4.5 Article

Copper and Zinc in a paddy field and their potential ecological impacts affected by wastewater from a lead/zinc mine, P. R. China

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
Volume 147, Issue 1-3, Pages 65-73

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-007-0098-0

Keywords

Copper and zinc; Mining wastewater; Population exposure; Rice plant; Soils

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30170178, 40471117]
  2. Science Foundation of Chongqing Educational Committee [KJ050410]
  3. Doctoral Startup Foundation of Chongqing Jiaotong University [RC2004-03]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As well known, at normal levels, copper and zinc are essential micronutrients for plants, animals, and humans. However, excessive Cu and Zn are toxic and disturb a wide range of biochemical and physiological processes. Using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS; Perkin-Elmer 3030, USA), soil and rice plant (Oryza sativa L.) samples collected from a paddy field in Lechang lead-zinc mine area, Guangdong Province, China were analyzed and their potential ecological impacts to local human and livestock were evaluated. The results showed that the paddy soils were contaminated with Cu and Zn. Both metals in soils had low bio-available fractions for paddy plants, animal and human by three chemically analytical techniques. Generally, were concentrations of copper and zinc root >> straw > stalk > grain with hull > grain without hull (i.e. unpolished rice) and in the normal ranges indicating no ecological risk for local livestock and residents. All positive correlation coefficients, however, between heavy metals in rice plant and total, exchangeable (step 1 in Tessier's method established in 1979) and DTPA-extractable fractions in soils were found in this study indicating that elevated heavy metal in soils would increase long-term exposition and possible consequence of ecological hazard through food chains.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available