| Literature DB >> 31505878 |
Chun-Ming Lam1, Kuei-San Chen2, Hung-Yu Lai3,4.
Abstract
(1) Background: Even in croplands with a low concentration of cadmium (Cd), there is still a risk for planting crops because of the high accumulation capacity of some leafy vegetables. (2)Entities:
Keywords: cadmium; chemical form; crop safety; phosphorus; risk assessment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31505878 PMCID: PMC6765929 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16183322
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Selected properties of the four soil series.
| Soil Series 1 | CEC 2 (cmolc/kg) | OC 3 (%) | Sand (%) | Silt (%) | Clay (%) | Texture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wa | 7.23 | 0.84 | 54 | 17 | 29 | Sandy clay loam |
| Eh | 6.18 | 1.04 | 16 | 48 | 36 | Silty clay loam |
| Tk | 9.29 | 1.07 | 19 | 52 | 29 | Silty clay |
| Yu | 7.82 | 1.85 | 40 | 31 | 29 | Clay loam |
1 Wa: Wanho soil series, Eh: Erhlin soil series, TK: Taikang soil series, Yu: Yuanlin soil series; 2 CEC: cation exchange capacity; 3 OC: organic carbon content.
Figure 1Effect of adding P on the Cd concentrations of the soil solutions. The same lowercase letter indicates no significant differences between the soil series for the same treatment. Replicates (n) = 3.
Effect of adding P on soil properties and growth exhibition of water spinach.
| Treatment 1 | pH | EC (dS/m) 2 | Available P Conc. (mg/kg) | SPAD Reading 2 | Shoot Height (cm) | Dry Weight (g/plant) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wa | 7.50–7.68 a 3,4 | 1.09 ± 0.09 a | 7.60 ± 0.97 b | 42.9 ± 7.5 a | 9.5 ± 3.9 a | 0.40 ± 0.10 a |
| Eh | 7.43–7.61 a | 2.96 ± 0.22 a | 10.40 ± 0.38 a | 43.9 ± 6.5 a | 11.1 ± 3.6 a | 0.67 ± 0.21 a |
| Tk | 7.47–7.56 a | 1.29 ± 0.19 a | 15.56 ± 0.42 a | 40.5 ± 5.8 a | 10.1 ± 4.2 a | 0.47 ± 0.21 a |
| Yu | 7.21–7.39 a | 4.89 ± 1.18 a | 13.34 ± 0.52 a | 45.2 ± 6.1 a | 8.0 ± 2.9 a | 0.60 ± 0.33 a |
| Wa + P | 7.47–7.63 a | 1.32 ± 0.23 a | 10.63 ± 1.31 a | 39.3 ± 8.6 a | 6.9 ± 2.8 a | 0.48 ± 0.12 a |
| Eh + P | 7.42–7.55 a | 2.90 ± 0.31 a | 12.04 ± 0.32 a | 42.7 ± 5.2 a | 10.0 ± 3.8 a | 0.77 ± 0.38 a |
| Tk + P | 7.43–7.54 a | 1.39 ± 0.29 a | 16.95 ± 2.91 a | 41.5 ± 4.7 a | 10.9 ± 4.3 a | 0.42 ± 0.09 a |
| Yu + P | 7.36–7.46 a | 5.13 ± 0.60 a | 14.43 ± 1.29 a | 41.7 ± 9.2 a | 9.3 ± 3.6 a | 0.59 ± 0.30 a |
1 Wa, Eh, Tk, and Yu refer to the controls, and Wa + P, Eh + P, Tk + P, and Yu + P refer to the P treatments. 2 EC: Electrical Conductivity; SPAD Reading: Soil Plant Analyzer Development Reading. 3 The same lowercase letter indicates that the effect of P treatment was not significantly different between soil series. 4 Mean ± standard deviation; replicates (n) = 3.
Figure 2Effect of adding P on the Cd concentrations in different organs of water spinach. The meanings of the abbreviations are the same as in Table 2.
Figure 3Effect of adding P on the bioconcentration factor (BCF) and translocation factor (TF) of water spinach. The meanings of the abbreviations are the same as in Table 2.
Figure 4Effect of adding P on the chemical forms of Cd in the roots and shoots of water spinach. The meanings of the abbreviations are the same as in Table 2.
Effect of adding P on the accumulation, translocation, and chemical form of Cd in the water spinach.
| Cd in Plant | Control | P Addition |
|---|---|---|
| Root conc. (mg/kg) | 26.73 ± 11.64 1 | 22.67 ± 6.96 |
| Shoot conc. (mg/kg) | 17.07 ± 10.73 | 21.49 ± 9.11 *,2 |
| Bioconcentration factor (BCF) | 5.66 ± 3.43 | 7.15 ± 2.83 * |
| Translocation factor (TF) | 0.68 ± 0.17 | 0.94 ± 0.21 * |
| Chemical form in the root | ||
| FE (%) | 58.3 ± 20.7 | 32.6 ± 22.2 |
| FW (%) | 9.4 ± 18.8 | 15.9 ± 10.9 |
| FNaCl (%) | 6.1 ± 7.1 | 21.9 ± 28.0 |
| FHAc (%) | 9.0 ± 6.8 | 4.3 ± 4.5 |
| FHCl (%) | 8.6 ± 11.1 | 13.1 ± 15.5 |
| FR (%) | 8.6 ± 10.4 | 12.2 ± 8.4 |
| Chemical form in the shoot | ||
| FE (%) | 44.8 ± 19.9 | 33.1 ± 7.6 |
| FW (%) | 32.2 ± 21.0 | 23.9 ± 18.3 * |
| FNaCl (%) | 7.0 ± 5.0 | 7.2 ± 5.3 |
| FHAc (%) | 6.1 ± 6.2 | 13.4 ± 11.7 |
| FHCl (%) | 5.3 ± 4.3 | 11.8 ± 4.1 * |
| FR (%) | 4.6 ± 6.1 | 10.6 ± 7.6 * |
1 Average of four soil series; Mean ± standard deviation. 2 The asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference between control and P addition (paired t-test, p < 0.05).
Average daily dose (ADD) and hazard quotient (HQ) of the vegetable-to-human ingestion pathway (HQv) in water spinach grown in contaminated soils based on different assessment methods.
| Treatment 1 | Average Daily Dose 2 (ADDv; μg/kg·BW/day) | Hazard Quotient (HQv) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADDv-TC | ADDv-CF | ADDv-SD | HQv-TC | HQv-CF | HQv-SD | |
| Wa | 0.57 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 2.42 | 1.27 | 0.53 |
| Eh | 3.25 | 0.84 | 0.71 | 13.89 | 10.09 | 3.06 |
| Tk | 1.44 | 0.29 | 0.32 | 6.14 | 3.49 | 1.35 |
| Yu | 1.88 | 0.51 | 0.41 | 8.03 | 6.06 | 1.77 |
| Wa + P | 1.24 | 0.30 | 0.27 | 5.31 | 3.63 | 1.17 |
| Eh + P | 3.53 | 1.63 | 0.78 | 15.10 | 19.51 | 3.32 |
| Tk + P | 2.06 | 1.22 | 0.45 | 8.81 | 14.57 | 1.94 |
| Yu + P | 2.13 | 0.91 | 0.47 | 9.12 | 10.83 | 2.01 |
1 The meanings of abbreviations are the same as in Table 2. 2 ADDv-TC, ADDv-CF, and ADDv-SD were the ADDv calculated based on the total concentration, chemical form, and bioaccessible fraction of Cd, respectively.