Toxicity Assessment of Two Soils from Jales Mine (Portugal) Using Plants: Growth and Biochemical Parameters

  • Susana Loureiro
  • Conceição Santos
  • Glória Pinto
  • Armando Costa
  • Marta Monteiro
  • António J. A. Nogueira
  • Amadeu M. V. M. Soares
Article

Abstract

Contaminants in soils can enter food chains through primary producers. Bioavailable contaminants can induce growth, and reproductive or biochemical changes in plants. To evaluate the bioavailability of heavy metals in two soils from Jales mine surroundings, bioassays with the plants Brassica rapa (RCBr) and Avena sativa were performed. Biochemical parameters (protein and malondialdehyde [MDA] content, and catalase and peroxidase activities) were also measured. The soils had different heavy metal contents: JNC soil contained low heavy metal concentrations, whereas JC soil had high heavy metal contents. Results stressed the difference between species sensitivity, with A. sativa showing no toxicity effects when exposed to both soils. On the other hand, B. rapa presented a decrease in growth parameters when exposed to JNC soil and no changes when exposed to JC soil. A Life Cycle Bioassay confirmed this trend for B. rapa exposed to JNC soil, but also evidenced that JC soil was affecting B. rapa in terms of flower and seed pod production. Biochemical assays showed that plants affected by heavy metals also displayed oxidative stress, with an increase in MDA production, reduction of protein content, and reduction of catalase and peroxidase activities. All bioassays revealed that JNC soil, although with a lower heavy metal content, had a higher bioavailable fraction when compared to JC soil, which consequently increased its toxicity to plants.

References

  1. Aebi H (1974) Catalase. Methods of enzymatic analysis. Bergmeyer, Verlag Chemie–Academic Press, New York, pp 673–684Google Scholar
  2. Ahlers J, Martin S (2003) Risk assessment of chemicals in soil: Recent developments in the EU. J Soils Sediments 3:240–241Google Scholar
  3. Allen HE (2002) Bioavailability of metals in terrestrial ecosystems: Importance of partitioning for bioavailability to invertebrates, microbes, and plants. SETAC, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. An YJ (2004) Soil toxicity assessment using cadmium sensitive plants. Environ Pollut 127:21–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aydin N, Kadioglu A (2001) Changes in the chemical composition, polyphenol oxidase and peroxidase activities during development and ripening of medlar fruits (Mespilus germanica L.). Bulg J Plant Physiol 27:85–92Google Scholar
  6. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantification of microgram quantities of protein utilising the principle of protein binding. Anal Biochem 72:248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter JA, Mroz RE, Tay KL, Doe KG (1998) An evaluation of the use of soil and sediment bioassays in the assessment of three contaminated sites in atlantic Canada. Water Qual Res J Canada 33:295–317Google Scholar
  8. Chen J, Song L, Dai J, Gan N, Liu Z (2004) Effects of microsystins on the growth and the activity of superoxide dismutase and peroxidase of rape (Brassica napus L.) and rice (Oryza sativa L.). Toxicon 43:393–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CSTEE (2000) The available scientific approaches to assess the potential effects and risk of chemicals on terrestrial ecosystems. European Commission. Brussels, C2/JCD/csteeop/Ter91100/D(0): 178Google Scholar
  10. Debus R, Hund K (1997) Development of analytical methods for the assessment of ecotoxicological relevant soil contamination. Part B—Ecotoxicological analysis in soil and soil extracts. Chemosphere 35:239–261Google Scholar
  11. DECHEMA (1995) Bioassays for soils. DECHEMA, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Chemisches Apparatewesen, Chemische Technik und Biotechnologie e. V. Frankfurt am Main: 45Google Scholar
  12. Desimone M, Henke A, Wagner E (1996) Oxidative stress induces partia1 degradation of the large subunit of ribulose-l,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase in isolated chloroplasts of barley. Plant Physiol 111:789–796Google Scholar
  13. Dick RP, Breakwell DP, Turco RF (1996) Soil enzymes activity and biodiversity measurements as integrative microbiological indicators. In: Doran JW, Jones AJ (eds) Methods for assessing soil quality. Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, pp 247–272Google Scholar
  14. Fairbrother A, Glazebrook PW, Van Straalen N, Tarazona JV (1999) Test methods for hazard determination of metals and sparingly soluble metal compounds in soils: Summary of a SETAC Pellston workshop. SETAC. San Lourenzo de El Escorial, Spain, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)Google Scholar
  15. Fekete S, Mándy A, Stefanovits-Bányai E (2002) Change of peroxidase enzyme activities in annual cuttings during rooting. Acta Biol Szegediensis 46:29–31Google Scholar
  16. Fjälloborg B, Dave G (2004) Toxicity of Sb and Cu in sewage sludge to terrestrial plants (lettuce, oat, radish), and of sludge elutriate to aquatic organisms (Daphnia and Lemna) and its interaction. Water Air Soil Pollution 155:3–20Google Scholar
  17. Gong P, Wilke B-M, Fleischmann S (1999) Soil-based phytotoxicity of 2,4,6- trinitrotoluene (TNT) to terrestrial higher plants. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 36:152–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gong P, Wilke B-M, Strozzi E, Fleischmann S (2001) Evaluation and refinement of a continuous seed germination and early seedling growth test for the use in the ecotoxicological assessment of soils. Chemosphere 44:491–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoffmann WA, Poorter H (2002) Avoiding bias in calculations of relative growth rate. Annals Botany 80:37–42Google Scholar
  20. ISO (1993) Soil quality—Sampling—Part 6: Guidance on the collection, handling and storage of soil for the assessment of aerobic microbial processes in the laboratory. ISO—The International Organization for Standardization, Genève, ISO 10381-6: 4Google Scholar
  21. ISO (1995) Soil quality—Determination of the effects of pollutants on soil flora—Part 2: Effects of chemicals on the emergence of higher plants. ISO—The International Organization for Standardization. Genève, ISO 11269-2: p 7Google Scholar
  22. ISO (2003) Soil quality—Guidance on the ecotoxicological characterization of soils and soil material. ISO—The International Organization for Standardization. Genève, ISO 15799: 33Google Scholar
  23. ISO (2005) Soil quality- Biological methods- Chronic toxicity in higher plants. ISO—The International Organization for Standardization. Genève, ISO 22030: p 18Google Scholar
  24. Király I, Czovek P (2002) Changes of MDA level and O2 scavenging enzyme activities in wheat varieties as a result of PEG treatment. Proceedings of the 7th Hungarian Congress on Plant Physiology. Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Hungary, 46:105–106Google Scholar
  25. Kördel W, Römbke J (2001) Requirements on physical, chemical and biological testing for estimating the quality of soils and soils substrates. J Soils Sediments 1:98–104Google Scholar
  26. Krishna MNS, van Iersel MW (2003) Light effects on wax begonia: Photosynthesis, growth respiration, and maintenance respiration. Acta Horticulturae 624:541–547Google Scholar
  27. Loureiro S, Ferreira ALG, Soares AMVM, Nogueira AJA (2005) Evaluation of the toxicity of two soils from Jales mine (Portugal) using aquatic bioassays. Chemosphere 61:168–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maxam G, Rila J-P, Dott W, Eisentraeger A (2000) Use of bioassays for assessment of water-extractable ecotoxic potential of soils. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 45:240–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD (2003 (draft version)) Terrestrial plant test: Seedling emergence and seedling growth test. OECD—Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 208: 6Google Scholar
  30. Ohlinger R (1996) Soil sampling and sample preparation. In: Schinner F, Ohlinger R, Kandeler E, Margesin R (eds) Methods in soil biology. Springer-verlag, Berlin, pp 7–11Google Scholar
  31. Prasad KVSK, Pardha Saradhi P, Sharmila P (1999) Concerted action of antioxidant enzymes and curtailed growth under zinc toxicity in Brassica juncea. Environ Exp Botany 42:1–10Google Scholar
  32. Radford PJ (1967) Growth analysis formulae- their use and abuse. Crop Science 7:171–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sakihama Y, Cohen MF, Grace SC, Yamasaki H (2002) Plant phenolic antioxidant and prooxidant activities: Phenolics-induced oxidative damage mediated by metals in plants. Toxicology 177:67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sheppard SC, Evenden WG, Abboud SA, Stephenson M (1993) A plant life-cycle bioassay for contaminated soil, with comparison to other bioassays: mercury and zinc. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 25:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. SPSS (1995) SigmaStat for Windows (version 2.03). Science, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  36. SPSS (2002) SigmaPlot for Windows (version 8.02). Science, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  37. Stoeva N, Bineva T (2003) Oxidative changes and photosynthesis in oat plants grown in As-contaminated soil. Bulg J Plant Physiol 29:87–95Google Scholar
  38. Storer DA (1984) A simple high sample volume ashing procedure for determination of soil organic matter. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 15:759–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Takahama U, Egashira T (1991) Peroxidases in vacuoles of Vicia faba leaves. Phytochemistry 30:73–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tarazona JV, Hund K, Jager T, Salonen MS, Soares AMVM, Skaare JU, Vighi M (2002) Standardizing chemical risk assessment, at last. Nature 415:14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vieira Santos CL, Campos A, Azevedo H, Caldeira G (2001) In situ and in vitro senescence induced by KCl stress: nutritional imbalance, lipid peroxidation and antioxidant metabolism. J Exp Botany 52:351–360Google Scholar
  42. Vitória AP, Lea PJ, Azevedo RA (2001) Antioxidant enzyme responses to cadmium in radish tissues. Phytochemistry 57:701–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilke B-M, Winkel B, Fleischmann S, Gong P (1998) Higher plant growth and microbial toxicity tests for the evaluation of ecotoxic potential of soils. In: Telford T (ed) Contaminated soils ‘98 London, pp 345–354Google Scholar
  44. Willekens H, Chamnongpol S, Davey M, Schraudner M, Langebartelse C, Van Montagu M, Inzé D, Van Camp W (1997) Catalase is a sink for H2O2 and is indispensable for stress defence in C3 plants. EMBO J 16:4806–4816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zar JH (1996) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall International, Inc., New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susana Loureiro
    • 1
  • Conceição Santos
    • 1
  • Glória Pinto
    • 1
  • Armando Costa
    • 1
  • Marta Monteiro
    • 1
  • António J. A. Nogueira
    • 1
  • Amadeu M. V. M. Soares
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations