| Literature DB >> 34676509 |
María José Martínez-Sánchez1, Carmen Pérez-Sirvent2, Salvadora Martínez-Lopez1, Mari Luz García-Lorenzo3, Ines Agudo1, Lucia Belen Martínez-Martínez1, Carmen Hernández-Pérez1, Jaume Bech4.
Abstract
A study was carried out to evaluate the absorption of potentially toxic elements from mining Technosols by three types of vegetable plants (broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. italica), lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and onion (Allium cepa)), the different parts of which are intended for human and farm animal consumption (leaves, roots, edible parts). The preliminary results obtained highlight the importance of the design of the mining Technosols used for agricultural purposes, obtained from soils and sediments of mining origin and amended with residues of high calcium carbonate concentrations (limestone filler and construction and demolition wastes). The experiment was carried out in a greenhouse, and the total metal(loid)s concentration (As, Pb, Cd, Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn) of the soil, rhizosphere, aqueous leachates and plant samples was monitored, the translocation and bioconcentration factors (TF and BCF, respectively) being calculated. The characterization of the soils included a mobilization study in media simulating different environmental conditions that can affect these soils and predicting the differences in behavior of each Technosol. The results obtained showed that the levels of potentially toxic elements present in the cultivated species are within the range of values mentioned in the literature when they were cultivated in soils with calcareous amendments. However, when the plants were grown in contaminated soils, the potentially toxic elements levels varied greatly according to the species, being higher in onions than in lettuce. Experiments with the use of lime filler or construction and demolition wastes for soil remediation result in crops that, in principle, do not present health risks and are similar in development to those grown on non-contaminated soil.Entities:
Keywords: Arsenic; Metal(loid)s; Plant uptake; Soil remediation; Technosols
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34676509 PMCID: PMC9033688 DOI: 10.1007/s10653-021-01091-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Geochem Health ISSN: 0269-4042 Impact factor: 4.898
Fig. 1Location of the study area. Graphical summary of the way of preparation of the Technosols
Composition (%) of the experimental Technosol mixtures used
| Technosols | S1 | S2 | S3 | Agricultural soil | CDW | LF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | – | – | – | 100.00 | – | – |
| T2 | 25.00 | 12.50 | 12.50 | 50.00 | – | – |
| T3 | 18.75 | 9.37 | 9.37 | 37.50 | 25.00 | – |
| T4 | 18.75 | 9.37 | 9.37 | 37.50 | – | 25.00 |
| TC | 50.00 | 25.00 | 25.00 | – | – | – |
Statistical summary of the characteristics of the Technosols (T1, T2, T3, T4 and TC) used in each crop and amendments (LF and DCW)
| Samples | Statistical summary | pH | OM (g kg−1) | EC (mS/cm) | CaCO3 (g kg−1) | Active CaCO3 (g kg−1) | < 2 (µm) (g kg−1) | 2–50 (µm) (g kg−1) | 50–2000 (µm) (g kg−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | Range | 7.92–7.99 | 12–16 | 5.10–5.40 | 430–460 | 24.2 | 48.5 | 622.5 | 330 |
| Median ± standard deviation | 7.97 ± 0.03 | 14 ± 1.7 | 5.23 ± 0.13 | 450 ± 10.8 | |||||
| T2 | Range | 7.69–7.86 | 13–14 | 6.37–6.45 | 222–278 | 12.9 | 75.1 | 405.9 | 520 |
| Median ± standard deviation | 7.80 ± 0.08 | 13.8 ± 0.5 | 6.39 ± 0.04 | 254 ± 23.7 | |||||
| T3 | Range | 7.90–7.95 | 11–12 | 4.90–4.93 | 296–366 | 14.2 | 97 | 623.6 | 280 |
| Median ± standard deviation | 7.92 ± 0.02 | 11 ± 0.5 | 4.91 ± 0.01 | 34.2 ± 32.8 | |||||
| T4 | Range | 8.49–8.51 | 5–6 | 5.09–5.18 | 352–421 | 18.7 | 88 | 437 | 480 |
| Median ± standard deviation | 8.50 ± 0.01 | 6 ± 0.5 | 5.13 ± 0.04 | 392 ± 18.2 | |||||
| TC | Range | 4.50–4.79 | < 2 | 22.7–23.3 | – | – | 12.4 | 151.6 | 840 |
| Median ± standard deviation | 4.64 ± 0.12 | < 2 | 22.9 ± 0.30 | – | – | ||||
| LC | – | – | – | – | – | 208.8 | 712 | 80 | |
| DCW | – | – | – | – | – | 401.1 | 557 | 40 |
Statistical summary of the PTE contents of the Technosols (T1, T2, T3, T4 and TC) used in each crop
| Samples | Statistical summary | Zn (mg kg−1) | Pb (mg kg−1) | Cu (mg kg−1) | Cd (mg kg−1) | As (mg kg−1) | Fe (g kg−1) | Mn (mg kg−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | Range | 95–115 | < QL | 16–18 | 0.1–0.2 | 4–6 | 14.30–18.30 | 279–290 |
| Median ± standard deviation | 101.0 ± 12.89 | (0.01) | 17.0 ± 0.88 | 0.14 ± 0.1 | 5.5 ± 0.58 | 15.5 ± 0.91 | 285.0 ± 4.50 | |
| T2 | Range | 5489–6122 | 1520–1787 | 86–98 | 16–26 | 98–125 | 10.01–11.08 | 3629–3871 |
| Median ± standard deviation | 5894.0 ± 78.91 | 1640.0 ± 96.71 | 93.0 ± 5.1 | 22.0 ± 1.31 | 119.0 ± 12.0 | 10.79 ± 0.054 | 3770.0 ± 104.0 | |
| T3 | Range | 4122–4588 | 956–1238 | 47–59 | 9.6–15 | 69–81 | 5.99–7.01 | 1779–1791 |
| Median ± standard deviation | 4393.0 ± 55.92 | 1170.0 ± 88.97 | 52.0 ± 3.14 | 12.0 ± 1.77 | 75.0 ± 3.95 | 6.73 ± 0.064 | 1785.0 ± 4.50 | |
| T4 | Range | 3996–4113 | 900–1129 | 45–67 | 10–16 | 68–89 | 4.89–6.06 | 1555–1586 |
| Median ± standard deviation | 4073.0 ± 89.12 | 990.0 ± 77.36 | 57 ± 9 | 13.0 ± 2.11 | 80.0 ± 4.88 | 5.31 ± 0.077 | 1570.0 ± 13.0 | |
| TC | Range | 12,156–13,004 | 2577–2988 | 100–135 | 35–46 | 401–486 | 13.88–15.56 | 8292–8855 |
| Median ± standard deviation | 12,782.0 ± 99.11 | 2745.0 ± 79.95 | 122.0 ± 4.88 | 40.0 ± 2.12 | 439.0 ± 21.0 | 14.62 ± 0.090 | 8570.0 ± 230.0 |
< QL = 0.01; Dry weight
Mineralogical composition of the Technosols (T1, T2, T3, T4 and TC) and amendments used (LF and DCW)
| % | Phyl. 1.4 nm | Phyl. 1.0 nm | Quartz | Albite | Calcite | Dolomite | Siderite | Akaganeite | Hematite | Gypsum | Jarosite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | 4 | 32 | 12 | 2 | 34 | 10 | – | – | 2 | 4 | – |
| T2 | 6 | 35 | 12 | 1 | 20 | 5 | 6 | – | – | 5 | 10 |
| T3 | 5 | 38 | 13 | 1 | 30 | 5 | – | – | 2 | 6 | – |
| T4 | 3 | 20 | 10 | 1 | 35 | 20 | – | – | 2 | 6 | – |
| TC | 14 | 25 | 9 | 2 | – | – | 12 | 10 | 2 | 6 | 20 |
| DCW | 12* | 30 | 8 | 40 | – | – | – | – | 10 | – | |
| LF | – | 3 | 4 | 60 | 33 | – | – | – | – | – |
*Tobermorite
Fig. 2Results of the mobility study of PTEs in the Technosols (T1, T2, T3, T4 and TC) expressed in percentage of element extraction in the extractant medium referred to the total concentration of the element (W = water; A = acidic medium; MJ = complexing and reducing medium; O = oxidizing medium)
Summary of one-factor ANOVA (Factor: A = type of extractant (acidic medium, reducing and complexing medium, oxidizing medium); B = type of Technosols (T1, T2, T3, T4 and TC)) of the metal(oid)s extracted in the mobilization study
| A | B | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | Sig | F | Sig | |
| Zn | 2.573 | .081 | 3.684 | .034 |
| Pb | 3.333 | .038 | 2.487 | .098 |
| Fe | .570 | .688 | 7.070 | .003 |
| Cd | 5.482 | .006 | 1.238 | .329 |
| Cu | 1.663 | .211 | 5.281 | .010 |
| As | .687 | .612 | 4.661 | .016 |
| Mn | 1.411 | .278 | 3.775 | .032 |
Fig. 3Temporal evolution of parameters in the leachates obtained from Technosols (T1, T2, T3, T4 and TC) in the cultivation period
Fig. 4Levels of PTEs (median ± standard deviation) in the edible plants studied
Fig. 5Graphical plots obtained in principal components analysis (F1 versus F2). a) Lettuce (Lactuca sativa), b) broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. italica), c) onion (Allium cepa)
Fig. 6Bioconcentration factor (BCF) and transfer factor (TF) values (median ± standard deviation) for the different plants and Technosols
Summary of one-factor ANOVA (Factor: carbonate calcium content) of BCF and TF obtained
| All samples | Lettuce | Broccoli | Onion | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | Sig | F | Sig | F | Sig | F | Sig | |
| BCFZn | 24.000 | 0.000 | 19.858 | 0.000 | 141.218 | 0.000 | .790 | 0.557 |
| BCFPb | 6.151 | 0.000 | 1.181 | 0.352 | 4.656 | 0.012 | 6.003 | 0.010 |
| BCFFe | 17.802 | 0.000 | 5.085 | 0.006 | 10.231 | 0.000 | 100.240 | 0.000 |
| BCFCu | 9.276 | 0.000 | 17.313 | 0.000 | 9.001 | 0.001 | 0.645 | 0.643 |
| BCFCd | 3.842 | 0.008 | 2.231 | 0.106 | 14.590 | 0.000 | 7.023 | 0.006 |
| BCFAs | 3.798 | 0.009 | 0.820 | 0.529 | 3.974 | 0.022 | 2.544 | 0.105 |
| BCFMn | 4.402 | 0.004 | 1903.861 | 0.000 | 638.729 | 0.000 | 0.933 | 0.483 |
| TFZn | 6.491 | 0.000 | 2.843 | 0.055 | 123.752 | 0.000 | 18.848 | 0.000 |
| TFPb | 5.088 | 0.002 | 3.549 | 0.027 | 2.802 | 0.064 | 0.912 | 0.493 |
| TFFe | 1.223 | 0.312 | 2.688 | 0.065 | 5.794 | 0.005 | 10.300 | 0.001 |
| TFCu | 4.031 | 0.006 | 0.796 | 0.543 | 4.273 | 0.017 | 1.999 | 0.171 |
| TFCd | 4.031 | 0.006 | 0.796 | 0.543 | 4.273 | 0.017 | 1.999 | 0.171 |
| TFAs | 1.945 | 0.117 | 0.129 | 0.970 | 4.242 | 0.017 | 1.091 | 0.412 |
| TFMn | 4.002 | 0.007 | 695.815 | 0.000 | 224.052 | 0.000 | 3.249 | 0.059 |
Fig. 7Diagram including the main physicochemical processes and conditions involved in the construction of a Technosol