4.6 Article

Removal of phthalic esters from contaminated soil using different cropping systems: A field study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOIL BIOLOGY
卷 50, 期 -, 页码 76-82

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2011.12.001

关键词

Phthalic esters (PAEs); Intercropping; Monoculture; Phytoextraction; Biolog

资金

  1. Chinese National Environmental Protection Special Funds for Scientific Research on Public Causes [201109018, 2010467016]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KZCX2-YW-Q02-06-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phytoremediation of phthalic esters (PAE) polluted agricultural soils near electrical-waste dismantling areas in east China is a topic of much public concern. In this study, monocropping and intercropping of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), Elsholtzia splendens and Sedum plumbizincicola were compared for their potential in phytoremediation of contaminated soil. Regardless of whether alfalfa was cultivated in monoculture (A) or in combination with E. splendens (AE) or with S. plumbizincicola (AS), and also with all three (AES) in intercropping, concentrations of six PAEs in soil were significantly reduced (p < 0.01) by 87.2, 91.2, 87.2 and 89.4% compared to the control. Intercropping enhanced the decline in soil PAEs and increased soil microbial biomass and microbial functional diversity, and alfalfa shoots and roots took up more of the target pollutants than the other two plant species. DEHP was the most abundant of the target PAEs in soil, roots and shoots. The biological concentration factors (BCFs) of alfalfa in monoculture were relatively high, but the transfer factor (TF) and phytoextraction efficiency, which ranged from 1.16 to 1.69 %, were higher in intercropping systems. Thus, rhizospheric remediation by intercropping of the three-species contributed to PAE removal from the soil and may represent a promising in situ bioremediation strategy for PAE contaminated soils. (C) 2011 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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

4.6
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