Current Pollution Reports

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 1–12 | Cite as

Soil Pollution Due to Irrigation with Arsenic-Contaminated Groundwater: Current State of Science

  • Elizabeth C. Gillispie
  • Tyler D. Sowers
  • Owen W. Duckworth
  • Matthew L. Polizzotto
Land Pollution (G Hettiarachchi, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Land Pollution

Abstract

Food with elevated arsenic concentrations is becoming widely recognized as a global threat to human health. This review describes the current state of knowledge of soil pollution derived from irrigation with arsenic-contaminated groundwater, highlighting processes controlling arsenic cycling in soils and resulting arsenic impacts on crop and human health. Irrigation practices utilized for both flooded and upland crops have the potential to load arsenic to soils, with a host of environmental and anthropogenic factors ultimately determining the fate of arsenic. Continual use of contaminated groundwater for irrigation may result in soils with concentrations sufficient to create dangerous arsenic concentrations in the edible portions of crops. Recent advances in low-cost water and soil management options show promise for mitigating arsenic impacts of polluted soils. Better understanding of arsenic transfer from soil to crops and the controls on long-term soil arsenic accumulation is needed to establish effective arsenic mitigation strategies within vulnerable agronomic systems.

Keywords

Arsenic Soil Irrigation Crops Human health Mitigation 

Introduction

With over 150 million people consuming unsafe amounts of arsenic (As) on a daily basis, chronic arsenic poisoning is major global concern [1]. Adverse human health effects resulting from chronic As consumption include increased risk of cancers, hyperkeratosis, birth defects, cardiovascular disease, neurotoxicity, and diabetes [2, 3, 4]. Unlike many pollutants that are strictly anthropogenic in origin, relatively large arsenic concentrations in groundwater stemming from geological sources are common worldwide [5]. Although much of the research concerning the consequences of As in groundwater has focused on understanding the risk of and mitigating exposure to As in drinking water [6], food with elevated As concentrations is also a major exposure route for As [7]. Because the ultimate source of much of this dietary As is soil, As pollution of soils is becoming more widely recognized as a threat to human health.

Use of contaminated groundwater for crop irrigation may result in the accumulation of As in agricultural soils, eventually resulting in decreased crop yields and impaired human health [7]. The threat of As to humans is usually exacerbated in countries that have high population densities, use groundwater as their primary drinking water source, and rely heavily on large quantities of irrigation for agriculture, such as those within South and Southeast Asia. However, contamination of agricultural soils from As in groundwater is truly a global problem, with geographically dispersed countries (e.g., Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Greece, and the USA) experiencing varying degrees of soil contamination [8, 9].

Arsenic doses that may impact human health are observed in the everyday diets of people around the world, and consumption of high concentrations of As in crops grown in As-contaminated soil is an important exposure pathway. The climate, soils, cropping systems, and agricultural management strategies in regions that utilize As-contaminated water for irrigation vary, affecting the fundamental soil processes that control As accumulation in soil and its uptake by crops. This review paper catalogs the current state of knowledge of soil As contamination from groundwater, highlighting the processes controlling As cycling in soils and their impacts on crop and human health. The specific objectives of this review paper are to (i) identify the major areas of arsenic-contaminated soils from irrigated groundwater; (ii) describe the different mechanistic processes that influence the accumulation of arsenic from irrigated groundwater and how those processes are influenced by anthropogenic management practices; and (iii) evaluate current strategies associated with remediation of As-contaminated soils and mitigation of As uptake by crops. We conclude by identifying major knowledge gaps that may motivate future studies.

Arsenic Pollution of Soils Due to Groundwater Irrigation

The most common means of soil pollution from As-contaminated groundwater arises from irrigation for crop production. Arsenic is ubiquitous in soils, with median background concentrations of ca. 6–7 mg/kg [10]. However, repeated application of contaminated groundwater for irrigation may increase solid-phase concentrations to >10 mg/kg As (Table 1 and Fig. 1) [7]. Although these concentrations may not cause dermal contact or occasional ingestion to be hazardous, elevated As concentrations in rice, maize, wheat, and vegetables have been observed in foods grown in As-contaminated fields (Table 1 and Fig. 1) [45]. The consumption of crops grown on As-polluted soils may pose a health threat from As exposure [45], particularly in areas where the contaminated crops are dietary staples [44]. The specific extent of the risk is partially dictated by factors that control the concentration of As in the food product, such as the soil As concentration, edaphic conditions, and As plant uptake efficacy, each of which will vary for different cropping systems.
Table 1

Variability of As concentrations in groundwater, soil, and crops from a range of locations where soils are polluted due to irrigation with contaminated groundwater. Selected studies are grouped by crop type and country to highlight key areas of focus within previous research

Country

Groundwater As (μg/L)

Soil As (mg/kg)

Crop As (μg/kg)

References

Rice

Bangladesh

38–>1800

11–32

58–1835

[7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16•, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]

Cambodia

1–1610

0.07–33

8.0–650

[25•, 26•, 27]

India

5.3–>1800

3.34–95.3

ND–1238

[28•, 29, 30•, 31, 32]

Korea

ND–109

3.9–9.9

30–220

[33]

Nepal

ND–1014

7.4–12.5

60–330

[34]

Taiwan

32–881

11.8–112

290–660

[35•, 36, 37]

Other cerealsa

Cambodia

247–1842

12.86

[26•]

China

43–1326

7.4–22.8

22.8–365

[38•]

Greece

ND–>1000

5–513

[39]

India

0–>50

8.9–13.12

0.01–1.14

[40]

Mexico

ND–>1000

0.046–1.89

3.8–48.47

[41]

Vegetablesb

Bangladesh

38–50

2.3–14.37

50–910

[7, 12, 15, 42]

Greece

ND–>1000

20–513

0.3–25

[39]

India

0–>50

8.9–13.12

0.05–1.08

[40]

Nepal

5–>2000

6.1–16.7

6–1020

[7, 34]

ND no detection

aWheat and maize

bPotatoes, cauliflower, onion, and brinjal; note that vegetable washing procedures were not specified for all studies

Fig. 1

Measured soil As concentrations with corresponding crop As concentrations for rice (grain) [11, 12, 26•, 31, 33, 34, 35•, 40, 43], other cereals (wheat and maize) [38•, 40, 41], and vegetables (potatoes, cauliflower, onion, and brinjal) [34, 39, 40]. Soil and crop As concentrations represent total concentrations, and selected data represent studies for which corresponding soil and crop concentrations were specifically tabulated. Crop As is shown for only the edible portion of each crop: rice grain, bulb (onion), fruit (cauliflower), and tuber (potato). The red and black dashed lines represent the estimated concentration of As observed in rice and maize (200 and 286 μg/kg), respectively, for which genotoxic effects could occur following routine dietary consumption (“Arsenic Pollution of Soils Due to Groundwater Irrigation”) [44]

Arsenic Pollution of Rice-Field Soils

Rice is one of the most impacted crops from As-polluted irrigation water and soil [7, 43], making it a common vehicle for dietary intake of As. The natural ability of the plant to take up As, in combination with many agronomic, geochemical, and hydrological factors, leads to As accumulation in rice [46]. For example, management of the rice plant frequently consists of controlled flooding in order to eliminate competition from weeds, reduce herbicide needs, and increase yields [47]. To create flooded conditions, large quantities of irrigation water may be used in both dry and wet seasons, depending on the ability of a rice paddy to receive adequate natural saturation. Flooding changes natural soil hydrodynamics, results in high loadings of As in soil if contaminated groundwater is utilized for irrigation (Table 1), and can also change soil geochemical conditions to promote As solubilization and plant uptake (Fig. 2 and “Processes Impacting Arsenic Partitioning in Flooded Cropping Systems”). Where contaminated groundwater is extensively used for irrigation of rice-field soils, As can be transferred from soil into rice at levels sufficient to decrease yields and create dangerous grain concentrations [1, 11, 12, 28•, 48, 49, 50•, 51]. Routine consumption of rice with grain As concentrations above 200 μg/kg has been linked to genotoxic effects in humans [44], and polluted soils may yield rice with grain As concentrations that are nearly an order of magnitude higher than this threshold level (Table 1).
Fig. 2

Dominant processes controlling arsenic cycling in soils polluted by irrigation with contaminated groundwater. a In flooded cropping systems, such as rice, reducing conditions enhance As mobility and release from Fe(III) (oxyhydr)oxides, facilitating As plant uptake and leaching to groundwater. b In upland cropping systems, such as maize, oxic conditions promote As accumulation and sequestration by Fe(III) (oxyhydr)oxides, but competitive sorption of PO4, SiO4, and CO3 species may lead to increased As availability for plant uptake

The extent of As loading onto rice-paddy soils can be quantified using previously defined irrigation rates and measured As groundwater concentrations [34]. If 1 m of groundwater [1, 7] containing 500 μg/L As (Table 1) is applied over a hectare of rice-paddy fields throughout a growing season, roughly 5.0 kg of As would be loaded annually onto the soils. Assuming this amount of As is evenly distributed within the top 20 cm of soil with a density of 0.89 g/cm3 [13], soil As concentrations could increase by up to 2.8 mg/kg/year of irrigation. Within several years, soil As concentrations could increase from background levels (e.g. 6 mg/kg [13]) to greater than 10 mg/kg, a value that has been shown to lead to crop As concentrations that have harmful impacts on human health (Fig. 1) [44]. This calculation roughly agrees with field studies from Bangladesh and India, where irrigation with As-contaminated groundwater over periods of 7 to 18 years raised topsoil As concentrations from baseline concentrations of 6.6 to >10 mg/kg [28•]. Overall As accumulation depends on a range of environmental and agronomic factors [13, 52] (see “Arsenic Cycling in Soils Following Irrigation With Contaminated Groundwater”), and for a field site in Bangladesh, models predict that soil As accumulation of ∼20–60 mg/kg is likely to occur between 1990 and 2050, given current irrigation rates [13].

Rice grain concentrations trend with soil As concentrations (Fig. 1) [53], highlighting the direct relationship between soil concentrations and dietary As exposure. Specific soil-to-grain As transfer varies with crop type and location [28•, 54], and a number of factors may also impact As transfer within the rice plant itself [25•, 54]. However, higher soil As concentrations generally correspond to higher As transfer rates from soil to rice grains [54, 55], and in areas with homogeneous soils and crop management practices, strong positive correlations exist between soil and rice-grain As concentrations [14, 53].

South and Southeast Asia are the areas of greatest concern for As accumulation in rice-paddy soils following irrigation with contaminated groundwater. Throughout the densely populated river basins that drain the Himalayas, rice is a staple crop, and natural As contamination of groundwater [6] has been used extensively for irrigation of dry-season rice for the past 40 years. For instance, in the Bengal Delta of Bangladesh and India, one of the most severely impacted and extensively studied areas, As concentrations in irrigation water applied to rice-paddy fields frequently exceed 50 μg/L [11, 12, 15, 16•, 51, 52, 56••], reaching as high as 1800 μg/L [15]. As a consequence, soil As concentrations in polluted fields can reach up to 95 mg/kg, and rice grains may have As concentrations of up to 1835 μg/kg [11, 12, 43] (Table 1). Rice constitutes approximately 66 % of the caloric intake in the region and up to 50 % of the daily As consumption for some people [57]. Assuming 0.47 kg/day of rice [58] with a As concentration of 400 μg/kg is consumed by people in the region, with average body weights of 60 and 40 kg for males and females, then ∼3.1–4.7 μg of As/kg body weight is consumed through rice per day, values that are just above 3.0 μg of As/kg body weight per day, the WHO lower limit on the benchmark dose for a 0.5 % increased incidence of lung cancer (BDML0.5) associated with dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic [59]. People in households who consume rice with higher As concentrations (e.g., the upper range in Fig. 1) could be more than doubling their BMDL0.5 on a daily basis. In addition to human health effects, As contamination in this region may also affect crop yields. Recent laboratory experiments have shown a 6–100 % yield loss in rice due to arsenic-induced straighthead [50•], and further widespread decreases in rice yields would have a devastating effect on the region’s economies, which rely heavily on rice production.

The Mekong River basin of Cambodia also contains highly As-contaminated rice-paddy soils [25•, 26•, 27]. Paddy topsoil is irrigated with groundwater containing concentrations of As as large as 1610 μg/L [60], ultimately resulting in rice-grain As concentrations up to 400 μg/kg, depending on the province (Table 1) [26•]. Cambodia also provides an example of a location where the extent of contamination is highly spatially dependent. Within the Kandal Province, mean concentrations of As in paddy soils were 12.9 ± 10.4 mg/kg, mean rice-grain concentrations were 0.25 ± 0.19 μg/g, and residents were consuming on average 1.839 ± 2.423 μg inorganic As/kg/day [26•]. Although this average daily As intake is below the FAO/WHO guidelines (3.0 μg of As body weight/day) [59], some residents in the study were consuming as much as 4.262 μg inorganic As/kg/day.

Studies from Korea, Nepal, and Taiwan have also shown that elevated concentrations of As in rice grains (up to 660 μg/kg) are generally associated with use of As-contaminated groundwater for irrigation and elevated As concentrations in paddy soils [8, 34, 35•, 36, 37]. Studies have shown that As concentrations in soil are spatially variable from field to regional scales [e.g., India (1–95 mg/kg), Korea (3.9–9.9 mg/kg), Nepal (7–12.5 mg/kg), and Taiwan (11.8–112 mg/kg)], but, in general, increasing soil As concentrations tended to trend with increasing rice-grain As concentrations (Table 1).

Arsenic Pollution of Soils Used for Growing Other Cereals and Vegetables

Although rice production has been the focus of the majority of recent research concerning As uptake by crops, As pollution of soils from groundwater irrigation has also been observed for other cereal and vegetable cropping systems (Table 1). Even though such systems do not require flooded conditions for maximizing yields, irrigation and agronomic practices may result in soil As concentrations that are sufficient to create crop As concentrations that threaten human health. For example, maize is commonly grown on well-drained soil, but adequate water (approximately 0.65 m [61]) is critical to its cultivation. In areas where rainfall is insufficient, the use of As-contaminated groundwater for irrigation can contribute to soil loading of As. If 0.65 m of groundwater containing an average of 500 μg/L As (Table 1) is applied over an hectare of maize fields, then roughly 3.25 kg of As would be loaded annually onto the soils. Assuming this amount of As is added into the top 20 cm of the irrigated surface of a 1-ha maize field with a soil density of 1.3 g/cm3 [62], soil As concentrations would increase by 1.25 mg/kg annually. As with rice fields, elevated soil As in upland systems could lead to As accumulation in food crops, with possible adverse health implications.

Currently, there are few field-verified models that quantify As transfer to crops within groundwater-polluted upland soils. Based on (1) the threshold rice-grain As concentration of 200 μg/kg for genotoxic effects associated with rice consumption [44], (2) typical rice consumption rates of 0.47 kg/person/day in Bangladesh [58], and (3) typical maize consumption rates of 0.33 kg/person/day in Mexico [41], a threshold As maize concentration of 286 μg/kg can be estimated for areas where maize is a staple crop. Cereal crops may have As concentrations that approach this threshold level; however, data from previous research suggest that in most cases, such concentrations are not common (Table 1, Fig. 1). Nonetheless, repeated seasonal irrigation with As-contaminated groundwater may cause soil pollution and create future threats to human health in upland cropping systems. Further research is needed to better understand the controls on As uptake by plants in upland systems, quantify specific As bioavailability for different upland crops, and assess the human health risks imposed by excessive loading of As to upland cropping system soils.

Differences in cropping system management may impact the accumulation, cycling, and plant uptake of As in agricultural fields (“Processes Impacting Arsenic Partitioning in Upland Cropping Systems”). Within upland systems, concentrations in vegetables and cereals tend to vary more than those found in rice grains (Fig. 1), likely due to the decreased mobility of As in aerobic soils and varying plant uptake capabilities. In the Nawalparasi District of Nepal, crop As concentrations of four different vegetables showed variable dependence on soil As concentration [34]. Soil concentration had little to no effect on As concentrations found in the tuber of the potatoes, whereas crop As concentrations were proportional to soil As concentrations for cauliflower, onion, and brinjal. Moreover, As concentrations from crop to crop also varied, and As concentrations in onion bulbs (range 10–1020 μg/kg) tended to be higher than those in cauliflower (90–610 μg/kg) and brinjal (10–140 μg/kg) [34].

Although many known cases of As-contaminated soils are found in Asia, irrigation with As-contaminated groundwater has also led to As accumulation in soils and crops within other parts of the world. High As concentrations have been recorded in groundwater throughout the southwest USA in areas such as the southern Carson Desert in Nevada, San Joaquin Valley in California, and the Basin and Range Province in Arizona [63]. Additionally, the Zimapan Valley, Baja California, Comarca Lagunera, and San Luis Potosi are a few agriculturally productive areas of Mexico where groundwater also may exhibit high concentrations of As [41, 63]. Although some irrigation with surface water is common in these regions, areas where groundwater irrigation is extensive, such as the High Plains and California Central Valley in the USA [64] and Sonora State and Baja California Sur in Mexico [65], are susceptible to soil As accumulation.

In San Luis Potosi, irrigation of maize with As-contaminated groundwater with concentrations exceeding 1000 μg/L has caused soil As concentrations up to 1932 mg/kg (Table 1) [41, 66•]. In this study, arsenic mobility in soils was enhanced by maize organic acid exudation, but As uptake by plants was moderated by the high Fe and Mn contents of the soil (as discussed in “Processes Impacting Arsenic Partitioning in Upland Cropping Systems”). Within the Chalkidiki Prefecture in Northern Greece, geothermal conditions have created groundwater As concentrations that exceed 1000 μg/L [39]. Measured soil As concentrations in irrigated agricultural fields ranged from 5 to 513 mg/kg, and As contamination reached soil depths of 50 cm in some areas. Despite soil contamination, only small concentrations (0.3–25 μg/kg) of As were found in the flesh of olives [39].

Arsenic Cycling in Soils Following Irrigation with Contaminated Groundwater

Upon introduction of As-contaminated irrigation water into a soil system, a multitude of physical, biogeochemical, edaphic, climatic, and anthropogenic factors ultimately determine the extent to which As accumulates in soil, leaches to groundwater, or is taken up by plants. In terms of edaphic factors, mineralogy, soil texture, pH, and redox status interplay to control the speciation and fate of As in agricultural fields. In most irrigated soils, metal oxides are the primary As sinks, although clay, sulfide, and carbonate minerals may also sequester As, depending on the soil pH [14, 17, 67, 68, 69]. In particular, As sorption to iron (Fe) and aluminum (Al) oxides immobilizes As within irrigated topsoil, thereby decreasing As leaching and plant uptake, unless conditions become favorable for As remobilization. Desorption of As from soil minerals may be promoted by competitive ion displacement by phosphate, silica, carbonate, and organic matter, each of which may be native to the soil, added via irrigation water application, or introduced through other agricultural management practices (e.g., fertilizer application) [25•, 26•, 29, 33, 35•, 67].

In most environments, arsenic is found as oxyanions in the + III or + V state. In general, As(V) is considered to be less mobile than the As(III) species [68]; however, both As(V) and As(III) may be readily taken up by plants via phosphate and silicon transport pathways in roots, respectively [46]. Because irrigation practices may directly affect the redox conditions of soils (and thus the relative proportion of As(III) and As(V) and the stability of host mineral phases), the predominant redox state of As may vary with cropping system or water management regime (Fig. 2) [70]. The relative importance of redox and sorption processes, as well as their net effect on As mobility and bioavailability, varies with cropping system, agricultural management practices, and other environmental factors.

Processes Impacting Arsenic Partitioning in Flooded Cropping Systems

In addition to introduction of As in soils by irrigation, the specific hydrologic regime and edaphic conditions associated with rice paddies also affect the cycling and uptake of As (Fig. 2a). Flooded conditions during typical stages of rice cultivation induce Eh values as low as −120 mV [67], and flooding of rice paddies during both the wet and dry seasons causes considerable As(III) release from soil to porewater [12, 30•]. Reductive dissolution of Fe(III) (oxyhydr)oxides is the primary mechanism for release of As during soil saturation and is recognized as a major route of As solubilization in areas such as Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Korea, and Taiwan [12, 25•, 26•, 29, 33, 35•, 40]. Reduction of As(V) to As(III) within the soil-rice system may also enhance As mobility [12]. Rice roots readily absorb As, which can translocate through the plant and create elevated As concentrations within rice grains [46, 71]. Arsenic mobilized to porewater can also leach through the soil/sediment profile, furthering groundwater contamination [68], or be carried away from the system with receding floodwater [17, 72]. Research quantifying As mass balance indicates that groundwater-irrigated rice-field soils are net sinks for As [56••], but long-term As mobility and mechanisms of plant uptake are open areas of study.

Although rice is grown in saturated, reducing conditions, Fe(III) mineral accumulation around roots is facilitated due to the oxygenation of the rhizosphere by aerenchyma within the rice plant, resulting in the oxidation of soil Fe(II) to Fe(III). Fe(III) plaques surrounding rice roots have been found in As-contaminated areas such as West Bengal, India, and southwestern Taiwan [35•, 73], and these plaques may sequester As, decreasing the total As available for plant uptake, or potentially enhance As(III) uptake [74•, 75, 76]. Arsenic may be released from plaques due to rice root necrosis and changing redox conditions associated with seasonal wetting and drying of paddy soils [35•, 69, 74•]. Arsenic speciation and cycling within root plaques remain active areas of investigation.

In concert with irrigation water flow, soil biogeochemical processes can act to create spatial variability in soil As concentrations within rice fields. In Bangladesh, for example, rice fields are typically irrigated by distributing water across the field from an inlet on the perimeter [17]. As water flows across the field, co-precipitation with Fe(III) oxides formed in the water column and sorption to soil minerals remove As from solution [14, 16•, 17, 28•, 77]. Based on the rate of reactions relative to flow velocities, As may preferentially accumulate in soils near the irrigation inlet, and soil As concentrations can decrease by up to ∼50 % over 20 m of flow path across a field [14, 16•, 17, 28•]—a field-scale phenomenon that can impact As concentrations within rice plants [14, 16•, 17, 28•]. Additionally, downward water percolation at field boundaries facilitates vertical transport of water from irrigated fields [78, 79], but As may remain in the soil planting zone due to sorption to soil minerals [33•, 69].

Rice-field soil As concentrations may also vary seasonally [30•]. Arsenic accumulated in soils through irrigation with contaminated groundwater in the dry season [17] may be reductively re-mobilized and removed from fields during wet-season monsoonal flooding [17, 72]. The time period at which rice paddies are subjected to flooding conditions also affects As mobility, potentially impacting temporal variability in As uptake by rice plants [74•] and seasonal dietary As consumption [80]. Despite observed temporal variability in soil As concentrations, the net effect of dry-season groundwater irrigation is generally As accumulation in soil over time [13, 17, 18, 72].

Processes Impacting Arsenic Partitioning in Upland Cropping Systems

In most upland cropping systems (such as for maize and wheat), soils are managed to avoid waterlogging, and crops tend to be grown in aerobic soils. The aerobic redox state favors the presence (and formation) of As(V), resulting in less As movement via water flow than in rice paddies. However, mobilization and plant incorporation of As can still occur within upland systems [46] (Fig. 2b).

Arsenic sequestration in upland soils is governed by soil mineralogy, organic matter content, and plant activity. Similar to rice paddies, metal oxides (mainly Fe), clay minerals, and carbonates are the primary As sinks in oxic cropping systems. However, compared to submerged rice cultivation systems, oxic, upland soils experience less As mobilization via reductive dissolution because the systems do not experience widespread reducing conditions from waterlogging. Instead, As mobilization in oxic cropping systems is primarily a consequence of the competitive effects of phosphate, silica, carbonate, and organic matter (including root exudates) for sorption sites on soil minerals [81, 82, 83, 84, 85]. Phosphate is thought to be most important competitor of As in upland systems due to its chemical similarity with As(V) and high affinity for mineral surfaces. However, organic matter also has a significant impact on As accumulation in soils, as As may complex with organic matter that is bound to metal oxides via metal-bridging processes [86], thereby increasing the As sorption capacity of soils. Silica impacts As(III) uptake by plants due to their similar modes of sorption to plant roots and transport pathways [46]. Finally, Fe(III) plaques have been found to form in oxic cropping systems, such as maize, and have a similar impact on accumulation and plant uptake as they do within suboxic rice cultivation systems [41].

Due to the relatively low mobility of As(V) in aerobic soils [68], loading of As-contaminated groundwater to maize fields concentrates As within shallow soil depths [25•, 67]. However, as compared with rice, little research has been conducted to assess the spatial and temporal variability of As concentrations in upland cropping systems, and the effects of long-term application of As-contaminated irrigation water are not well established.

Arsenic Management and Remediation

Innovative remediation practices are required to address soil As contamination in a variety of agricultural landscapes, each with unique geologic, hydrologic, agricultural, and economic characteristics. Although a number of potential strategies may be utilized for treating As-contaminated water and remediating As-contaminated soils—including filtration, stabilization, phytoremediation, soil washing, vitrification, and geomicrobial processing [1, 7, 69]—such strategies may be impractical for extensive use within agronomic systems due to the volumes of irrigation water required, the areal extent of soil pollution, and the costs of highly technical treatments. In practice, strategies for mitigating the impact of soil As pollution of groundwater-irrigated fields have relied on decreasing As application to fields through water, soil, and crop management, or on remediating soil and altering crop choices to decrease plant As uptake. Here, we describe recent advances in low-cost water and soil management options for mitigating As impacts of soils polluted through irrigation with contaminated groundwater. Additional insights not covered here may be obtained from prior reviews that summarize common strategies for mitigating high As concentrations in South Asian rice [1, 87].

Water Management

Irrigation source selection and components of irrigation delivery are key practices that influence soil As contamination. However, the use of cheap and accessible irrigation sources, such as shallow wells, may be the only affordable agricultural water option given agronomic water demands [1, 7]. Land-based treatment schemes that induce arsenic removal from flowing irrigation water have been suggested as low-cost strategies to minimize As loading to rice-field soils. In general, due to sorption and oxidative co-precipitation reactions, As concentrations in flowing water decrease with flow distance (“Processes Impacting Arsenic Partitioning in Flooded Cropping Systems”), although removal rates are variable depending on the specific system hydraulics [16•]. Measurements of As in rapidly flowing, channelized water demonstrate varying degrees of As removal from solution [14, 18, 77, 88]; removal is greatest in shallow slow-flowing water across fields [14, 16•, 18, 28•, 29]. These observations indicate that As removal from solution via pre-field hydraulic management of irrigation water may be a practical strategy for decreasing soil As pollution, given the technical, financial, and land limitations of many agronomic systems. Although such strategies have been examined within the context of rice production, they also have potential utility for management of upland cropping systems.

Within irrigation distribution channels, dissolved As concentrations in flowing irrigation water vary over space and time, and removal capacities are governed by flow dynamics and input water chemistries. Although As removal may be limited in some channels [18], As concentrations have been observed to decrease by up to 50 % within a 100-m irrigation channel [14]. Modifications to channel geometries that increase channel residence times and soil water contact may enhance As removal from irrigation water within channels, and dissolved As concentrations have decreased by up to 80 % along the shallow wetting front in 200-m long channels [77] (although such flow conditions may be challenging to maintain over long irrigation events). Additionally, removal of dissolved and total As within irrigation water was more than doubled when channels were amended with jute-based structures that increased channel residence times and trapped suspended particles [88]. Importantly, tests of channel design and amendments for minimizing As loading to fields remain in pilot stages, and mitigation of soil pollution requires field verification.

Water management within open or vegetated fields may also be used to mitigate soil pollution from contaminated groundwater. Arsenic concentrations in irrigation water can vary throughout a field by as much as 66.7 % based on distance from the field inlet, suggesting that open fields could be utilized to treat water flowing toward adjacent crop areas [18]. The specific degree of As removal from irrigation water within open fields is controlled by the height and velocity of the flowing water, and the utility of field treatment strategies must be balanced with the potential for water loss [16•]. Finally, intermittent flooding and sprinkler irrigation of rice paddies may also decrease As uptake by rice due to oxidative As immobilization in the rice rhizosphere [74•, 89]. However, such strategies require further investigation to quantify their long-term utility, impacts on rice yields, and potential for enhancing plant uptake of co-contaminants, such as cadmium [89, 90, 91].

Soil Management

Soil management may be another effective means for minimizing, or slowing, As accumulation in fields irrigated with contaminated groundwater. In rice fields in the Bengal Delta, raised field boundaries (bunds) are not commonly plowed, in contrast with field interiors, which develop a firm plow pan. A substantial amount of irrigation water is lost through bund infiltration, though much of the As derived from the water accumulates in the paddy soils [33•, 85]. Sealing bunds, either through plowing or adding plastic barriers, can decrease bund water loss by roughly 50 % [78, 79, 92], decreasing irrigation water application needs for fields and decreasing seasonal As loading to soils by approximately 15 % [78].

Within upland cropping systems, several approaches may help mitigate As loading to soils and uptake by crops. Agronomic practices that increase soil water retention—such as no-till farming, construction of raised beds, maintenance of topsoil vegetation, and organic matter amendment—can reduce irrigation water requirements [1, 93] and therefore decrease As loading rates to soils. Additionally, because phosphate competes with As for sorption sites and can mobilize As within aerobic soils (“Processes Impacting Arsenic Partitioning in Upland Cropping Systems”), decreasing the use of high-phosphorus fertilizers, if possible given agronomic demands, may help limit As release from soil and uptake by crops. Finally, amending soils with Fe(III) (oxyhydr)oxides can help sequester soil As in aerobic, upland systems, where the potential for Fe(III) reductive dissolution and concomitant As release is minimal [1].

Knowledge Gaps

Arsenic contamination of food crops represents a significant threat to global food security and human health. Irrigation with As-contaminated groundwater is the major route by which soils become polluted and As transfers to crops. Mitigating the threat to crops posed by As accumulation in soils from irrigation requires evaluation of the diverse physical, chemical, and biological factors that govern As distributions in the environment. Furthermore, application of this knowledge for the betterment of human health requires evaluation of socioeconomic and demographic constraints on food production needs and As mitigation strategies. Several areas that are ripe for future research may provide invaluable insights into As dynamics in soils, increase our ability to assess human health risks from soil conditions, and speed development of novel strategies to minimize human As exposure from crop consumption.

Controls on As Transfer from Soil to Crops.

Although a rough correlation exists between As concentrations in soils and edible parts of crops (Fig. 1), in practice, our inability to predict crop As concentrations from soil concentrations, environmental conditions, and management practices limits our capacity to assess risks associated with cultivating crops in As-contaminated areas. This issue is exacerbated by uncertainties in As translocation factors within plants [36] and health impacts associated with As consumption rates through food [25•, 42, 45, 80, 94]. Future research should systematically evaluate the mechanistic drivers on As partitioning and transfer among soil solid phases, soil porewater, and plants. In addition, As transfer relationships are needed for cropping systems other than rice, which to date has been the primary focus of such research [13, 28•, 95]. Better quantitative models for soil-plant As transfer would enable growers and policy makers to balance risks associated with threatened food safety, crop yields, and economic sustainability.

Factors Controlling Long-Term As Accumulation in Soils.

Myriad interdependent processes control the accumulation and distribution of As applied to fields with irrigation water (Fig. 2). To date, limited research has sought to define how these processes vary over space and time [6, 13, 14, 17]. Within both flooded and upland fields, specific As sinks, such as soil Fe oxide minerals and root plaques, need to be better evaluated because their ability to sequester As may be sensitive to temporal environmental and management changes, potentially providing as yet-underappreciated sources of As to porewater and plants. At a large scale, detailed evaluation of seasonal and management factors that control As fluxes out of fields is required to quantify net annual As accumulation rates and define the lengths of time over which irrigated fields remain viable. Research that elucidates different As cycling pathways within agronomic systems will enable a more complete assessment of cropping system vulnerabilities to long-term As loading and soil pollution.

Sustainable As Mitigation Strategies and Remediation Technologies.

Currently, there are no widely applicable approaches for mitigating soil As pollution in fields where contaminated groundwater is relied upon as the predominant irrigation source. Recent advances in management strategies include altering cropping conditions to induce biogeochemical conditions that minimize As release from soils and plant uptake, fertilizing fields to stabilize As in soils, and utilizing As-tolerant crop varieties [87]. However, such methods may be challenging to implement broadly due to cost, tradition, and information access limitations. Agricultural engineering approaches that optimize hydrogeochemical conditions and promote As removal from irrigation water prior to field application [16•, 18, 77, 88] have the benefit of being low cost and relatively easy to implement, but the overall effectiveness and long-term sustainability of such strategies need to be determined. Similarly, strategies that minimize application rates of contaminated groundwater need to be put into the context of overall water budgets that link crop evapotranspiration and soil infiltration [78, 96]. Novel feasible and efficient As mitigation strategies are needed to ensure that food security is not compromised in regions where As-contaminated groundwater is necessary for irrigation of staple crops.

Conclusions

Pollution of agricultural soils from irrigation with As-contaminated groundwater is an issue of growing concern, threatening food security and human health. Within both flooded and upland cropping systems, repeated applications of As via irrigation water can cause soil As concentrations to rise significantly above background concentrations (>10 mg/kg) and enhance As transfer into plants. Globally, rice represents one of the most impacted crops from As-polluted irrigation water and soil, but elevated concentrations of As have also been observed in maize, wheat, and several vegetables. Although daily As dietary guidelines are evolving, studies have shown that As in crops at certain concentrations could lead to decreases in crop yields and adverse health effects in humans. Therefore, future research that combines an understanding of fundamental processes impacting As distributions in groundwater-soil-crop systems with toxicological studies will be vital.

Following application of As-contaminated irrigation water to soils, a complex combination of environmental and agronomic factors governs the ultimate fate of As. Within flooded systems, reductive dissolution of Fe oxides is the dominant mechanism by which As is mobilized from soil solid phases and made available for plant uptake. In upland cropping systems, As availability is generally controlled by its desorption from soil mineral surfaces due to competitive ligand exchange or mobilization by plant organic acid exudates. These processes can lead to variable As concentrations in soil and crops across a field and over time, depending on water management and climatic effects, and research is needed to better quantify the controls on As accumulation following application of contaminated groundwater to fields. Moreover, although crop As concentrations generally trend with soil concentrations, variability exists across crop systems, management schemes, and locations, and specific factors governing soil-plant As transfer remain to be elucidated, particularly for agronomic systems beyond Asian rice.

Despite the scale and consequences of soil As pollution, there are few broadly applied strategies for mitigating the issue. Many existing methods for soil As remediation are impractical for agricultural systems, where pollution may be widely dispersed and alternate water and land resources are unavailable. Recent advances in low-cost soil and water management strategies show promise for helping to mitigate As loading to soils and plant uptake, but most remain in proof-of-concept phases. Likely, a site-specific combination of approaches would be needed for effectively preventing the adverse impacts to crop and human health associated with soil As pollution, but rapid research and implementation of field-appropriate innovations are needed to ensure the sustainability of As-polluted agroecosystems.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was in part supported by the National Science Foundation under grant numbers EAR-1255158 and EAR-1324912.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Brammer H. Mitigation of arsenic contamination in irrigated paddy soils in South and South-East Asia. Environ Int. 2009;35(6):856–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Flanagan SV, Johnston RB, Zheng Y. Arsenic in tube well water in Bangladesh: health and economic impacts and implications for arsenic mitigation. Bull World Health Organ. 2012;90(11):839–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bolt HM. Current developments in toxicological research on arsenic. EXCLI J 2013;12:64–74.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Phan K, Sthiannopkao S, Kim K-W, Wong MH, Sao V, Hashim JH, et al. Health risk assessment of inorganic arsenic intake of Cambodia residents through groundwater drinking pathway. Water Res. 2010;44(19):5777–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ravenscroft P, Brammer H, Richards K. Arsenic pollution: a global synthesis, vol. 28. Oxford: Wiley; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fendorf S, Michael HA, van Geen A. Spatial and temporal variations of groundwater arsenic in South and Southeast Asia. Science. 2010;328(5982):1123–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brammer H, Ravenscroft P. Arsenic in groundwater: a threat to sustainable agriculture in South and South-East Asia. Environ Int. 2009;35(3):647–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sahoo P, Kim K. A review of the arsenic concentration in paddy rice from the perspective of geoscience. Geosci J. 2013;17(1):107–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smedley P, Kinniburgh D. A review of the source, behaviour and distribution of arsenic in natural waters. Appl Geochem. 2002;17(5):517–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sparks DL. Environmental soil chemistry. Boston: Academic; 2003.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khan MA, Islam MR, Panaullah G, Duxbury JM, Jahiruddin M, Loeppert RH. Accumulation of arsenic in soil and rice under wetland condition in Bangladesh. Plant Soil. 2010;333(1–2):263–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meharg AA, Rahman MM. Arsenic contamination of Bangladesh paddy field soils: implications for rice contribution to arsenic consumption. Environ Sci Technol. 2003;37(2):229–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dittmar J, Voegelin A, Roberts LC, Hug SJ, Saha GC, Ali MA, et al. Arsenic accumulation in a paddy field in bangladesh: seasonal dynamics and trends over a three-year monitoring period. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44(8):2925–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hossain M, Jahiruddin M, Panaullah G, Loeppert R, Islam M, Duxbury J. Spatial variability of arsenic concentration in soils and plants, and its relationship with iron, manganese and phosphorus. Environ Pollut. 2008;156(3):739–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alam M, Snow E, Tanaka A. Arsenic and heavy metal contamination of vegetables grown in Samta village, Bangladesh. Sci Total Environ. 2003;308(1):83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.•
    Polizzotto ML, Lineberger EM, Matteson AR, Neumann RB, Badruzzaman AB, Ali MA. Arsenic transport in irrigation water across rice-field soils in Bangladesh. Environ Pollut. 2013;179:210–7. This article describes how specific irrigation-water flow conditions and geochemical conditions impact As transport across rice fields, providing insights to potential low-cost As-mitigation strategies.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dittmar J, Voegelin A, Roberts LC, Hug SJ, Saha GC, Ali MA, et al. Spatial distribution and temporal variability of arsenic in irrigated rice fields in Bangladesh. 2. Paddy soil. Environ Sci Technol. 2007;41(17):5967–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roberts LC, Hug SJ, Dittmar J, Voegelin A, Saha GC, Ali MA, et al. Spatial distribution and temporal variability of arsenic in irrigated rice fields in Bangladesh. 1. Irrigation water. Environ Sci Technol. 2007;41(17):5960–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Panaullah GM, Alam T, Hossain MB, Loeppert RH, Lauren JG, Meisner CA, et al. Arsenic toxicity to rice (Oryza sativa L.) in Bangladesh. Plant Soil. 2009;317(1–2):31–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Geen A, Zheng Y, Cheng Z, He Y, Dhar RK, Garnier JM, et al. Impact of irrigating rice paddies with groundwater containing arsenic in Bangladesh. Sci Total Environ. 2006;367(2–3):769–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saha GC, Ali MA. Dynamics of arsenic in agricultural soils irrigated with arsenic contaminated groundwater in Bangladesh. Sci Total Environ. 2007;379(2–3):180–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Islam M, Jahiruddin M, Rahman G, Miah M, Farid A, Panaullah G, Loeppert R, Duxbury J, Meisner C. In Arsenic in paddy soils of Bangladesh: levels, distribution and contribution of irrigation and sediments, Behavior of arsenic in aquifers, soils and plants (Conference Proceedings), Dhaka, 2005; 2005.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ali MA, Badruzzaman A, Jalil M, Hossain MD, Ahmed MF, Masud A, Kamruzzaman M, Rahman MA, Arsenic in plant-soil environment in Bangladesh. Fate of arsenic in the environment. Dhaka: Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology 2003, 85-112.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Talukder A, Meisner CA, Sarkar MAR, Islam MS, Sayre KD, Duxbury JM, et al. Effect of water management, arsenic and phosphorus levels on rice in a high-arsenic soil-water system: II. Arsenic uptake. Ecotox Environ Saf. 2012;80:145–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.•
    Seyfferth AL, McCurdy S, Schaefer MV, Fendorf S. Arsenic concentrations in paddy soil and rice and health implications for major rice-growing regions of Cambodia. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(9):4699–706. This article assesses As in rice and soil from five provinces in Cambodia and demonstrates that chemical extractions of soil As, Fe, P, and Si are poor predictors for concentrations of As in grains. Results are placed within the context of overall health implications.Google Scholar
  26. 26.•
    Phan K, Sthiannopkao S, Heng S, Phan S, Huoy L, Wong MH, et al. Arsenic contamination in the food chain and its risk assessment of populations residing in the Mekong River basin of Cambodia. J Hazard Mater. 2013;262:1064–71. This article analyzes As concentrations in rice, fish, and vegetables within three different provinces in the Mekong River basin of Cambodia. It provides insight to daily intake of inorganic arsenic from consumption of multiple food sources, helping to put the relevance of soil As pollution by groundwater into broad perspective.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rowland HAL, Gault AG, Lythgoe P, Polya DA. Geochemistry of aquifer sediments and arsenic-rich groundwaters from Kandal Province, Cambodia. Appl Geochem. 2008;23(11):3029–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.•
    Stroud JL, Norton GJ, Islam MR, Dasgupta T, White RP, Price AH, et al. The dynamics of arsenic in four paddy fields in the Bengal delta. Environ Pollut. 2011;159(4):947–53. This study documents field-scale accumulation of As in soil irrigated with groundwater over a period of 7 to 18 years. A comparison between sites in India and Bangladesh highlights that differences in irrigation techniques and environmental factors play a significant role in As cycling.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Norra S, Berner Z, Agarwala P, Wagner F, Chandrasekharam D, Stüben D. Impact of irrigation with as rich groundwater on soil and crops: a geochemical case study in West Bengal delta plain, India. Appl Geochem. 2005;20(10):1890–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.•
    Biswas A, Biswas S, Santra SC. Arsenic in irrigated water, soil, and rice: perspective of the cropping seasons. Paddy Water Environ. 2014;12(4):407–12. This article measures how As concentrations in groundwater, soil, and rice grains vary over time during cropping seasons.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vicky-Singh, Brar MS, Preeti-Sharma, Malhi SS. Arsenic in water, soil, and rice plants in the indo-gangetic plains of Northwestern India. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2010;41(11):1350–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Roychowdhury T, Tokunaga H, Uchino T, Ando M. Effect of arsenic-contaminated irrigation water on agricultural land soil and plants in West Bengal, India. Chemosphere. 2005;58(6):799–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sahoo PK, Zhu W, Kim S-H, Jung MC, Kim K. Relations of arsenic concentrations among groundwater, soil and paddy from an alluvial plain of Korea. Geosci J. 2013;17(3):363–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dahal BM, Fuerhacker M, Mentler A, Karki K, Shrestha R, Blum W. Arsenic contamination of soils and agricultural plants through irrigation water in Nepal. Environ Pollut. 2008;155(1):157–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.•
    Hsu W-M, Hsi H-C, Huang Y-T, Liao C-S, Hseu Z-Y. Partitioning of arsenic in soil–crop systems irrigated using groundwater: a case study of rice paddy soils in southwestern Taiwan. Chemosphere. 2012;86(6):606–13. This article relates As concentrations in groundwater, soil, and various parts of rice plants. The paper details the processes by which As is mobilized or sequestered in rice paddy systems.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chou M-L, Jean J-S, Sun G-X, Hseu Z-Y, Yang C-M, Das S, et al. Distribution and accumulation of arsenic in rice plants grown in arsenic-rich agricultural soil. Agron J. 2014;106(3):945–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kar S, Das S, Jean JS, Chakraborty S, Liu CC. Arsenic in the water-soil-plant system and the potential health risks in the coastal part of Chianan plain, Southwestern Taiwan. J Asian Earth Sci. 2013;77:295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.•
    Tong J, Guo H, Wei C. Arsenic contamination of the soil–wheat system irrigated with high arsenic groundwater in the Hetao Basin, Inner Mongolia, China. Sci Total Environ. 2014;496:479–87. Groundwater, topsoil, and wheat were characterized for As concentrations to better understand bioavailability and uptake of As by wheat. Results from this study showed that annual irrigation of wheat fields led to an increase in As concentrations in topsoil as well as an increase in As mobility, threatening the health of wheat and of people who routinely consumed the staple crop.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Casentini B, Hug S, Nikolaidis N. Arsenic accumulation in irrigated agricultural soils in Northern Greece. Sci Total Environ. 2011;409(22):4802–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Roychowdhury T. Impact of sedimentary arsenic through irrigated groundwater on soil, plant, crops and human continuum from Bengal delta: special reference to raw and cooked rice. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008;46(8):2856–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rosas-Castor J, Guzmán-Mar J, Hernández-Ramírez A, Garza-González M, Hinojosa-Reyes L. Arsenic accumulation in maize crop (Zea mays): a review. Sci Total Environ. 2014;488:176–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Biswas A, Biswas S, Santra SC. Risk from winter vegetables and pulses produced in arsenic endemic areas of Nadia district: field study comparison with market basket survey. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2012;88(6):909–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Williams PN, Zhang H, Davison W, Meharg AA, Hossain M, Norton GJ, et al. Organic matter–solid phase interactions are critical for predicting arsenic release and plant uptake in bangladesh paddy soils. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45(14):6080–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Banerjee M, Banerjee N, Bhattacharjee P, Mondal D, Lythgoe PR, Martínez M, et al. High arsenic in rice is associated with elevated genotoxic effects in humans. Sci Rep. 2013;3:2195.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Naujokas MF, Anderson B, Ahsan H, Aposhian H, Graziano JH, Thompson C, et al. The broad scope of health effects from chronic arsenic exposure: update on a worldwide public health problem. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121(3):295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhao F-J, McGrath SP, Meharg AA. Arsenic as a food chain contaminant: mechanisms of plant uptake and metabolism and mitigation strategies. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2010;61:535–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Rice Knowledge Bank. 2015. http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/. Accessed 16 Feb 2015.
  48. 48.
    Abedin MJ, Cresser MS, Meharg AA, Feldmann J, Cotter-Howells J. Arsenic accumulation and metabolism in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Environ Sci Technol. 2002;36(5):962–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Meharg AA, Williams PN, Adomako E, Lawgali YY, Deacon C, Villada A, et al. Geographical variation in total and inorganic arsenic content of polished (white) rice. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43(5):1612–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.•
    Rahman MA, Rahman MM, Hasegawa H. Arsenic-induced straighthead: an impending threat to sustainable rice production in South and South-East Asia! Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2012;88(3):311–5. This article quantifies yield reductions in rice associated with application of As-rich groundwater and soil As accumulation.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Williams P, Islam M, Adomako E, Raab A, Hossain S, Zhu Y, et al. Increase in rice grain arsenic for regions of Bangladesh irrigating paddies with elevated arsenic in groundwaters. Environ Sci Technol. 2006;40(16):4903–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Roberts LC, Hug SJ, Voegelin A, Dittmar J, Kretzschmar R, Wehrli B, et al. Arsenic dynamics in porewater of an intermittently irrigated paddy field in Bangladesh. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;45(3):971–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dittmar J, Voegelin A, Maurer F, Roberts LC, Hug SJ, Saha GC, et al. Arsenic in soil and irrigation water affects arsenic uptake by rice: complementary insights from field and pot studies. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44(23):8842–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Williams PN, Villada A, Deacon C, Raab A, Figuerola J, Green AJ, et al. Greatly enhanced arsenic shoot assimilation in rice leads to elevated grain levels compared to wheat and barley. Environ Sci Technol. 2007;41(19):6854–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Adomako EE, Solaiman A, Williams PN, Deacon C, Rahman G, Meharg AA. Enhanced transfer of arsenic to grain for Bangladesh grown rice compared to US and EU. Environ Int. 2009;35(3):476–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.••
    Neumann RB, St.Vincent AP, Roberts LC, Badruzzaman ABM, Ali MA, Harvey CF. Rice field geochemistry and hydrology: an explanation for why groundwater irrigated fields in Bangladesh are net sinks of arsenic from groundwater. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45(6):2072–8. This article quantifies As cycling within an irrigated rice system. The paper identifies and describes the processes that control spatial distributions of As in reducing environmental systems.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Liao CM, Lin TL, Hsieh NH, Chen WY. Assessing the arsenic-contaminated rice (Oryza sativa) associated children skin lesions. J Hazard Mater. 2010;176(1–3):239–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Amarasinghe UA, Sharma BR, Muthuwatta L, Khan ZH. Water for food in Bangladesh: Outlook to 2030. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI); 2014. 32p.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ng JC, Evaluation of certain contaminants in food: Seventy-second report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. World Health Organization: 2011; Vol. 959.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Berg M, Stengel C, Trang PTK, Hung Viet P, Sampson ML, Leng M, et al. Magnitude of arsenic pollution in the Mekong and Red River Deltas—Cambodia and Vietnam. Sci Total Environ. 2007;372(2):413–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Crop water information: maize. 2013. http://www.fao.org/nr/water/cropinfo_maize.html. Accessed 16 Feb 2015.
  62. 62.
    Flores-Sanchez D, Kleine Koerkamp-Rabelista J, Navarro-Garza H, Lantinga EA, Groot JCJ, Kropff MJ, et al. Diagnosis for ecological intensification of maize-based smallholder farming systems in the Costa Chica, Mexico. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 2011;91(2):185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Smedley P, Kinniburgh DG, Arsenic in groundwater and the environment. In Essentials of Medical Geology, Springer: 2013; pp 279-310.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Scanlon BR, Faunt CC, Longuevergne L, Reedy RC, Alley WM, McGuire VL, et al. Groundwater depletion and sustainability of irrigation in the US High Plains and Central Valley. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109(24):9320–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Murcott S. Arsenic contamination in the world: an international sourcebook. London: IWA Publishing; 2012.Google Scholar
  66. 66.•
    Rosas-Castor JM, Guzmán-Mar JL, Alfaro-Barbosa JM, Hernández-Ramírez A, Pérez-Maldonado IN, Caballero-Quintero A, et al. Evaluation of the transfer of soil arsenic to maize crops in suburban areas of San Luis Potosi, Mexico. Sci Total Environ. 2014;497–498:153–62. This article evaluates how soil chemical parameters influence As translocation in maize gown within soils polluted by irrigation with As-contaminated groundwater. Results indicate the importance of soil Fe, soil Mn, and plant organic acid exudation on As uptake.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Flessa H, Fischer W. Plant-induced changes in the redox potentials of rice rhizospheres. Plant Soil. 1992;143(1):55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sadiq M. Arsenic chemistry in soils: an overview of thermodynamic predictions and field observations. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1997;93(1–4):117–36.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Anawar HM, García-Sánchez A, Hossain MZ. Biogeochemical cycling of arsenic in soil–plant continuum: perspectives for phytoremediation. In: Heavy metal stress in plants. Heidelberg: Springer. 2013. p. 203–24.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Yamaguchi N, Nakamura T, Dong D, Takahashi Y, Amachi S, Makino T. Arsenic release from flooded paddy soils is influenced by speciation, Eh, pH, and iron dissolution. Chemosphere. 2011;83(7):925–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Meharg AA, Zhao F-J. Arsenic & rice. Dordrecht: Springer; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Roberts LC, Hug SJ, Dittmar J, Voegelin A, Kretzschmar R, Wehrli B, et al. Arsenic release from paddy soils during monsoon flooding. Nat Geosci. 2009;3(1):53–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Seyfferth AL, Webb SM, Andrews JC, Fendorf S. Arsenic localization, speciation, and co-occurrence with iron on rice (Oryza sativa L.) roots having variable Fe coatings. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44(21):8108–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.•
    Yamaguchi N, Ohkura T, Takahashi Y, Maejima Y, Arao T. Arsenic distribution and speciation near rice roots influenced by iron plaques and redox conditions of the soil matrix. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(3):1549–56. This article describes the biogeochemical conditions affecting As uptake by rice, focusing on As distributions in the rhizosphere and the impact of Fe plaque formation on the rate of uptake.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Chen Z, Zhu YG, Liu WJ, Meharg AA. Direct evidence showing the effect of root surface iron plaque on arsenite and arsenate uptake into rice (Oryza sativa) roots. New Phytol. 2005;165(1):91–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Hossain M, Jahiruddin M, Loeppert R, Panaullah G, Islam M, Duxbury J. The effects of iron plaque and phosphorus on yield and arsenic accumulation in rice. Plant Soil. 2009;317(1–2):167–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Lineberger EM, Badruzzaman ABM, Ali MA, Polizzotto ML. Arsenic removal from flowing irrigation water in Bangladesh: impacts of channel properties. J Environ Qual. 2013;42(6):1733–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Neumann RB, Pracht LE, Polizzotto ML, Badruzzaman ABM, Ali MA. Sealing rice field boundaries in Bangladesh: a pilot study demonstrating reductions in water use, arsenic loading to field soils, and methane emissions from irrigation water. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(16):9632–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Patil M, Das B. Assessing the effect of puddling on preferential flow processes through under bund area of lowland rice field. Soil Tillage Res. 2013;134:61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Biswas A, Deb D, Ghose A, Santra SC, Mazumder DNG. Seasonal perspective of dietary arsenic consumption and urine arsenic in an endemic population. Environ Monit Assess. 2014;186(7):4543–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Darland JE, Inskeep WP. Effects of pH and phosphate competition on the transport of arsenate. J Environ Qual. 1997;26(4):1133–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Fritzsche A, Rennert T, Totsche KU. Arsenic strongly associates with ferrihydrite colloids formed in a soil effluent. Environ Pollut. 2011;159(5):1398–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Kappler A, Straub KL. Geomicrobiological cycling of iron. Rev Mineral Geochem. 2005;59(1):85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Saalfield SL, Bostick BC. Synergistic effect of calcium and bicarbonate in enhancing arsenate release from ferrihydrite. Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 2010;74(18):5171–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Zeng H, Fisher B, Giammar DE. Individual and competitive adsorption of arsenate and phosphate to a high-surface-area iron oxide-based sorbent. Environ Sci Technol. 2007;42(1):147–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Wang S, Mulligan CN. Effect of natural organic matter on arsenic release from soils and sediments into groundwater. Environ Geochem Health. 2006;28(3):197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Senanayake NI, Mukherji A. Irrigating with arsenic contaminated groundwater in West Bengal and Bangladesh: a review of interventions for mitigating adverse health and crop outcomes. Agric Water Manag. 2014;135:90–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Polizzotto ML, Birgand F, Badruzzaman ABM, Ali MA. Amending irrigation channels with jute-mesh structures to decrease arsenic loading to rice fields in Bangladesh. Ecol Eng. 2015;74:101–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Moreno-Jiménez E, Meharg AA, Smolders E, Manzano R, Becerra D, Sánchez-Llerena J, et al. Sprinkler irrigation of rice fields reduces grain arsenic but enhances cadmium. Sci Total Environ. 2014;485:468–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Arao T, Kawasaki A, Baba K, Mori S, Matsumoto S. Effects of water management on cadmium and arsenic accumulation and dimethylarsinic acid concentrations in Japanese rice. Environ Sci echnol. 2009;43(24):9361–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Hu P, Huang J, Ouyang Y, Wu L, Song J, Wang S, et al. Water management affects arsenic and cadmium accumulation in different rice cultivars. Environ Geochem Health. 2013;35(6):767–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Patil MD, Das BS, Bhadoria P. A simple bund plugging technique for improving water productivity in wetland rice. Soil Tillage Res. 2011;112(1):66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Karlen D, Wollenhaupt NC, Erbach D, Berry E, Swan J, Eash N, et al. Crop residue effects on soil quality following 10-years of no-till corn. Soil Tillage Res. 1994;31(2):149–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Gilbert-Diamond D, Cottingham KL, Gruber JF, Punshon T, Sayarath V, Gandolfi AJ, et al. Rice consumption contributes to arsenic exposure in US women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(51):20656–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Bogdan K, Schenk MK. Evaluation of soil characteristics potentially affecting arsenic concentration in paddy rice (Oryza sativa L.). Environ Pollut. 2009;157(10):2617–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Neumann RB, Polizzotto ML, Badruzzaman ABM, Ali MA, Zhang Z, Harvey CF. Hydrology of a groundwater irrigated rice field in Bangladesh: seasonal and daily mechanisms of infiltration. Water Resour Res. 2009;45:9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth C. Gillispie
    • 1
  • Tyler D. Sowers
    • 1
  • Owen W. Duckworth
    • 1
  • Matthew L. Polizzotto
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Soil ScienceNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations