4.5 Article

Effects of long-term irrigation with treated wastewater on soil quality, soil-borne pathogens, and living organisms: case study of the vicinity of El Hajeb (Tunisia)

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
卷 186, 期 5, 页码 2671-2683

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-013-3570-z

关键词

Treated wastewater irrigation; Salinity; Pathogens; Multivariate analysis; Avoidance test

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Medium (i.e. 15 years) and long-term (i.e. 20 years) impact of irrigation using secondary-treated municipal wastewater (TWW) was assessed on two agricultural soil samples, denoted by E and G, respectively, in the vicinity of El Hajeb region (Southern Tunisia). Soil pH, electrical conductivity particle size grading, potential risk of salinity, water holding capacity and chemical composition, as well as organic matter content, pathogenic microorganisms and heavy metal concentrations in the TWW-irrigated (E and G) and rainwater-irrigated (T) soils at various depths, were monitored and compared during a 5-year experiment. Our study showed that bacterial abundance is higher in sandy-clayey soil, which has an enhanced ability to retain moisture and nutrients. The high level of bacterial flora in TWW-irrigated soils was significantly (p<0.05) correlated (r=similar to 0.5) with the high level of OM. Avoidance assays have been used to assess toxic effects generated by hazards in soils. The earthworms gradually avoided the soils from the surface (20 cm) to the depth (60 cm) of the G transect and then the E transect, preferring the T transect. The same behaviour was observed for springtails, but they seem to be less sensitive to the living conditions in transects G and E than the earthworms. The avoidance response test of Eisenia andrei was statistically correlated with soil layers at the sampling sites. However, the avoidance response test of Folsomia candida was positively correlated with silt-clay content (+0.744*) and was negatively correlated with sand content (-0.744*).

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

4.5
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