Assessment of repeated harvests on mercury and arsenic phytoextraction in a multi-contaminated industrial soil

Martina Grifoni; Francesca Pedron; Gianniantonio Petruzzelli; Irene Rosellini; Meri Barbafieri; Elisabetta Franchi; Roberto Bagatin; Martina Grifoni; Francesca Pedron; Gianniantonio Petruzzelli; Irene Rosellini; Meri Barbafieri; Elisabetta Franchi; Roberto Bagatin

doi:10.3934/environsci.2017.2.187

AIMS Environmental Science

2017, Volume 4, Issue 2: 187-205. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2017.2.187

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Assessment of repeated harvests on mercury and arsenic phytoextraction in a multi-contaminated industrial soil

1.
Institute of Ecosystem Studies, National Council of Research, Pisa, Italy
2.
Eni S.p.A., Renewable Energy & Environmental Laboratories, S.Donato Milanese (MI), Italy

Received: 19 December 2016 Accepted: 14 February 2017 Published: 23 February 2017

Mercury is widely distributed throughout the environment. In many contaminated soils other contaminants are present along with mercury; of these, arsenic is one of the most frequently found metals. In the presence of mixed contamination of this kind, remediation technologies must overcome many difficulties due to the different chemical characteristics of the various contaminants. In this study, repeated assisted phytoextraction cycles with Brassica juncea, were conducted on a laboratory scale to evaluate the removal efficiency of mercury and arsenic from a multi-contaminated industrial soil. The possibility of using only one additive, ammonium thiosulphate, to remove mercury and arsenic from co-contaminated soil simultaneously was also investigated. The thiosulfate addition greatly promoted the plant uptake of both contaminants, with an efficiency comparable to that of phosphate specifically used to mobilize specifically arsenic. Repeated additions of mobilizing agents increased metal availability in soil, promoted plant uptake and consequently increased the removal of contaminants in the studied soil.
Repeated treatments with thiosulfate increased the concentration of mercury and arsenic in the Brassica juncea aerial part, but due to toxic effects of mercury that reduce biomass production, the total accumulation of both metals in plants tended to decrease at each subsequent re-growth.
The use of a single additive to remove both contaminants simultaneously offers several new advantages to phytoextraction technology in terms of reducing cost and time.
- mercury,
- arsenic,
- assisted phytoextraction,
- contaminated soil,
- phytoremediation,
- repeated harvest
Citation: Martina Grifoni, Francesca Pedron, Gianniantonio Petruzzelli, Irene Rosellini, Meri Barbafieri, Elisabetta Franchi, Roberto Bagatin. Assessment of repeated harvests on mercury and arsenic phytoextraction in a multi-contaminated industrial soil[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2017, 4(2): 187-205. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2017.2.187

Related Papers:

Abstract

Mercury is widely distributed throughout the environment. In many contaminated soils other contaminants are present along with mercury; of these, arsenic is one of the most frequently found metals. In the presence of mixed contamination of this kind, remediation technologies must overcome many difficulties due to the different chemical characteristics of the various contaminants. In this study, repeated assisted phytoextraction cycles with Brassica juncea, were conducted on a laboratory scale to evaluate the removal efficiency of mercury and arsenic from a multi-contaminated industrial soil. The possibility of using only one additive, ammonium thiosulphate, to remove mercury and arsenic from co-contaminated soil simultaneously was also investigated. The thiosulfate addition greatly promoted the plant uptake of both contaminants, with an efficiency comparable to that of phosphate specifically used to mobilize specifically arsenic. Repeated additions of mobilizing agents increased metal availability in soil, promoted plant uptake and consequently increased the removal of contaminants in the studied soil.
Repeated treatments with thiosulfate increased the concentration of mercury and arsenic in the Brassica juncea aerial part, but due to toxic effects of mercury that reduce biomass production, the total accumulation of both metals in plants tended to decrease at each subsequent re-growth.
The use of a single additive to remove both contaminants simultaneously offers several new advantages to phytoextraction technology in terms of reducing cost and time.

References

[1]	Wang D, Shi X, Wei S (2003) Accumulation and transformation of atmospheric mercury in soil. Sci Total Environ 304: 209-214.
[2]	Xu J, Bravo AG, Lagerkvist A, et al. (2015) Sources and remediation techniques for mercury contaminated soil. Environ Int 74: 42-53.
[3]	Pedron F, Petruzzelli G, Barbafieri M, et al. (2013) Remediation of a mercury-contaminated industrial soil using bioavailable contaminant stripping. Pedosphere 23: 104-110. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(12)60085-X
[4]	Su Y, Han FX, Chen J, et al. (2008) Phytoextraction and accumulation of mercury in three plant species: Indian mustard (Brassica juncea), beard grass (Polypogon monospeliensis), and Chinese brake fern (Pteris vittata). Int J Phytoremediat 10: 547-560.
[5]	Moreno FN, Anderson CW, Stewart RB, et al. (2005) Induced plant uptake and transport of mercury in the presence of sulphur‐containing ligands and humic acid. New Phytol 166: 445-454. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01361.x
[6]	Moreno FN, Anderson CW, Stewart RB, et al. (2004) Phytoremediation of mercury-contaminated mine tailings by induced plant-mercury accumulation. Environ Pract 6: 165-175.
[7]	Petruzzelli G, Pedron F, Gorini F, et al., Enhanced Bioavailable Contaminant Stripping (EBCS): metal bioavailability for evaluation of phytoextraction success; 2013; Roma. EDP Sciences.
[8]	Tassi E, Pedron F, Barbafieri M, et al. (2004) Phosphate‐assisted phytoextraction in As‐contaminated soil. Eng Life Sci 4: 341-346. doi: 10.1002/elsc.200420037
[9]	Rungwa S, Arpa G, Sakulas H, et al. (2013) Phytoremediation—an eco-friendly and sustainable method of heavy metal removal from closed mine environments in Papua New Guinea. Procedia Earth Planet Sci 6: 269-277.
[10]	Sas-Nowosielska A, Kucharski R, Pogrzeba M, et al. (2008) Phytoremediation technologies used to reduce environmental threat posed by metal-contaminated soils: Theory and reality. In: Barnes I, Kharytonov MM, editors. Simulation and assessment of chemical processes in a multiphase environment: Springer Netherlands. pp. 285-297.
[11]	McGrath SP, Zhao J, Lombi E (2002) Phytoremediation of metals, metalloids, and radionuclides. Adv Agron 75: 1-56. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(02)75002-5
[12]	Lasat MM (2000) Phytoextraction of metals from contaminated soil: a review of plant/soil/metal interaction and assessment of pertinent agronomic issues. J Hazard Subst Res 2: 1-25.
[13]	Parisien MA, Rutter A, Smith BM, et al. (2016) Ecological risk associated with phytoextraction of soil contaminants. J Environ Chem Eng 4: 651-656.
[14]	Bolan N, Kunhikrishnan A, Thangarajan R, et al. (2014) Remediation of heavy metal (loid) s contaminated soils-to mobilize or to immobilize? J Hazard Mater 266: 141-166.
[15]	Van Gestel CA (2008) Physico-chemical and biological parameters determine metal bioavailability in soils. Sci Total Environ 406: 385-395. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.05.050
[16]	Petruzzelli G, Pedron F, Rosellini I, et al. (2015) The bioavailability processes as a key to evaluate phytoremediation efficiency. In: Ansari AA, Gill SS, Gill R, et al., editors. Phytoremediation: Springer International Publishing. pp. 31-43.
[17]	Wu G, Kang H, Zhang X, et al. (2010) A critical review on the bio-removal of hazardous heavy metals from contaminated soils: issues, progress, eco-environmental concerns and opportunities. J Hazard Mater 174: 1-8.
[18]	Mahar A, Wang P, Ali A, et al. (2016) Challenges and opportunities in the phytoremediation of heavy metals contaminated soils: A review. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 126: 111-121.
[19]	Ahmadpour P, Ahmadpour F, Mahmud TMM, et al. (2012) Phytoremediation of heavy metals: A green technology. Afr J Biotechnol 11: 14036-14043.
[20]	Franchi E, Rolli E, Marasco R, et al. (2016) Phytoremediation of a multi contaminated soil: mercury and arsenic phytoextraction assisted by mobilizing agent and plant growth promoting bacteria. J Soils Sediments: 1-13.
[21]	Eapen S, D'souza SF (2005) Prospects of genetic engineering of plants for phytoremediation of toxic metals. Biotechnol Adv 23: 97-114.
[22]	Evangelou MW, Ebel M, Schaeffer A (2007) Chelate assisted phytoextraction of heavy metals from soil. Effect, mechanism, toxicity, and fate of chelating agents. Chemosphere 68: 989-1003.
[23]	Bhargava A, Carmona FF, Bhargava M, et al. (2012) Approaches for enhanced phytoextraction of heavy metals. J Environ Manag 105: 103-120.
[24]	Seth CS, Misra V, Singh RR, et al. (2011) EDTA-enhanced lead phytoremediation in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) hydroponic culture. Plant Soil 347: 231-242. doi: 10.1007/s11104-011-0841-8
[25]	Wu LH, Luo YM, Xing XR, et al. (2004) EDTA-enhanced phytoremediation of heavy metal contaminated soil with Indian mustard and associated potential leaching risk. Agric Ecosyst Environ 102: 307-318. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2003.09.002
[26]	Cao A, Carucci A, Lai T, et al. (2007) Effect of biodegradable chelating agents on heavy metals phytoextraction with Mirabilis jalapa and on its associated bacteria. Eur J Soil Biol 43: 200-206.
[27]	Santos FS, Hernández-Allica J, Becerril JM, et al. (2006) Chelate-induced phytoextraction of metal polluted soils with Brachiaria decumbens. Chemosphere 65: 43-50.
[28]	Luo C, Shen Z, Li X (2005) Enhanced phytoextraction of Cu, Pb, Zn and Cd with EDTA and EDDS. Chemosphere 59: 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.09.100
[29]	Wang J, Xia J, Feng X (2016) Screening of chelating ligands to enhance mercury accumulation from historically mercury-contaminated soils for phytoextraction. J Environ Manag: In press.
[30]	Meers E, Tack FMG, Van Slycken S, et al. (2008) Chemically assisted phytoextraction: a review of potential soil amendments for increasing plant uptake of heavy metals. Int J Phytoremediation 10: 390-414. doi: 10.1080/15226510802100515
[31]	Cooper EM, Sims JT, Cunningham SD, et al. (1999). Chelate-assisted phytoextraction of lead from contaminated soils. J Environ Qual 28: 1709-1719.
[32]	Doumett S, Fibbi D, Azzarello E, et al. (2010) Influence of the application renewal of glutamate and tartrate on Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn distribution between contaminated soil and Paulownia tomentosa in a pilot-scale assisted phytoremediation study. Int J Phytoremediation 13: 1-17. doi: 10.1080/15226510903567455
[33]	Leštan D, Luo CL, Li XD (2008) The use of chelating agents in the remediation of metal-contaminated soils: a review. Environ Pollut 153: 3-13. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2007.11.015
[34]	Karczewska A, Orlow K, Kabala C, et al. (2011) Effects of chelating compounds on mobilization and phytoextraction of copper and lead in contaminated soils. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 42: 1379-1389. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2011.577858
[35]	Epelde L, Becerril JM, Hernández-Allica J, et al. (2008) Functional diversity as indicator of the recovery of soil health derived from Thlaspi caerulescens growth and metal phytoextraction. Appl Soil Ecol 39: 299-310. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.01.005
[36]	Raskin I, Kumar PN, Dushenkov S, et al. (1994) Bioconcentration of heavy metals by plants. Curr Opin Biotechnol 5: 285-290. doi: 10.1016/0958-1669(94)90030-2
[37]	Shelmerdine PA, Black CR, McGrath SP, et al. (2009) Modelling phytoremediation by the hyperaccumulating fern, Pteris vittata, of soils historically contaminated with arsenic. Environ Pollut 157: 1589-1596. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2008.12.029
[38]	Sparks DL (1998) Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical methods. Madison, USA: Soil Science Society of America.
[39]	EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1995) Method 3051A, Microwave assisted acid digestion of sediments, sludges, soils and oils. In: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 3rd Edition, 3rd Update, U.S. EPA, Washington D.C.
[40]	Millán R, Gamarra R, Schmid T, et al. (2006) Mercury content in vegetation and soils of the Almadén mining area (Spain). Sci Total Environ 368: 79-87. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.09.096
[41]	Wenzel WW, Kirchbaumer N, Prohaska T, et al. (2001) Arsenic fractionation in soils using an improved sequential extraction procedure. Anal Chim Acta 436: 309-323. doi: 10.1016/S0003-2670(01)00924-2
[42]	Petruzzelli G, Pedron F, Tassi E, et al. (2014) The effect of thiosulphate on arsenic bioavailability in a multi contaminated soil. A novel contribution to phytoextraction. Res J Environ Earth Sci 6: 38-43.
[43]	Pedron F, Petruzzelli G, Barbafieri M, et al. (2011) Mercury mobilization in a contaminated industrial soil for phytoremediation. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 42: 2767-2777. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2011.622823
[44]	Pedron F, Petruzzelli G, Barbafieri M, et al. (2009) Strategies to use phytoextraction in very acidic soil contaminated by heavy metals. Chemosphere 75: 808-814. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.01.044
[45]	Grifoni M, Schiavon M, Pezzarossa B, et al. (2015) Effects of phosphate and thiosulphate on arsenic accumulation in the species Brassica juncea. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 22: 2423-2433. doi: 10.1007/s11356-014-2811-1
[46]	Pedron F, Petruzzelli G, Rosellini I, et al. (2015) Ammonium thiosulphate assisted phytoextraction of mercury and arsenic in multi-polluted industrial soil. Resour Environ 5: 173-181.
[47]	EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1995) Method 3052, microwave assisted acid digestion of siliceous and organically based matrices. In: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 3rd Edition, 3rd Update, U.S. EPA, Washington D.C.
[48]	Peijnenburg WJGM, Jager T (2003) Monitoring approaches to assess bioaccessibility and bioavailability of metals: matrix issues. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 56: 63-77. doi: 10.1016/S0147-6513(03)00051-4
[49]	Kamnev AA, Van Der Lelie D (2000) Chemical and biological parameters as tools to evaluate and improve heavy metal phytoremediation. Biosci Rep 20: 239-258. doi: 10.1023/A:1026436806319
[50]	Wallschläger D, Desai MV, Spengler M, et al. (1998) Mercury speciation in floodplain soils and sediments along a contaminated river transect. J Environ Qual 27: 1034-1044.
[51]	Smolinska B, Rowe S (2015) The potential of Lepidium sativum L. for phytoextraction of Hg-contaminated soil assisted by thiosulphate. J Soils Sediments 15: 393-400.
[52]	Muddarisna N, Krisnayanti BD, Utami SR, et al. (2013) Phytoremediation of mercury-contaminated soil using three wild plant species and its effect on maize growth. Appl Ecol Environ Sci 1: 27-32.
[53]	Wang J, Feng X, Anderson CW, et al. (2011) Ammonium thiosulphate enhanced phytoextraction from mercury contaminated soil—Results from a greenhouse study. J Hazard Mater 186: 119-127. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.10.097
[54]	Moreno FN, Anderson CW, Stewart RB, et al. (2005). Effect of thioligands on plant-Hg accumulation and volatilisation from mercury-contaminated mine tailings. Plant Soil 275: 233-246. doi: 10.1007/s11104-005-1755-0
[55]	Gao Y, Mucci A (2001) Acid base reactions, phosphate and arsenate complexation, and their competitive adsorption at the surface of goethite in 0.7 M NaCl solution. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 65: 2361-2378. doi: 10.1016/S0016-7037(01)00589-0
[56]	Liu F, De Cristofaro A, Violante A (2001) Effect of pH, phosphate and oxalate on the adsorption/desorption of arsenate on/from goethite. Soil Sci 166: 197-208. doi: 10.1097/00010694-200103000-00005
[57]	Meharg AA, Macnair MR (1992) Suppression of the high affinity phosphate uptake system: a mechanism of arsenate tolerance in Holcus lanatus L. J Exp Bot 43: 519-524. doi: 10.1093/jxb/43.4.519
[58]	Smith E, Naidu R, Alston AM (2002) Chemistry of inorganic arsenic in soils. J Environ Qual 31: 557-563. doi: 10.2134/jeq2002.0557
[59]	Raj A, Singh N (2015) Phytoremediation of arsenic contaminated soil by arsenic accumulators: a three year study. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 94: 308-313. doi: 10.1007/s00128-015-1486-8
[60]	Fayiga AO, Ma LQ (2006) Using phosphate rock to immobilize metals in soil and increase arsenic uptake by hyperaccumulator Pteris vittata. Sci Total Environ 359: 17-25. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.06.001
[61]	Glick BR, Todorovic B, Czarny J, et al. (2007) Promotion of plant growth by bacterial ACC deaminase. Crit Rev Plant Sci 26: 227-242. doi: 10.1080/07352680701572966
[62]	Shen ZG, Li XD, Wang CC, et al. (2002) Lead phytoextraction from contaminated soil with high-biomass plant species. J Environ Qual 31: 1893-1900. doi: 10.2134/jeq2002.1893
[63]	Kayser A, Wenger K, Keller A, et al. (2000) Enhancement of phytoextraction of Zn, Cd, and Cu from calcareous soil: the use of NTA and sulfur amendments. Environ Sci Technol 34: 1778-1783. doi: 10.1021/es990697s
[64]	Duan G, Liu W, Chen X, et al. (2013) Association of arsenic with nutrient elements in rice plants. Metallomics Integr Biomatel Sci 5: 784-792. doi: 10.1039/c3mt20277a
[65]	Srivastava S, D'souza SF (2010) Effect of variable sulfur supply on arsenic tolerance and antioxidant responses in Hydrilla verticillata (Lf) Royle. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 73: 1314-1322. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2009.12.023
[66]	Mishra S, Srivastava S, Tripathi RD, et al. (2008) Thiol metabolism and antioxidant systems complement each other during arsenate detoxification in Ceratophyllum demersum L. Aquat Toxicol 86: 205-215. doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2007.11.001
[67]	Wu SC, Cheung KC, Luo YM, et al. (2006) Effects of inoculation of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on metal uptake by Brassica juncea. Environ Pollut 140: 124-135. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2005.06.023
[68]	Lou LQ, Ye ZH, Lin AJ, et al. (2010) Interaction of arsenic and phosphate on their uptake and accumulation in Chinese brake fern. Int J Phytoremediation 12: 487-502. doi: 10.1080/15226510903051732
[69]	Pigna M, Cozzolino V, Violante A, et al. (2009) Influence of phosphate on the arsenic uptake by wheat (Triticum durum L.) irrigated with arsenic solutions at three different concentrations. Water, Air, Soil Pollut 197: 371-380.
[70]	Geng CN, Zhu YG, Hu Y, et al. (2006) Arsenate causes differential acute toxicity to two P-deprived genotypes of rice seedlings (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Soil 279: 297-306. doi: 10.1007/s11104-005-1813-7
[71]	Vázquez Reina S, Esteban E, Goldsbrough P (2005) Arsenate‐induced phytochelatins in white lupin: influence of phosphate status. Physiol Plant 124: 41-49. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2005.00484.x
[72]	Meharg AA (2005) Mechanisms of plant resistance to metal and metalloid ions and potential biotechnological applications. Plant Soil 274: 163-174.
[73]	Huang ZC, An ZZ, Chen TB, et al. (2007) Arsenic uptake and transport of Pteris vittata L. as influenced by phosphate and inorganic arsenic species under sand culture. J Environ Sci 19: 714-718.
[74]	Tu S, Ma LQ (2003) Interactive effects of pH, arsenic and phosphorus on uptake of As and P and growth of the arsenic hyperaccumulator Pteris vittata L. under hydroponic conditions. Environ Exp Bot 50: 243-251.
[75]	Zhong L, Hu C, Tan Q, et al. (2011) Effects of sulfur application on sulfur and arsenic absorption by rapeseed in arsenic-contaminated soil. Plant Soil Environ 57: 429-434. doi: 10.1080/00380768.2011.587202
[76]	Moreno FN, Anderson CW, Stewart RB, et al. (2005) Mercury volatilisation and phytoextraction from base-metal mine tailings. Environ Pollut 136: 341-352. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2004.11.020
[77]	Lorestani B, Cheraghi M, Yousefi N (2011) Phytoremediation potential of native plants growing on a heavy metals contaminated soil of copper mine in Iran. Proc World Acad Sci Eng Technol 53: 377-382.
[78]	Yoon J, Cao X, Zhou Q, et al. (2006) Accumulation of Pb, Cu, and Zn in native plants growing on a contaminated Florida site. Sci Total Environ 368: 456-464. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.01.016
[79]	Tu C, Ma LQ, Bondada B (2002) Arsenic accumulation in the hyperaccumulator Chinese brake and its utilization potential for phytoremediation. J Environ Qual 31: 1671-1675. doi: 10.2134/jeq2002.1671
[80]	Cassina L, Tassi E, Pedron F, et al. (2012) Using a plant hormone and a thioligand to improve phytoremediation of Hg-contaminated soil from a petrochemical plant. J Hazard Mater 231: 36-42.
[81]	Rodriguez L, Rincón J, Asencio I, et al. (2007) Capability of selected crop plants for shoot mercury accumulation from polluted soils: phytoremediation perspectives. Int J Phytoremediation 9: 1-13. doi: 10.1080/15226510601139359
[82]	Souza LA, Piotto FA, Nogueirol RC, et al. (2013) Use of non-hyperaccumulator plant species for the phytoextraction of heavy metals using chelating agents. Sci Agricola 70: 290-295. doi: 10.1590/S0103-90162013000400010
[83]	Jankong P, Visoottiviseth P, Khokiattiwong S (2007) Enhanced phytoremediation of arsenic contaminated land. Chemosphere 68: 1906-1912. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.02.061
[84]	Chaturvedi I (2006) Effects of arsenic concentrations and forms on growth and arsenic uptake and accumulation by Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) genotypes. J Cent Eur Agric 7: 31-40.
[85]	Matschullat J (2000) Arsenic in the geosphere-a review. Sci Total Environ 249: 297-312. doi: 10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00524-0
[86]	Jarrell WM, Beverly RB (1981) The dilution effect in plant nutrition studies. Adv Agron 34: 197-224. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60887-1
[87]	Wang J, Feng X, Anderson CW, et al. (2012) Implications of mercury speciation in thiosulfate treated plants. Environ Sci Technol 46: 5361-5368. doi: 10.1021/es204331a
[88]	Petruzzelli G, Pedron F, Rosellini I (2014) Effects of thiosulfate on the adsorption of arsenate on hematite with a view to phytoextraction. Res J Environ Earth Sci 6: 326-332.
[89]	Pedron F, Rosellini I, Petruzzelli G, et al. (2014) Chelant comparison for assisted phytoextraction of lead in two contaminated soils. Resour Environ 4: 209-214.

Reader Comments

your name:*

Email:*
© 2017 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)