| Literature DB >> 28493186 |
Małgorzata Hawrot-Paw1, Adam Koniuszy2, Małgorzata Mikiciuk3, Monika Izwikow2, Tomasz Stawicki2, Paweł Sędłak2.
Abstract
The purpose of this research was evaluation of the effect of soil contamination with waste coming from biomass gasification on chosen indicators of its biological activity, growth and development of spring barley, and change of physiological parameters of the plant. Chromatographic content and basic rheological parameters of the substances under research were also analyzed. Liquid wastes, tar, and mixture of tar and engine oil were introduced to the soil in the amount of 100 mg kg-1 DM soil. Based on the conducted research, it was ascertained that the changes in the number and activity of soil microorganisms were determined by the type of waste and its dose. Individual groups of microorganisms showed different sensitivity to the presence of pollution; however, the impact of tar and engine oil mixture was generally more disadvantageous. Presence of contaminants in the soil limited the growth of roots and aboveground parts of spring barley, especially when the dose was 10,000 mg kg-1 DM soil. The unfavorable impact of waste on photosynthesis efficiency on assimilation pigment synthesis and water content in the plant was recorded.Entities:
Keywords: Biodiesel; Biomass; Diesel; Gasification; Microorganisms; Plant; Soil
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28493186 PMCID: PMC5486619 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-017-9011-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 4.223
Physiochemical properties of the soil
| Percentage of fraction | C | N | P | K | Mg | pHKCl | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0–0.05 | 0.05–0.002 | <0.002 | g kg−1 DM soil | mg kg−1 DM soil | ||||
| 58.4 | 38.7 | 2.9 | 21 | 1.5 | 120 | 89 | 94 | 6.80 |
Fig. 1Chromatographic content of tar and engine oil mixture (a) and tar (b) from the gasification process of biomass
Fig. 2Dynamic viscosity of the tar and engine oil mixture (A) and tar (B) as function of temperature
Fig. 3Average number and activity of microorganisms in individual objects of the experiment (mean over each columns not marked with the same letter is significantly different at P < 0.05)
Results of biometrical measurements of spring barley
| Objects | Biometric measurements [mm] | |
|---|---|---|
| Lenght of shoots | Root length | |
| C | 190a* | 163a |
| A1 | 154ab | 109b |
| A2 | 39c | 7d |
| A3 | 4c | 0d |
| B1 | 189a | 111b |
| B2 | 116b | 41cd |
| B3 | 31c | 8d |
*Mean over each column not marked with the same letter is significantly different at P < 0.05
Results of physiological analysis of spring barley
| Object | Chlorophyll a [mg g−1 fresh mass] | Chlorophyll b [mg g−1 fresh mass] | Chlorophyll total [mg g−1 fresh mass] | Carotenoids [mg g−1 fresh mass] | RWC [%] | TFM | FV/FM | PI | Area [bms] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | 1.231b* | 0.708b | 1.939b | 2.192b | 97.32bc | 261.67a | 0.804bc | 1.355b | 52,531.33b |
| A1 | 1.205b | 0.687b | 1.892b | 2.234b | 96.53bc | 281.67a | 0.803bc | 1.337b | 45,966.33b |
| A2 | 0.857a | 0.527a | 1.384a | 1.579a | 79.56a | 248.33a | 0.787a | 0.930a | 29,865.00a |
| A3 | No data | No data | No data | No data | No data | No data | No data | No data | No data |
| B1 | 1.274b | 0.732b | 2.006b | 2.314b | 98.92c | 266.67a | 0.807c | 1.423b | 44,922.33b |
| B2 | 1.204b | 0.697b | 1.901b | 2.155b | 93.51b | 253.33a | 0.795ab | 1.097a | 35,522.83a |
| B3 | 0.767a | 0.426a | 1.193a | 1.407a | 87.52a | 231.60a | 0.740a | 0.971a | 35,566.3a |
*Mean over each column not marked with the same letter is significantly different at P < 0.05