4.7 Article

Soil washing with biodegradable chelating agents and EDTA: Effect on soil properties and plant growth

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 260, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127673

关键词

Potentially toxic elements; Soil washing; Chelating agents; Soil quality; Soil functioning; Toxic emissions

资金

  1. Slovenian Research Agency [J4-8219, P4-0085]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soils contaminated with Pb, Zn and Cd are hazardous. Persistent EDTA and biodegradable GLDA, EDDS and IDS have been used as chelators in the ReSoil soil washing technology, which recycles chelator and curbs toxic emissions. The washed soils supported similar growth of buckwheat (F. esculentum) and better growth of Chinese cabbage (B. rapa) compared with the original (not-remediated) soil. The growth of buckwheat on EDDS-washed soil was an exception and was 67% suppressed. The activities of enzymes of the plant antioxidant preventive system were assessed in roots and leaves of Chinese cabbage on all soils. Similar activities were measured, confirming that washed soils are not harmful to the plants. Plant uptake of potentially toxic elements was reduced from all washed soils, i.e. buckwheat grown on GLD-Awashed soils accumulated up to 27 and 83 times less Pb and Cd than in the original soil. The initial Pb emissions in leachate from GLDA and IDS washed soils were up to 89 and 92% higher than those of the original soil, respectively. The latter emissions ceased to the levels measured in original, EDTA and EDDS washed soils. Soil physical properties (water holding capacity, aggregate stability) and soil functionality, assessed as soil respiration and activity of enzymes indicative for soil C, N and P cycle, were similar in all soils after 10 weeks of plant growth experiment. The overall results indicate a low impact of the remediation on soil quality. Soils washed with EDTA performed slightly better compared to GLDA-, EDDS- and IDS-washed soils. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据