Phytotoxicity of Washing Wastewaters from a Cutlery Production Line

  • K. Svetková
  • A. Fargašová

Phytotoxicity assessment plays an important role in environmental monitoring and risk assessment of metal-contaminated places. Since, only a few guidelines are available for the assessment of heavy metal phytotoxicity (Römbke and Moltman, 1996), quality-controlled toxicity data using standardized methods are actually quite rarely reported in the literature. Efroymson et al., (1997) developed toxicological benchmarks for screening the effects of contaminants that have the potential to arouse concern. This included the effect of certain heavy metals on terrestrial plants. They also reviewed phytotoxicity data derived from experiments conducted in nutrient culture and spiked soils (Efroymson et al., 1997). Phytotoxicity tests generally use toxicological endpoints such as root and shoot growth, biomass production and germination percent. However, physiological responses of plants to toxic metals consist not only of growth and production inhibition, but also in intensity alterations of...


Shoot Growth Fresh Mass Wastewater Concentration Shoot Growth Inhibition Root Fresh Mass 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This study was supported by grants VEGA 1/4361/07.


  1. Barcelo J, Poschenrieder C, Ruano A, Gunse B (1985) Leaf water potential in Cr(VI) treated bean plants (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Plant Physiol Suppl 77:163–164Google Scholar
  2. Barcelo J, Poschenrieder C, Gunse B (1986) Water relations of chromium VI treated bush bean plants (Phaseolus vulgaris L. cv. Contender) under both normal and water stress conditions. J Exp Bot 37:178–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barcelo J, Poschenrieder C, Vazquez MD, Gunse B, Vernet JP (1993) Beneficial and toxic effects of chromium in plants: solution culture, pot and field studies. Studies in Environmental Science. Proc. 5th Int Conf Environmental Contamination, Morges, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton LL, Johnson GV, O’Nan AG, Wagener BM (2000) Inhibition of ferric chelate reductase in alfafa roots by cobalt, nickel, chromium, and copper. J Plant Nutr 23:1833–1845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennicelli R, Stępniewska Z, Banach A, Szajnocha K, Ostrowski J (2004) The ability of Azolla caroliniana to remove heavy metals (Hg(II), Cr(III), Cr(VI)) from municipal waste water. Chemosphere 55:141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burd GI, Dixon DG, Glick BR (1998) A plant growth-promoting bacterium that decreases nickel toxicity in seedlings. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:3663–3668Google Scholar
  7. Chatterjee J, Chatterjee C (2000) Phytotoxicity of cobalt, chromium and copper in cauliflower. Environ Pollut 109:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drazic G, Mihailovic N (2005) Modification of cadmium toxicity in soybean seedlings by salicylic acid. Plant Sci 168:511–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Efroymson RA, Will ME, Suter GW, Wootten AC (1997) Toxicological benchmarks for screening contaminants of potential concern for effects on terrestrial plants. Office of Environmental Management, US Department of EnergyGoogle Scholar
  10. Fargašová A (1994) Effect of Pb, Cd, Hg, As, and Cr on germination and root growth of Sinapis alba seeds. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 52:452–456Google Scholar
  11. Fargašová A (1998) Root growth inhibition, photosynthetic pigments production, and metal accumulation in Sinapis alba as the parameters for trace metals effect determination. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 61:762–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanus J, Tomas J (1993) An investigation of chromium content and its uptake from soil in white mustard. Acta Fytotech 48:39–47Google Scholar
  13. Hartley-Whitaker J, Ainsworth G, Meharg AA (2001) Copper and arsenate induced oxidative stress in Holcus lanatus L. clones with differential sensitivity. Plant Cell Environ 24:713–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kočík K, Ilavský J (1994) Effect of Sr and Cr on the quantity and quality of the biomass of field crops. Proc Semin Production and Utilization of Agricultural and Forest Biomass for Energy, Zvolen, Slovakia, pp168–178Google Scholar
  15. Pandey N, Sharma Ch P (2002) Effect of heavy metals Co2+, Ni2+ and Cd2+ on growth and metabolism of cabbage. Plant Sci 163:753–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Prasad MNV, Greger M, Landberg T (2001) Acacia nilotica L. bark removes toxic elements from solution: corroboration from toxicity bioassay using Salix viminalis L. in hydroponic system. Int J Phytoremed 3:289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rout GR, Sanghamitra S, Das P (2000) Effects of chromium and nickel on germination and growth in tolerant and non-toletant populations of Echinochloa colona (L.). Chemosphere 40:855–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Römbke J, Moltman JF (1996) Applied ecotoxicology. CRC, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  19. Shanker AK, Cervantes C, Loza-Tavera H, Avudainayagam S (2005) Chromium toxicity in plants. Environ Int 31:739–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sharma DC, Sharma CP (1996) Chromium uptake and toxicity effects on growth and metabolic activity in wheat, Triticum aestivum L. cv. UP 2003. Indian J Exp Biol Plant Sci 34:689–691Google Scholar
  21. Turner MA, Rust RH (1971) Effects of chromium on growth and mineral nutrition of soybeans. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 35:755–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vajpayee P, Rai UN, Ali MB, Tripathi RD, Yadav V, Sinha S (2001) Chromium induced physiological changes in Vallisneria spiralis L. and its role in phytoremediation of tannery effluent. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 67:246–256Google Scholar
  23. Vassilev A, Berowa M, Zlatev Z (1998) Influence of Cd2+ on growth, chlorophyll content, and water relations in young barley plants. Biol Plant 41:601–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vazques MD, Poschenrieder Ch, Barcelo J (1987) Chromium (VI) induced structural changes in bush bean plants. Ann Bot 59:427–438Google Scholar
  25. Zurayk R, Sukkariyah B, Baalbaki R (2001) Common hydrophytes as bioindicators of nickel, chromium and cadmium pollution. Water Air Soil Pollut 127:373–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiotechnologyFaculty of Natural Sciences, University of St. Cyril and MethodiusTrnavaSlovak Republic
  2. 2.Department of Ecosozology and PhysiotacticsFaculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University in BratislavaMlynská dolinaSlovak Republic

Personalised recommendations