p. 1203−1218
2423-396X
Vol.34/No.6
p. 1219−1230
2423-396X
Vol.34/No.6
iron sulfate > magnesium ferrosilicon > ferrosilicon > Esfordi iron soil and Golgohar iron soil, respectively. The highest decrease in the concentration of available arsenic occurred in the soils treated with 0.3% of modifier. Application of 0.3% levels of magnetite nanoparticles, iron sulfate, ferrosilicon, ferrosilicon magnesium, Golgohar iron soil and Esfordi iron soil stabilized 91, 63, 57, 32 and 48% of arsenic extractable with 0.1 M HCl, respectively. Application of 0.3% of magnetite nanoparticles reduced available arsenic more than other adsorbents. Among the studied modifiers, magnetite nanoparticles showed more efficiency in chemical stabilization of arsenic in soil. The application of magnetite nanoparticles increased the Fe available fraction in soil. Golgohar iron soil, ferrosilicon, Esfordi iron soil, magnesium ferrosilicon, ferrous sulfate and Magnetite nanoparticles, increased the iron extractable with 0.1 M HCl of the soil, respectively. The highest Fe concentrations were observed in 0.3% of Gol Gohar soil, ferrosilicon, Esfordi soil and ferrosilicon. Increasing the modifiers decreased soil copper extractable with 0.1 M hydrochloric acid concentration and increased soil zinc extractable with 0.1 M hydrochloric acid concentration, which was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Application of magnetite nanoparticles reduced arsenic concentration more than other adsorbents and showed more efficiency in chemical stabilization of soil arsenic. Other modifiers have also been able to stabilize the arsenic in the soil, suggesting the possibility of using iron-containing modifiers in arsenic-contaminated soils. The use of modifiers increased the iron concentration in the soil. Due to their reasonable price and availability, iron sulfate and magnesium ferrosilicon are recommended for soil arsenic stabilization. At 0.3% soil level, Gol Gohar and Esfordi iron soil were able to reduce 32% and 48% the arsenic concentration, respectively and are recommended for arsenic stabilization in contaminated soil. Golgohar, ferrosilicon, Esfordi and magnesium iron soils caused the highest increase in soil iron concentration. Due to the concentration of other soil elements and the price of modifiers, the level of 0.2% of iron sulfate, Gol Gohar and Esfordi iron soil, ferrosilicon and magnesium ferrosilicon is recommended for stabilization of arsenic in contaminated soil.]]>
p. 1231−1242
2423-396X
Vol.34/No.6
p. 1243−1255
2423-396X
Vol.34/No.6
p. 1257−1275
2423-396X
Vol.34/No.6
< 0.01) from those exposed to the distilled water during 39 days, but there was a decrease in earthworm weight on day 42. The calculated LC50 for mortality after 27 and 42 days was 7.5 and 4.31 dS m-1, respectively, and EC50 for growth was 7.94 and 6.82 dS m-1, respectively. Conclusion: Our results showed that increased salinity had harmful effects on the growth and mortality of the earthworms (Eisenia fetida). Salinity can have detrimental effects on earthworms at concentrations considered safe for many plant species. We determined 42 day LC50 for mortality 4.31 dS m-1 (2521 mg lit-1). The EC50 for growth was 6.82 dS dS m-1 (3989 mg lit-1). The weight of earthworms was significantly affected by NaCl and dispersion analysis showed that NaCl concentration had a statistically significant influence on the weight of earthworms. The argument for using NaCl is that it is the predominant salt in most saline environments particularly in wastewaters. Since the salt type is dependent on the source of the contamination, it is, therefore, possible that other salts apart from NaCl could be the main compounds in saline toxicity in a specific area. The results of the current study suggest that the effects of salinity depend on the salt composition. Therefore, it would be important to assess the type of salt ions in soil in risk assessment, as this affects the extent of toxicity to soil organisms.]]>
p. 1277−1285
2423-396X
Vol.34/No.6
p. 1287−1298
2423-396X
Vol.34/No.6
p. 1299−1307
2423-396X
Vol.34/No.6
p. 1309−1322
2423-396X
Vol.34/No.6
p. 1323−1336
2423-396X
Vol.34/No.6
p. 1337−1349
2423-396X
Vol.34/No.6
p. 1351−1366
2423-396X
Vol.34/No.6
p. 1367−1381
2423-396X
Vol.34/No.6