Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 611–623

Phytotoxicity tests of solid wastes and contaminated soils in the Czech Republic

  • Vladimír Kočí
  • Klára Mocová
  • Marie Kulovaná
  • Simona Vosáhlová
AREA 6 • PHYTOTOXICITY TESTS • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope

The purpose of this study was to compare the suitability of different phytotoxicity testing procedures for the evaluation of toxicity associated with both soil contamination and solid wastes, both of which can be of environmental risk to plants. Ten different representative types of contaminated soils and solid waste samples were chosen from the Czech Republic.

Materials and methods

Both solid-phase and aquatic toxicity testing procedures on mono- and dicotyledonous plants were performed using Lactuca sativa L., Sinapis alba L., Hordeum vulgare L., Triticum aestivum L., Lemna minor L., and the chlorococcal algae Desmodesmus subspicatus (syn. Scenedesmus subspicatus), strain Brinkmann 1953/SAG 86.81. An innovative classification scheme, using the intensity of toxic effects upon the plants, is presented in the study. Detailed chemical characterizations of both solid samples and their aquatic elutriates were carried out, using the appropriate ISO guidelines. In the solid samples, all the congeners of polychlorinated biphenyls were analyzed, together with 16 U.S. EPA polyaromatic hydrocarbons, the aggregate of C10–C40 hydrocarbons, total organic carbon, extractable organic halogens, as well as the majority of the environmentally toxic metals. In the aquatic elutriates, parameters analyzed were pH, conductivity, dissolved organic content, phenol index, main anions, and the majority of the environmentally relevant metals.

Results

Eight out of ten samples tested expressed phytotoxic properties on tested organisms. Only three of the samples were toxic to both aquatic and terrestrial organisms in the tests. This demonstrates how different substances present in different samples can express different types of toxic effects, resulting in the illogical substituting terrestrial bioassays with aquatic ones.

Discussion

Based upon our experience, we propose the following battery of bioassays for use in the characterization of toxic properties of solid wastes and contaminated soils: Aquatic ecosystems were tested by the algae D. subspicatus and plant L. minor; and the terrestrial ecosystems were tested by the dicotyledonous L. sativa and monocotyledonous H. vulgare. This proposed new battery of bioassays for the detection of phytotoxicity of both solid wastes and contaminated soils has higher sensitivity (as well as greater ecological relevance) compared to the battery of bioassays currently used in the Czech Republic.

Conclusions

The tests currently used for regulatory purposes in the Czech Republic are phytotoxicity tests of elutriates, using S. alba and D. subspicatus, which have been found insufficiently sensitive to the range of different pollutants present in contaminated soils and/or solid wastes. If only aquatic bioassays are used for the toxicity testing, it is possible that the toxic effects of substances (poorly or totally) insoluble in water might be underestimated. The new proposed system of toxicity classification has proven to be both practical and sensitive.

Recommendations and perspectives

This recommended alternative battery of phytotoxicity tests includes both aquatic tests of waste elutriates (with the algae D. subspicatus along with the aquatic plant L. minor), in addition to tests of the terrestrial solid samples (with the dicotyledonous L. sativa and the monocotyledonous H. vulgare). This battery of bioassays is sufficiently sensitive, representing a majority of types of aquatic and terrestrial plants.

Keywords

Ecotoxicity Phytotoxicity Soil contamination Solid waste Toxicity Toxicity testing Waste classification Waste toxicity 

Abbreviations

AHS

Aromatic hydrocarbon soil (tested sample)

BFS

Blast furnace slag (tested sample)

BTEX

Petroleum-derived compounds (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and the xylenes)

CBS

Halogenated biphenyl soil (tested sample)

COM

Commercially available compost (tested sample)

DOC

Dissolved organic content

EOX

Extractable organic bonded halogens

FAS

Flue ash soil (tested sample)

IFC

Incinerator furnace clinker (tested sample)

NTS

Nitrotoluene soil (tested sample)

OWS

Oily waste sludge (tested sample)

PAHs

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons

PCBs

Polychlorinated biphenyls

SED

River sediment (tested sample)

TNT

Trinitrotoluene

TOC

Total organic carbon

WHC

Water-holding capacity

WTS

Water treatment sludge (tested sample)

References

  1. Araujo ASF, Monteiro RTR (2005) Plant bioassays to assess toxicity of textile sludge compost. Agri Sci 3:286–290Google Scholar
  2. Araùjo ASF, Sahyoun FK, Monteiro RTR (2001) Evaluation of toxicity of textile sludge compost on seed germination and root elongation of soybean and wheat. Rev Ecossistema 26:117–119Google Scholar
  3. Baudgrasset F, Baudgrasset S, Safferman SI (1993) Evaluation of the bioremediation of a contaminated soil with phytotoxicity tests. Chemosphere 26:1365–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cayuela ML, Millner P, Slovin J, Roig A (2007) Duckweed (Lemna gibba) growth inhibition bioassay for evaluating the toxicity of olive mill wastes before and during composting. Chemosphere 68:1985–1991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CEMD (Czech Environmental Ministry Directive, Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic) (2003) Newsletter 6/2003, Metodický pokyn odboru odpadů ke stanovení ekotoxicity odpadů (in Czech)Google Scholar
  6. Di Salvatore M, Carafa AM, Carratù G (2008) Assessment of heavy metals phytotoxicity next term using seed germination and root elongation tests: a comparison of two growth substrates. Chemosphere 73(9):1461–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DIN 38 414 S4 (1984) Deutsche Einheitsverfahren zur Wasser-, Abwasser-, und Schlammuntersuchung. Schlamm und Sedimente (Gruppe S), Bestimmung der Eluierbarkeit mit WasserGoogle Scholar
  8. Dodard SG, Renoux AY, Hawari J, Ampleman G, Thiboutot S, Sunahara GI (1999) Ecotoxicity characterization of dinitrotoluenes and some of their reduced metabolites. Chemosphere 38(9):2071–2079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EN 14735 (2005) Characterisation of waste—preparation of waste samples for ecotoxicity testsGoogle Scholar
  10. Epstein E (1997) The science of composting. Technomic, LancasterGoogle Scholar
  11. European Council Directive (1991) European Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous wasteGoogle Scholar
  12. Fairchild JF, Ruessler DS, Haverland PS, Carlson AR (1997) Comparative sensitivity of Selenastrum capricornutum and Lemna minor to sixteen herbicides. Arch Environ Con Tox 32:353–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuentes A, Lloréns M, Saez J, Aguilar MI, Pérez-Marin AB, Ortuno JF, Meseguer VF (2006) Ecotoxicity, phytotoxicity and extractability of heavy metals from different stabilized sewage sludges. Environ Pollut 143:355–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gong P, Wilke BM, 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
  15. Goyal S, Dhull SK, Kapoor KK (2005) Chemical and biological changes during composting of different organic wastes and assessment of compost maturity. Biores Technol 96(14):1584–1591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. GraphPad (2003) Prizm 4 for Windows. GraphPad Software, San Diego CAGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO 11268-2 (1998) Soil quality. Effects of pollutants on earthworms (Eisenia fetida). Part 2: Determination of effects on reproduction. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. ISO 11269-1 (1993) Soil quality—determination of the effects of pollutants on soil flora. Part 1: method for the measurement of inhibition of root growth. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  19. ISO 11465 (1993) Soil quality—Determination of dry matter and water content on a mass basis. Gravimetric method. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  20. ISO 20079 (2001) Standard of International Standards Organisation ISO/WD 20079. Water quality. Duckweed growth inhibition; determination of the toxic effect of water constituents and waste water to Duckweed (Lemna minor). ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  21. ISO 22030 (2005) Soil quality. Biological methods. Chronic toxicity in higher plants. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  22. ISO 8692 ISO/FDIS 8692 (2004) Water quality. Fresh water algal growth inhibition test with unicellular green algae. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  23. ISO/CD 15799 (1999) Soil quality. Guidance on the ecotoxicological characterizations of soil and soil material. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  24. ISO/FDIS 20079 Regulation (2005) Water quality. Determination of the toxic effect of water constituents and waste water to duckweed Lemna minor—duckweed growth inhibition test (draft). ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  25. Jiménez EI, Garcia VP (1989) Evaluation of city refuse compost maturity: a review. Biol Waste 27:115–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuboi T, Fujii K (1984) A new method for seedling assay of phytotoxic substances: Liquid shaking culture. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 30:209–218Google Scholar
  27. Miaomiao H, Wenhonga L, Xinqianga L, Dongleia W, Guangming T (2009) Effect of composting process on phytotoxicity next term and speciation of copper, zinc and lead in sewage sludge and swine manure. Waste Manage 29(2):590–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Molina-Barahona L, Vega-Loyo L, Guerrero M, Ramirez S, Romero I, Vega-Jarquin C, Albores A (2005) Ecotoxicological evaluation of diesel-contaminated soil before and after a bioremediation process. Environ Toxicol 20:100–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moser H, Röembke J (2009) Ecotoxicological characterisation of waste. Results and experience of an international ring test. Springer, New York, p 400Google Scholar
  30. OECD (2002) Draft OECD Test Guideline- Lemna Growth Inhibition Test. Revised version, July. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  31. Plaza G, Nalecz-Jawecki G, Ulfig K, Brigmon RL (2005) The application of bioassays as indicators of petroleum-contaminated soil remediation. Chemosphere 59:289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saterbak A, Toy RJ, McMain BJ, Williams MP, Dorn PB (2000) Ecotoxicological and analytical assessment of effects of bioremediation on hydrocarbon-containing soils. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:2643–2652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. StatSoft, Inc. (2003) STATISTICA 6.1. StatSoft, Tulsa, USAGoogle Scholar
  34. Steinberg RA (1943) Use of Lemna as test organism. Chronica Botanica 7:420Google Scholar
  35. Steinberg RA (1946) Mineral requirements of Lemna minor. Plant Physiol 21:42–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Gestel CAM, van der Waarde JJ, Derksen JGM, van der Hoek EE, Veul MFXW, Bouwens S, Rusch B, Kronenburg R, Stokman GNM (2001) The use of acute and chronic bioassays to determine the ecological risk and bioremediation efficiency of oil-polluted soils. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:1438–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang W (1993) Comparative rice seed toxicity tests using filter paper, growth Pouch-TM, and seed tray methods, Environ. Monit Assess 24:257–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang WC (1990) Literature-review on duckweed toxicity testing. Environ Res 52:7–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vladimír Kočí
    • 1
  • Klára Mocová
    • 1
  • Marie Kulovaná
    • 2
  • Simona Vosáhlová
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Environmental ChemistryICT PraguePrague 6Czech Republic
  2. 2.T. G. Masaryk Water Research InstitutePrague 6Czech Republic
  3. 3.ENVISAN-GEMPrague 10Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations