Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 30–44 | Cite as

Bioassays prove the suitability of mining debris mixed with sewage sludge for land reclamation purposes

  • Xavier DomeneEmail author
  • Stefania Mattana
  • Wilson Ramírez
  • Joan Colón
  • Patrícia Jiménez
  • Teresa Balanyà
  • Josep M. Alcañiz
  • Manel Bonmatí
SOILS, SEC 3 • REMEDIATION AND MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINATED OR DEGRADED LANDS • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope

Mining activities disturb land and reduce its capacity to support a complete functional ecosystem. Reclamation activities in this case are not easy due to the large amount of soil required. This is why mining debris are usually used as surrogate of soil, despite their unsuitable physicochemical properties. However, these properties can be improved with the amendment using an organic source, usually sewage sludge. Nevertheless, the use of sludge might lead to impacts on soil and water ecosystems because of its physicochemical properties and pollutant content. The aim of this study is to assess the suitability of the use of mining debris amended with sewage sludge as practice for the reclamation of land degraded by limestone-quarrying activities.

Materials and methods

Two different types of mining debris from the same limestone quarry and six different types of composted or thermally dried sewage sludge were studied. A laboratory assessment was carried out by means of standardized bioassays of sludges, together with a field assessment carried out in lysimeters filled with debris–sludge mixtures. The field assessment was carried out using both the soil–waste mixtures, amended with dosages similar to those used for restoration purposes and their corresponding leachates. The variation of physicochemical properties and the outcomes of different bioassays (soil microorganisms biomass and respiration, enzymatic activities, plant emergence and growth, collembolan survival and reproduction, and the Microtox assay) were used as indicators of fertilizing or ecotoxicological effects.

Results

The mining debris used in our study showed a poor capacity for biological recovery, as shown by the lower biological outcomes measured in control lysimeters compared to lysimeters amended with sludge. The addition of sludge improved debris just before the sludge application in terms of its physicochemical and biological properties (microorganism’s biomass, respiration and enzymatic activities) which, in some cases, persisted after a year. Conversely, in some sludges, an inhibition in soil collembolans was observed just before the amendment, but any inhibitory effect disappeared after a year. Concerning the leachates obtained from field lysimeters after a week and a year, no inhibitory effects were detectable for aquatic bacteria.

Discussion

The effects observed on some of the measured biological endpoints, both in laboratory and field assays, were mainly mediated by physicochemical parameters related to a low stability of organic matter, but in the opposite sense depending on the organism considered. Microbial parameters were enhanced when the organic matter added had a low stability (high content in labile organic matter) but, on the other hand, collembolan performance was negatively affected. The lack of toxicity of leachates indicates a low risk for groundwaters of this reclamation practice.

Conclusions

The results of this study support the use of mining debris mixed with sludge for land reclamation of degraded land by quarrying. The addition of sludge allowed a quick plant cover re-establishment and provided a suitable habitat for soil biota because no long-term ecotoxicological risks were observed neither for soils nor groundwaters. The results also indicate that the environmental risk of sludges might be reduced using sludges with a high content in stable organic matter.

Recommendations and perspectives

The use of mining debris mixed with sewage sludges for mining reclamation purposes is suitable since long-term ecotoxicological risks were not observed. In addition, the results support the suitability of bioassays for the prediction of the success or risk of specific land reclamation practices in order to avoid unsuccessful attempts.

Keywords

Ecotoxicity tests Land reclamation Quarrying Sewage sludge Soil microorganisms Soil fauna 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study has been funded by the RESMINLOD project, co-funded by the Spanish Ministry of Environment (MMA) and the Water Agency of the Catalonia Government (ACA). We also thank the Institut Químic de Sarria (IQS) for carrying out the analysis of organic pollutants and the Microtox assay.

References

  1. Al-Assiuty AIM, Khalil MA, Abdel-Lateif HM (2000) Effects of dry sludge application on soil microarthropod communities in a reclaimed desert ecosystem. Pedobiologia 44:567–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarenga P, Palma P, Gonçalves AP, Baião N, Fernandes RM, de Varennes A, Vallini G, Duarte E, Cunha-Queda AC (2008) Assessment of chemical, biochemical and ecotoxicological aspects in a mine soil amended with sludge of either urban or industrial origin. Chemosphere 72:1774–1781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson JPE (1982) Soil Respiration. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, USA, pp 831–871Google Scholar
  4. Anderson TH, Domsch KH (1993) The metabolic quotient for CO2 (qCO2) as a specific activity parameter to assess the effects of environmental conditions, such as pH, on the microbial biomass of forest soils. Soil Biol Biochem 25:393–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrés P (1999) Ecological risks of the use of sewage sludge as fertilizer in soil restoration: effects on the soil microarthopod populations. Land Degrad Dev 10:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andrés P, Domene X (2005) Ecotoxicological and fertilizing effects of dewatered, composted and dry sewage sludge on soil mesofauna: a TME experiment. Ecotoxicology 14:545–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Badalucco L, Gelsomino A, Dell’Orco S, Grego S, Nannipieri P (1992) Biochemical characterization of soil organic compounds extracted by 0.5 M K2SO4 before and after chloroform fumigation. Soil Biol Biochem 24:569–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrera I, Andrés P, Alcañiz JM (2001) Sewage sludge application on soil: effects on two earthworm species. Water Air Soil Pollut 129:319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown SL, Henry CL, Chaney R, Compton H, DeVolver PS (2003) Using municipal biosolids in combination with other residuals to restore metal-contaminated mining areas. Plant Soil 249:203–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheshire MV, Mundie CM (1966) The hydrolyic extraction of carbohydrates from soil by sulfuric acid. Eur J Soil Sci 24:54–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Domene X, Ramírez W, Mattana S, Alcañiz JM, Andrés P (2008) Ecological risk assessment of organic waste amendments using the species sensitivity distribution from a soil organisms test battery. Environ Pollut 155:227–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eivazi F, Tabatabai MA (1988) Glucosidases and galactosidases in soils. Soil Biol Biochem 20:601–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. EN 13037 (1999) Soil improvers and growing media—determination of pH. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  14. EN 13038 (1999) Soil improvers and growing media—determination of electrical conductivity. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  15. EN 12879 (2000) Characterization of sludges—determination of the loss of ignition of dry mass. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  16. EN 12880 (2000) Characterization of sludges—determination of dry residue and water content. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  17. EN 13342 (2000) Characterization of sludges—determination of Kjeldahl nitrogen. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  18. European Commission (2000) Working Document on Sludge. 3rd Draft. European Commission, DG Environment, Waste Management Unit. ENV.E3/LM, Brussels, Belgium, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  19. European Commission (2001) Pollutants in Urban waste water and sewage sludge. Final Report to DG Environment, European Commission. IC Consultants Ltd, London, UK, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/pdf/sludge_pollutants.pdf
  20. Fernández JM, Plaza C, Hernández D, Polo A (2007) Carbon mineralization in an arid soil amended with thermally-dried and composted sewage sludges. Geoderma 137:497–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hernández T, García C (2003) Estimación de la respiración microbiana del suelo. (Estimation of microbial soil respiration). In: García C, Hernández T, Gil-Sotres F, Trasar-Cepeda C (eds) Técnicas de análisis de parámetros bioquímicos en suelo. Medidas de actividades enzimáticas y biomasa microbiana. (Techniques for the analysis of biochemical parameters in soil. Measurements of enzymatic activities and microbial biomass). Mundi Prensa, Madrid, Spain, pp 313–346Google Scholar
  22. ISO 11885 (1996) Water quality—determination of 33 elements by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  23. ISO 11267 (1999) Soil quality—inhibition of reproduction of collembola (Folsomia candida) by soil pollutants. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  24. ISO 11348-3 (1998) Water quality—determination of the inhibitory effect of water samples on the light emission of Vibrio fischeri (luminescent bacteria test)—part 3: method using freeze-dried bacteria. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  25. Jiménez P, Ortiz O, Tarrasón D, Guinovart M, Bonmatí M (2007) Effect of differently post-treated dewatered sewage sludge on β-glucosidase activity, microbial biomass carbon, basal respiration and carbohydrates contents of soils from limestone quarries. Biol Fert Soils 44:393–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Katayama A, Hirai M, Shoda M, Kubota H (1985) Inhibitory factor of sewage sludge compost for growth of Komatsuna Brassica campestris L. var. rapifera. Environ Pollut (Series A) 38:45–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ministère de l’Agriculture de Belgique (1971) Méthodes de convention pour l’analyse des engrais et des amendements du sol. Div. B. Ad. Services Economiques d’Inspection de Matières Premièries. Partie II, Brussels, Belgium, pp 202–203Google Scholar
  28. Moeller J, Reeh U (2003) Degradation of nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPE) in sewage sludge and source separated municipal solid waste under bench-scale composting conditions. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 70:248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Neher DA (1999) Soil community composition and ecosystem processes: comparing agricultural ecosystems with natural ecosystems. Agroforest Syst 45:159–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. OECD 207 (1984) OECD Guidelines for the testing of chemicals/section 2: effects on biotic systems, Test No. 207: earthworm, acute toxicity tests. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France, pp 1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. OECD 208 (2006) OECD Guidelines for the testing of chemicals/section 2: effects on biotic systems, Test No. 208: terrestrial plant test: seedling emergence and seedling growth test. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France, pp 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pascual JA, Ayuso M, García C, Hernández T (1997) Characterization of urban wastes according to fertility and phytotoxicity parameters. Waste Manage Res 15:103–112Google Scholar
  33. Piearce TG, Budd T, Hayhoe JM, Sleep D, Clasper PJ (2003) Earthworms of a land restoration site treated with paper mill sludge. Pedobiologia 47:792–795Google Scholar
  34. Real Decreto 2994/1982, de 15 de octubre, sobre restauración de espacio natural afectado por actividades mineras. Ministerio de Industria y Energía (BOE número 274 de 15/11/1982).Google Scholar
  35. Ros M, Hernández MT, García C (2003) Bioremediation of soil degraded by sewage sludge: effects on soil properties and erosion losses. Environ Manage 31:741–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rovira P, Vallejo R (2002) Labile and recalcitrant pools of carbon and nitrogen in organic matter decomposing at different depths in soil: an acid hydrolysis approach. Geoderma 107:109–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scott-Fordsmand JJ, Krogh PH (2004) The influence of application form on the toxicity of nonylphenol to Folsomia fimetaria (Collembola: Isotomidae). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 58:294–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Seniczak S, Klimek A, Kaczmarek S (1994) The mites (Acari) of an old Scots pine forest polluted by a nitrogen fertilizer factory at Wloclawek (Poland). II: Litter/soil fauna. Zool Beitr NF 35:199–216Google Scholar
  39. Sort X, Alcañiz JM (1996) Contribution of sewage sludge to erosion control in the rehabilitation of limestone quarries. Land Degrad Dev 7:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stenberg B, Johansson M, Pell M, Sjodahl-Svensson K, Stenstrom J, Torstensson L (1998) Microbial biomass and activities in soil as affected by frozen and cold storage. Soil Biol Biochem 30:393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. US EPA (1995) Process design manual: land application of sewage sludge and domestic septage. EPA/625/R-95/001. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, USA, p 301Google Scholar
  42. Vance ED, Brookes PC, Jenkinson DS (1987) An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass-C. Soil Biol Biochem 19:703–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zmora-Nahum S, Markovitz O, Tarchitzky J, Chen Y (2005) Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) as a parameter of compost maturity. Soil Biol Biochem 37:2109–2116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zucconi F, Pera A, Forte M, de Bertoldi M (1981) Evaluating toxicity of immature compost. BioCycle 22:54–57Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xavier Domene
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stefania Mattana
    • 1
  • Wilson Ramírez
    • 1
  • Joan Colón
    • 1
  • Patrícia Jiménez
    • 2
  • Teresa Balanyà
    • 2
  • Josep M. Alcañiz
    • 1
  • Manel Bonmatí
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications—CREAF, Facultat de BiociènciesUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Escola Superior d’Agricultura de Barcelona (ESAB)Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, UPC Campus Baix LlobregatCastelldefelsSpain

Personalised recommendations