4.7 Article

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) persistence, bioavailability and toxicity in sewage sludge- or sewage sludge-derived biochar-amended soil

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 747, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141123

Keywords

Biochar; Sewage sludge; Soil; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Toxicity

Funding

  1. National Science Centre [DEC-2018/30/Q/ST10/00060]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Soils can be contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) when either sewage sludge (SSL) or biochar (BC) are used. There are no comparative studies regarding the effects of soil amendment with SSL or BC on the persistence, bioavailability and toxicity of PAHs. This research compared the persistence of PAHs (based on the extractable content, C-tot) and their bioavailability (freely dissolved, C-free) as well as the toxicity (solid phase: Phytotoxkit F with Lepidium sativum and the Collembolan test with Folsomia candida; leachates: Phytotestkit F with L. sativum and Microtox (R) with Aliivibrio fischeri) of soil amended with SSL or with SSL-derived BCs. BCs were produced from three different sewage sludges at a temperature of 500 degrees C. SSLs or BCs were added to the soil at a rate of 1% (30 t/ha). Adding SSL to the soil increased more the PAH content in it than after BC application, which was associated with a higher content of PAHs in SSL. Losses of Sigma 16 C-tot and C-free PAHs were higher than those observed for biochar only in the case of one SSL. In the other cases, PAH losses were either higher for biochar or did not differ significantly between SSL and BC. On the other hand, the analysis of the individual groups of PAHs showed significant differences between SSL and BC, both for C-tot and C-free. Nonetheless, these differences were largely driven by the type of sewage sludge and biochar. Only in the case of root

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available