Ecotoxicity of Mine Tailings: Unrehabilitated Versus Rehabilitated

Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

Earthworms are bioindicators of soil pollution. The ecotoxicity of tailings from selected gold mines in South Africa was investigated utilizing Eisenia andrei bioassays and biomarkers. Samples were obtained from unrehabilitated, rehabilitated and naturally vegetated sites. Biomass, neutral red retention time (NRRT), survival and reproduction were assessed using standardized protocols. Earthworm biomass, NRRT and reproductive success in rehabilitated tailings (comparable to naturally vegetated site) were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than in unrehabilitated tailings. In addition, significantly lower (p < 0.05) body tissue concentrations of As, Cd, Co, Cu and Ni contents were found in the rehabilitated tailings compared to the unrehabilitated. Further, significantly lower (p < 0.05) soil Mn and Zn concentrations were obtained in unrehabilitated tailings than the rehabilitated and naturally vegetated sites. Overall, reduced ecotoxicity effects were confirmed in rehabilitated compared to unrehabilitated tailings. This suggests that rehabilitation as a post-mining restorative strategy has strong positive influence on mine tailings.

Keywords

Biomarkers Eisenia andrei Gold mine tailings Soil pollution Rehabilitated and unrehabilitated sites Post-mining restoration strategy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The financial assistance of the National Research Foundation (NRF) towards this research is hereby acknowledged. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at, are those of the authors and are not necessarily to be attributed to the NRF.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

We hereby declare that the research has no possible conflicts of interest and that animals (earthworms) used in this study was handled according to ethical compliant standards.

References

  1. Acosta JA, Faz A, Martinez-Martinez S, Zornoza R, Carmona DM, Kabas S (2011) Multivariate statistical and GIS-based approach to evaluate heavy metals behaviour in mine sites for future reclamation. J Geochem Explor 109:8–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouyoucos GF (1962) Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analysis of soils. Agron J 54(5):464–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cele EN, Maboeta M (2016) A greenhouse trial to investigate the ameliorative properties of biosolids and plants on physicochemical conditions of iron ore tailings: implications for an iron ore mine site remediation. J Environ Manag 165:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chamber of Mines (2017) Modernisation: towards the mine of tomorrow fact sheet 2017Google Scholar
  5. Chen M, Lu W, Hou Z, Zhang Y, Jiang X, Wu J (2017) Heavy metal pollution in soil associated with a large-scale cyanidation gold mining region in southeast of Jilin, China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:3084–3096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DEAT (Department of Environmental Affairs) (2014) South African National Environmental Management, Waste act, 331 (act no. 59 of 2008). National norms and standards for the remediation of contaminated land and soil qualityGoogle Scholar
  7. Demuynck S, Grumiaux F, Mottier V, Schikorski D, Lemière S, Lelprêtre A (2007) Cd/Zn exposure interactions on metallothionein response in Eisenia andrei (Annelida, Oligochaeta). Comp Biochem Physiol 145:658–668Google Scholar
  8. Edrakia M, Baumgartla T, Mulligana D, Fegana W, Munawar A (2017) Geochemical characteristics of rehabilitated tailings and associated seepages at Kidston gold mine, Queensland, Australia. Int J Min Reclam Environ.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2017.1362542 Google Scholar
  9. Gastaldi L, Ranzato E, Capri F, Hankard P, Pérès G, Canesi L, Viarengo A, Pons G (2007) Application of a biomarker battery for the evaluation of the sublethal effects of pollutants in the earthworm Eisenia andrei. Comp Biochem Physiol C 146:398–405Google Scholar
  10. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2012) Soil quality—effects of pollutants on earthworms—part 1: determination of acute toxicity to Eisenia andrei/Eisenia andrei. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  11. Jain MK, Das A (2017) Impact of mine waste leachates on aquatic environment: a review. Curr Pollut Rep 3:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jubileus MT, Theron PD, van Rensburg L, Maboeta MS (2013) Utilizing Eisenia andrei to assess the ecotoxicity of platinum mine tailings disposal facilities. Ecotoxicology 22:331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maboeta MS, Claassens S, van Rensburg L, van Rensburg PJ (2006) The effects of platinum mining on the environment from a soil microbial perspective. Water Air Soil Pollut 175(1–4):149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maboeta MS, van Rensburg L, van Rensburg PJ (2008) Earthworm (Eisenia fetida) bioassay to assess the possible effects of platinum tailings disposal facilities on the environment along a gradient. Appl Ecol Environ Res 6:13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marrugo-Negrete J, Enamorado-Montes G, Durango-Hernández J, Pinedo-Hernández J, Díez S (2017) Removal of mercury from gold mine effluents using Limnocharis flava in constructed wetlands. Chemosphere 167:188–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. MBendi Information Services (Pty) Ltd (2016) Mining in South Africa-overview. MBendi Information Services, Cape TownGoogle Scholar
  17. OECD (2016) OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals draft updated TG 222. Earthworm reproduction test (Eisenia andrei/Eisenia andrei)Google Scholar
  18. Oladipo OG, Olayinka A, Awotoye OO (2016a) Maize (Zea mays) performance in organically remediated mine site soils. J Environ Manag 181:435–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oladipo OG, Awotoye OO, Olayinka A, Ezeokoli OT, Maboeta MS, Bezuidenhout CC (2016b) Heavy metal tolerance potential of Aspergillus strains isolated from mining sites. Bioremediat J 20(4):287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oladipo OG, Awotoye OO, Olayinka A, Bezuidenhout CC, Maboeta MS (2018) Heavy metal tolerance traits of filamentous fungi isolated from gold and gemstone mining sites. Braz J Microbiol 49:29–37. doi. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjm.2017.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pavilonis B, Grassman J, Johnson G, Diaz Y, Caravanos J (2017) Characterization and risk of exposure to elements from artisanal gold mining operations in the Bolivian Andes. Environ Res 154:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reinecke AJ, Reinecke SA (2003) The influence of exposure history to lead on the lysosomal response in Eisenia andrei (Oligochaeta). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 55:30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rocco A, Scott-Fordsmand JJ, Maisto G, Manzo S, Salluzzo A, Jensen J (2011) Suitability of lysosomal membrane stability in Eisenia andrei as biomarker of soil copper contamination. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 74:984–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Svendsen C, Spurgeon DJ, Hankard PK, Weeks JM (2004) A review of lysosomal membrane stability measured by neutral red retention: is it a workable earthworm biomarker? Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 57:20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. USEPA (US. Environmental Protection Agency) (1996) Acid Digestion of sludges, solids and soils. Method 3050B. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/epa-3050b.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2017
  26. van Coller-Myburgh C, van Rensburg L, Maboeta M (2014) Utilizing earthworm and microbial assays to assess the ecotoxicity of chromium mine wastes. Appl Soil Ecol 83:258–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van Coller-Myburgh C, van Rensburg L, Maboeta M (2015) Assessing the ecotoxicity of gold mine tailings utilizing earthworm and microbial assays. Water Air Soil Pollut 226:218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilke BM (2010) Determination of chemical and physical soil properties. In: Margesin R, Schinner F (eds), Manual of soil analysis: monitoring and assessing soil bioremediation, pp 47–95Google Scholar
  29. Yasmin S, D’Souza D (2007) Effects of pesticides on the reproductive output of Eisenia andrei. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 79:529–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zaragoza VMD, Castorena EVG, Castorena MCG, González RC, Solorio CAO, Santos AT (2015) Heavy metals contamination in soils around tailing heaps with various degrees of weathering in Zimapán, Mexico. Int J Environ Sci 72(1):24–40Google Scholar
  31. Zhiyuan L, Zongwei M, Tsering JK, Zengwei Y, Lei H (2014) A review of soil heavy metal pollution from mines in China: pollution and health risk assessment. Sci Total Environ 468–469:843–853Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Unit for Environmental Sciences and ManagementNorth-West UniversityPotchefstroomSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations