Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Organic and inorganic amendment application on mercury-polluted soils: effects on soil chemical and biochemical properties

Abstract

On the basis of a previous study performed in our laboratory, the use of organic and inorganic amendments can significantly modify the Hg mobility in soil. We have compared the effectiveness of organic and inorganic amendments such as digestate and fly ash, respectively, reducing the Hg mobility in Chernozem and Luvisol soils differing in their physicochemical properties. Hence, the aim of this work was to compare the impact of digestate and fly ash application on the chemical and biochemical parameters in these two mercury-contaminated soils in a model batch experiment. Chernozem and Luvisol soils were artificially contaminated with Hg and then incubated under controlled conditions for 21 days. Digestate and fly ash were applied to both soils in a dose of 10 and 1.5 %, respectively, and soil samples were collected after 1, 7, 14, and 21 days of incubation. The presence of Hg in both soils negatively affected to processes such as nitrification, provoked a decline in the soil microbial biomass C (soil microbial biomass C (MBC)), and the microbial activities (arylsulfatase, and β-glucosaminidase) in both soils. Meanwhile, the digestate addition to Chernozem and Luvisol soils contaminated with Hg improved the soil chemical properties (pH, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), N (Ntot), inorganic–N forms (N–NH4 + and N–NO3 )), as consequence of high content in C and N contained in digestate. Likewise, the soil MBC and soil microbial activities (dehydrogenase, arylsulfatase, and β-glucosaminidase) were greatly enhanced by the digestate application in both soils. In contrast, fly ash application did not have a remarkable positive effect when compared to digestate in Chernozem and Luvisol soil contaminated with mercury. These results may indicate that the use of organic amendments such as digestate considerably improved the soil health in Chernozem and Luvisol compared with fly ash, alleviating the detrimental impact of Hg. Probably, the chemical properties present in digestate may determine its use as a suitable amendment for the assisted-natural attenuation of mercury-polluted soils.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Abdullahi YA, Akunnam JC, White NA, Hallett PD, Wheatley R (2008) Investigating the effects of anaerobic and aerobic post-treatment on quality and stability of organic fraction of municipal solid waste as soil amendment. Bio Technol 99:8631–8636

  2. Adriano DC (2001) Trace elements in terrestrial environments. Springer, New York

  3. Alburquerque JA, de la Fuente C, Bernal MP (2012a) Chemical properties of anaerobic digestates affecting C and N dynamics in amended soils. Agr Ecosyst Environ 160:15–22

  4. Alburquerque JA, de la Fuente C, Campoy M, Carrasco L, Nájera I, Baixauli C, Caravaca F, Roldán A, Cegarra J, Bernal MP (2012b) Agricultural use of digestate for horticultural crop production and improvement of soil properties. Eur J Agron 43:119–128

  5. Alkorta I, Aizpurua A, Riga P, Albizu I, Amézaga I, Garbisu C (2003) Soil enzyme activities as biological indicators of soil health. Rev Environ Heal 18:65–73

  6. Alvarenga P, Gonzalves AP, Fernandes RM, de Varennes A, Vallini G, Duarte E, Cunha-Queda AC (2008) Evaluation of composts and liming materials in the phytostabilization of a mine soil using perennial ryegrass. Sci Total Environ 406:43–56

  7. Bandick A, Dick R (1999) Field management effects on soil enzyme activities. Soil Biol Biochem 31:1471–1479

  8. Barajas-Aceves M (2005) Comparison of different microbial biomass and activity measurement methods in metal-contaminated soils. Biores Technol 96:1405–1414

  9. Bhattacharyya R, Kundu S, Prakash V, Gupta HS (2008) Sustainability under combined application of mineral and organic fertilizers in a rainfed soybean-wheat system of the Indian Himalayas. Eur J Agron 28:33–46

  10. Boszke L, Astel A, Barański A, Gworek B, Siepak J (2008) Hg mobility and bioavailability in soil from contaminated area. Environ Geol 55:1075–1087

  11. Broos K, Smolders E (2005) Toxicity of heavy metals in soil assessed with various soil microbial and plant growth assays: as comparative study. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:634–640

  12. Brown S, Sprenger M, Maxemchuk A, Compton H (2005) Ecosystem function in alluvial tailings after biosolids and lime addition. J Environ Qual 34:139–148

  13. Clemente R, Bernal MP (2006) Fractionation of heavy metals and distribution of organic carbon in two contaminated soils amended with humic acids. Chemosphere 64:1264–1273

  14. Elfstrand S, Bath B, Martensson A (2007) Influence of various forms of green manure amendment on soil microbial community composition, enzyme activity and nutrient levels in leeks. Appl Soil Ecol 36:70–82

  15. FAO (2006) World reference base for soil resources. FAO, Rome

  16. Garau G, Castaldi P, Mele E, Deiana P, Deiana P (2014) Stabilising metal(loid)s in soil with iron and aluminium-based products: microbial, biochemical and plant growth impact. J Environ Man 139:146–153

  17. Garbisu C, Alkorta I, Epelde L (2011) Assessment of soil quality using microbial properties and attributes of ecological relevance. Appl Soil Ecol 49:1–4

  18. Garcia C, Hernandez T, Costa F (1997) Potential use of dehydrogenase activity as an index of microbial activity in degraded soils. Commun S Sci Plant Anal 28:123–134

  19. Garcia-Sánchez M, Šípková A, Száková J, Kaplan L, Ochecová P, Tlustoš P (2014) Applications of organic and inorganic amendments induce changes in the mobility of mercury and macro- and micronutrients of soils. Sci W J doi:10.1155/2014/407049

  20. Garcia-Sánchez M, García-Romera I, Száková J, Kaplan L, Tlustos P (2015a) The effectiveness of various treatments in changing the nutrient status and bioavailability of risk elements in multi-element contaminated soil. Environ Sci Poll Res doi:10.1007/s11356-015-4678-1

  21. Garcia-Sánchez M, Garcia-Romera I, Cajthaml T, Tlustos P, Száková J (2015b) Changes in soil microbial community functionality and structure in a metal-polluted site: the effect of digestate and fly ash applications. J Environ Man 162:63–73

  22. Gil-Sotres F, Trasar-Cepeda C, Leirós MC, Seoane S (2005) Different approaches to evaluating soil quality using biochemical properties. Soil Biol Biochem 37:877–887

  23. Gregorich EG, Voroney RP, Kachanoski RG (1990) Calibration of rapid direct chloroform extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biol Biochem 22:1009–1011

  24. Jan AT, Murtaza I, Ali A, Haq QMR (2009) Mercury pollution: an emerging problem and potential bacterial remediation strategies. W J Microbiol Biotechnol 25:1529–1537

  25. Janoš P, Vavrova J, Herzogova L, Pilarova V (2010) Effects of inorganic and organic amendments on the mobility (leachability) of heavy metals in contaminated soil: A sequential extraction study. Geoderma 159:335–341

  26. Johansen A, Carter MS, Jensen ES, Hauggard-Nielsen H, Ambus P (2013) Effects of digestate from anaerobically digested cattle slurry and plant materials on soil microbial community and emission of CO2 and N2O. Appl Soil Ecol 63:36–44

  27. Kandeler E, Tscherko D, Bruce KD, Stemmer M, Hobbs PJ, Bardgett RD, Amelung W (2000) Structure and function of the soil microbial community in microhabitats of a heavy metal polluted soil. Biol Fert Soils 32:390–400

  28. Kohler J, Caravaca F, Azcón R, Díaz G, Roldán A (2014) Selection of plant species-organic amendment combinations to assure plant establishment and soil microbial function recovery in the phytostabilization of a metal-contaminated soil. Water Air Soil Poll 225:1–13

  29. Kohli SJ, Goyal D (2010) Effect of fly ash application on some soil physical properties and microbial activities. Acta Agrophy 16:327–335

  30. Kumpiene J, Lagerkvist A, Maurice C (2008) Stabilization of As, Cr, Cu, Pb and Zn in soil using amendments: a review. Waste Manage 28:215–25

  31. Kunito T, Saeki K, Goto S, Hayashi H, Oyaizu H, Matsumoto S (2001) Copper and zinc fractions affecting microorganisms in long-term sludge-amended soils. Biores Technol 79:135–146

  32. Lazzaro A, Schulin R, Widmer F, Frey B (2006) Changes in lead availability affectbacterial community structure but not basal respiration in a microcosm study with forest soil. Sci Total Environ 371:110–124

  33. Liu M, Hu F, Chen X, Huang Q, Jiao J, Zhang B, Li H (2009) Organic amendments with reduced chemical fertilizer promote soil microbial development and nutrient availability in a subtropical paddy field: the influence of quantity, type and application time of organic amendments. Appl Soil Ecol 42:166–175

  34. Liu YR, Zheng YM, Shen JP, Zhang LM, He JZ (2010) Effects of mercury on the activity and community composition of soil ammonia oxidizers. Environ Sci Poll Res 17:1237–1244

  35. Megharaj KV, Naidu R (2003) Bioavailability and toxicity of cadmium to microorganisms and their activities in soil: a review. Adv Environ Res 8:121–135

  36. Melgar-Ramirez R, González V, Sánchez J, García I (2012) Effects of application of organic and inorganic wastes for restoration of sulphur-mine soil. Water Air Soil Poll 223:6123–6131

  37. Mench M, Vangronsveld J, Beckx C, Ruttens A (2006) Progress in assisted natural remediation of an arsenic contaminated agricultural soil. Environ Poll 144:51–61

  38. Mingorance MD, Barahona E, Fernández-Gálvez J (2007) Guidelines for improving organic carbon recovery by the wet oxidation method. Chemosphere 68:409–413

  39. Moreno JL, Hernández T, Pérez A, García C (2002) Toxicity of cadmium to soil microbial activity: effect of sewage sludge addition to soil on the ecological dose. Applied Soil Ecology 21:149–158

  40. Muhlbachova G, Sagova-Mareckova M, Omelka M, Szakova J, Tlustos P (2015) The influence of soil organic carbon on interactions between microbial parameters and metal concentrations at a long-term contaminated site. Sci Total Environ 502:218–223

  41. Müller AK, Christensen S, Sorensen SJ (2002) The diversity and function of soil microbial communities exposed to different disturbances. Microbial Ecol 44:49–58

  42. Nannipieri P, Kandeler E, Ruggiero P (2002) Enzyme activities and microbiological and biochemical processes in soil. In: Burns RG, Dick RP (eds) Enzymes in the Environment. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 1–34

  43. Nayak AK, Raja R, Rao KS, Shukla AK, Mohanty S, Mohammad S, Tripathi R, Panda BB, Bhattacharyya P, Kumar A, Lal B, Sethi SK (2015) Effect of fly ash application on soil microbial response and heavy metal accumulation in soil and rice plant. Ecotox Environ Safe 114:257–256

  44. Oliveira AL, Pampulha ME (2006) Effects of long-term heavy metal contamination on soil microbial characteristics. J Biosci Bioeng 102:157–161

  45. Pandey VC, Singh N (2010) Impact of fly ash incorporation in soil systems. Agri Ecosys Environ 136:16–27

  46. Parham JA, Deng SP (2000) Detection, quantification and characterization of β-glucosaminidase activity in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 32:1183–1190

  47. Perelomov LEK (2006) Effect of soil microorganisms on the sorption of zinc and lead compounds by goethite. J Plant Nutri Soil Sci 169:95–100

  48. Pérez-de-Mora A, Burgos P, Madejón E, Cabrera F, Jaeckel P, Schloter M (2006) Microbial community structure and function in a soil contaminated by heavy metals: effects of plant growth and different amendments. Soil Biol Biochem 38:327–341

  49. Piccolo A (1996) Humus and soil conservation. In: Piccolo A (ed) Humic substances in terrestrial ecosystems. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 225–264

  50. Ram LC, Masto RE (2014) Fly ash for soil amelioration: a review on the influence of ash blending with inorganic and organic amendments. Earth-Sci Rev 128:52–74

  51. Ramette A (2007) Multivariate analyses in microbial ecology. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 62:142–60

  52. Rao MA, Scelza R, Acevedo F, Diez MC, Gianfreda L (2014) Enzymes as useful tools for environmental purposes. Chemosphere 107:145–162

  53. Rossel D, Tarradellas J, Bittom G, Morel JL (1997) Use of enzymes in soil ecotoxicology: a case for dehydrogenase and hydrolytic enzymes. In: Tarradellas Bitton G, Rossel D (eds) Ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers,CRC Press, Boca Ratón, pp 179–206

  54. Shen GLY, Zhou Q, Hong J (2005) Interaction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals on soil enzymes. Chemosphere 61:1175–1182

  55. Shen JF, Zhou XW, Sun DS, Fang JG, Liu ZJ, Li Z (2008) Soil improvement with coal ash and sewage sludge: a field experiment. Environ Geol 53:1777–1785

  56. Šípková A, Száková J, Tlutlos P (2014) Affinity of selected elements to individual fractions of soil organic matter. Water Air Soil Poll 225:1802

  57. Sorensen LD, Rammunsen SJ (2001) Effects of mercury contamination on the culturable heterotrophic, functional and genetic diversity of the bacterial community in soil. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 36:1–9

  58. Tabatabai MA, Bremmer JM (1970) Arylsulfatase activity of soils. Soil Sci Soc Amer Proc 34:225–229

  59. Wang Y, Li Q, Shi J, Lin Q, Chen X, Wu W, Chen YX (2008) Assessment of microbial activity and bacterial community composition in the rhizosphere of a copper accumulator and a non-accumulator. Soil Biol Biochem 40:1167–1177

  60. Webb EC (1984) Enzyme nomenclature. Academic, New York

  61. Wu JJRG, Pommering B, Chaussod RPCB (1990) Measurement of soil microbial biomass C—an automated procedure. Soil Biol Biochem 22:167–1169

  62. Xian Y, Wang M, Chen W (2015) Quantitative assessment on soil enzyme activities of heavy metal contaminated soils with various soil properties. Chemosphere 139:604–608

  63. Xu ZHCC, He JZ, Liu JX (2009) Trends and challenges in soil research: linking global climate change to local long-term forest productivity. J Soils Sediment 9:83–88

  64. Zhang Y, Zhang H, Su Z, Zhang CG (2008) Soil microbial characteristics under long-term heavy metal stress: a case study in Zhangshi wastewater irrigationarea, Shenyang. Pedosphere 18:1–10

  65. Zimmermann S, Frey B (2002) Soil respiration and microbial properties in an acid forest soil: effects of wood ash. Soil Biol Biochem 34:1727–1737

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the financial support of the GAČR project P503/12/0682 and Czech University of Life Sciences project no. 21140/1313/3130. Garcia-Sánchez also gratefully acknowledges the grant from ESF/MŠMT project (No. CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0040).

Author information

Correspondence to Mercedes García-Sánchez.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Zhihong Xu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

García-Sánchez, M., Klouza, M., Holečková, Z. et al. Organic and inorganic amendment application on mercury-polluted soils: effects on soil chemical and biochemical properties. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23, 14254–14268 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6591-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Digestate
  • Fly ash
  • Mercury
  • Microbial activity
  • Microbial biomass
  • Nitrification
  • Soil pollution