تأثیر EDTA و اسید سیتریک بر استخراج گیاهی مس و روی از یک خاک طبیعی آلوده توسط ارقام ذرت

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• علی اکبر طاهری پور
• شهرام کیانی
• علیرضا حسین پور

دانشگاه شهرکرد

https://doi.org/10.22067/jsw.v29i6.29430

چکیده

در پژوهش حاضر کارایی عوامل کلات کننده بر بهبود گیاه استخراجی مس و روی از یک خاک طبیعی آلوده توسط ارقام ذرت (Zea mays L.) در قالب یک آزمایش گلدانی مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. این آزمایش به صورت فاکتوریل در قالب طرح کاملاً تصادفی با سه نوع کلات در سه غلظت مختلف و سه نوع رقم ذرت در سه تکرار در سال 1391 در دانشگاه شهرکرد انجام شد. کلاتهای مورد استفاده شامل دو کلات اتیلن دی آمین تترا استیک اسید (EDTA) و اسید سیتریک بودند که در سطوح غلظتی صفر، 75/0 و 5/1 میلی مول بر کیلوگرم خاک مورد استفاده قرار گرفتند. سه رقم ذرت مورد استفاده نیز شامل ارقام سینگل کراس 704، تری وی کراس647 و سینگل کراس677 بودند. نتایج نشان داد کاربرد EDTA با غلظت 5/1 میلی مول بر کیلوگرم خاک، وزن تر ریشه و اندام هوایی را در تمامی ارقام ذرت به طور معنی داری در مقایسه با شاهد کاهش داد (به استثنای وزن تر ریشه در رقم سینگل کراس677)، در حالی که افزایش غلظت اسید سیتریک تا 75/0 میلی مول بر کیلوگرم خاک وزن تر ریشه را در مقایسه با شاهد (به استثنای رقم تری وی کراس647) افزایش داد. بیشترین غلظت مس در ریشه و اندام هوایی ذرت (به ترتیب 1/2506 و 6/355 میلی گرم بر کیلوگرم وزن خشک) با کاربرد EDTA با غلظت 5/1 میلی مول بر کیلوگرم خاک در رقم تری وی کراس 647 حاصل شد که نسبت به شاهد به ترتیب 2/62 و 9/422 درصد افزایش یافت. بیشترین جذب مس (1/871 میکروگرم در گلدان) و روی (6/76 میکروگرم در گلدان) توسط اندام هوایی ذرت در رقم تری وی کراس647 با کاربرد 5/1 میلی مول برکیلو گرم خاک به ترتیب از کلاتهای EDTA و اسید سیتریک حاصل شد. بر اساس نتایج حاصله استفاده از رقم تری وی کراس647 و کاربرد EDTA با غلظت 5/1 میلی مول بر کیلوگرم می تواند گزینه مناسبی برای گیاه استخراجی مس از خاک باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• آلودگی خاک
• گیاه پالایی
• معدن مس سرچشمه

20.1001.1.20084757.1394.29.6.9.2

عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of EDTA and Citric Acid on Phytoextraction of Copper and Zinc from a Naturally Contaminated Soil by Maize (Zea mays L.) Cultivars

نویسندگان [English]

• A. Taheripur
• Sh. kiani
• A. Hosseinpur

ShahreKord University

چکیده [English]

Introduction: Mining and smelting activities have contributed to increasing levels of copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) in soils around of Sarcheshmeh copper mine (Kerman, Iran). Soil chemical analysis showed that the available of Cu and Zn (extracted with DTPA-TEA) were 260.1 and 9.2 mg kg-1 soil, respectively. Phytoextraction is one of the most popular and useful phytoremediation techniques for removal of heavy metals from polluted soils. For chemically-assisted phytoextraction, different chelating agents such as EDTA and citric acid are applied to soil to increase the availability of heavy metals in soil for uptake by plants. A pot experiment was conducted to elucidate the performance of chelating agents addition in improving phytoextraction of Cu and zinc Zn from a naturally contaminated soil by maize (Zea mays L.) cultivars.
Materials and Methods: A factorial experiment in a completely randomized design was carried out bythree factors of chelate type, chelate concentrations and maize cultivars with three replications in 2012 at ShahreKord University. Chelating agents were Ethylene Diamine Tetra Acetic Acid (EDTA) and citric acid (CA). They were applied in concentration levels of 0, 0.75 and 1.5 mmole kg-1 soil with irrigation water. The three maize cultivars used were single cross 704 (SC-704), three v cross 647 (TVC-647), and single cross 677 (SC-677). The pots were 23 cm in diameter and 23 cm deep, and were filled with 4 kg of a silty loam, calcareous soil taken from the surface layer of Sarcheshmeh copper mine area. Maize plant s was grown under greenhouse conditions over 90 days. After the harvest, soil available Cu and Zn contents (extracted with DTPA-TEA) were determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS). Plant samples (shoot and root) were dried for 48 h at 70ºC to determine their dry matter content (yield). Total Cu and Zn concentrations in root and shoot of maize were measured after digestion plant samples by AAS method. The shoot and root uptakes were calculated by multiplying Cu and Zn concentrations by dry mass. The effects of chelating agents and maize cultivars over the measured properties were evaluated using the two-ways ANOVA. The least significant difference (LSD) was used to compare means of treatments using SAS 8.02.
Results and Discussion: The results revealed that applying both chelates caused an increase of soil available Cu and Zn contents. The maximum of soil Cu (401.9 mg kg-1 soil) and Zn (17.1 mg kg-1 soil) were obtained by using EDTA with 1.5 mmole kg-1 soil in TVC-647 and SC-704 cultivars, respectively. This was due to formation of water-soluble complexes between EDTA with Cu and Zn in soil and help in their desorption from soil particles. EDTA was more effective than CA at increasing Cu and Zn available in the soil. The results indicated that EDTA-addition in 1.5 mmole kg-1 soil significantly reduced root and shoot fresh weight in all maize cultivars compared with the control (except root fresh weight in SC-677). This reduction was due to increasing soil available Cu and Zn contents and their toxic effects on plant growth as well as toxic impacts of EDTA on soil microorganisms and growth of plant.on the other hand0.75 mmole kg-1 soil CA addition induced significant increases in root fresh weight as compared to the control (except root fresh weight in TVC-647). Application of CA in concentration level of 0.75 mmole kg-1 soil led to the greatest quantity of shoot (12.85 g pot-1) and root (21.38 g pot-1) fresh weight in TVC-647 and SC-704 cultivars, respectively. Citric acid has a natural origin and is easily biodegraded in soil. It is not toxic to plants; therefore plant growth is not limited. The highest Cu concentration in root and shoot of maize (2506.1 and 335.6 mg kg-1 dry weight, respectively) were obtained in TVC-647 cultivar using 1.5 mmole kg-1 soil of EDTA – 62.2% and 422.9% greater than those obtained with control. The highest shoot Cu (871.1 μg pot-1) and Zn (76.7 μg pot-1) accumulations were recorded in TVC-647 cultivar using 1.5 mmole kg-1 soil of EDTA and CA, respectively.
Conclusion: Due to importance of Cu contamination in studying soil, it is suggested that EDTA-addition at 1.5 mmole kg-1 soil can be an appropriate chelator candidate for TVC-647 maize cultivar for environmentally safe phytoextraction of Cu in soil. It is noticed that application of EDTA in soil for long time has not recommended for phytoextraction of heavy metals. Because EDTA is non biodegradable substance and can leach into ground-water and causes other environmental hazardous risks.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• phytoremediation
• Sarcheshmeh Copper Mine
• Soil pollution

مراجع

1- Ali Ehyayi M., and Behbehanizadeh A.A. Methods of Soil Analysis. Soil and Water Research Institute Press, Tehran.

2- Ali H., Khan E., and Anwar Sajad M. 2013. Phytoremediation of heavy metals-concepts and applications. Chemosphere, 91:869-881.

3- Babaeian E., Homaee M., and Rahnemaie R. 2012. Enhancing phytoextraction of lead contaminated soils by carrot (Daucus carrota) using synthetic and natural chelates. Journal of Water and Soil, 26:607-618. (in Persian with English abstract)

4- Blaylock M.J., Salt D.E., Dushenkov S., Zakharova O., Gussman C., Kapulnik Y., Ensley B.D., and Raskin I. 1997. Enhanced accumulation of Pb in Indian mustard by soil-applied chelating agents. Environmental Science and Technology, 31:860-865.

5- Chen K.F., Yeh T.Y., and Lin C.F. 2012. Phytoextraction of Cu, Zn, and Pb enhanced by chelators with vetiver (Vetiveria zizanioides): hydroponic and pot experiments. ISRN Ecology, 2012:1-12.

6- Chen Y.X., Lin Q., Luo Y.M., He Y.F., Zhen S.J., Yu Y.L., Tian G.M., and Wong M.H. 2003. The role of citric acid on the phytoremediation of heavy metal contaminated soil. Chemosphere, 50:807-811.

7- Cheng G., Ma X., Sun X., and Zhao S. 2012. Effects of EDTA, EDDS and citric acid on growth of maize and uptake of lead by maize in contaminated soil. Advanced Materials Research, 534:227-280.

8- Chorom M., and Alizadeh A. 2009. Comparison of synthetic chelates and compost at enhancing phytoextraction of Cd, Ni and Pb from contaminated soil under canola cultivation. Journal of Water and Soil, 23:20-29. (in Persian with English abstract)

9- Duarte B., Freitas J., and Cacador I. 2011. The role of organic acids in assisted phytoremediation processes of salt marsh sediments. Hydrobiologia, 764:169-177.

10- El-tayeb M.A., El-enay A.E., and Ahmed N.L. 2006. Salycilic acid-induced adaptive response to copper stress in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Plant Growth Regulation, 50:191-199.

11- Emami A. 1996. Methods of Plant Analysis. Soil and Water Research Institute Press, Tehran.

12- Kabata pendias A. 2010. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. 4th edition. CRC Press.

13- Karczewska A., Orlow K., Kabala C., Szopka K., and Galka B. 2011. Effects of chelating compounds on mobilization and phytoextraction of copper and lead in contaminated soils. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 42:1379–1389.

14- Lesage E., Meers E., Vervaeke P., Lamsal S., Hopgood M., Tack F.M., and Verloo M.G. 2005. Enhanced phytoextraction: II. Effect of EDTA and citric acid on heavy metal uptake by Helianthus annuus from a calcareous soil. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 7:143-152.

15- Luo C., Shen Z., and Li X. 2005. Enhanced phytoextraction of Cu, Pb, Zn and Cd with EDTA and EDDS. Chemosphere, 59:1-11.

16- Marschner H. 1995. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. (2nd ed.). Academic Press, London.

17- Muhammad D., Chen F., Zhao J., Zhang G., and Wu F. 2009. Comparison of EDTA- and citric acid-enhanced phytoextraction of heavy metals in artificially metal contaminated soil by Typha angustifolia. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 11:558-574.

18- Nascimento C.W.A., Amarasiriwardena D., and Xing B. 2006. Comparison of natural organic acids and synthetic chelates at enhancing phytoextraction of metals from a multi-metal contaminated soil. Environmental Pollution, 140:114-123.

19- Nowack B., Schulin R., and Robinson B.H. 2006. Critical assessment of chelant-enhanced metal phytoextraction. Environmental Science and Technology, 40:5225-5232.

20- Saifullah., Meers E., Qadir M., de Caritat P., Tack F.M.G., Du Laing G., and Zia M.H. 2009. EDTA-assisted Pb phytoextraction. Chemosphere, 74:1279–1291.

21- Schmidt U. 2003. Enhancing phytoextraction: the effect of chemical soil manipulation on mobility, plant accumulation, and leaching of heavy metals. Journal of Environmental Quality, 32:1939-54.

22- Seregin I.V., and Kozhevnikova A.D. 2006. Physiological role of nickel and its toxic effects on higher plants. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology, 53:257-277.

23- Shu W.S., Ye Z.H., Lan C.Y., Zhang Z.Q., and Wong M.H. 2003. Acidification of lead/zinc mine tailings and its effect on heavy metal mobility. Environmental Introduction 26:389-394.

24- Sillen L.G., and Martell A.E. 1964. Stability constants of metal ion complexes. Special Publication No. 17. The Chemical Society. Londan.

25- Sinhal V.K., Srivastava A., and Singh V.P. 2010. EDTA and citric acid mediated phytoextraction of Zn, Cu, Pb and Cd through marigold (Tagetes erecta). Journal of Environmental Biology, 31:255-259.

26- Tafvizi M., Savaghebi GH.R., and Motasharezadeh B. 2012. Study of lead (Pb) phytoextraction potential in different maize varieties. p. 86. Proceedings of the First National Conference of Phytoremidation, 16 Feb. 2012. International Center for Science, High Technology and Environmental Sciences. Kerman, Iran.

27- Taheri Pur A.A. 2013. Effect of EDTA and citric acid on phytoremediation of copper and zinc by three corn cultivares. M.Sc. Dissertation, Soil Science Department, ShahreKord University.

28- Thayalakumaran T., Robinson B.H., Vogeler I., Scotter D.R., Clothier B.E., and Percival H.J. 2003. Plant uptake and leaching of copper during EDTA-enhanced phytoremediation of repacked and undisturbed soil. Plant and Soil, 254:415–423.

29- Wang H., Shun X.A., Wen B., Zhang S., and Wang Z.J. 2004. Responses of an oxidative enzymes to accumulation of copper in a copper hyper accumulator of communis. Environmental Contamination Toxicology, 47:185-192.