| Literature DB >> 35528060 |
Yang Li1,2, Xuefeng Liang3, Qingqing Huang3, Yingming Xu3, Fang Yang2.
Abstract
The accumulation of heavy metals in soils and crops jeopardizes human health, and thus remedying soil and ensuring food safety have attracted wide concern. In this study, composite silicate was employed as an amendment to inhibit cadmium (Cd) accumulation in the grains of wheat and rice in an upland/paddy rotation mode in field-scale remediation. The composite silicate amendment (CSA) at a dosage of 0.2-0.8% decreased the Cd concentration in wheat grains in the first growing season of upland mode by 7.5-58.3% compared with CK, and decreased the Cd concentration in brown rice by 38.7-58.1% in the second season of paddy mode. The minimum values satisfy the Chinese National and International Standards. The results confirmed the inhibitory effect of CSA on the accumulation of Cd in crop grains. CSA increased the soil pH obviously and enhanced the sorption of Cd on soil particles by 14.6-56.2%, and declined the DTPA- and HCl-extractable Cd concentrations in the soil by 16.2-49.5% and 23.8-75.6%, respectively. Furthermore, CSA decreased the exchangeable Cd fraction by 21.5-41.6% in the sequential extraction. The immobilization effect was retained in both growing seasons in terms of Cd concentration in the crop grains and extractable Cd concentration in the soil. CSA had a negligible effect on the normal growth of wheat and rice and the available Zn and Cu concentration in the soil, indicating its environmental friendliness. Considering its low cost and abundant reserves, CSA can be recommended as an immobilization amendment for Cd-polluted paddy soil in wheat/rice rotation mode. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 35528060 PMCID: PMC9074415 DOI: 10.1039/c9ra07137g
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Basic properties of soil samples from the selected fields
| Total concentration (mg kg−1) | Available nutrient content (mg kg−1) | Organic matter | pH | CEC | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cd | Pb | As | Hg | Cr | N | P | K | |||
| 0.58 | 85 | 4.1 | 0.31 | 65.3 | 172 | 8 | 82 | 2.91% | 5.5 | 17.3 |
CEC: cation exchange capacity.
Data represents average values.
Fig. 1XRD pattern of composite silicate.
Fig. 2Cd concentrations in the grains and roots of wheat and rice. * The same letters within the individual error bars are not significantly different (p > 0.05), and that with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05) (n = 6).
Fig. 3Changes in soil pH in rotation mode.
Fig. 4Sorption isotherms of Cd2+ on composite silicate and the soils.
Isotherm fit parameters of sorption of Cd2+ on the soil and CSA
| Isotherms | CSA | Soil samples | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | |||
| Langmuir isotherm |
| 34.27 ± 4.66 | 10.78 ± 0.36 | 12.34 ± 1.38 | 12.36 ± 0.74 | 13.72 ± 1.02 | 16.84 ± 0.34 |
|
| 0.14 ± 0.05 | 0.18 ± 0.02 | 0.12 ± 0.04 | 0.19 ± 0.05 | 0.22 ± 0.07 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | |
|
| 0.95368 | 0.99382 | 0.96145 | 0.98101 | 0.98515 | 0.99827 | |
| Freundlich isotherm |
| 7.20 ± 0.25 | 3.43 ± 0.23 | 2.96 ± 0.35 | 3.92 ± 0.14 | 4.48 ± 0.41 | 4.51 ± 0.42 |
|
| 0.41 ± 0.11 | 0.28 ± 0.02 | 0.37 ± 0.03 | 0.29 ± 0.01 | 0.29 ± 0.03 | 0.33 ± 0.03 | |
|
| 0.90141 | 0.99058 | 0.98942 | 0.99062 | 0.98122 | 0.99282 | |
Fig. 5DTPA- and HCl-extractable Cd concentrations in the soil.
Fig. 6Sequential extraction of Cd in the soil.
Correlation analyses of relevant parametersa
| Index | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wheat | A | Wheat-Cd | 0.98** | −0.66 | −0.99** | 0.94* | 0.98** | 0.99** | −0.93* | −0.61 | 0.099 | −0.69 |
| B | Rice-Cd | −0.63 | −0.98** | 0.91* | 0.97** | 0.96** | −0.89* | −0.63 | 0.12 | −0.67 | ||
| C | Grain yield | 0.70 | −0.38 | −0.76 | −0.57 | 0.76 | 0.11 | −0.70 | 0.53 | |||
| D | pH | −0.91* | −0.99** | −0.98** | 0.95* | 0.57 | −0.17 | 0.72 | ||||
| E | DTPA-Cd | 0.87 | 0.97** | −0.82 | −0.72 | −0.23 | −0.60 | |||||
| F | HCl–Cd | 0.96* | −0.96** | −0.49 | 0.27 | −0.76 | ||||||
| G | Exc-Cd | −0.93* | −0.59 | 0.013 | −0.73 | |||||||
| H | CB-Cd | 0.29 | −0.34 | 0.87 | ||||||||
| I | OX-Cd | 0.55 | −0.10 | |||||||||
| J | OM-Cd | −0.46 | ||||||||||
| K | Res-Cd | 1.00 | ||||||||||
| Rice | A | Wheat-Cd | 0.97** | 0.34 | −0.98** | 0.91* | 0.89* | 0.91* | −0.88* | −0.45 | 0.23 | −0.82 |
| B | Rice-Cd | 0.30 | −0.95* | 0.86 | 0.93* | 0.92* | −0.86 | −0.32 | 0.16 | −0.91* | ||
| C | Grain yield | −0.46 | 0.56 | 0.43 | 0.60 | −0.59 | 0.24 | 0.53 | −0.50 | |||
| D | pH | −0.97** | −0.95* | −0.96** | 0.95* | 0.29 | −0.39 | 0.86 | ||||
| E | DTPA-Cd | 0.93* | 0.96* | −0.99** | −0.16 | 0.60 | −0.80 | |||||
| F | HCl–Cd | 0.97** | −0.96** | −0.015 | 0.48 | −0.92* | ||||||
| G | Exc-Cd | −0.98** | −0.070 | 0.47 | −0.93* | |||||||
| H | CB-Cd | 0.029 | −0.62 | 0.86 | ||||||||
| I | OX-Cd | 0.47 | −0.040 | |||||||||
| J | OM-Cd | −0.25 | ||||||||||
| K | Res-Cd | 1.00 |
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). Wheat-Cd, rice-Cd, root-Cd: Cd concentration in wheat grains, brown rice and their corresponding roots, respectively.
Grain yields of wheat and rice under different treatmentsa
| Plant | Grain yield (kg hm−2) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | |
| Wheat | 5472 ± 73 | 5504 ± 61 | 5497 ± 54 | 5514 ± 69 | 5487 ± 45 |
| Rice | 7646 ± 101 | 7639 ± 82 | 7677 ± 110 | 7598 ± 75 | 7613 ± 80 |
The same letter next to the numbers indicated there were no significant differences among the CK and treatments (p > 0.05).
Fig. 7Dynamic DTPA-extractable Zn and Cu concentrations in the soil.
Total concentrations of Cu and Zn in the grains of rice and wheata
| Treatment | Rice grain (mg kg−1) | Wheat grain (mg kg−1) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cu | Zn | Cu | Zn | |
| CK | 5.89 ± 0.10 | 37.73 ± 1.73 | 3.84 ± 0.25 | 32.66 ± 2.67 |
| T1 | 5.76 ± 0.20 | 37.58 ± 1.48 | 4.01 ± 0.10 | 32.72 ± 2.11 |
| T2 | 5.88 ± 0.16 | 37.76 ± 0.99 | 3.85 ± 0.08 | 32.18 ± 4.10 |
| T3 | 5.75 ± 0.33 | 37.45 ± 1.57 | 3.79 ± 0.25 | 31.75 ± 2.49 |
| T4 | 5.88 ± 0.37 | 40.37 ± 0.95 | 3.91 ± 0.28 | 31.57 ± 0.95 |
The same letter next to the numbers indicated there were no significant differences among the CK and treatments (p > 0.05).
Cost comparison of some amendments
| No | Amendment | Dosage (weight ratio) | Price | Cost ($ per hm2) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Limestone | 0.1% | 140 | 420 |
|
| 2 | Sepiolite | 0.5% | 300 | 4500 |
|
| 3 | Palygorskite | 0.5% | 400 | 6000 |
|
| 4 | Hydroxyapatite | 0.1% | 11 000 | 33 000 |
|
| 5 | Biochar | 0.1% | 450 | 1350 |
|
| 6 | Composite silicate | 0.2% | 100 | 600 | This study |
Estimated by market survey in 2019, including the cost of materials without the cost of transport or operation.