4.7 Article

The influence of humic and fulvic acids on Cd bioavailability to wheat cultivars grown on sewage irrigated Cd-contaminated soils

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111347

关键词

Cd tolerance: FTIR; Humic substances: metal speciation: raw city; wastewater: wheat cultivars

资金

  1. Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan
  2. Saffron Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The soil cadmium (Cd) contamination is a ubiquitous environmental problem that has resulted from intense irrigation with wastewater. This pot trial was conducted with aim to produce safe food with Cd tolerant wheat cultivar in wastewater irrigated soils. For this purpose, two wheat cultivars NARC-2011 (Cd tolerant) and Shafaq-2006 (Cd sensitive) were screened out and selected, after conducting a pilot trial of twelve local wheat cultivars against Cd stress. Both cultivars were grown in naturally contaminated soils with Cd concentrations (4.18, 3.23, 2.29 and 1.25 mg kg(-1)). After harvesting, NARC-2011 showed significant photosynthetic attributes, grain biochemical parameters and yield. Additionally, Cd concentrations in edible grains of NARC-2011 cultivars were found within standard limits (200 mg kg(-1)), in all contaminated soils. Furthermore, a marked decrease in Cd bioavailability was noted with cultivar NARC-2011, where contribution of mobile Cd fractions (exchangeable and reducible) percentage was decreased, while immobile Cd fractions percentage increased (oxidizable and residual). Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy reflects the maturity and stability of humic and fulvic like acid fractions and revealed that humification of these compounds after prolonged sludge enriched wastewater irrigation lowered the Cd availability. The wheat cultivar NARC-2011 (Cd tolerant) could be opted to grow on soils irrigated with waste-water for a long time, as Cd bioavailability decreased with ageing due to stabilized humic substances and varietal tolerance.

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