Advertisement

Ecotoxicology

, Volume 26, Issue 10, pp 1366–1377 | Cite as

Time-dependent effect of composted tannery sludge on the chemical and microbial properties of soil

  • Ricardo Silva de Sousa
  • Vilma Maria Santos
  • Wanderley Jose de Melo
  • Luis Alfredo Pinheiro Leal Nunes
  • Paul J. van den Brink
  • Ademir Sérgio Ferreira Araújo
Article

Abstract

Composting has been suggested as an efficient method for tannery sludge recycling before its application to the soil. However, the application of composted tannery sludge (CTS) should be monitored to evaluate its effect on the chemical and microbial properties of soil. This study evaluated the time-dependent effect of CTS on the chemical and microbial properties of soil. CTS was applied at 0, 2.5, 5, 10, and 20 Mg ha−1 and the soil chemical and microbial properties were evaluated at 0, 45, 75, 150, and 180 days. Increased CTS rates increased the levels of Ca, Cr, and Mg. While Soil pH, organic C, and P increased with the CTS rates initially, this effect decreased over time. Soil microbial biomass, respiration, metabolic quotient, and dehydrogenase increased with the application of CTS, but decreased over time. Analysis of the Principal Response Curve showed a significant effect of CTS rate on the chemical and microbial properties of the soil over time. The weight of each variable indicated that all soil properties, except β-glucosidase, dehydrogenase and microbial quotient, increased due to the CTS application. However, the highest weights were found for Cr, pH, Ca, P, phosphatase and total organic C. The application of CTS in the soil changed the chemical and microbial properties over time, indicating Cr, pH, Ca, phosphatase, and soil respiration as the more responsive chemical and microbial variables by CTS application.

Keywords

Ecotoxicology Waste management Soil properties Soil pollution 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by “Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico” (grants 471347/2013-2; and 305102/2014-1) and “Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior” (Proc. CAPES 23038.007660/2011-51). A.S.F Araújo is supported by a personal grant from CNPq-Brazil.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

10646_2017_1861_MOESM1_ESM.docx (62 kb)
Supplementary Information
10646_2017_1861_MOESM2_ESM.docx (62 kb)
Supplementary Information

References

  1. Ackerley DF, Barak Y, Lynch SV, Curtin J, Matin A (2006) Effect of chromate stress on Escherichia coli K-12. J Bacteriol 188:3371–3381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adjia R, Fezeu WML, Tchatchueng JB, Sorho S, Echevarria G, Ngassoum MB (2008) Long term effect of municipal solid waste amendment on soil heavy metal content of sites used for periurban agriculture in Ngaoundere, Cameroon. African J Environ Sci Technol 2:412–421Google Scholar
  3. Ahlberg O, Gustafsson P, Wedel F (2006) Leaching of metals from sewage sludge during one year and their relation to particle size. Environ Pollut 144:545–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alef K, Nannipieri P (1995) Methods in soil microbiology and biochemistry. Academic, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson TH, Domsch KH (1993) The metabolic quotient for CO2 (qCO2) as a specific activity parameter to assess the effects of environmental conditions, such pH, on the microbial biomass of forest soils. Soil Biol Biochem 25:393–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anikwe MAN, Nwobodo KCA (2002) Long term effect of municipal waste disposal on soil properties and productivity of site used for urban agriculture in Abakaliki, Nigeria. Biores Technol 83:241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Araujo ASF, Melo WJ, Singh RP (2010) Municipal solid waste compost amendment in agricultural soil: changes in soil microbial biomass. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 9:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Araujo ASF, Miranda ARL, Oliveira MLJ, Santos VM, Nunes LAPL, Melo WJ (2015) Soil microbial properties after 5 years of consecutive amendment with composted tannery sludge. Environ Monit Asses 187:4153–4160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Araujo ASF, Lima LM, Santos VM, Schmidt R (2016) Repeated application of composted tannery sludge affects differently soil microbial biomass, enzymes activity, and ammonia-oxidizing organisms. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:1–8Google Scholar
  10. APHA - American Public Health Association (2005) Standard methods for the examination for water and wastewater. American Public Health Association, Washington, p 1600Google Scholar
  11. Ben Achiba W, Gabteni N, Lakhdar A, Du Laing G, Verloo M, Jedidi N, Gallali T (2009) Effects of 5-year application of municipal solid waste compost on the distribution and mobility of heavy metals in a Tunisian calcareous soil. Agric Ecosys Environ 130:156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bremner JM (1996) Nitrogen-total. In: Bigham JM (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 3. Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 1085–1121Google Scholar
  13. Brookes PC, Joergensen RG (2006) Microbial biomass measurement by fumigation-extraction. In: Bloem J, Hopkins W, Benedetti A (eds) Microbiological methods for assessing soil quality. CABI, Wallingford, pp 77–83Google Scholar
  14. Casida LE, Klein DA, Santoro T (1965) Soil dehydrogenase activity. Soil Sci 98:371–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Condron L, Stark C, O’Callaghan M, Clinton P, Huang Z (2010) The role of microbial communities in the formation and decomposition of soil organic matter. In: Dixon GR, Tilston EL (eds), Soil microbiology and sustainable crop production. Springer Science+Business Media B.V., Dordrecht, pp. 81–118Google Scholar
  16. CONAMA - Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente (2009) Resolução n° 420/2009, de 28 de dezembro de 2009. Diário Oficial da União, n. 249, de 30/12/2009, 81–84Google Scholar
  17. Crecchio C, Curci M, Pizzigallo MD, Ricciuti P, Ruggiero P (2004) Effects of municipal solid waste compost amendments on soil enzyme activities and bacterial genetic diversity. Soil Biol Biochem 36:1595–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dick RP (1994) Soil enzyme activities as indicators of soil quality. In: Doran JW, Coleman DC, Bezdicek DF, Stewart BA (eds) Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment. SSSA, Madison, pp 107–124. (Special, 35)Google Scholar
  19. Eivazi F, Tabatabai MA (1988) Glucosidases and galactosidases in soils. Soil Biol Biochem 20:601–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. EMBRAPA - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropequária (1997) Manual de métodos de análise de solo. EMBRAPA, Rio de Janeiro, p 212Google Scholar
  21. Ferreira AS, Camargo FAO, Vidor C (1999) Utilização de micro-ondas na avaliação da biomassa microbiana do solo. Rev Bras Ci Solo 23:991–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garcıa-Gil JC, Plaza C, Soler-Rovira P, Polo A (2000) Long-term effects of municipal solid waste compost application on soil enzyme activities and microbial biomass. Soil Biol Biochem 32:1907–1913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giacometti C, Cavani L, Gioacchini P, Ciavatta C, Marzadori C (2012) Soil application of tannery land plaster, effects on nitrogen mineralization and soil biochemical properties. App Environ. Soil Sci 1:1–9Google Scholar
  24. Gil-Sotres F, Trasar-Cepeda C, Leirós MC, Seoane S (2005) Different approaches to evaluating soil quality using biochemical properties. Soil Biol Biochem 37:877–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gonçalves ICR, Araujo ASF, Nunes LAPL, Melo WJ (2014) Soil microbial biomass after two years of consecutive application. Acta Sci Agro 36:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gough HL, Dahl AL, Nolan MA, Gaillard JF, Stahl DA (2008) Metal impacts on microbial biomass in the anoxic sediments of a contaminated lake. Journal Geophys Res 113:G02017Google Scholar
  27. Hargreaves JC, Adl MS, Warman PR (2008) A review of the use of composted municipal solid waste in agriculture. Agric Ecosys Environ 123:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huang S, Peng B, Yang Z, Chai L, Zhou L (2009) Chromium accumulation, microorganism population and enzyme activities in soils around chromium-containing slag heap of steel alloy factory. Trans Nonfer Met Soc China 19:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Islam KR, Weil RR (1998) Microwave irradiation of soil for routine measurement of microbial biomass carbon. Biol Fertil Soil 27:408–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones SE, Lennon JT (2010) Dormancy contributes to the maintenance of microbial diversity. Proc Natnl Acad Sci 107:5881–5886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krishnamurti GSR, Huang PM, Kozak LM (1999) Desorption kinetics of cadmium from soils using M ammonium nitrate and M ammonium chloride. Comm Soil Sci Pl Anal 30:2785–2800Google Scholar
  32. Lakhdar A, Scelza R, Scotti R, Rao MA, Jedidi N, Gianfreda L, Abdelly C (2010) The effect of compost and sewage sludge on soil biologic activities in salt affected soil. Rev Ci Suelo Nut Veg 10:40–47Google Scholar
  33. Lavelle P, Spain A (2001) Soil ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht: The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Madrid F, López R, Cabrera F (2007) Metal accumulation in soil after application of municipal solid waste compost under intensive farming conditions. Agric Ecosys Environ 119:249–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1996) Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 2, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  36. Odum EP (1985) Trends expected in stressed ecosystems. BioScience 35:419–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Onweremadu EU, Nwufo MI (2009) Pedogenetic activities of soil microbes as influenced by trivalent cationic chromium. Res J Soil Biol 1:8–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Patel A, Patra DD (2014) Influence of heavy metal rich tannery sludge on soil enzymes vis-à-vis growth of Tagetes minuta, an essential oil bearing crop. Chemosphere 112:323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pérez DV, Alcantara S, Ribeiro CC, Pereira RE, Fontes GC, Wasserman MA, Venezuela TC, Meneguelli NA, Macedo JR, Barradas CAA (2007) Composted municipal waste effects on chemical properties of a Brazilian soil. Biores Technol 98:525–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pinheiro WG, Araujo ASF, Oliveira MLJ, Araujo FF, Melo WJ (2015) Residual effect of composted tannery sludge on yield and Cr content in green corn. Científica 43:37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. R Core Team (2016) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  42. Richards LA (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. Department of Agriculture, USDA Agricultural Handbook, 60, Washington: US, p 160Google Scholar
  43. Roca-Perez L, Martinez C, Marcilia P, Boluda R (2009) Composting rice straw with sewage sludge and compost effects on the soil-plant system. Chemosphere 75:781–787Google Scholar
  44. Ros M, Klammer S, Knapp B, Aichberger K, Insam H (2006) Long-term effects of compost amendment of soil on functional and structural diversity and microbial activity. Soil Use Manag 22:209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosenberg W, Nierop KGJ, Knicker H, de Jager PA, Kreutzer K, Weib T (2003) Liming effects on the chemical composition of the organic surface layer of a mature Norway spruce stand (Picea abies [L.] Karst.). Soil Biol Biochem 35:155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Santos JA, Nunes LAPL, Melo WJ, Figueiredo MBV, Singh RP, Bezerra AAC, Araújo ASF (2011) Growth, nodulation and nitrogen fixation of cowpea in soils amended with composted tannery sludge. Rev Bras Ci Solo 35:1865–1871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scherer HW, Metker DJ, Welp G (2011) Effect of long-term organic amendments on chemical and microbial properties of a luvisol. Pl Soil Environ 57:513–518Google Scholar
  48. Selivanovskaya SY, Latypova VZ (2006) Effects of composted sewage sludge on microbial biomass, activity and pine seedlings in nursery forest. Waste Manag 26:1253–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sheik CS, Mitchell TW, Rizvi FZ, Rehman Y, Faisal M, Hasnain S, Krumholz LR (2012) Exposure of soil microbial communities to chromium and arsenic alters their diversity and structure. PLoS ONE 7:e40059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shi W, Bischoff M, Turco R, Konopka A (2002) Long-term effects of Chromium and lead upon the activity of soil microbial communities. App Soil Ecol 21:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Silva MDM, Barajas-Aceves M, Araújo ASF, Araújo FF, Melo WJ (2014) Soil microbial biomass after three years of consecutive composted tannery sludge amendment. Pedosphere 24:469–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Silva JDC, Leal TTB, Araujo ASF, Araujo RM, Gomes RLF, Melo WJ, Singh RP (2010) Effect of different tannery sludge compost amendment rates on growth, biomass accumulation and yield responses of Capsicum plants. Waste Manag 30:1976–1980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Singh RP, Singh P, Araujo ASF, Ibrahim MH, Sulaiman O (2011) Management of urban solid waste: Vermicomposting a sustainable option. Res Conservat Recycl 55:719–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sousa RS (2016) Soil properties and maize and cowpea development after seven years of application of composted tannery sludge. Thesis, Federal University if PiauiGoogle Scholar
  55. Tabatabai MA, Bremner JM (1969) Use of p-nitrophenyl phosphate for assay of soil phosphatase activity. Soil Biol Biochem 1:301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tarafdar JC, Claassen N (1988) Organic phosphorus-compounds as a phosphorus source for higher-plants through the activity of phosphatases produced by plant-roots and microorganisms. Biol Fertility Soils 5:308–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (2012) Canoco reference manual and user’s guide: software for ordination (Version 5.0). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY, p 496Google Scholar
  58. USEPA (1996) Acid digestion of sediments, sludge’s and soils. Method 3050b. EPA, Washington, p 12Google Scholar
  59. Van den Brink PJ, Ter Braak CJF (1998) Multivariate analysis of stress in experimental ecosystems by principal response curves and similarity analysis. Aquatic Ecol 32:163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van den Brink PJ, Ter Braak CJF (1999) Principal response curves: analysis of time-dependent multivariate responses of a biological community to stress. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:138–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vergara SE, Tchobanoglous G (2012) Municipal solid waste and the environment: a global perspective. Ann Rev Environ Resourc 37:277–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vinhal-Freitas IC, Wangen DRB, Ferreira AS, Corrêa GF, Wendling B (2010) Microbial and enzymatic activity in soil after organic composting. Rev Bras Ci Solo 34:757–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wardle DA, Ghani A (1995) A critique of the microbial metabolic quotient (qCO2) as a bioindicator of disturbance and ecosystem development. Soil Biol Biochem 27:1601–1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wyszkowska J (2002) Soil contamination by chromium and its enzymatic activity and yielding. Polish J Environ Stud 11:79–84Google Scholar
  65. Whittinghill KA, Hobbie SE (2012) Effects of pH and calcium on soil organic matter dynamics in Alaskan tundra. Biogeochemistry 111:569–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yeomans JC, Bremner JM (1988) A rapid and precise method for routine determination of organic carbon in soil. Comm Soil Sci Pl Anal 19:1467–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yuksel O (2015) Influence of municipal solid waste compost application on heavy metal content in soil. Environ Monit Assess 187:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zeng F, Ali S, Zhang H, Ouyang Y, Qiu B, Wu F, Zhang G (2011) The influence of pH and organic matter content in paddy soil on heavy metal availability and their uptake by rice plants. Environ Pollut 159:84–91Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ricardo Silva de Sousa
    • 1
  • Vilma Maria Santos
    • 1
  • Wanderley Jose de Melo
    • 2
  • Luis Alfredo Pinheiro Leal Nunes
    • 1
  • Paul J. van den Brink
    • 3
    • 4
  • Ademir Sérgio Ferreira Araújo
    • 1
  1. 1.Soil Quality Lab., Agricultural Science CenterFederal University of PiauíTeresinaBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Technology, Sao Paulo State University, JaboticabalBrasil UniversityDescalvadoBrazil
  3. 3.Wageningen Environmental Research (Alterra)WageningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations