Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 103, Issue 1–4, pp 405–421 | Cite as

Effect of Organic Materials on Partitioning, Extractability and Plant Uptake of Metals in an Alum Shale Soil

  • R. P. Narwal
  • B. R. Singh
Article

Abstract

Soils developed on sulphide-bearing shale (alum shale) in Norway contain naturally high amount of heavy metals. We conducted a greenhouse pot experiment to study the effect of four rates (0, 2, 4, and 8%) and three sources (cow manure, pig manure and peat soil) of organic matter in partitioning and distribution, extractability and plant uptake of Cd, Cu, Ni and Zn in an alum shale soil. Sequential extraction scheme was used to determine the distribution patterns of metals in the soil. DTPA was used for extracting the metals from the soil. Wheat (Triticum aestivum) was used as a test crop to study the plant uptake of metals. The highest amount of Cd was present in the exchangeable fraction, irrespective of the rate and source of organic matter applied. Copper, Ni, and Zn, on the other hand, were present only in small quantities in this fraction. The largest fraction of Cu was associated with organic matter and the amounts present in the oxide, carbonate and exchangeable fractions were very small. Nickel and Zn were found mainly in the residual fraction. Increasing rates of cow and pig manure decreased the amounts of Cd and Ni associated with the exchangeable fraction whereas, the addition of peat soil at the same rate increased the amounts of these metals associated with this fraction. This effect of organic matter was primarily associated with the change in soil pH caused by different organic matter sources. The DTPA-extractable metals were decreased with increasing rates of organic matter application, irrespective of its source. Grain and straw yields of wheat were decreased with increasing rates of organic matter. The application of organic matter increased the Cu and Zn concentrations in both grain and straw. The concentration of all metals was lower in plants grown in the cow manure amended soil as compared to those grown in the soil amended with either pig manure or peat soil. These results sugggest that the source of organic matter was a determining factor for metal distribution in the soil and for metal uptake by plants. In this study cow manure slightly increased the soil pH and thus was more effective than either pig manure or peat soil in reducing the plant uptake of metals but in general the efficiency of the organic material in reducing heavy metal uptake was small.

alum shale Cd Cu extractability metal partitioning Ni Norway organic materials plant uptake wheat Zn 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alloway, B. J.: 1990, in B. J. Alloway (ed.), Heavy Metals in Soils, John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 100-124.Google Scholar
  2. Aualiitia, T. U. and Pickering, W. F.: 1987, Water, Air and Soil Pollut. 35, 171.Google Scholar
  3. Benjamin, M. M.: 1981, J. Colloid and Interface Sci. 79, 209.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, P. H., Dunemann, L. Schulz, R. and Marschner, H.: 1989, Z. Pflanzenernähr. Bodenkd. 152, 85.Google Scholar
  5. Brummer, G. and Herms, U.: 1983, in B. Ulrich and J. Pankrath (eds.), Effects of Accumulation of Air Pollutants in Forest Ecosystems, D. Reidel Publ. Co. Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. Buffle, J.: 1988, Complexation Reactions in Aquatic Systems, an Analytical Approach, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  7. Calvet, R., Bourgeois, S. and Msaky, J. J.: 1990, Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 39, 31.Google Scholar
  8. Del Castilho, P., Chardon, W. J. and Salomons, W.: 1993, J. Environ. Qual. 22, 689.Google Scholar
  9. Elliot, H. A., Liberati, M. R. and Huang, C. P.: 1986, J. Environ. Qual. 15, 214.Google Scholar
  10. Elonen, P.: 1971, Acta Agric. Fenn. 122, 1.Google Scholar
  11. Eriksson, J. E.: 1988, Water, Air and Soil Pollut. 40, 359.Google Scholar
  12. Haghiri, F.: 1974, J. Environ. Qual. 3, 180.Google Scholar
  13. Harrison, R. M., Laxen, D. P. H. and Wilson, S. J.: 1981, Environ. Sci. Technol. 15, 1378.Google Scholar
  14. He, Q. B. and Singh, B. R.: 1993, J. Soil Sci. 44, 641.Google Scholar
  15. Hickey, M. G. and Kittrick, J. A.: 1984, J. Environ. Qual. 13, 372.Google Scholar
  16. Huang, C. P. and Lin, C.: 1981, in Tewari, P. H. (ed.), Adsorption from Aqueous Solutions, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Irving, H. and Williams, R. J. P.: 1953, J. Chem. Soc., 3182.Google Scholar
  18. Iyengar, S. S., Martens, D. C. and Miller, W. P.: 1981, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45, 735.Google Scholar
  19. Jeng, A. S.: 1992. Acta Agric. Scand. 42, 76.Google Scholar
  20. Jeng, A. S. and Bergseth, H.: 1992, Acta Agric. Scand. 42, 88.Google Scholar
  21. Jeng, A. S. and Singh, B. R.: 1993, Soil Sci. 156, 240.Google Scholar
  22. Karlson, S., Allard, B. and Hakansson, K.: 1988, Chem. Geol. 67, 1.Google Scholar
  23. Kheboian, C. and Bauer, C. F.: 1987, Anal. Chem. 59, 1417.Google Scholar
  24. King, L. D.: 1988, J. Environ. Qual. 17, 251.Google Scholar
  25. König, N., Baccini, P. and Ulrich, B.: 1986, Z. Pflanzenernaehr. Bodenkd. 149, 68.Google Scholar
  26. Levy, D. B., Barbaric, K. A., Siemer, E. G. and Sommers, L. E.: 1992, J. Environ. Qual. 21, 185.Google Scholar
  27. Lindsay, W. L. and Norvell, W. A.: 1978, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42, 421.Google Scholar
  28. McGrath, S. P., Sanders, J. R. and Shalaby, M. H.: 1988, Geoderma 42, 177.Google Scholar
  29. McKenzie, R. M.: 1972, Geoderma 8, 29.Google Scholar
  30. Mehlum, H. K.: 1996, ‘Total and Plant Available Metals in Soils and Plants from Alum Shales Areas (in Norwegian)', M. Sc. thesis, Agric. Univ. Norway, Ès.Google Scholar
  31. Mitchell, C. C., Windham, S. T., Nelson, D. B. and Baltikauski, M. N.: 1992, in J. P. Blake et al. (ed.), Proc. 1992 National Poultry Waste Management Symposium Committee, Birmingham, AL. 6-8 Oct. 1992, Auburn Univ. Press, Auburn, AL.Google Scholar
  32. Møberg, J. P. and Petersen, L.: 1982, Øvelsesvejledning til geologi og jordbundslære II. Den kgl. Veterinær-og Landbbohøgskole, København, p. 136.Google Scholar
  33. Norrish, K.: 1975, in D. J. D. Nicholas and A. R, Egan (eds.), Trace Elements in Soil-Plant-Animal Systems, Academic Press, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Page, A. L. Miller, R. H. and Keeney, D. R. (eds.): 1982, Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  35. Ram, N. and Verloo, M.: 1985, Pedologie 35, 147.Google Scholar
  36. Ramos, L., Hernandez, L. M. and Gonzalez, M. J.: 1994, J. Environ. Qual. 23, 50.Google Scholar
  37. Rauret, G., Rubio, R., López-Sanchez, J. F. and Casassas, E.: 1989, Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 35, 89.Google Scholar
  38. Salomos, W. and Förstner, U.: 1984, Metals in the Hydrocycle, Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  39. SAS Institue, Inc.: 1994, JMP Statistics and Graphics Guide Version 3.0.2. SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  40. Shuman, L. M.: 1979, Soil Sci. 127, 11.Google Scholar
  41. Shuman, L. M.: 1985, Soil Sci. 140, 11.Google Scholar
  42. Sims, J. T. and Kline, J. S.: 1991, J. Environ. Qual, 20, 387.Google Scholar
  43. Singh, B. R., Narwal, R. P., Jeng, A. S. and Almos, È.: 1995, Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 26, 2123.Google Scholar
  44. Tessier, A., Campbell, P. G. C. and Bisson, M.: 1979, Anal. Chem. 51, 844.Google Scholar
  45. Van Der Watt, H. v. H., Summer, M. E. and Cabrera, M. L.: L 1994, J. Environ. Qual. 23.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. P. Narwal
    • 1
  • B. R. Singh
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Soil and Water SciencesAgricultural University of NorwayÅsNorway

Personalised recommendations