4.7 Article

Phytoextraction of uranium from contaminated soil by Macleaya cordata before and after application of EDDS and CA

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 8, 页码 6155-6163

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-014-3803-x

关键词

Macleaya cordata; Phytoextraction; Uranium; [S,S]-Ethylenediaminedisuccinic acid; Citric acid; Soil solution

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11305087, 51274124]
  2. Development Program for Science and Technology for National Defense [B3720132001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This is the first report on using Macleaya cordata for phytoextraction of uranium from the uranium contaminated soil in the greenhouse. Macleaya M. cordata was found to increase uranium concentration in the soil solution by increasing the dissolved organic carbon (DOC). The amendment experiments with citric acid (CA) and [S,S]-ethylenediamine disuccinic acid (EDDS) at the rates of 1.0, 2.5, 5.0, and 10.0 mmol kg(-1) dry weight (DW) soil showed that EDDS was more efficient to increase uranium concentration in the shoot than CA when they were applied at the same rate. The applications of 5.0 mmol kg(-1) EDDS and 10.0 mmol kg(-1) CA were most appropriate for increasing uranium concentrations in the shoot of M. cordata. CA was more efficient to increase the solubility of uranium at the same application rates except for 2.5 mmol kg(-1) application rate. There was a linear correlation between the uranium concentration in the shoot and the average uranium concentration of one planted pot during 14 days in soil solution after the application of different rates of EDDS and CA, respectively (r(2) = 0.972, P < 0.01; r(2) = 0.948, P < 0.01), indicating that uranium uptake was dependent on the soluble uranium concentration. The Fe-U-DOC and Mn-U-DOC complexes were probably formed after the application of CA. Soil solution pH and Fe, Mn, Ca, and DOC concentrations in soil solution were found to be changed by the chelates.

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