables (p=27) is utilized. 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of the MDA are briefly summarized in the joint table (STATISTICA, Version 6) (Table 3) comprising all three of the a priori built exploratory models (cases). Before that the overall significance of their discrimination is tested by the appropriate multivariate tests (Table 2) divulging the vanishingly low associated probabilities (p<0.000), a prerequisite to safely proceed with computing discriminant functions (DF). According to different number of groups (K) in various models the total number of DFs is K-1 or, as with the PROFILE model where the number of groups (K=47) is greater than number variables (p=27), it can not exceed the latter (p-1). Irrespective of statistical significance of the variation between the observed groups (p-level in Table 2) which defines dimensionality of the discriminant space, the smaller number of DFs is used to explain the natural variation between groups. The natural variation hidden behind the original data actually served as an effective parsimony criterion reducing the number of discriminant axes to only two or three. Note, however, that in the LITHOLOGY model only two DFs exist (K-1) which completely explains the difference between the three observed groups. 5.1 Labelling discriminant space Labelling DFs is of paramount significance in MDA as it opens the door to unraveling the hidden relationships between the grouped data. Thus the natural processes can be deduced underlying the mathematical structure of geochemical observations. In this work discriminant loadings (structure coefficients) representing the simple correlation of a variable with particular DF are used to assess individual contribution of each descriptor variable (chemical element) to the overall discrimination between the groups. On that premise, a number of variables that little contribute to discrimination can be omitted from interpretation in all three models those with small discriminant loadings such as, for example, As, Ba, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, La, P, Sc, Th, Ti, V being clustered around the intersection of discriminant axes, which is particularly evident in the PROFILE model (Figs. 2a-c and 3a-b). Variable diagrams provide the quickest and most informative insight into the structure of discriminant space suggesting which variables (descriptors) would be retained to explain the meaning of discriminant axes as well as which subset of variables most clearly separates the a priori defined groups. Further, association among descriptor variables and related groups is best represented geometrically, viewing the DFs as axes in the reduced discriminant space. However, the variable and group diagrams can not be compared directly as different scales are used in both cases. In the scatterplot of variable loadings (Figs. 2a-c; 3a-b) discriminant axes are drawn as normalized vectors, while in the scatterplot of canonical means (group centroids) (Figs. 2d-f; 3c-d) and individual objects (samples) (Fig. 4) these are defined as discriminant score vectors. Thus, interdependence between variables and groups should always be considered using their shared position along the appropriate axis. The points placed close to axes intersection (main centroid) play a little or no part whatsoever in discrimination. Scatterplots of variable loadings and group centroids are constructed for all three investigated models applying only those DFs that add most to the total explanation of the between-group differences (Table 3). Three DFs satisfactorily separate among the predefined groups while the remainder is discounted, excluding the first model (LITHOLOGY) where only two exist. In the second model (DEPTH-LITHOLOGY) the first three explain almost 89% of the variation between the groups, while in the third model (PROFILE) explanation is reduced to the still high 71% of the total variability. Models are compared using the multiple scatter diagrams of the pairs of axes DF1 and DF2 (Fig. 2) and DF1 and DF3 (Fig. 3). LITHOLOGY model Evaluating DF1-DF2 scatterplots on Figure 2, and again DF1-DF3 scatterplots on Figure 3, essentially the same pattern emerges in all three models, based on the polar (mutually exclusive) relationship between the variable clusters. To begin with the LITHOLOGY model, the first discriminant axis is bipolar and can be interpreted as reflecting inverse relationship between the suite of elements representing the carbonate composition (Ca, Mg, Sr) combined with strong anthropogenic input (Pb, Zn, Cd, Mo) against another suite of elements representing the silicate-related composition (Zr, Al, K) of the investigated groups. In this model a close inspection into the related variable and group scatterplots (Figs. 2a against 2d) reveals that this pattern closely separates alluvium (A) from bedrock (B), while the terrace (T), on the other side, is fixed in the middle position conveying information of the average geochemical composition in comparison with the former two groups. Geologically, bedrock as the oldest sampled material widely ranging from Helvetian (Miocene) to Quaternary and consisting mostly of sands, sandy marls and marls (Miocene-Pliocene), aeolian sands (Pleistocene), loess and diluvium (Holocene), is typically alkaline in composition with addition of zirconium (clays and sands). This material definitely reveals the natural signal from older (felsic) rocks such as gneisses and tonalites outcropping in the Pohorje Mt. in Slovenia. It stands in sharp contrast to alluvium (A) which is deposited during comparatively recent geological time indicating a quite different source of parent material (mostly the Miocene and Pleistocene marls) as well as strong pollution from metal mining, processing facilities and industry along the Drava river and its tributaries (Me~ica situated on the Me~a River, Dravograd on the Drava River, and others) (Fig. 1). Thus the high positive discriminant scores for some bedrock samples (Fig. 4) indicate the sedimentary material, in this case Upper Pontian sands, and deluvium, respectively, highly enriched in (Zr, Al, K) suite of elements, while in the same time containing the lowest concentrations of carbonate material and accompanying heavy metal suite. On the other side of the scale are the samples with the high negative discriminant scores, allocated to alluvium and indicating the inverse variable-group relationship with respect to the former case. These pertain to the parts of alluvial plain more affected with modern pollution although not necessarily in the uppermost depth interval. The relative abundance of carbonate fraction in alluvial sediments can be sought chiefly in the recurrent physical erosion and transport preventing pedogenesis due to effective mixing and homogenization of the recently deposited material (derived mostly from Tertiary carbonate-rich sedimentary rocks traversed by numerous Drava tributaries downstream of Maribor). By complementary positions of the carbonate-related/contaminant and silicate-related clusters it is highlighted both that soil forming processes are complete on much older and consolidated sedimentary material, and that heavy metals, usually associated with smaller grain-size particles, conversely, bind to carbonate phases indicating their present-day, anthropogenic ingress into alluvial sediment (Foster and Charlesworth 1996). Various studies show that occurrence of heavy metals in easily soluble phases such as carbonate fraction would indicate definite anthropogenic influence (Fernandes 1997; Abd El-Azim and El-Moselhy 2005; Cappuyns et al. 2006), particularly in cases when this fraction comprises greater part of the non-geogenic heavy metal content in the contaminated sediment (Singh et al. 1999). Possible mechanism of pollutant trapping in the alluvial sediment can be either forming of the various carbonate complexes, or adsorption on the calcite surface, while Mg and Sr are usually incorporated into the calcite structure (Zachara et al. 1991; Ettler et al. 2006). Recent investigations in the Drava valley near Vara~din (Markovi 2007; unpublished PhD thesis) (Fig. 1) show that underground waters of the Vara~din aquifer are highly saturated with calcite and oxygen during the most part of the hydrological year causing that heavy metals with affinity for carbonate phase (Pb, Zn, Cd) precipitate together with calcite in the form of coatings. In process terms, the bipolar character of DF1 axis reflects opposed mobile/immobile nature of element clusters discriminating between the investigated groups. In contrast to alluvium (A), bedrock (B) is composed primarily of silicate and oxide minerals being more resistant to weathering which is why their elemental constituents are far less mobile than those bound to carbonate phases (McMartin et al. 2002). The second discriminant axis DF2 accounts for barely 21 % of the difference between groups. It is also bipolar and is largely concerned with an association between the heavy metals such that Pb, Zn, Cd and Mo form one set of variables operating against Ni, Cr, Fe, Cu, Al in the other set. The contribution of the carbonate-related cluster to overall discrimination in this case is negligible. This relationship represents a functional model further clarifying the position of the terrace (T) group in the discriminant space in that it is separated from both alluvium (A) and bedrock (B) based on the elevated contents of heavy metals such as Ni and Cr accompanied with Al. This may be caused by complex interactions, among which provenance, hydrodynamic conditions and depositional environment are the most important factors. Assuming the pristine environment in the pre-industrial, terrace-forming period, the discriminating trace element content in the terrace samples must have originated in (Ni-Cr-Cu-V)-bearing mafic rocks traversed by the Drava system in Slovenia and Austria. Accordingly, DF2 can be provisionally labelled as the heavy metal axis discriminating between recent-pollutant and historic-natural (lithogenic) heavy metal content in examined profiles. Characteristically, the samples with high negative discriminant scores, assigned to T are clustered furthest downstram (focused on LE profile line) indicating the area occupied by widest terrace expanses in the investigated area. Parts of the terrace material was probably eroded and re-deposited, and following the changes in depositional environment during the Quaternary (terrace uplift and cutting with periodical water table changes) eventually assumed geochemical signature which is more difficult to trace. Much lower explanatory potential of the second axis DF2 as well as a general failure of the LITHOLOGY model to clearly (or even fairly) separate between carbonate-related and pollutant variable clusters purports the assumption. Anthropogenic/carbonate versus lithogenic heavy metal signature of DF2 established in this work is indirectly corroborated by the recent investigations in the Alpine-provenance neighborhood (northern Italy) (Amorosi and Summartino 2007). It is found that mutually exclusive (inverse) relationship between Ca-Sr (carbonate-related anthropogenic heavy metal input not evaluated) and Ni-Cr (naturally dispersed) sets of elements differentiates the modern alluvial deposits of Apennine provenance from formerly active but now abandoned delta lobe of the Po River. These results establish the Ni-Cr combination as effective provenance indicator for Alpine mafic source rocks. DEPTH-LITHOLOGY model The second model considered (DEPTH-LITHOLOGY) reflects essentially the same functional relationship as in the former case (Figs. 2b, e). Interpretation of the first two DFs is, however, much clearer, being reduced to discrimination between lithologic units (DF1) and depth (DF2). As the nine groups (K=9) combining lithology types and depth intervals (from a-A to c-B) are included into analysis, eight discriminant functions in total are available for interpretation. The first discriminant axis DF1 accounts for more than 52 percent of the variability between the groups (Table 3). It is distinguished by the same variable relationship as in the previous model weighing Ca-Mg-Sr and Pb-Zn-Cd-Mo variable clusters against the single Zr-Al-K cluster. Visual inspection of the discriminant space shows that DF1 is the primary source of difference between the sediment groups (A-T-B) and can be interpreted in the same way as DF1 in the LITHOLOGY model. The second axis DF2, accounting for additional 22.4% of the variability, further clarifies the relationship between the intervals a, b and c. Visual comparison between the scatterplots of variables and group centroids is straightforward, reducing almost altogether the possibility of misinterpretation because the groups a priori defined as combination of lithologies and depths can be easily delineated as compact and distinct units in discriminant space (Figs. 2b, e). In contradistinction to the LITHOLOGY model where DF2 is concerned with separation between lithology types, in this case it allows each sediment group to be clearly structured according to the depth. Typically, individual intervals do not mix together but retain their normal position in a functional model (a over b over c) in relation to decreasing influence of pollutant Pb-Cd-Zn-Mo cluster through carbonate-related Ca-Mg-Sr cluster to Ni-(Fe)-(Th) cluster. Also, by the group cross-comparison (Fig. 2e) it is obvious that groups are self-similar in the sense that a-interval in alluvium (a-A) is most similar to a-interval in terrace (a-T) which in turn is most similar to a-interval in bedrock (a-B). The same is also valid for b- and c-intervals. Nevertheless, however informative the diagrams can be on the mutual group relationships, the best way to assess how much the group centroids actually differ between themselves is to take a closer look into the distance matrix (matrix of squared Mahalanobis distances) (Table. 4). Distances between a- and b-intervals increase from alluvium (most similar) through terrace to bedrock (most differing). It may reflect (cf. Figs. 2b and e) reducing impact of the pollutant cluster (Cd-Pb-Zn-Mo) on b-intervals (20-40 cm) in terrace and bedrock samples. Simultaneously, the variation between the uppermost a-interval (0-20 cm) and deepest c-intervals (deeper than 40 cm) is the greatest in bedrock (Tab.le 4) indicating that contamination, if present, does not affect the lower portions of bedrock profiles. The lowest, c-intervals, in both bedrock and terrace samples show higher contents of Ni. Interestingly, only alluvial c-intervals are enriched in carbonate-related cluster (Ca-Mg-Sr) indicating that alluvium is strongly influenced by the process of leaching. This may be important because of potential release and remobilization of heavy metals bound to carbonate particles in the upper part of the sediment column where anoxic or low pH conditions occur (Foster and Charlesworth 1996). In general, a-intervals tend to be enriched in pollutants reducing their impact from alluvium to bedrock, while c-intervals (alluvial excluding) are typical for their Ni-(Fe)-(Th) content with increasing impact of siliceous Zr-(Al-K) composition from terrace to bedrock (clay component). Besides, a slight tilt of the three combined lithology-depth groups towards the upper right quarter of the group scatterplot (perpendicular to the line of carbonate/contaminant enrichment) (Fig. 2e) can be interpreted as an effect of general decrease in pollution from a-A to c-B. PROFILE model The third analyzed model (PROFILE) deals with differences between 47 individual profiles in the study area independently of their direct allocation to one of the a priori defined lithology or depth groups. In this case the first two discriminant functions, DF1 and DF2, explain a large portion of the total variance (45% and 15%, respectively). In contrast to the former two cases (LITHOLOGY and DEPTH-LITHOLOGY) with DF1 reflecting basically the same functional model, DF2 is here primarily concerned with differences within the Ca-Mg-Sr carbonate-related cluster. An examination of diagram 5c 2c reveals negative association between Ca and Mg on the one side and Sr on the other. However, this relationship is geochemically not straightforward because Sr is usually strongly (positively) associated with Ca which is primarily indicative of calcareous rocks and its weathering products particularly in combination with Mg (DF1). It must be taken into account that investigated profiles are sampled in various sedimentary material (alluvium, terrace and bedrock), and in various depths. Thus it is clear that possible mechanism of this relationship can be elucidated only after the closer look is taken into the scatterplot of group centroids (Fig. 2f) revealing the fact already observed in relation with differences between the lithology groups (Figs. 2a and d). The profile PT-0 sampled in the bedrock material (sandy marls) is characterized by the highest concentration of Sr (up to 387 mg kg-1) accompanied with the lowest concentrations of Ca and Mg (0.18 g kg-1 and 0.25 g kg-1, respectively) (Table 3). In sedimentary processes, distribution of Sr is affected by strong adsorption on clay minerals but Sr may be also contained in lithic fragments and detrital feldspars, particularly in lower parts of the examined bedrock profiles (c-intervals) (De Vos et al. 2006). Ca and Mg, on the other side, are typically enriched in alluvium (ME-1) due to the constant accumulation and removal of the bed-load and suspended material preventing the soil forming processes such as eluviation and illuviation to fully develop (Fig. 2f). Reverting to the much simpler scheme conveyed by DF1 it is obvious that quite a few profiles are distinctly separated by the carbonate (contaminant)-silicate axis (Fig. 2f). Hardly a single group can be clearly recognized in the central cloud of profiles due to the very weak discriminant loadings characterizing the siliceous variable cluster. This picture should be interpreted rather as negative image (scarcity) of the contents characterizing the opposite (negative) pole of DF1 axis, that is, abundance of pollutants bound to carbonate material. A number of profiles such as, for example, PT-1, OR4A, SR-6 and OR-4, fit neatly into the picture (Fig. 2f). The two latter models can be further explained introducing additional discriminant functions into consideration whose explanatory potential, however, is decreasing rapidly. It is often the case in MDA that statistical significance seems a lesser issue in evaluation of the validity of results since geological interpretability of successive roots always questions the purpose of carrying on the experiment further. In the DEPTH-LITHOLOGY and PROFILE models it is the third discriminant axis that still carries a considerable portion of the total variability (14% and 11%, respectively) (Table 3) but it may not be easy to interpret because, in spite of the noticeable division of variable clusters, the associated discriminant loadings are rather low to indicate unambiguously a geological process involved. In the DEPTH-LITHOLOGY model DF3 is monopolar (Fig. 3a), resembling almost exactly DF2 (Fig. 2b) with positive pole removed. Both Ca-Mg-Sr and Cd-Zn-Pb-Mo variable clusters do not really contribute to discrimination so that overall knowledge of DF3 depends entirely on Ni-Al-(Cr-Cu-As-Fe) variable cluster. This can be interpreted as natural distribution of elements derived from mafic rocks as their principal source. Cross-comparison with group centroid scatterplot (Fig. 3c) reveals terraces as their main carrier but only in their topmost interval (a-T). There is decreasing succession from deeper intervals (c) to the top, which pattern is continuing into alluvium. In bedrock, it is almost absent. By contrast with the foregoing, in the PROFILE model DF3 is functionally entirely different involving another two variable clusters in discrimination between groups (profiles) (Figs. 3b and d). Although separation of the variable clusters is rather vague due to the weak discriminant loadings DF3 introduces a worthwhile component into analysis which failed to manifest in previous two models, namely distinction between the pollutant and carbonate-related element clusters. The profile MB-7 sampled on bedrock is the single group separated in this case. Its solitary position in the group scatterplot (Fig. 3d) is, however, more due to very low content of carbonate material (probably leached) than to enrichment in pollutants. MB-7 is farthest from the profile groups both characterized by elevated content of contaminants such as PT-1 or OR-4A, and particularly those enriched in carbonates such as OR-5, OR-4 or ZL-1. 5.2 Classification issues Discrimination of groups based on the a priori knowledge of their geochemical (environmental) attributes provides the possibility of their consequent assignment to the most probable group. In all investigated models these assignments are founded on geochemical composition of samples irrespective of the lithology type, depth of sampling, or selected location. Integrity of previously defined natural groups can be further examined weighing the mathematically predicted (computed) assignments against the original (observed) classifications while efficiency of classification is often used as a very helpful tool in later geological considerations because it can say a lot about the data structure describing the media sampled, particularly if criteria for the a priori classifications were based on similar features. If all three models are compared (Tables 5 to 7) it is apparent that the PROFILE model containing 47 groups is arranged with the highest efficiency more than 95.5 % of all profiles are correctly classified. Statistically, profiles differ between themselves significantly in chemical composition, allowing most samples to fit unequivocally in their pre-assigned groups (Table 7). Geologically, however, it is hard to find a rationale for discrimination between the profiles due to rapidly decreasing explanatory potential of successive discriminant functions (Table 2) and relevant variable contributions (discriminant loadings). Quite a few groups are separated by each subsequent DF from the compact cloud around the main centroid (Figs. 2f and 3d), strongly suggesting a number of local factors or unidentified sources of variability operating at the sampling area and affecting particular groups at the spot. In general, only one interval per group is misclassified (mostly a) except for LE-4 (a, b). Among 15 misclassified samples most of them are confined locally to the Legrad (LE) profile line or super-group (6 altogether) implying their similarity to some other group: LE-1 to BE-6; LE-2 to SR-5; LE-4 to BE-3 (two intervals); LE-5 to LE-6 and LE-5A to OR-2 (Table 8). Since Legrad profile line was sampled furthest downstream in the investigated area this may indicate that sediment derived from upper reaches of the Drava valley is simply reworked and mixed downstream, or its heavy metal constituents are chemically remobilized due to changed pH and redox conditions stripping LE-groups (on their related sampling levels alluvium, terrace or bedrock) of its geochemical identity (Fig. 5). Examination of the misclassified groups further reveals that only a minor part of the observed groups changed their affiliation to originally defined lithology type. As contrasted with the PROFILE model the former two models, although more directly related to geological aspects as the grouping criteria, are less efficiently classified. Inspection into classification matrices (Tables 5 and 6) reveals that 78.1% and 70.3% samples, respectively, are correctly classified. One must bear in mind that rows in classification matrix always relate to the actual group membership whereas columns give the predicted group membership leaving the correct classifications in the main diagonal. However, of necessity, classification matrix for the PROFILE model (Table 7) must have been simplified due to a great number of groups. Classification results are important, providing the final test of discriminant analysis (Rock 1988) because mathematically computed (predicted) sample and group assignments assessed from geochemical data are compared with original a priori classifications. Results show that even for the simplest model consisting of only three groups (LITHOLOGY) the overlapping is large (Fig. 4), while introducing a new criterion (depth) that would hopefully remove the confusion only adds more to it. Bedrock (B) is the group with the highest classification efficiency (93.4%) losing the least of its samples to other two lithology groups. Geochemically, bedrock is the most compact group with only 4 misclassified samples (lost to terrace). No bedrock sample is confused with alluvium, however. Similarly, alluvium which is farthest from the bedrock (Table 4) overlaps considerably only with terrace decreasing its assignment efficiency down to 77.7%, which is still relatively high (Fig. 4). Geologically, misclassifications in the LITHOLOGY model may raise some doubts in the accurate position of some youngest (Quaternary) units mapped as alluvium or terrace although geochemistry was not the criterion included in the geological mapping. For example, several alluvium-allocated profiles are completely (all depth intervals) or mostly misclassified and look more akin to terrace after their geochemical composition. These include DR-6, DR-4, RA-1 and MB-3 (Fig. 5). On the other side, there are a priori classified terrace-allocated profiles which should be properly assigned to alluvium according to their geochemistry (enrichment by heavy metals), such as OR-5 (entirely) and LE-3 (for its most part). Finally, there is a question of terrace-bedrock samples affiliation. Two of the terrace profiles are also completely misclassified, namely SR-2 and SR-3 with all the samples lost to bedrock. Now, if all samples pertaining to individual profile exchange their group membership the idea of misclassification is clear enough because all samples are taken into analysis individually (each depth interval per se). However, the problems arise if a smaller number of samples from the same profile is wrongly classified, a case such as PT-5 where the three deepest bedrock intervals (of seven altogether) are reclassified as terrace while upper intervals remain in the original class. Obviously, the converse is more logical in the geological sense, though it is an isolated example keeping in mind that classification efficiency for bedrock samples exceeds 93% while terrace is the most indistinct group (Fig. 7Table 5) whose classification rate is only 73% (which, nevertheless, fares quite well). Partly to avoid possible indeterminacy of this kind and better relate the mapped units to chemical and other processes in the vertical profile of each sampled profile the DEPTH-LITHOLOGY model was introduced into analysis. The primary idea was to reduce the noise created by mixing of same intervals with various sediment groups (units). This, however, helped as much as hindered better classification efficacy, most probably because certain artificial noise was introduced by the fact that depth intervals (a, b and c) were not based on natural boundaries (as horizons in a pedologic profile). Nonetheless, it is easy to see that bedrock depth intervals maintain the highest classification accuracy (Table 6), with overall 75.4% success rate, while correct assignment of c-intervals (c-B) is even greater, surpassing 82%. The c-intervals are in general classified most correctly indicating that deeper below the surface (>40 cm) lithology units (A-T-B) are contrasted considerably between themselves in chemical composition (between group differences are much greater than within group differences). Typically, incorrect c-intervals assignment appears between alluvium and terrace, while bedrock c-intervals are distinctly different. Closer to the surface, predominantly in b-interval (20-40 cm), confusion is the greatest. For example, only 40% of b-interrvals (Table 6) in alluvium are assigned to their original groups, others being allocated to other alluvium depth intervals, or even to terrace. It is clear from the table of classification efficiency (Table 9) that introduction of depth into analysis lays high amount of probability on inaccurate a priori classification of SR-2 and SR-3 profiles into the original terrace groups. In both LITHOLOGY and DEPTH-LITHOLOGY models these were unequivocally post hoc assigned to the bedrock group (Upper Pontian sands and marls). On the other side, DR-6 and OR-5 profiles originally (miss)classified as alluvium and reclassified 100% as terrace in the LITHOLOGY model regain their original group membership as alluvium in the DEPTH-LITHOLOGY model (Fig. 5). The latter is drastic example of how bringing additional grouping criterion into the analysis can alter the previously established correct classification. As the classification results should always be scrutinized geologically this double-check must speak in favor of the depth-sediment criterion despite the lack of the precisely defined (soil) horizons with associated variety of soil processes wherever these affected the floodplain sediments. The profiles such as DR-4 and LE-3 are also in both models greatly a priori misclassified as alluvium (DR-4) and terrace (LE-3), respectively, and can easily switch their original alluvium-terrace assignments (Table 9). A few other profiles such as SR-5 (terrace to alluvium), RA-1 (alluvium to terrace) MB-3 (alluvium to terrace), PT-5 (bedrock to terrace) are possible suspects as well. 6. CONCLUSIONS The three MDA models were constructed in order to distinguish geochemically between adjacent sedimentary facies (lithologies) laterally spreading from the river course outward into the floodplain. Considerable waterborne pollution in alluvial sediments caused by heavy metals from the mining/smelting areas in the upper reaches of the Drava River had been already known as a result of recurrent inundations during recent sedimentary history. Pollution was suspected, to some extent, also on the river terraces (diffuse airborne contamination from metal processing facilities) further away from the river course but it was, generally, not expected in the older, Neogene sediments (bedrock) outcropping at the perimeter of the Drava valley away from anthropogenic point sources. The highest contamination was also expected in the surficial depth intervals of all sampled lithologies. In all cases (including the single profiles) this variation should have been reflected in good separation according to a priori defined grouping criteria LITHOLOGY, DEPTH-LITHOLOGY and PROFILE. Based on the above premises the designed models were actually aimed to differentiate between natural and anthropogenic patterns (based on total element concentrations) counting on the maximum contrast between alluvium (recent) and bedrock (Neogene) as the most conspicuous one. The terraces, on the other side, as the intermediate (Pleistocene Holocene) member deposited in apparently pristine setting should reflect the natural signal controlled primarily by geological substrate. Their geochemical signature, however, must draw its origin, at least partly, from areas drained by the old Drava system during the Quaternary after abandonment of the old (palaeo Drava) channel during Pliocene and thus it must also stand in a visible contrast to the older sedimentary rocks at the periphery of the sampled profile lines. However, in the former case the difference is caused by anthropogenic, while in the latter by the natural causes. Basically, the same geochemical pattern emerges among all three investigated models except that the third one is more concerned with local variations confined to individual profiles sampled along the pre-designed sets of profile lines. This is confirmed by the great number of statistically significant DFs with quite obscure or unfathomable geological meaning. However, despite its relatively weak geological explanatory potential the PROFILE model succeeded in distinguishing between the carbonate-related and contaminant variable clusters which were otherwise entirely inseparable in the models dealing with more general geological picture in the investigated area discrimination between lithological units and depth intervals. The greatest discriminant potential in all models is contained in the first the first two DFs whose geological interpretation is unambiguous. They separate the a priori established groups on the ground of geological processes underlying a relationship between a few distinctly outlined variable clusters. The first discriminant function DF1 is bipolar and represents carbonate-contaminant/silicate axis separating alluvium (A) from bedrock (B) in the LITHOLOGY and DEPTH-LITHOLOGY model. The second discriminant function DF2 is also bipolar and can be described as heavy metal axis which separates the terrace (T) from both alluvium (A) and bedrock (B) in the LITHOLOGY model but, more distinctly, distinguishes between the individual sampling intervals (a, b and c) in the DEPTH-LITHOLOGY model. However, as opposed to DF1, this separation is achieved by opposing the two heavy metal clusters of which one is primarily anthropogenic (Pb, Zn, Cd, Mo) while the other reflects the natural origin (Ni, Cr, Fe, Cu). The next important issue concerning the investigated models is the possibility to reassign the previously classified objects (samples) to another group if their calculated geochemical affinity with that group has proved greater than to the observed one. It is therefore possible to use the average geochemical composition (particularly the total heavy metal content) of a particular group as an identification card in mapping the youngest, unconsolidated sediments developed in a variety of quaternary facies on the Drava floodplain which sometimes may be incorrectly mapped due to the lack of fossil content or other characteristic geological observations. Investigated models disclose probability of wrong classification of neighboring lithologic units alluvium can be mistaken for terrace, or (more rarely) bedrock for terrace, and vice versa. Confusion may also appear with regard to particular intervals sampled in any of the three lithologic groups. However, the deepest c-intervals in bedrock (B) are, generally, not confounded with others. This is natural considering the bedrock as an old, consolidated, sedimentary material while various degrees of mixing is present in younger, Quaternary, sediments, particularly in the case of close-to-surface and topmost horizons being most heavily exposed to contamination. The greatest confusion occurs in alluvium b-horizons where more than half of all samples are incorrectly classified and assigned to other alluvium horizons or even to the terrace. 7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was funded jointly by The Ministry of Science, Education and Sports, Republic of Croatia, and The Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Slovenia Bilateral Project Slo-Hr: Heavy metals in alluvial sediments of the Drava River (BI-HR/07-08-002) as well as the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports, Republic of Croatia Scientific Project: The Basic Geochemical Map of Croatia (181-1811096-1181). Their support is greatly appreciated. The authors would like to express their gratitude to all who participated to the project. They are also indebted to Tamara Markovi for making constructive comments on behavior of heavy metals in the hydrological cycle in the Croatian part of the investigated terrain (Vara~din aquifer). 8. REFERENCES Abd El-Azim H, El-Moselhy KhM (2005) Determination and partitioning of metals in sediments along the Suez Canal by sequential extraction. Journal of Marine Systems 56(3-4):363-374 Amorosi A, Summartino I (2007) Influence of sediment provenance on background values of potentially toxic metals from near-surface sediments of Po coastal plain (Italy). International Journal of Earth Sciences 96:389-396 Andjelov M. (1993) Results of radiometric and geochemical measurements for the natural radioactivity map of Slovenia. Geologija 36:223-248. (In Slovenian; English abstract) Bidovec M, ajn R, Gosar M. (1998) The use of recent overbank sediments in geochemical mapping of Slovenia (in Slovenian; English abstract). Geologija 41:275-317 Blviken B, Bogen J, Jartun M, Langedal M, Ottesen RT, Volden T (2004) Overbank sediments: a natural bed blending sampling medium for large-scale geochemical mapping. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 74:183-199 Bottrill LJ, Walling DE, Leeks GJ (1999) Geochemical characteristics of overbank deposits and their potential for determining suspended sediment provenance; an example from the River Severn, UK. In: Marriot SB, Alexander J (eds) Floodplains: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 163:241-257 Brewer PA, Taylor MP (1997) The spatial distribution of heavy metal contaminated sediment across terraced floodplains. Catena 30:229-249 Cappuyns V, Swennen R, Vandamme A, Niclaes M (2006) Environmental impact of the former Pb-Zn minings and smelting in East Belgium. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 88:6-9 Ciszewski D (2002) Heavy metals in vertical profiles of the middle Odra River overbank sediments: evidence for pollution changes. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 143:81-98 Collins AL, Walling DE, Leeks JL (1998) Use of composite fingerprints to determine the provenance of the contemporary suspended sediment load transported by rivers. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 23:31-52 Collins AL, Walling DE, Leeks JL. (1997) Use of the geochemical record preserved in floodplain deposits to reconstruct recent changes in river basin sediment sources. Geomorpohlogy 19:151-167 ovi M (2003) Geochemical and mineralogical characteristics of overbank sediments of }umberak and Samobor Mts., Croatia. (unpublished Master of Science Thesis; in Croatian). University of Zagreb, Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering, 139 p Darnley AG, Bjrklund A, Blviken B, Gustavsson N, Koval PV, Plant JA, Steenfeld A, Tauchid M, Xie Xuejing (1995) A global geochemical database for environmental and resource management. Recommendations for international geochemical mapping. Final report of IGCP project 259, UNESCO Publishing, 122 p De Vos W, Demetriades A, Marsina K, Ottesen RT, Reeder S, Pirc S, Salminen R, Tarvainen T (2006) Comparison of elements in all sample media, gemeral comments and conclusions. In: De Vos W, Tarvainen T (eds) Geochemical Atlas of Europe, Part 2: Interpretation of geochemical maps, additional figures, maps and related publications; Sr-Strontium, pp 347-352 Dillon WR, Goldstein M (1984) Multivariate analysis: methods and applications. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 575 p Ettler V, Zelena O, Mihaljevi  M, `ebek O, Strnad L, Coufal P, Bezdi ka P (2006) Removal of trace elements form landfill leachate by calcite precipitation. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 88:28-31 Fernandes HM (1997) Heavy metal distribution in sediments and ecological risk assessment: The role of diagenetic processes in reducing metal toxicity in bottom sediments. Environmental Pollution 97(3):317-325 Frstner U, Whitmann GTW (1981) Metal pollution in the aquatic environment. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 481 p Foster IDL, Charlesworth SM (1996) Heavy metals in the hydrological cycle: trends and explanation. Hydrological Processes 10:227-261 Gibbs RJ (1977) Transport phases of transition in the Amazon and Yukon Rivers. Geological Society of America Bulletin 88:829-943 Halami J, Galovi L, `parica M (2003) Heavy Metal (As, Cd, Cu, Hg, Pb, and Zn) Distribution in Topsoil Developed on Alluvial Sediments of the Drava and Sava Rivers in NW Croatia. Geologia Croatica 56/2:215-232 Halami J, `ajn R, Peh Z, Galovi L (2005) Heavy Metals in the Alluvial Sediments of the River Drava (Croatia, Slovenia). Third Croatian Geological Congress, Opatija, September, 29th October, 1st, 2005. Abstracts Book, pp. 193-194, Zagreb Hugget RJ (1998) Soil chronosequences, soil development and soil evolution: a critical review. Catena, 32:155-172 Lambert CP, Walling DE (1987) Floodplain sedimentation: a preliminary investigation of the contemporary deposition within the lower reaches of the river Culm, Devon, UK. Geografiska Annaler, 69A(3-4):393-404 Langedal M, Ottesen RT (1998) airborne pollution in five drainage basins in Eastern Finmark, Norway: an evaluation of overbank sediments as sampling medium for environmental studies and geochemical mapping. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 101:377-398 Macklin MG, Ridgway J, Passmore DG, Rumsby BT (1994) The use of overbank sediment geochemical mapping and contamination assessment: results from selected English and Welsh floodplains. Applied Geochemistry 9:689-700 Macklin MG, Brewer PA, Hudson-Edwards KA, Bird G, Coulthard TJ, Dennis IA, Lechler PJ, Miller JR, Turner JN (2006) A geomorphological approach to the management of rivers contaminated by metal mining. Geomorphology 79.423-447 Markovi T (2007) Vulnerability assessment of the unsaturated zone by geochemical modeling. (unpublished PhD Thesis; in Croatian). University of Zagreb, Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering, 155 p Matschullat J, Ottenstein R, Reimann C (2000) Geochemical background can we calculate it? Environmental Geology, 39(9), 990-1000 McConnel JW, Finch C, Hall GEM, Davenport PH (1993) Geochemical mapping employing active and overbank stream-sediment, lake sediment and lake water in two areas of New Foundland. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 49:123-143 McMartin I, Henderson PJ, Plouffe A, Knight RD (2002) Comparison of Cu-Hg-Ni-Pb concentrations in soils adjacent to anthropogenic point sources: example from four Canadian sites. Geochemistry, Exploration, Environment, Analysis 2:57-74 Miko S, Halami J<>XZd     . < > @ xjxxjxxj\Qxxjxh |hOJQJh |hcoH*OJQJaJh |hGH*OJQJaJh |hPOJQJh |hGOJQJ$h |hxCJOJQJaJmH sH $h |h:CJ OJQJaJ mH sH $h |hCJ OJQJaJ mH sH $h |h~RCJ OJQJaJ mH sH $h |hgCJ OJQJaJ mH sH $h |hsLCJ OJQJaJ mH sH @ B V $%^Drkl|  9r dgd%\dgd%\ $da$gd%\ $da$gd%\dgd%\luu@ B R T V  ' , <     " % ) D M # $ Q \ ٺ{pppeh |hoOJQJh |hj OJQJh'aOJQJh |hNOJQJh |h8OJQJh |h{OJQJh |hOJQJh |hijOJQJh |hOJQJ'h |h5CJOJQJaJmH sH 'h |h:5CJOJQJaJmH sH $h |hPCJOJQJaJmH sH '\ c #$%&}rg^Rh |hGH*OJQJh%\H*OJQJh |hOJQJh |h?OJQJh |hOJQJh |hOJQJh |hl85OJQJh |hP5OJQJh |hPOJQJh |hj OJQJh |hijOJQJh |hOJQJh'aOJQJh |hOJQJh |hoOJQJh |h8OJQJ&./12 "@BDr'ȸvj^SSDh |hXeOJQJmHsHh |hXeOJQJh |hGH*OJQJhGOJQJmHsH h=hT 0JOJQJmHsH+jh=hT OJQJUmHsHh |hT OJQJmHsHhT OJQJmHsHjhT OJQJUmHsHh |hGOJQJmHsH jh |hGOJQJ j*h |hGCJOJQJh |hGOJQJ'(;PRSTijkl|}/;GO`Ԏuj_jTI>3h |hv5ROJQJh |hU0OJQJh |h2#OJQJh |h^jOJQJh |hwSOJQJh |hcqOJQJ0h |hxB*CJOJQJ\aJmH phsH $h |h%CJOJQJaJmH sH hGOJQJmHsH h=hT 0JOJQJmHsH+jh=hT OJQJUmHsHh |hT OJQJmHsHhT OJQJmHsHjhT OJQJUmHsH|} B+c+d+T7V7777>AAAJDFFFoHpHHH $da$gd%\$d`a$gd%\ $da$gd%\`kl{ ҼDZҦyhWFhF!h |h$B*OJQJaJph!h |hAJB*OJQJaJph!h |h*fB*OJQJaJph!h |hP7B*OJQJaJph!h |hP7B*OJQJaJph33h |hkOJQJh |hc9OJQJh |hMOJQJh |hZbKOJQJh |hROJQJh |h1ZOJQJh |h^jOJQJh |hv5ROJQJh |hv5ROJQJaJ    3:;CJKR_`a߾߭zziiXG!h |h!;B*OJQJaJph!h |hB*OJQJaJph!h |h&B*OJQJaJph!h |hP7B*OJQJaJph!h |heo5B*OJQJaJph!h |h*fB*OJQJaJph!h |hkB*OJQJaJph@h |h*fhB*OJQJaJcHdhdhdhRfph@h |hkhB*OJQJaJcHdhdhdhRfphainotw~ (*,6Thx ssss!h |hMB*OJQJaJph!h |hXB*OJQJaJphh |hMOJQJh |h?OJQJh |h5OJQJh |hP7OJQJh |h&OJQJ!h |hP7B*OJQJaJph!h |h!;B*OJQJaJph!h |h'B*OJQJaJph- 6V~Naem| =BVs(-곾Գ|q|`!h |hY0B*OJQJaJphh |hfYOJQJh |hY0OJQJh |hWLOJQJh |heOJQJh |hp@OJQJh |h27OJQJh |h KqOJQJh |h}{OJQJh |hjOJQJh |h!mxOJQJh |hv5ROJQJh |hwSOJQJh |h5OJQJ"-.DKLRY^b{| %01ti^iQ@!h |h-B*OJQJaJphh |h-OJQJaJh |hNOJQJh |h-OJQJh |hcOJQJh |hwOJQJh |hU0OJQJh |h( OJQJh |h~ cOJQJh |hfYOJQJh |hWLOJQJh |hZbKOJQJ!h |hY0B*OJQJaJph!h |h'B*OJQJaJph!h |hRB*OJQJaJph1FR\]fpwx  HO询{n{{aTh |hOJQJaJh |hOJQJaJh |hAJOJQJaJh |hwOJQJaJh |h( OJQJaJh |hp@OJQJaJh |heOJQJaJh |h!OJQJaJh |heOJQJh |hMOJQJh |hOJQJh |hzbOJQJh |h-OJQJh |h-OJQJaJOnu  󿲥bJ5(HhRfhB*OJQJaJph.HhRfh |hB*OJQJaJph@h |h(EhB*OJQJaJcHdhdhdhRfph!h |h'B*OJQJaJph!h |h(EB*OJQJaJphh |h6OJQJaJh |heUOJQJaJh |hfYOJQJaJh |h\i$OJQJaJh |hg@OJQJaJh |hU0OJQJaJh |hk-"OJQJaJ  "#%'167@G_bks}öynycXMBh |h!OJQJh |h<`OJQJh |h&OJQJh |h(EOJQJh |hyOJQJh |hs(OJQJh |hfOJQJh |hyOJQJaJh |h%OJQJaJh |hRSOJQJaJh |hs(OJQJaJh |h-{OJQJaJh |h6OJQJaJ!h |h'B*OJQJaJph!h |h6B*OJQJaJph0Ehij|}  ߼{j]]h |hw[OJQJaJ!h |ha?B*OJQJaJphh |h`OJQJaJh |hkOJQJaJh |hp@OJQJaJh |hg@OJQJaJh |h_7OJQJaJh |ha?OJQJaJh |h!OJQJh |hyOJQJh |h&OJQJh |h( OJQJh |hp@OJQJ$ 6 7 ; ! !!!4!@!ȳuj_T_TI_>h |hl8OJQJh |hOJQJh |hWOJQJh |hPOJQJh |hcqOJQJ0HhRfhB*OJQJaJmH phsH Hh |h'hB*OJQJaJcHdhdhdhRfmH phsH )h |h'B*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |ha?OJQJaJmH sH h |hOJQJaJh |ha?OJQJaJh |hw[OJQJaJ@!D!e!n!r!|!!!!!-"7"8"<"F"H"P"U"X"c"d"i"q"w"}""""""""""""0#F#J#V#Z#\#^#_##߾ԾԾɝɾԨ|qqh |hvOJQJh |h% OJQJh |h5OJQJh |hOJQJh |hkOJQJh |hV)OJQJh |hg@OJQJh |hvV\OJQJh |hrzOJQJh |hLEOJQJh |hwOJQJh |hl8OJQJh |hy OJQJ,###$$$$$$%%%%%%)%*%,%1%=%O%P%|%%%%%%%%%@&X&ȷȷȦtit^Si^h |h~ROJQJh |hHrOJQJh |hc!OJQJh |h(2gOJQJh |h OJQJh |hV)OJQJ!h |hiB*OJQJaJph!h |hB*OJQJaJph!h |h'B*OJQJaJph!h |hV)B*OJQJaJph!h |h0B*OJQJaJphh |hOJQJh |h0OJQJ X&&&&4'l'r'''''(4(6(8(:(<(@(X(\(t(((N)R)j))ɋuj_TjTIjh |h-/lOJQJh |hh|OJQJh |hMOJQJh |h`gOJQJh |hOJQJh |hUOJQJh |hc9OJQJ!h |htB*OJQJaJph!h |h7B*OJQJaJph!h |h'B*OJQJaJphh |h^ZUOJQJh |hHrOJQJh |h0OJQJh |h(2gOJQJh |h OJQJ))))*;*=*I*a*l********+&+?+@+A+B+E+b+c+,,,,ԾԾԳ|bTHhRfhOJQJ3h |hhOJQJcHdhdhdhRfh |hOJQJh |hDOJQJh |h@OJQJh |hvOJQJh |hMOJQJh |h,j3OJQJh |h-/lOJQJh |h~ROJQJh |hOJQJh |hh|OJQJh |h`gOJQJh |hANJOJQJ,,../0p1r1122D3E3H3L335555666N7V7\77778888889㗌uju\ujuh |hSH*OJQJaJh |h^n;OJQJh |hSOJQJh |h_5OJQJh |hqOJQJh |h@OJQJhOJQJhOJQJaJh |hOJQJaJ!h |hB*OJQJaJph!h |hB*OJQJaJphh |hOJQJ!HhRfh |hOJQJ#9+919&:,:@:j:z::;<<<v=====>>&>1>F>H>N>O>Q>>>>>>>>>·¬¬¡¡zodYddYh |h`c OJQJh |h^OJQJh |hd9OJQJ!h |hkw>B*OJQJaJphh |h9OJQJh |h_OJQJh |hq2OJQJh |hkw>OJQJh |h^n;OJQJh |hSOJQJ@h |h-BhB*OJQJaJcHdhdhdhRfph!h |h-BB*OJQJaJph">?? ? ? ?)?,?3?9?:?;?>???E?G?h?n?q?r?}??????????????-@Q@W@b@q@x@@@@@@@@@@A!h |h*JB*OJQJaJph!h |hZB*OJQJaJph!h |hdB*OJQJaJph!h |h]iB*OJQJaJphh |hAOJQJh |h_OJQJh |h@OJQJh |hq2OJQJh |hZOJQJ1AAAA*A,AKATAWA_AeAsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB BB*B3B;B=BBB꾳ymbbyh |h,POJQJh |h@H*OJQJh |hR{OJQJh |hqOJQJh |h35OJQJh |hA5OJQJh |hR5OJQJh |hN OJQJh |hdOJQJh |hZOJQJh |hMOJQJh |hAOJQJh |h@OJQJh |h]iOJQJ%BBEBLBYBaBiBjB~BBBBC CCCbC|C}C~CCCCC4DGDDDDDEɸs^ɸSHSHh |hR{OJQJh |hOJQJ(HhRfhB*OJQJaJph(HhRfhB*OJQJaJph!h |h3BB*OJQJaJphh |h3BOJQJ]$h |h3BB*OJQJ]aJph!h |h-BB*OJQJaJphh |hFOOJQJh |hgOJQJh |h@OJQJh |hdOJQJh |h3OJQJEE!E"E_K_}_________________ͼ͚͚͚͚͉xgVVV h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hxOJQJaJmH sH  h |hdOJQJaJmH sH  h |hu*OJQJaJmH sH  h |h@OJQJaJmH sH  h |hS\OJQJaJmH sH  h |hZoOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hclOJQJaJmH sH  h |hbbOJQJaJmH sH _`` ` ` `` `9`?`p`x``````````ͼxxgVE4 h |h}#OJQJaJmH sH  h |hgOJQJaJmH sH  h |h{OJQJaJmH sH  h |hZoOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hyGOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h*xOJQJaJmH sH  h |h@OJQJaJmH sH  h |hxOJQJaJmH sH  h |hcOJQJaJmH sH `a aaaaaaaa!a+a0a1a2aͼ͉weSAe0 h |h!wOJQJaJmH sH #h |ha5OJQJaJmH sH #h |hkU&5OJQJaJmH sH #h |h5OJQJaJmH sH #h |h5OJQJaJmH sH  h |hgOJQJaJmH sH  h |h!COJQJaJmH sH  h |hZoOJQJaJmH sH  h |hdOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h}#OJQJaJmH sH  h |hgOJQJaJmH sH 2aEaHa_a`acamaraaaaaaaaaaaaaＫnYnD3 h |hoBOJQJaJmH sH )h |hwB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hFaB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hbMB*OJQJaJmH phsH 'HhRfhOJQJaJmH sH 'HhRfhOJQJaJmH sH  h |hWOJQJaJmH sH  h |h{OJQJaJmH sH  h |h}&OJQJaJmH sH  h |h&@OJQJaJmH sH  h |h%2ZOJQJaJmH sH aaaaaaaab bbb'b)b*b6bHbJbPbQbRbSb`bbbͼޚt_N h |h{OJQJaJmH sH )h |hwB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hhB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |h&@OJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hRpOJQJaJmH sH  h |hhOJQJaJmH sH  h |hVOJQJaJmH sH  h |hWOJQJaJmH sH  h |h}&OJQJaJmH sH bbbbbbbbb4c7c8c:ccccccc.d0dͼͫxggVgA)h |hFaB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |h YiOJQJaJmH sH  h |haOJQJaJmH sH  h |h&@OJQJaJmH sH  h |h8(OJQJaJmH sH  h |hjGOJQJaJmH sH  h |heOOJQJaJmH sH  h |h)OJQJaJmH sH  h |h{OJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h/%OJQJaJmH sH 0d3d4d5dmdndsdddddddddee]e`edeiekexeyeeeeeeijijĢđĀđo^^^M^^ h |heOOJQJaJmH sH  h |h] OJQJaJmH sH  h |h$OJQJaJmH sH  h |h YiOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h8(OJQJaJmH sH  h |h&@OJQJaJmH sH  h |haOJQJaJmH sH )h |hwB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |haB*OJQJaJmH phsH eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeefffͼ͉xxgVD2D#h |h] 5OJQJaJmH sH #h |h$5OJQJaJmH sH  h |hnOJQJaJmH sH  h |hhOJQJaJmH sH  h |h$qOJQJaJmH sH  h |h YiOJQJaJmH sH  h |heOOJQJaJmH sH  h |h$OJQJaJmH sH  h |h)OJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h4OJQJaJmH sH  h |hqQcOJQJaJmH sH fff(f*f;fLfOf~fffffg!g6gNggggggggg hh hʹʨududuuSdS h |hA9COJQJaJmH sH  h |hIVOJQJaJmH sH  h |hd0OJQJaJmH sH  h |hmQOJQJaJmH sH  h |h] OJQJaJmH sH  h |hOOJQJaJmH sH  h |h)OJQJaJmH sH  h |h$OJQJaJmH sH #h |h$5OJQJaJmH sH #h |hO5OJQJaJmH sH  h%h'h(h/h1hwh{h|h~hhhhhhiiii&iUiWiii޼xgxVA)h |h(LB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |h(LOJQJaJmH sH  h |h4OJQJaJmH sH  h |h OJQJaJmH sH  h |h6OJQJaJmH sH  h |h_xOJQJaJmH sH  h |h%OJQJaJmH sH  h |hd0OJQJaJmH sH  h |hIVOJQJaJmH sH  h |h ^OJQJaJmH sH  h |hWIOJQJaJmH sH iiiiiiiiiii jjj*j4j5j6j7jrOJQJaJmH sH  h |h)OJQJaJmH sH  h |h@OJQJaJmH sH  h |h@8OJQJaJmH sH  h |hLtOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h%bOJQJaJmH sH  h |hj?OJQJaJmH sH ppppppppppppppqqqq!q"q#q%q0qį١p[[pJp[[p9 h |h@8OJQJaJmH sH  h |h`rB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hs>rOJQJaJmH sH #h |h |6OJQJaJmH sH h |OJQJaJmH sH h$OJQJaJmH sH )h |h],B*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |h)B*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |h)OJQJaJmH sH )h |hwB*OJQJaJmH phsH 0q1qBqIq]qqqqr?rDrHrLrTrfrpr|rrrrrrrrrrr޼xgVEg h |hd0OJQJaJmH sH  h |hQOJQJaJmH sH  h |hF`OJQJaJmH sH  h |h6OJQJaJmH sH  h |h7TOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h?<OJQJaJmH sH  h |hI1OJQJaJmH sH  h |h@8OJQJaJmH sH  h |hs>rOJQJaJmH sH  h |hwOJQJaJmH sH rrrrrrrrsssss;s@sCsIs`sesmss޼ޚxgxVE4E h |h lOJQJaJmH sH  h |hg OJQJaJmH sH  h |haOJQJaJmH sH  h |h@8OJQJaJmH sH  h |hZ hOJQJaJmH sH  h |ha\OJQJaJmH sH  h |hrOJQJaJmH sH  h |hANJOJQJaJmH sH  h |h]OJQJaJmH sH  h |hF`OJQJaJmH sH  h |h?<OJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssttt8tutxt~ttttttͫޚޚޚމxމxxgＫ h |h`tvĂƂɴɁlWl)h |htB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |h5oB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h6OJQJaJmH sH  h |hqOJQJaJmH sH )h |hB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hnB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hb OJQJaJmH sH  h |howOJQJaJmH sH Ƃ҂ւ>@B~8JȨȆu`uM<+ h |h]OJQJaJmH sH  h |he# OJQJaJmH sH $h |hCJOJQJaJmH sH )h |h#@zB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |h`OJQJaJmH sH  h |hb OJQJaJmH sH  h |hqOJQJaJmH sH ?h |h6hOJQJaJcHdhdhdhRfmH sH  h |h6OJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH )h |hB*OJQJaJmH phsH  JQSTUzĆІц 'ͼޫxgxVxEVx4 h |hN%OJQJaJmH sH  h |hMOJQJaJmH sH  h |h!<OJQJaJmH sH  h |h" OJQJaJmH sH  h |hb4OJQJaJmH sH  h |hRkOJQJaJmH sH  h |hM8OJQJaJmH sH  h |he# OJQJaJmH sH  h |h?cOJQJaJmH sH  h |h/OJQJaJmH sH  h |h]OJQJaJmH sH  h |hBOJQJaJmH sH '+<>_g4pu}ͼ：͉͉xgxVE h |h.EOJQJaJmH sH  h |h!GOJQJaJmH sH  h |hcOJQJaJmH sH  h |hN%OJQJaJmH sH  h |h%COJQJaJmH sH  h |hi QOJQJaJmH sH  h |h7TOJQJaJmH sH  h |hMOJQJaJmH sH  h |hQgOJQJaJmH sH  h |hb4OJQJaJmH sH  h |h7OJQJaJmH sH W܉ !ͼxxgVgE h |hLs OJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hN%OJQJaJmH sH  h |h" OJQJaJmH sH  h |h7OJQJaJmH sH  h |hI0LOJQJaJmH sH  h |hhOJQJaJmH sH  h |hXOJQJaJmH sH  h |heF<OJQJaJmH sH  h |h1OJQJaJmH sH  h |h:OJQJaJmH sH !-BOVXeӊԊ܊ 'IJYͼޫxgVEV h |hXOJQJaJmH sH  h |hX']OJQJaJmH sH  h |h ;OJQJaJmH sH  h |hqOJQJaJmH sH  h |hN%OJQJaJmH sH  h |h;OJQJaJmH sH  h |h" OJQJaJmH sH  h |hnOJQJaJmH sH  h |h7OJQJaJmH sH  h |hLs OJQJaJmH sH  h |hhOJQJaJmH sH Ybchˋ͋ދ'*.129<=NOͼͼͫxgVVgVV h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hhOJQJaJmH sH  h |h` OJQJaJmH sH  h |h+8OJQJaJmH sH  h |h:OJQJaJmH sH  h |h }OJQJaJmH sH  h |hI0LOJQJaJmH sH  h |hX']OJQJaJmH sH  h |hxTOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH ʌԌ݌  +qz{ͼ͚ͫޫޫxgV h |h  OJQJaJmH sH  h |h7TOJQJaJmH sH  h |hVOJQJaJmH sH  h |h6ddOJQJaJmH sH  h |hcOJQJaJmH sH  h |h4OJQJaJmH sH  h |hhOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h%jvOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH }ŽɎʎ +2ͼtcRRRAcA h |hT3DOJQJaJmH sH  h |h cOJQJaJmH sH  h |hu/OJQJaJmH sH )h |h#@zB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hWOJQJaJmH sH  h |h/tOJQJaJmH sH  h |h  OJQJaJmH sH  h |h$YOJQJaJmH sH  h |hfOJQJaJmH sH  h |homOJQJaJmH sH  h |h}OJQJaJmH sH (*Ԑݐ&,޼ޫޫ}l[lJl[l[l[ h |h6ddOJQJaJmH sH  h |hROJQJaJmH sH  h |hxOJQJaJmH sH #h |h |6OJQJaJmH sH h%\OJQJaJmH sH h4OJQJaJmH sH  h |h  OJQJaJmH sH  h |hpOOJQJaJmH sH  h |hT3DOJQJaJmH sH  h |homOJQJaJmH sH  h |h0OJQJaJmH sH ,23789Z]puwxܑ<=ijĢooo^Mo h |h[hxOJQJaJmH sH  h |hvOJQJaJmH sH  h |h6ddOJQJaJmH sH  h |hxTOJQJaJmH sH  h |hcOJQJaJmH sH  h |hVOJQJaJmH sH  h |hneOJQJaJmH sH  h |hROJQJaJmH sH )h |hwB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hRB*OJQJaJmH phsH  9Aefi :ɴɟ}}l[llJ h |hcOJQJaJmH sH  h |hvOJQJaJmH sH  h |ha\OJQJaJmH sH  h |h6ddOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH )h |hwB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hHB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hxTB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hxTOJQJaJmH sH  h |hfOJQJaJmH sH :JMPXax|Ԕݔ%UVW`rv޼޼﫼xggV h |hxTOJQJaJmH sH  h |h4jOJQJaJmH sH  h |h}OJQJaJmH sH  h |hXOJQJaJmH sH  h |hh{OJQJaJmH sH  h |h[hxOJQJaJmH sH  h |h"dOJQJaJmH sH  h |ha\OJQJaJmH sH  h |hcOJQJaJmH sH  h |h' OJQJaJmH sH ͕Εٕ569:<=>?@AD`﫚t_tJt_t_9 h |h&COJQJaJmH sH )h |hwB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hRB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hXB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hWOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h%OJQJaJmH sH  h |hROJQJaJmH sH  h |ha\OJQJaJmH sH  h |hXOJQJaJmH sH  h |h2OJQJaJmH sH `ipvz"*ŗǗ ͼ͚ͫxgxxVxVx h |h" OJQJaJmH sH  h |h7TOJQJaJmH sH  h |h"OJQJaJmH sH  h |h2OJQJaJmH sH  h |h|OJQJaJmH sH  h |hxTOJQJaJmH sH  h |h}OJQJaJmH sH  h |hKOJQJaJmH sH  h |h&COJQJaJmH sH  h |ha\OJQJaJmH sH 89<=>?@BHPU\lpz͸udSSB h |h7OJQJaJmH sH  h |hR%fOJQJaJmH sH  h |ha\OJQJaJmH sH )h |hRB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hwB*OJQJaJmH phsH 0HhRfhB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |h_DB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |h_DOJQJaJmH sH  h |h"OJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH آ  $-58FMN^opřΙՙEHͼͫxxgxgxR)h |hIB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hZOJQJaJmH sH  h |hIOJQJaJmH sH  h |hR%fOJQJaJmH sH  h |hIOJQJaJmH sH  h |hxTOJQJaJmH sH  h |h"OJQJaJmH sH  h |h7OJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h2OJQJaJmH sH  HJKMPXYkstu}ƚȚϚךؚ­ziXziGiG6z6 h |h>OJQJaJmH sH  h |h]OJQJaJmH sH  h |h2OJQJaJmH sH  h |hZOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOOJQJaJmH sH  h |hIOJQJaJmH sH  h |hIOJQJaJmH sH )h |hwB*OJQJaJmH phsH Hh |hwhB*OJQJaJcHdhdhdhRfmH phsH 0HhRfhB*OJQJaJmH phsH ؚ!(01<[կ|kZ|kZ|Z h |hW[OJQJaJmH sH  h |hKOJQJaJmH sH  h |h2OJQJaJmH sH  h |h*xOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOOJQJaJmH sH  h |h>OJQJaJmH sH )h |hwB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hRB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |h>B*OJQJaJmH phsH 37>YZiqÜȜӜۜ­zizXXiXGX6 h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h7TOJQJaJmH sH  h |h>OJQJaJmH sH  h |h$;OJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hR%fOJQJaJmH sH  h |hW[OJQJaJmH sH )h |hwB*OJQJaJmH phsH 0HhRfhB*OJQJaJmH phsH Hh |hwhB*OJQJaJcHdhdhdhRfmH phsH I\]^js؝#?@BLMPXǞўӞͼͼͼͫޅtctcRc h |h*xOJQJaJmH sH  h |h` OJQJaJmH sH  h |h$;OJQJaJmH sH  h |hIOJQJaJmH sH )h |h#@zB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hROJQJaJmH sH  h |hyZOJQJaJmH sH  h |hpOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hZOJQJaJmH sH Ӟ"&*+O`abiks|˟ϟwffUGhn]OJQJaJmH sH  h |h[@OJQJaJmH sH  h |hPOJQJaJmH sH h#OJQJaJmH sH  h |hzZNOJQJaJmH sH )h |hzZNB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hKOJQJaJmH sH  h |h*xOJQJaJmH sH  h |h` OJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hH5OJQJaJmH sH  !"()+>AD_a|}~î؝{{m_M6,h |h |6B*OJQJaJmH phsH #h |h |6OJQJaJmH sH h |OJQJaJmH sH hfOJQJaJmH sH  h |h^OJQJaJmH sH  h |h[@OJQJaJmH sH  h |hjOJQJaJmH sH )h |h^B*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hwB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hzZNOJQJaJmH sH  h |hn]OJQJaJmH sH  hn]aJĠ?HLQqu̡ '()*޼ޫͫͫxxxgggV h |hZ_6OJQJaJmH sH  h |h.IOJQJaJmH sH  h |h2OJQJaJmH sH  h |h^OJQJaJmH sH  h |hb^dOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h EOJQJaJmH sH  h |hqOJQJaJmH sH  h |hjOJQJaJmH sH  h |h*dOJQJaJmH sH *-29<=GPX`ܢߢ6?Gͼ޼ޫzfO> h |h?uOJQJaJmH sH -HhRfh |hOJQJaJmH sH 'HhRfhOJQJaJmH sH ?h |h]hOJQJaJcHdhdhdhRfmH sH  h |h7TOJQJaJmH sH  h |h]OJQJaJmH sH  h |h.IOJQJaJmH sH  h |hb^dOJQJaJmH sH  h |hZ_6OJQJaJmH sH  h |hPOJQJaJmH sH GPQTbdfvǣ$',.Pɤ&*6?OhnͼޫxgR)h |hvG4B*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hIOJQJaJmH sH  h |hsOJQJaJmH sH  h |hYOJQJaJmH sH  h |hekOJQJaJmH sH  h |h7&6OJQJaJmH sH  h |h?uOJQJaJmH sH  h |hb^dOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH nowzǥХӥԥե֥ץޥٷ٦ّ|cN= h |hnKOJQJaJmH sH )h |hvG4B*OJQJaJmH phsH 0HhRfhB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hbMB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |h7&6B*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hIOJQJaJmH sH  h |hYOJQJaJmH sH  h |hekOJQJaJmH sH  h |h7&6OJQJaJmH sH )h |hIB*OJQJaJmH phsH $&')*.T^dfhtx˦զצ:<ADHI޼ވ޼t޼ccc h |hJOJQJaJmH sH 'HhRfhOJQJaJmH sH  h |hYOJQJaJmH sH #h |hGH*OJQJaJmH sH  h |hGOJQJaJmH sH  h |h\OJQJaJmH sH  h |hnKOJQJaJmH sH  h |hekOJQJaJmH sH  h |hI=OJQJaJmH sH #ǧɧ˧اܧݧާߧ!(esȨ͸}l[lJl[l9 h |h 9^OJQJaJmH sH  h |h1 OJQJaJmH sH  h |hYOJQJaJmH sH  h |haxOJQJaJmH sH  h |hGOJQJaJmH sH )h |hjB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |h0hB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |h#@zB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |h&eOJQJaJmH sH  h |hJOJQJaJmH sH  h |h$;OJQJaJmH sH ȨΨըߨghuv{~޹udSd>)h |hvG4B*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |h7TOJQJaJmH sH  h |h<`OJQJaJmH sH  h |h9BVOJQJaJmH sH 'HhRfhOJQJaJmH sH  h |hRCOJQJaJmH sH h|OJQJaJmH sH  h |h9_BOJQJaJmH sH 'HhRfhOJQJaJmH sH  h |h 9^OJQJaJmH sH  h |hPOJQJaJmH sH ©ƩΩөԩ9:ҽyyhyhyWyF h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOOJQJaJmH sH  h |hYOJQJaJmH sH  h |htpOJQJaJmH sH  h |h%OJQJaJmH sH  h |h9BVOJQJaJmH sH  h |h<`OJQJaJmH sH )h |hT^B*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hvG4B*OJQJaJmH phsH 0HhRfhB*OJQJaJmH phsH :;PQ]dfvӪܪݪ$3HLMNRY[޼xgVgVgV h |h:OJQJaJmH sH  h |htpOJQJaJmH sH  h |hT^OJQJaJmH sH  h |h2K OJQJaJmH sH  h |h OJQJaJmH sH  h |hIOJQJaJmH sH  h |h OJQJaJmH sH  h |h@"ROJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hlNTOJQJaJmH sH []ikpqrstuҫӫ !#͸ޒp_pN= h |h`OJQJaJmH sH  h |h6^AOJQJaJmH sH  h |h OJQJaJmH sH  h |h/OJQJaJmH sH  h |h:OJQJaJmH sH  h |h -OJQJaJmH sH )h |hvG4B*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |h%B*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |h%OJQJaJmH sH  h |h2K OJQJaJmH sH  h |hKOJQJaJmH sH #$&8?]arѬج "+78>?EMfʭѭԭܭ޼޼ޫޚޫ͉ͫudS h |hiOJQJaJmH sH  h |hvOJQJaJmH sH 'HhRfhOJQJaJmH sH  h |h`4OJQJaJmH sH  h |h OJQJaJmH sH  h |h;OJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h)OJQJaJmH sH  h |h`OJQJaJmH sH  h |h_OJQJaJmH sH 05@eͮӮԮＫp[B[0HhRfhB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hvB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hIOJQJaJmH sH )h |hWLB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hvG4B*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hWLOJQJaJmH sH  h |hvOJQJaJmH sH  h |h OJQJaJmH sH  h |hiOJQJaJmH sH  h |h*nFOJQJaJmH sH 58RЯAsvijoo^M^8)h |hWLB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hT^OJQJaJmH sH  h |hNOJQJaJmH sH  h |hrOJQJaJmH sH  h |hhpOJQJaJmH sH  h |h OJQJaJmH sH  h |h -OJQJaJmH sH  h |hWLOJQJaJmH sH  h |hvOJQJaJmH sH )h |hvB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hHB*OJQJaJmH phsH vwxyzŰȰʰ˰Ͱ #*+.ҽҬyyhWFhFFFF h |h OJQJaJmH sH  h |h -OJQJaJmH sH  h |h$;OJQJaJmH sH  h |h OJQJaJmH sH  h |hvOJQJaJmH sH  h |hNOJQJaJmH sH  h |hWLOJQJaJmH sH )h |hvG4B*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hWLB*OJQJaJmH phsH 0HhRfhB*OJQJaJmH phsH .0IK]^n|}~ͼͼͼͼ}hSB h |h OJQJaJmH sH )h |hd|B*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hvG4B*OJQJaJmH phsH 0HhRfhB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hSB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hT^OJQJaJmH sH  h |hSOJQJaJmH sH  h |hd|OJQJaJmH sH  h |h OJQJaJmH sH  h |hvOJQJaJmH sH DzϲӲ۲&89:J`{޼xgxgxgxgR)h |hG?B*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hG?OJQJaJmH sH  h |hT0OJQJaJmH sH  h |h?cOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h7TOJQJaJmH sH  h |hKFOJQJaJmH sH  h |hDOJQJaJmH sH  h |hmWOJQJaJmH sH  h |hqpOJQJaJmH sH ijγ56 ijo]K9K9#h |hvN5OJQJaJmH sH #h |h;5OJQJaJmH sH #h |h5OJQJaJmH sH  h |hIOJQJaJmH sH  h |hKOJQJaJmH sH  h |h -OJQJaJmH sH  h |hT0OJQJaJmH sH  h |hGOJQJaJmH sH  h |hG?OJQJaJmH sH )h |hG?B*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hvG4B*OJQJaJmH phsH #'-.6Q}ѵ ENfg~˺˺veTeC h |h%OJQJaJmH sH  h |hKOJQJaJmH sH  h |huUOJQJaJmH sH  h |h XOJQJaJmH sH  h |hZBOJQJaJmH sH  h |h8NOJQJaJmH sH  h |h=OJQJaJmH sH  h |h@s OJQJaJmH sH  h |hcOJQJaJmH sH  h |hDOJQJaJmH sH #h |h:5OJQJaJmH sH Ƕ #2ow·߷ IKijkxzܸͼͼ޼ޫxcxxRx h |hk=OJQJaJmH sH )h |hvG4B*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hS)OJQJaJmH sH  h |h,OJQJaJmH sH  h |hZBOJQJaJmH sH  h |h8NOJQJaJmH sH  h |h<~OJQJaJmH sH  h |hkU&OJQJaJmH sH  h |h%OJQJaJmH sH  h |h/OJQJaJmH sH ܸ)9LYqrs|}ͼxgVVVVA)h |h6B*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |h6OJQJaJmH sH  h |h-jOJQJaJmH sH  h |hk=OJQJaJmH sH  h |hZBOJQJaJmH sH  h |hXOJQJaJmH sH  h |h OJQJaJmH sH  h |hFvgOJQJaJmH sH  h |hyOJQJaJmH sH  h |h/"|OJQJaJmH sH  h |h$OJQJaJmH sH ¹ùƹݹ$3=GIyzҽyhWF55F h |h;OJQJaJmH sH  h |hoOJQJaJmH sH  h |h8OJQJaJmH sH  h |h0iOJQJaJmH sH  h |hhOJQJaJmH sH  h |hXOJQJaJmH sH  h |h\ OJQJaJmH sH  h |h6OJQJaJmH sH )h |hvG4B*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |h6B*OJQJaJmH phsH 0HhRfhB*OJQJaJmH phsH z}̺Ӻֺ꼫xgVExE4Ex4x h |hUDOJQJaJmH sH  h |h8OJQJaJmH sH  h |hSwOJQJaJmH sH  h |h0iOJQJaJmH sH  h |h'OJQJaJmH sH  h |hc;OJQJaJmH sH  h |h\ OJQJaJmH sH  h |hoOJQJaJmH sH )h |hvG4B*OJQJaJmH phsH 0HhRfhB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hoB*OJQJaJmH phsH &(./056789h̻ͻͼާ}}l[[JJ h |h{OJQJaJmH sH  h |hfOJQJaJmH sH  h |h/OJQJaJmH sH )h |hSwB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hvG4B*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hUDB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |h'OJQJaJmH sH  h |h0iOJQJaJmH sH  h |hUDOJQJaJmH sH  h |hSwOJQJaJmH sH ͻٻۻܻqyüżͼxgVEVEVEVEV h |h_OJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hC4OJQJaJmH sH  h |h0iOJQJaJmH sH  h |h$;OJQJaJmH sH  h |hGOJQJaJmH sH  h |hG{OJQJaJmH sH  h |h OJQJaJmH sH  h |h &OJQJaJmH sH  h |hSwOJQJaJmH sH  h |h8OJQJaJmH sH żƼͼмѼӼؼ>@CEFGIJOWͼޫ͚މt_tJ)h |hvG4B*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hHB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |h &B*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |h &OJQJaJmH sH  h |h$;OJQJaJmH sH  h |h(OJQJaJmH sH  h |h0iOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h_OJQJaJmH sH  h |h|$sOJQJaJmH sH WgpxŽϽ׽Dvw˾̾;Ծ׾޼ޚxxgggggVV h |h[OJQJaJmH sH  h |hGOJQJaJmH sH  h |hM%OJQJaJmH sH  h |hKOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hG{OJQJaJmH sH  h |h|$sOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h_OJQJaJmH sH  h |hE~OJQJaJmH sH %29>CGTiﴣp_N= h |h~$OJQJaJmH sH  h |h' OJQJaJmH sH  h |h_OJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hGOJQJaJmH sH  h |h &OJQJaJmH sH  h |h OJQJaJmH sH  h |h|$sOJQJaJmH sH )h |h],B*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |h XB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |h XOJQJaJmH sH  $:;GWpsvx}~4ͼ𥳐l[J9 h |honOJQJaJmH sH  h |h}krOJQJaJmH sH  h |hE~OJQJaJmH sH )h |h:y,B*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hHB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hhB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |h3 OJQJaJmH sH  h |h' OJQJaJmH sH  h |h~$OJQJaJmH sH  h |hh.OJQJaJmH sH  h |h:y,OJQJaJmH sH 4;hs (*+޼ͼ޼ͧ}ͼl[J9 h |hIOJQJaJmH sH  h |h}krOJQJaJmH sH  h |h &OJQJaJmH sH  h |h' OJQJaJmH sH )h |hhB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hHB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |heB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |h:y,OJQJaJmH sH  h |heOJQJaJmH sH  h |honOJQJaJmH sH  h |hM%OJQJaJmH sH +AQWZ+,=CF{ާާާlޖ[ޖ h |hBOJQJaJmH sH )h |hhB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hp^B*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hp^OJQJaJmH sH  h |hW-OJQJaJmH sH  h |h[OJQJaJmH sH )h |h>KB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hIOJQJaJmH sH  h |h?COJQJaJmH sH #ruwxy !(1[޸}hSh}BBB h |h1)QOJQJaJmH sH )h |h<B*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hNvKB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hNvKOJQJaJmH sH )h |hhB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hHB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |h='B*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hIOJQJaJmH sH  h |h='OJQJaJmH sH  h |hp^OJQJaJmH sH [jo *-8>DLQVXYkpͼ͚xggͫR)h |h>B*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hxOJQJaJmH sH  h |h$;OJQJaJmH sH  h |hE~OJQJaJmH sH  h |hNvKOJQJaJmH sH  h |hKOJQJaJmH sH  h |hMn%OJQJaJmH sH  h |hZOJQJaJmH sH  h |haOJQJaJmH sH  h |hK2OJQJaJmH sH  '(u}ﴣppp__N_ h |hKOJQJaJmH sH  h |hxOJQJaJmH sH  h |hMn%OJQJaJmH sH  h |hEcOJQJaJmH sH  h |hq.YOJQJaJmH sH  h |haOJQJaJmH sH  h |hZOJQJaJmH sH )h |h],B*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |h>B*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |h>OJQJaJmH sH ")dLWX[ͼͼͫxgVgE h |h2nOJQJaJmH sH  h |h24OJQJaJmH sH  h |hE~OJQJaJmH sH  h |h"OJQJaJmH sH  h |hkOJQJaJmH sH  h |hxOJQJaJmH sH  h |h{sOJQJaJmH sH  h |hMn%OJQJaJmH sH  h |h>OJQJaJmH sH  h |hg6OJQJaJmH sH  h |hf^OJQJaJmH sH  !$<IQOPͼͼͼ͚͉͉xggg h |ho6OJQJaJmH sH  h |hE~OJQJaJmH sH  h |h)kOJQJaJmH sH  h |h$;OJQJaJmH sH  h |h{sOJQJaJmH sH  h |hkOJQJaJmH sH  h |h2nOJQJaJmH sH  h |hxOJQJaJmH sH  h |hEcOJQJaJmH sH PQUVW]_tx۶x_N=,= h |h:IOJQJaJmH sH  h |hUOJQJaJmH sH  h |ho6OJQJaJmH sH  h |hEcOJQJaJmH sH 0HhRfhB*OJQJaJmH phsH 0HhRfhB*OJQJaJmH phsH Hh |hkhB*OJQJaJcHdhdhdhRfmH phsH Hh |hE~hB*OJQJaJcHdhdhdhRfmH phsH Hh |hEchB*OJQJaJcHdhdhdhRfmH phsH  _h,JMZbj/>ckͼͫxgxxxgxV h |h*6OJQJaJmH sH  h |h:IOJQJaJmH sH  h |hkOJQJaJmH sH  h |hEOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h$;OJQJaJmH sH  h |h+yOJQJaJmH sH  h |hEcOJQJaJmH sH  h |hUOJQJaJmH sH kmprstŰyyhWhFhF5F h |hk OJQJaJmH sH  h |hkOJQJaJmH sH  h |hkOJQJaJmH sH  h |hg6OJQJaJmH sH  h |honOJQJaJmH sH  h |hEOJQJaJmH sH )h |hhB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hEB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hHB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hbMB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hbMOJQJaJmH sH 7<R[bjnvx_g޼xggxgggV͚ h |hqOJQJaJmH sH  h |hrOJQJaJmH sH  h |hc!OJQJaJmH sH  h |hxmOJQJaJmH sH  h |h.OJQJaJmH sH  h |hEcOJQJaJmH sH  h |hQOJQJaJmH sH  h |hkOJQJaJmH sH  h |honOJQJaJmH sH  h |hKOJQJaJmH sH ! >GMOiyννvaLa7v)h |hhB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hu=zB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hV5B*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hV5OJQJaJmH sH  h |hQOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH 'HhRfhOJQJaJmH sH  h |h.OJQJaJmH sH  h |hkOJQJaJmH sH ?h |hkhOJQJaJcHdhdhdhRfmH sH Z[qt{﫚͉͉xcNx)h |h],B*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hkB*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |hkOJQJaJmH sH  h |hgfOJQJaJmH sH  h |h'3OJQJaJmH sH  h |h OJQJaJmH sH  h |hv OJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |h!OJQJaJmH sH  h |h\OJQJaJmH sH 8;DKSYo~)*=>Cͼͼ͚ͫx͉ggxggVg h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hW2OJQJaJmH sH  h |h_YOJQJaJmH sH  h |h>OJQJaJmH sH  h |h6OJQJaJmH sH  h |hG OJQJaJmH sH  h |hkOJQJaJmH sH  h |htVOJQJaJmH sH  h |hgfOJQJaJmH sH  h |hX4OJQJaJmH sH !CNUu{*+567EGmx︣}l[PE:/h |h XOJQJh |hQOJQJh |h@OJQJh |h:OJQJ h |h2nOJQJaJmH sH  h |h='OJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH )h |hhB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hu=zB*OJQJaJmH phsH )h |hO\B*OJQJaJmH phsH  h |h>OJQJaJmH sH  h |hW2OJQJaJmH sH  h |hO\OJQJaJmH sH xy 0FM] *,17>HPXYflɾɳԳߝ߳߳߾Ծh |hgOJQJh |h>KOJQJh |hOJQJh |h]OJQJh |h$YOJQJh |h OJQJh |hV5OJQJh |h XOJQJh |hQOJQJ= *PRSpu}%3CLT~&Xb ɾɾɳɝꝒ|qh |hy5OJQJh |hQiOJQJh |h[3OJQJh |hOJQJh |h OJQJh |hXOJQJh |hgOJQJh |hV5OJQJh |h]OJQJh |h3OJQJh |h$YOJQJh |hQOJQJh |hZiOJQJ( .ach5APV]&'(<H^a{)-q~߱ߛߐ߅zzh |hzZOJQJh |h,OJQJh |hp4OJQJh |hFzOJQJh |hQOJQJh |hOJQJh |h[3OJQJaJh |hQiOJQJh |hOJQJh |hy5OJQJh |h[3OJQJh |h'OJQJ,(`b~tuRS_`  $da$gd%\#abehs~ ]it"&-9:KQXZu"<=>C]cɾɳɝh |hfOJQJaJh |h$;OJQJh |h2OJQJh |h,OJQJh |h) OJQJh |hqeOJQJh |h+OJQJh |hOJQJh |hW#OJQJh |hzZOJQJh |h7TOJQJ4KNPV >?Pk!4:ǼǼǼǼǼDZǼǼǦǐzzozzh |hOJQJh |h!OJQJh |h OJQJh |h24OJQJh |h'OJQJh |hOJQJh |h|mtOJQJh |h,OJQJh |h) OJQJh |hp4OJQJh |h2OJQJh |hfOJQJaJh |hfOJQJ+M[fuABCDWXmLTu [ɳɳɒ|h |h6[OJQJh |hwOJQJh |hOJQJh |hgOJQJh |h&AOJQJh |hyUOJQJh |h3WOJQJh |ht^vOJQJh |hJWOJQJh |h$;OJQJh |hf~OJQJh |hOJQJ0|+-;?I^`bdhɼ{{ph]RGh |hjOJQJh |h@OJQJh |h:OJQJh |OJQJh |hLfOJQJh |h@OJQJh |hedOJQJ!h |hedB*OJQJaJphh |hedOJQJaJh |hOJQJaJh |hwOJQJaJh |hwOJQJh |h.OJQJh |hOJQJh |h6[OJQJh |hN$OJQJdefklmsuv}~IQRST[dfyɾyh |hwCOJQJ]h |hKOJQJ]h |h$OJQJ]h |hfCOJQJh |hiOJQJh |h@OJQJh |h(IOJQJh |h!OJQJh |hOJQJh |hOJQJh |hjOJQJh |hKOJQJ/yz}\]hijIJKLPVYZ\dNSVW^`a V۷󷫟ssh |hOJQJ]h |hfCOJQJ]mH sH h |hjOJQJ]mH sH h |h9EOJQJ]h |hndOJQJ]h |hiOJQJ]h |hVOJQJ]h |hGkOJQJ]h |hKOJQJ]h |hwCOJQJ]h |hfCOJQJ],VWH6IJMPRS_~÷÷Äuuhh |h>OJQJaJh |hB*CJaJphh |h>B*CJaJphh |h`MOJQJ]h |hSOJQJ]h |hbC2OJQJ]h |hp=OJQJ]h |h^ZUOJQJ]h |h\i$OJQJ]h |h7OJQJ]h |hOJQJ]h |hOJQJ]$QRWXVX}~  $d[$a$gd%\$d^`a$gd%\ $da$gd%\/9;<OVWѵߧߧߙ{nanTnTaTh |h_OJQJaJh |hOJQJaJh |hmOJQJaJ h |h0hOJQJaJmHsHh |h0hOJQJ^Jh |hvdOJQJ]^Jh |hIOJQJ]^Jh |hE#OJQJ]^Jh |hjOJQJ]^Jh |h0hOJQJ]^Jh |hOJQJ]^J#h |hOJQJ]^JmH sH WXTHTZndeqrs|}~#$z Ƿ׫כ㏃wkk_kkh |hd9OJQJ]h |h\i$OJQJ]h |hOJQJ]h |h OJQJ]h |hOJQJ]h |hVOJQJ]mH sH h |h QOJQJ]h |hOJQJ]mH sH h |hSOJQJ]mH sH h |hjOJQJ]h |hOJQJ]h |hmOJQJ]mH sH % &HZ^<>|"QST͵ͩ͵͙yiYIh |hd9OJQJhnH tH h |h`MOJQJhnH tH h |h1sOJQJhnH tH h |h QOJQJhnH tH h |h@OJQJhnH tH h |hOJQJhnH tH h |hnoOJQJ\h |h QOJQJ\h |h1sOJQJ\h |h@OJQJ\h |h QOJQJ\]h |h QOJQJ]h |h@OJQJ]>?          0K2K dgd%\ $da$gd%\$ d1$a$gd%\=?@Sξޮ||m^O^@Oh |h4OJQJmH sH h |h QOJQJmH sH h |h9EOJQJmH sH h |hmOJQJmH sH h |h`MOJQJaJh |h QOJQJaJh |hmOJQJaJh |h\i$OJQJh |h QOJQJhnH tH h |h@OJQJhnH tH h |hAOJQJhnH tH h |hd9OJQJhnH tH "h |hd9H*OJQJhnH tH .      " 9 : t {        ӵ񪟓{jYH7j h |h`MOJQJaJmH sH  h |h QOJQJaJmH sH  h |hVOJQJaJmH sH  h |hmOJQJaJmH sH h |h`MOJQJ]h |h QOJQJ]h |hSOJQJ]h |hSOJQJh |h QOJQJh |hTOJQJmH sH h |hFOJQJmH sH h |h'OJQJmH sH h |hU.OJQJmH sH h |h9EOJQJmH sH      # I   J$J2JnJJK K.K0K2K4KĹĹĪ|eR$h |h@CJOJQJaJmH sH -h |hV)B*CJOJQJaJmH phsH h |hnoOJQJh |h1sOJQJUh |h@OJQJh |h)<OJQJh |h)<OJQJmH sH h |h QOJQJh |hnOJQJh |hmOJQJmH sH  h |hmOJQJaJmH sH  h |h`MOJQJaJmH sH , Peh Z, Galovi L (2001) Geochemical Baseline Mapping of Soils Developed on Diverse Bedrock from Two Regions in Croatia. Geologia Croatica 54/1:53-118 Mio  P, }nidar i  M (1977) Geology of Slovenj Gradec sheet. Basic geological map of Yugoslavia, 1:100000. Geoloaki zavod Ljubljana, Beograd (Federal Institute of Geology) (In Slovenian; English summary) Mio  P, & Markovi S (1998) Geology of akovec sheet. Basic Geological map of Croatia and Slovenia, 1:100000. Inatitut za geologijo, geotehniko in geofiziko, Ljubljana and Institut za geoloaka istra~ivanja, Zagreb (In Croatian; English summary) Molinaroli E, Basu A (1993) Toward quantitative provenance analysis: A brief review and case study. In: Johnsson MJ, Basu A (eds) Processes controlling the composition of clastic sediments. Geological Society of America Special Paper 284:323-333 dor L, Horvth I, Fgedi U (1997): Low-density geochemical mapping in Hungary. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 60:55-66 Ottesen RT, Bogen J, Blviken B, Volden T (1989) Overbank sediment as arepresentative medium for regional geochemical mapping. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 32:257-277 Owens PN, Walling DE, Leeks GJL (1999) Use of floodplain sediment cores to investigate recent historical changes in overbank sedimentation rates and sediment sources in the catchment of the River Ouse, Yorkshire, UK. Catena 36:21-47 Pavlovic G, Prohic E, Tibljas D (2004) Statistical assessment of geochemical pattern in overbank sediments of the river Sava, Croatia. Environmental Geology 46:132-143 Phillips JD (1999) Earth surface systems: complexity, order, and scale. Blackwell, Malden, 180 p. Reimann C, Filzmoser P (2000) Normal and lognormal data distribution in geochemistry: death of a myth. Consequences for the statistical treatment of geochemical and environmental data. Environmental Geology 39(9):1001-1014 Reimann C, Filzmoser P, Garret RG (2005) Background and threshold: critical comparison of methods of determination. Science of the Total Environment 346:1-16 Rhoads BL, Cahill RA (1999) Geomorphological assessment of sediment contamination in an urban stream system. Applied Geochemistry 14:459-483 Rock NMS (1988) Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, 18: Numerical Geology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York-London-Paris-Tokyo, 427 p. Romic M, Romic D (2003) Heavy metals distribution in agricultural topsoils in urban area. Environmental Geology 43:795-805 Rognerud S, Hongve D, Fjeld E, Ottesen RT (2000) Trace metal concentrations in lake and overbank sediments in southern Norway. Environmental Geology 39(7):723-732 Salminen R, Tarvainen T, Demetriades A, Duris M, Fordyce FM, Gregorauskiene V, Kahelin H, Kivisilla J, Klaver G, Klin H, Larson JO, Lis J, Locutura J, Marsina K, Mjartanova H, Mouvet C, O Connor P, dor L, Ottonello G, Paukola T, Plant JA, Reimann C, Schermann O, Siewers U, Steenfelt A, van der Sluys J, de Vivo B, Wiliams L (1998) FOREGS Geochemical mapping field manual, Guide 47, 35 p. Geological Survey of Finland, Espoo. Singh AK, Hasnain SI, Banerjee DK (1999) Grain size and geochemical partitioning of heavy metals in sediments of the Damodar River  a tributary of the lower Ganga. Environmental Geology 39(1):90-98 Sutherland RA (1998) A comparison of geochemical information obtained from two fluvial bed sediment fractions. Environmental Geology 39(3-4):330-341 Swennen R, Van Keer I, De Voos W (1994) Heavy metal concentration in overbank sediments of the Gaul river (East Belgium): Its relation to former Pb-Zn mining activities. Environmental Geology 24:12-21 Swennen R, Van Der Sluys J, Hindel R, Brusselmans A (1998) Geochemistry of overbank and high-order stream sediments in Belgium and Luxemburg: a way to assess environmental pollution. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 62:67-79 Swennen R, Van Der Sluys J (2002) Anthropogenic impact on sediment composition and geochemistry in vertical overbank profiles of river alluvium from Belgium and Luxemburg. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 75:93-105 `ajn R (2002) Influence of mining and metallurgy on chemical composition of soil and attic dust in Me~a valley, Slovenia. Geologija 45/2:547-552. (In Slovenian; English abstract) `ajn R. (2003) Distribution of chemical elements in attic dust and soil as reflection of lithology and anthropogenic influence in Slovenia. Journal de Physique 107:1173-1176 `ajn R, Gosar M (2004) An overview of some localities in Slovenia that become polluted due to past mining and metallurgic activities. Geologija 47/2:249-258. (In Slovenian; English abstract) `ajn R, Peh Z, Halami J, Miko S, Galovi L (2005) Experimental geochemical Map of Croatia and Slovenia. Third Croatian Geological Congress, Opatija, September, 29th  October, 1st, 2005. Abstracts Book, pp 243-244, Zagreb Volden T, Reimann C, Pavlov VA, de Caritat P, yrs (1997) Overbank sediments from the surroundings of the Russian nickel mining and smelting industry on the Kola Peninsula. Environmental Geology 32(3):175-185 Vre a P, `ajn R, Pirc S (2001) Natural and anthropogenic influences on geochemistry of soils in terrains of barren and mineralized carbonate rocks in the Pb-Zn mining district of Me~ica, Slovenia. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 74:99-108 Whitney PR (1975) Relationship of manganese  iron oxides associated heavy metals to grain size in stream sediments. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 4:251-263 Zachara JM, Cowan CE, Resch CT (1991) Sorption of divalent metals on calcite. Geochimica and Cosmochimica Acta, 55:1549-1562     PAGE 13 PAGE 1 4K:K>K@KDKTKXKZKbKdKhKKKLLLLLLLLLLLLLMxNNNNN@OǴǡǎ{{h{{{ڡ{]R]h |hovXOJQJh |hV)OJQJ$h |hCJOJQJaJmH sH $h |hovXCJOJQJaJmH sH $h |hPCJOJQJaJmH sH $h |hbvCJOJQJaJmH sH $h |hF3CJOJQJaJmH sH $h |hnoCJOJQJaJmH sH $h |h@CJOJQJaJmH sH $h |h QCJOJQJaJmH sH  2KLLNNPPQQRRTT V"VVVXXYY[[ \"\]] $da$gd%\d^`gd%\@OzO|O~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO2PPPPPPQQQRRRRRR2STTTTTT UVV"V$V꧍~qh |hOJQJaJh |h OJQJmH sH h |h5OJQJmH sH h |hc#^OJQJh |hOJQJh |hovXOJQJmH sH h |hnOJQJmH sH h |hFOJQJmH sH h |hV)OJQJh |hovXOJQJh |h7OJQJ,$V2VVVVVXXXXXXXXXYYYYYY ZZZ[[ [[[\̻yyyhy[[[NNh |hyOJQJaJh |h6OJQJaJ h |hAOJQJaJmH sH  h |h5lOJQJaJmH sH  h |h OJQJaJmH sH  h |hmOJQJaJmH sH h |h)<OJQJmH sH  h |h)<OJQJaJmH sH h |hmOJQJaJh |h5lOJQJaJh |hOJQJaJh |h OJQJaJ\"\$\,\0\2\6\>\N\\]]]]h]B^H^N^^^`^b^NaPaaaaaaac.c:cFcӵӵӵpaRRRh |hjOJQJmH sH h |h>OJQJmH sH h |h+LCJOJQJaJ$h |h CJOJQJaJmH sH $h |h+LCJOJQJaJmH sH h |CJOJQJaJmH sH h |hUOJQJmH sH h |h5OJQJmH sH h |h OJQJmH sH h |hMOJQJmH sH h |hmOJQJmH sH  ]`^b^aaHcJctdvdf fggiijjkJlLlmmood^`gd%\$ da$gd%\ $da$gd%\ $da$gd%\FcJcLc^cdcfcbdrdvdxddef flf~ggggghtiviiiiijjjjjjjjkkĵČvi\i\h |hU.OJQJaJh |h?&OJQJaJh |hAOJQJh |h^eOJQJh |h1IOJQJh |hOJQJmH sH h |hOJQJmH sH h |h^eOJQJmH sH h |h$OJQJmH sH h |h OJQJmH sH h |hOJQJmH sH h |hjOJQJmH sH $kll4l6lJlLlNljlzlTmXmjmpmrmtmvmxmzm|m~mmmmmmmn8nLnnn̻̬ujj_jTh |h`c OJQJh |h1sOJQJh |h@OJQJh |hAOJQJh |h/'OJQJh |hgOJQJh |h^eOJQJh |h.OJQJh |h?&OJQJmH sH  h |hU.OJQJaJmH sH  h |h?&OJQJaJmH sH #h |hU.OJQJ\aJmH sH  h |h?&OJQJaJmH sH noo4oBo`obodojooooopq.q0q2qsss&srsｲ}l}l[L};}; h |hOJQJaJmH sH h |h/'OJQJmH sH  h |hSOJQJaJmH sH  h |hUOJQJaJmH sH  h |h/'OJQJaJmH sH  h |h ,1OJQJaJmH sH $h |hFCJOJQJaJmH sH h |h@OJQJh |h/'OJQJhnH tH h |hAOJQJhnH tH "h |h`c H*OJQJhnH tH h |h`c OJQJhnH tH o0q2qss\t^tXuZu\u^u`ubudufuhujulupuruvuxu|udgd%\$>d^`>a$gd%\ d`gd%\ $da$gd%\dgd%\rstsJtZt^t`ttBuDuLuVuZu\u^u`udufujulunurutuxuzu~uuuuuu޼ͼͼͼͫޚzld`d`d`d`VPV hn]0Jjhn]0JUh"jh"Uh |hg5OJQJaJh |hCJOJQJaJ h |h>OJQJaJmH sH  h |hO\OJQJaJmH sH  h |hbvOJQJaJmH sH  h |hSOJQJaJmH sH  h |h/'OJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH  h |hOJQJaJmH sH |u~uuuuuuuuuuudgd%\h]h&`#$ uuuuuuuuuuuuuuh |hg5OJQJaJh"h0JmHnHuhn] hn]0Jjhn]0JUhn]0JmHnHu ,&P . A!"n#$%Z DyK zpeh@hgi-cgs.hryK .mailto:zpeh@hgi-cgs.hrDyK robert.sajn@geo-zs.siyK :mailto:robert.sajn@geo-zs.si%D@D NormalCJOJQJ_HmH sH tHP@P Heading 1$$dh@&a$CJmH sH uP@P Heading 2$dh@&5OJQJmH sH uDA@D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List @B@@ Body Text$a$ mHsHuHP@H Body Text 2$a$CJmH sH uDQ@D Body Text 3$a$ mH sH u4 @"4 Footer  9r .)@1. Page Number:B:  Footnote TextCJ@&Q@ Footnote ReferenceH*dC@bd Body Text Indent$:dh^`:a$ B*OJQJ`R@r` Body Text Indent 2:^`:B*CJOJQJ\S@\ Body Text Indent 3:^`: CJOJQJ4@4 Header  9r jj Ii Table Grid7:V04U@4 ': Hyperlink >*ph3fBOB ':artcopy57>*CJS*Y(aJph333Z^@Z R Normal (Web)dd[$\$OJQJ^JaJmHsH.X@. REmphasis6]bOb @ literatura$0x^`0a$CJOJQJmH sH tHZOZ T authorgroup dd[$\$5OJQJ\aJmHsH6O6 T affiliationCJaJFO!F Tabstractheading15CJ\aJDO1D T highlight01CJaJq H@BH  Balloon Text$CJOJQJ^JaJ$!"&!"&!"&!"&!"&!"& "& "&! "&! "& "& "& "& "& "& "& "& "&!"&!"&!"&!"&!"& "&!"&!"&!"&!"&!"&!"&!"&! "&!!"&!""& #"& $"&% &6%x-49<DL6UP]fowh)N; wm#/5 df M  g  | u 9#- !"#KL$%Kk  5[&~J$K$n$o$|$(+++9.y0z00^2_2r2s22::$:<AFKK K!KOO PWZZZd{mYuwwx܇݇@ԒYZt;[?@ST`aop$%ST78ij>?/0"#*+cd45./DE&'vw56xy56UV_`)* JK  ST$B$Y$Y$Y$Y$oJ$Y$Y$4 $Y$Y$Y$Y$Y$Y$Y$Y$Y$Y$Y$Y$Y$Y$Y$$[{$Y$Y$e$Y$Y$Y$Y$UE$*$Y$Y$*$%$Y$Y$$Y$Y$Y$Y$'Op$Y$Y$*$8P$UE$UE$Y$Y$Y$UE$Y$Y$Au$*$Y$Y$e$vZ$Au$*$Y$Y$2$Y$Y$[{$o%$ $Y$Y$e$!:$o%$&@$Y$Y$Y$;-@${5$ j$U$Y$Y$Y$!0$Y$Y$Y$4 $Y$O $Y$4 $Y$4 $Y$O $Y$id$Y$4 $Y$4 $Y$4 $Y$O $Y$O $Y$O $Y$id$Y$u\$Y$4 $Y$O $Y$O $Y$4 $Y$4 $Y$4 $Y$O $Y$O $Y$4 $Y$O $Y$O $Y$O $Y$O $Y$O $Y$4 $Y$O $Y$O $Y$4 $Y$O $Y$O $Y$O $Y$4 $Y$4 $Y$O $Y$4 $Y$4 $Y$O $Y$4 $Y$4 $Y$4 $Y$4 $Y$4 $Y$$Y$O $Y$4 $Y$O $Y$O $Y$O $Y$4 $Y$Y$Y$Y$4 $Y$O $Y$O $Y$O $Y$4 $Y$4 $Y$Y$Y$Y$Y$Y$Y$Y$Y$Yx'$'KL$%Kk  5[&~J$K$n$o$|$(+++9.y0z00^2_2r2s22::$:<AFKK K!KOO PWZZZd{mYuwwx܇݇@ԒYZt;[?@ST`aop$%ST78ij>?/0"#*+cd45./DE&'vw56xy56UV_`)* JK  ST000K000000000000000000000000000000000000000000_2 0_20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M200M20M20M20M20M20M20M200M20M20M20M200M20M20000M20M200M20M200M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M200M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M20M2000000000000@000J$n$(0^2_2:op/JI00I00I00I00I00I00I00I00I00I00I00I00I00I00I00I00I00I00I000 '''*@ \ &'`a-1O  @!#X&),9>ABBEqHIxK NOPQSTVXZ^\]^_`2aab0def hij.lmnEop0qrstuxy%z{|~'ƂJ'!Y,:`HؚӞ*GnȨ:[#v.ܸzͻżW4+[PkCx yVW  4K@O$V\Fcknrsuu      "#$;=>?ABCEG|Hf2K]o|uu!<@DFucXX !#*!!8@0(  B S  ?q?"r? <s?G<t? <u?PDv?;w?$x?y??<z?#<{?|?C}?dC~?C?C??"??TW"?W"?W"?X"?TX"?X"?X"?Y"?TY"?Y"?Y"?Z"?TZ"?Z"?Z"?["?T["?LC?C?C? C?LC?C?C? C?LC?C?C? C?LC?C?C? C?LC?C C?'?D'?'?'?(?D( (?(?) D)?)?LM?$G?\(K?+K?F?,? ?<,G??"<?@?BACDEFGHIJLKMNOPQRSTUVXWYZ[]\^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrtsuvwxyz{|}~+115;;#33PZZ)/t#z#z#...<Y`]`i`i`!f!fqqq&v&vUzdwwbb }oxxwz xUU@I1__[[vzz &,,//`` rr    !"#$%&'()*,+-./0123456798:;=<>@?BACDEFGHIJLKMNOPQRSTUVXWYZ[]\^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrtsuvwxyz{|}~:*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStreet;*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsaddress=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplaceB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region9U*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState  jUUUUUUUUU &+LQ05  ),6=CJks5=[cr z   : A J M N S Z c h o v  : A O W e i w  t QY5:MP6B$)DNY \ ] a f n !!2!4!A!C!!!!!!!{""""o#t#######$$ $%$3$7$<$A$%%%%%%%%%%%%~&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&' ''''((((Q-Y-^-f-x--#.*.//////////00.040h0m0s2}23333l5w5555555l6t6667777U8[8::<<oG{G$H0HYIeILL#M&MJNVNtNwN2O>OOOOOOP PPPPQQRRRRRR3S?SSSRT^T/U2UJUVUUU VVKVVVqVzVVVWWWWXXbXeXXXZZZ[[[t\v\\\\\]]o]{]C_J_``5`>`R`Y`aaaaaaaaaa#b/bbbbbbbccKeVeeef!fggnhwh~hhhhhhhhi iij7j>jLjRj~jjjjjjjjkkkkdmlmmm:nCťʥ̩ة NWlnNU#=D} -2ntuz<Hq}Wc QW_d=G'*Z_MUpsw{%,0: y>GT\`eios{8@#'/3:gimt @HV^cj #'15:IRV]adel123[\_`qrz{}~y{&*/39=CGO7A/;+26=ceoq  ^c!5=AH;BFNSYow:CSZ}EM'/AHtv#'*.5(016 &6>?ABJKW+2w{ %-;JPYgk y4D6;?Dx V^bkoz~  $-18FMQZ^eirz}~  w~`gosz~*19<=BFLP[u} !&zKObk'KOSX !-4&.XZqwT[jo[##[]jy{O#'5dgHSy'%7{Q0=aby(bdT::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::L 5 &~K$}$'@()m,:..P//z02384?&@BwDEEFGIIK!KNOO PRSTVqWW.ZZZZ_k`wxXzk~'݇D@tzYZ1ݝ;TX ;)nںhLsLY@ap8?#/Rx ln6_ `#4>^`>o(>^`>o(.0^`0o(..0^`0o(... 88^8`o( .... 88^8`o( ..... `^``o( ...... `^``o(....... ^`o(........6_  @ @4)\zXeka UH!$%rp2$4) MQ%+n*C$/6 aMLe7:"i^ @6 av1@UH!$6 a"iyDj%r ,v\zO.|0X~:9RH![avh{W.DJ"\+y{|h.sLcfp^GbLfgt =MsxM%0/1IWt""&?Q`j\j' z@ 2K _ `c v { Z} : W e# @s ' Ls N N T b {  3 L [ k o ~ &A\bbf'Ackw P((0;cc`sv6>kDt!w6Y87=Kh:Xu}_._Y[kn',2/z5J2nFO`Y\]cht}p/?2BlIQtVx$1V6V{g8++;@AI]i ,%i:P7+8R /%+LPhN%O@SF gfu",&w ) 1 |[ {e ig d!M!"k-"2h"o"###2#>#m#}#$\i$~$~$$%)%.%8%O%Mn% &&h&1$&?&kU&}&='`]'>{'8(s(G)S)w)*9*o=*gK*2x*M+X+,],6,:y,- -K-W-W-.U.u/'/V/00B0U0]0d00<1+ 1 1 ,1I1N1\P1W2K2bC2q223F3JW3[3,j3 44b4vG4U45H5V5eo57&6Z_6g6o627!7,7n>7_7l8888r8m8 8@8d8u8d9A9H9c9m9x9$:&:o7:5;!;x/;^n;<?<!<[7<eF< l< =I='>N>kw>a??B?G?d??@&@/@g@p@T}@A!A6^ABBB-B3BZB9_BE`BoBC!C%CA9C`Kl^KZbKNvKL(LI0LWL)|LMMMM`MnM N8NzZNwN 8OpOPPPjPi QQ1)Q.4QmQR@"R4Rv5R&NRZkR~RRSS. S2S2SrSwS5ySUT TTCTlNT{\TuTxT[|TU#U[2UYU^ZU`UeUmUyUV:4V9BVIVIVXVW%WJWXLX5XHXovX$Yq.YfY Z/Z%2ZXZdoZzZ[6[#A[kE[w[?\%\f@\O\vV\]X']8<]k]n] ^"^c#^ 9^J^T^f^_F_j_`<`F`q`aaaa'a,4aCaFaQaUab b|b%b'bXbzb~ c c*;c?cEcqQc|d"d'd*d(>dXVdWdb^d6ddkdvdee&eXe^ejdeR%f*flfQg(2g6gFvg}gZ h0h=hOh0iIi YiZi^iVdijjy$j-j4jijvjRk2kekI l l-/l5lclQmm,m}.mTmomxmO(nIn.o5oZoconop`4pRpgphpqptpqqq}$q$q Kqcqkqs>rLr}krdzr|$s1sJsMs5\sis{st/tLtgt|mt)u?uRuJ`uvnvZvt^vbv%jvkvww<(w?wAwBwSwowwxH@x_xax[hx!mxy;yz1zu=z#@zrz6#{'{-{5{G{P{R{X{ |_|/"|6E|J|s|dW})h}~E~O~H-4=v{{//% WLUDoV%.hj| *>;qDneyQRZf* ,U3IQ[pmr9>s>/fg0]C3m}( .=(.m0a4RJoG IyBo./[@H_M1RpaD/Hr d"KFndQi~+&T0`4Q^^] 6w@gyw2E{c$[1!G\KOor)6\i6LEX]ls#36% RH%RSJODpp4y53W: 0GX2V)Xrtih(9*Kge \ !%r;=#75o6 DM"mqxFz }"p=FOuUa\rx2B<~M%$; NRZ j)':Zkm.7245<`"v|` ./e3j?hGkPmXk=f]:^"MSo$YGQR N$7]+67mbd*6U]ij" /5 ;Q2|,7.2Qekx=q&;Sg 7KkMOS[WZ% %gh  &CnK>xTW[eKZxc!^{cQgp` ~%CKfhj^jj -'3F]h| k%Dtf$kbM gC4N\1y#*X;ij%M._V648; XO2 @q;E#/)<=Ha{]3a?c{d|V !G^7c]iv{` *"B.FS|G#Abceiv NWonwz-.I\'r}V L\f tX4mS6vNmWW0@l](x9uJ)kw~|6:XK]c!|%&d`gY0CVj*x=O [|h75CTkq9w f<_DP RFw/M81qvUn3c;S\`kf$#%W'N>cIiwG0v7: ,.V\goNURe CQVTu}y Dci ?CqergR ` EWGK QtwyZoy/Mn !1Nrwf~0OMc9m!' *'|~6.02i*'4 Geu $ZY~S=XedkCy"W#AIGp,(E#m-DJg}{ %Tk4nHNeO_e,P^o"2^b_ s'U_ak/'-(IJ)Q7Tou*-24Uk@MR%t-01Zt>'*_zf@7LF K*Kq\OG(fPw@ll@ \ll<<< < << "#$%&'ab_j_k%%%%%%%%@@@@@$@@@0@@&@T@@,@d@@4@6@p@@:@<@|@@x@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@ @@@@JUnknown Zoran PehG: Times New Roman5Symbol3& : Arial;WingdingsKUniversalMath1 BT9CG Times9Garamond5& zaTahoma"qhRfRf04L'$'$!>4dVV 3QHX(?% W2*MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF THE BOREHOLE DATAXXX Zoran Peh Oh+'0 (4 T ` l x,MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF THE BOREHOLE DATAXXXNormal Zoran Peh2Microsoft Office Word@ @|@p @p $'՜.+,D՜.+,X hp|   V +MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF THE BOREHOLE DATA Title  8@ _PID_HLINKSA %mailto:robert.sajn@geo-zs.si+Lmailto:zpeh@hgi-cgs.hr  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHJKLMNOPRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry Fp?  Data I1TableQWordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q