Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 22, Issue 9, pp 6590–6600 | Cite as

Assessing and monitoring the ecotoxicity of pulp and paper wastewater for irrigating reed fields using the polyurethane foam unit method based on monitoring protozoal communities

  • Cheng DingEmail author
  • Tianming Chen
  • Zhaoxia Li
  • Jinlong Yan
Research Article

Abstract

Using the standardized polyurethane foam unit (PFU) method, a preliminary investigation was carried out on the bioaccumulation and the ecotoxic effects of the pulp and paper wastewater for irrigating reed fields. Static ectoxicity test had shown protozoal communities were very sensitive to variations in toxin time and effective concentration (EC) of the pulp and paper wastewater. Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H) was a more suitable indicator of the extent of water pollution than Gleason and Margalef diversity index (d), Simpson’s diversity index (D), and Pielou’s index (J). The regression equation between S eq and EC was S eq  = − 0.118EC + 18.554. The relatively safe concentration and maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of the wastewater for the protozoal communities were about 20 % and 42 %, respectively. To safely use this wastewater for irrigation, more than 58 % of the toxins must be removed or diluted by further processing. Monitoring of the wastewater in representative irrigated reed fields showed that the regularity of the protozoal colonization process was similar to the static ectoxicity, indicating that the toxicity of the irrigating pulp and paper wastewater was not lethal to protozoal communities in the reed fields. This study demonstrated the applicability of the PFU method in monitoring the ecotoxic effects of pulp and paper wastewater on the level of microbial communities and may guide the supervision and control of pulp and paper wastewater irrigating within the reed fields ecological system (RFES).

Keywords

Ecotoxicity Field monitoring Protozoal communities PFU method Pulping wastewater 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (21277115) and the Qinglan Program of Science and Technology Innovation Team of Jiangsu Province (2010).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

11356_2015_4285_MOESM1_ESM.png (49 kb)
Fig. S1 Other biodiversity indices of protozoa in the field monitoring test. A. Gleason and Margalef diversity index of protozoa in the field monitoring test. B. Simpson’s diversity index of protozoa in the field monitoring test. C. Pielou’s index of protozoa in the field monitoring test. Additional biodiversity indices of protozoa were measured for analysis of the field monitoring test. As shown in Fig S1, the regularity in panels d, D and J was similar to Fig. 5. For instance, in panel A, the extent of pollution of water bodies in D1 and D2 went from severely to seriously to moderately polluted, and from severely to seriously polluted, respectively liking EC=12.5 % and EC=25 % (Fig. 5a). d was eventually equilibrated to seriously or severely polluted, suggesting that the toxicity of the pulping wastewater in D1 and D2 was lethal to the protozoa. However, D (panel B) and J (panel C) fluctuated at 0.8–1.0 and 1.3–1.5, respectively after 7 days in the field monitoring test, which were very similar to that in Fig. 5b and c, indicating no pollution in the two fields. In conclusion, H in Fig. 8 was more suitable than d, D and J to measure the extent of the water body pollution in the field monitoring test based on the PFU method. (PNG 49 kb)
11356_2015_4285_MOESM2_ESM.doc (67 kb)
Table S1 (DOC 67 kb)

References

  1. Adrover M, Farrus E, Moya G, Vadell J (2012) Chemical properties and biological activity in soils of Mallorca following twenty years of treated wastewater irrigation. J Environ Manag 95:S188–S192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Begum Jesmin A, Menezes Gustavo B, Moo-Young H, Keith (2012) Treatment of pulp and paper mill wastewater. Water Environ Res 84(10):1502–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biesinger KE, Christensen GM (1972) Effects of various metals on survival, growth, reproduction, and metabolism of Daphnia magna. J Fish Res Board Can 29:1691–1700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bixio D, Thoeye C, De Koning J, Joksimovic D, Savic D, Wintgens T, Melin T (2006) Wastewater reuse in Europe. Desalination 187:89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bulich AA, Isenberg DL (1981) Use of the luminescent bacterial system for the rapid assessment of aquatic toxicity. ISA Trans 20:29–33Google Scholar
  6. Cairns JJ, Dahlberg ML, Dickson KL, Smith N, Waller WT (1969) The relationship of freshwater protozoan communities to the MacArthur-Wilson equilibrium model. Am Nat 103:439–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cairns JJ, Yongue WHJ, Boatin HJ (1973) The protozoan colonization of polyurethane foam units anchored in the benthic area of Douglas Lake, Michigan. Trans Am Microsc Soc 92:643–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen XY, Liu MQ, Hu F, Mao XF, Li HX (2007) Contributions of soil micro-fauna (protozoa and nematodes) to rhizosphere ecological functions. Acta Ecol Sin 27:3132–3140Google Scholar
  9. Chen LJ, Gu J, Hu ZJ, Peng ZR, Liu QG (2010) The research of protozoa community structure in Mingzhu Lake of Chongming Island. Shanghai J Fisheries China 34:1404–1413Google Scholar
  10. Cristina BC, Ana RL, Ivone VM, Elisabete FS, Célia MM, Olga CN (2015) Wastewater reuse in irrigation: a microbiological perspective on implications in soil fertility and human and environmental health. Environ Int 75:117–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dalzell DJB, Alte S, Aspichueta E, Sota A, Etxebarria J, Gutierrez M, Hoffmann CC, Sales D, Obst U, Christofi N (2002) A comparison of five rapid direct toxicity assessment methods to determine toxicity of pollutants to activated sludge. Chemosphere 47(5):535–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ding C, Li ZX (2008) Adsorption characters of pulping wastewater organic pollutant in the reed wetland soil transactions of China. Pulp Pap 23:41–45Google Scholar
  13. Huang WH, Zhao TZ, Zhao LQ, Wang L, Lu XH (2006) Biological toxicity of hexachlorobenzene to the protozoa tetrahymena thermophila BF_5. Environ Sci Technol 29:11–13Google Scholar
  14. Jan V (2014) Constructed wetlands for treatment of industrial wastewaters: a review. Ecol Eng 73:724–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kiss AK, Acs E, Kiss KT, Torok JK (2009) Structure and seasonal dynamics of the protozoan community (heterotrophic flagellates, ciliates, amoeboid protozoa) in the plankton of a large river (River Danube, Hungary). Eur J Protistol 45:121–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee RE, Kugrens P (1992) Relationship between the flagellates and the ciliates. Microbiol Rev 56:529–542Google Scholar
  17. Li FC, Zhao YJ, Zhang Q, Zhang Y, Li L (2011a) Preliminary study on the diversity and community structure of Rotifer in Baiyangdian Lake Sichuan. J Zool 30:734–736Google Scholar
  18. Li T, Wang HY, Sun CB, Song B, Zhou YX, Wang YY (2011b) Microbial growth and change in the Leptomitus lacteus high-occurrence area of a river in Northeast China. Res Environ Sci 24:1110–1114Google Scholar
  19. Li ZX, Zhang YG, Liang HX (2012) Static toxicity evaluation of chemical wastewater by PFU microbial communities method. Acta Ecol Sin 32(23):7336–7345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu CQ, Xing XG, Wang JX, Zhang YJ (2010) Characteristics of rotifera community structure in the Baiyangdian Lake. Acta Ecol Sin 30:4948–4959Google Scholar
  21. Ndour NYB, Baudoin E, Guissé A, Seck M, Khouma M, Brauman A (2008) Impact of irrigation water quality on soil nitrifying and total bacterial communities. Biol Fertil Soils 44:797–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pedrero F, Kalavrouziotis I, Alarcón JJ, Koukoulakis P, Asano T (2010) Use of treated municipal wastewater in irrigated agriculture—review of some practices in Spain and Greece. Agric Water Manag 97:1233–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pessi IS, Elias Sde O, Simoes FL, Simoes JC, Macedo AJ (2012) Functional diversity of microbial communities in soils in the vicinity of Wanda Glacier, Antarctic Peninsula. Microbes Environ / JSME 27:200–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Press TSNoCS (The Second Newsroom of China Standard Press) (2001) Compilation of environmental protection standards about water quality analysis method of China. Standard Press of China, Beijing, pp 284–448Google Scholar
  25. SBTS (China State Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision), EPA (China State Environmental Protection Administration) (1992) National standard of the People’s Republic of China water quality-microbial community biomonitoring-PFU method (GB-T12990-91). Standards Press of China, Beijing, pp l–154Google Scholar
  26. Shen YF, Zhang ZS, Gong XJ, Gu MR, Shi ZX, Wei YX (1990) New technology of microbiological monitoring. Building Industry Press of China, Beijing, pp 1–524Google Scholar
  27. Soupilas A, Papadimitriou CA, Samaras P, Gudulas K, Petridis D (2008) Monitoring of industrial effluent ecotoxicity in the greater Thessaloniki area. Desalination 224:261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Toze S (2006) Reuse of effluent water—benefits and risks. Agric Water Manag 80:147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tsiridis V, Petala M, Samaras P, Hadjispyrou S, Sakellaropoulos G, Kungolos A (2006) Interactive toxic effects of heavy metals and humic acids on Vibrio fischeri. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 63(1):158–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang XH, Lu XH, Shen YF (2005) Partitioning of organic chloride pollutants in different phases of water in Donghu Lake by microbial community, PFU method. Acta Hydrobiol Sinica 29(1):65–69Google Scholar
  31. Xie ZP, Li L, Gen XJ, Wang J (2009) Hei River by protozoa evaluation of the quality of Zhangye [J]. Environ Monit China 25:35–38Google Scholar
  32. Xu K, Choi JK, Yang EJ, Lee KC, Lei Y (2002) Biomonitoring of coastal pollution status using protozoan communities with a modified PFU method. Mar Pollut Bull 44:877–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yang JP, Jiang Y, Hu XZ (2012) The relationship between protistan community and water quality along the coast of Qingdao. Acta Ecol Sinica 32:1703–1712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhao FY, Sun GX (2010) Development of biotoxicity testing on industrial wastewater. Ind Water Treat 30:22–25Google Scholar
  35. Zhao F, Xu KD (2010) Methodological advances in soil protozoa research. Chin J Ecol 29:1028–1034Google Scholar
  36. Zhao JL, Fang YX, Ying GG (2011) Toxicity identification and evaluation methodology proposed for various industrial effluents and its practical application. Ecol Environ Sci 20:549–559Google Scholar
  37. Zheng XY, Wang LQ (2009) Species composition and abundance variation of protozoa in Dianshan Lake. Chin J Ecol 28:51–57Google Scholar
  38. Zhou FX (2006) Biological monitoring (the Second Edition). Chemical Industry Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cheng Ding
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Tianming Chen
    • 1
    • 3
  • Zhaoxia Li
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jinlong Yan
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Environmental Science and EngineeringYancheng Institute of TechnologyYanchengChina
  2. 2.School of Chemical and Biological EngineeringYancheng Institute of TechnologyYanchengChina
  3. 3.Key Laboratory of Tideland Ecology and Pollution Control for Environmental ProtectionYancheng Institute of TechnologyYanchengChina

Personalised recommendations