Screening Test of Soil Conditioners for Reducing Rice Cd and As in Pearl River Delta

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0450

Abstract

Abstract:

The aims of the study are to investigate the effects of seven soil amendments on the uptake of cadmium (Cd) and arsenic (As) by rice grown in the moderately to lightly heavy metal-contaminated paddy fields during the early and late growing stages, and identify effective amendments that significantly reduce heavy metal accumulation in rice grains, providing a basis for the safe production of contaminated farmland through precise amendment application. A field plot experiment was designed to evaluate seven types of soil amendments applied individually as basal fertilizers, including a nutrient-based blocking agent (ZK), Jiandifeng soil conditioner (JF), calcareous soil amendment (SH), oyster shell-based amendment (HK), Jinkuizi amendment (JK), organic soil amendment (OF), and Xinjiang soil conditioner (NK), with no amendment application serving as the control (CK). The study analyzed rice yield, Cd and As concentrations in brown rice, and selected soil physicochemical properties during both cropping seasons. The results showed that compared with the control, all seven soil amendments increased the soil pH in both early and late rice seasons to varying degrees. The SH treatment resulted in the greatest increase, with pH rising by 0.60 and 0.29 units, respectively. SH also significantly reduced soil DTPA-extractable Cd by 10.8% and 13.1% in the early and late seasons, respectively, although it showed a tendency to increase soil available As. The effects of the amendments on soil macro-nutrient elements (exchangeable Ca, exchangeable Mg and available Si) varied. SH treatment yielded the highest exchangeable Ca content (22.0% and 20.8% increases), ZK achieved the highest exchangeable Mg levels (increases of 9.9% and 12.2%), while JK significantly enhanced available Si content (increases of 89.8% and 80.1%) in early and late seasons, respectively. Five of the seven treatments significantly reduced Cd concentrations in brown rice, with reductions ranging from 26.0% to 59.6%; the greatest decrease in the early season was observed in the SH treatment. No amendment had a significant effect on the total As content in rice grains. Under the conditions of this study, the SH, ZK and HK amendments effectively increased soil pH, reduced DTPA-extractable Cd levels, and consequently decreased Cd accumulation in rice grains during both cropping seasons. These treatments maintained the rice yield and offered favorable economic benefits, highlighting their practical potential for improving grain safety in contaminated paddy fields.

Key words: soil conditioner, rice, cadmium, arsenic, Pearl River Delta

YIN Yilong, WANG Yujing, WANG Yanhong. Screening Test of Soil Conditioners for Reducing Rice Cd and As in Pearl River Delta[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(34): 74-81.

Figures/Tables 9

References 23

[1]	CHEN H, YANG X, GIELEN G, et al. Effect of biochars on the bioavailability of cadmium and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate to Brassica chinensis L. in contaminated soils[J]. Science of the total environment, 2019, 678:43-52. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.417 URL
[2]	ANTONIADIS V, SHAHEEN S M, LEVIZOU E, et al. A critical prospective analysis of the potential toxicity of trace element regulation limits in soils worldwide: Are they protective concerning health risk assessment- A review[J]. Environment international, 2019, 127:819-847. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.03.039 URL
[3]	QU C C, CHEN W L, HU X P, et al. Heavy metal behaviour at mineral-organo interfaces: Mechanisms, modelling and influence factors[J]. Environmental international, 2019, 131:104995. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.104995 URL
[4]	WAN Y, HUANG Q, WANG Q, et al. Accumulation and bioavailability of heavy metals in acid soil and their uptake by paddy rice under continuous application of chicken and swine manure[J]. Journal of hazardous materials, 2020, 384:121293. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121293 URL
[5]	WU Y J, ZHOU H, ZOU Z J, et al. A three-year in-situ study on the persistence of a combined amendment (limestone + sepiolite) for remedying paddy soil polluted with heavy metals[J]. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety, 2016, 130:163-170. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2016.04.018 URL
[6]	YUAN Y N, CHAI L Y, YANG Z H, et al. Simultaneous immobilization of lead, cadmium, and arsenic in combined contaminated soil with iron hydroxyl phosphate[J]. Journal of soils and sediments, 2017, 17:432-439. doi: 10.1007/s11368-016-1540-0 URL
[7]	王艳红, 陈勇, 唐明灯, 等. 营养型阻控剂在Cd高风险双季稻田上的应用效果评价[J]. 广东农业科学, 2023, 50(6):44-52.
[8]	周雪萍, 简桂宏, 程细江, 等. 珠三角典型重金属污染农田土壤调理剂筛选田间试验研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2024, 43(9):1969-1978.
[9]	曾晓舵, 刘传平, 孙岩, 等. 铁基生物炭钝化Cd大田试验研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(1):190-194. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2021.01.022
[10]	YAO A, JU L, LING X, et al. Simultaneous attenuation of phytoaccumulation of Cd and As in soil treated with inorganic and organic amendments[J]. Environmental pollution, 2019, 250:464-474. doi: S0269-7491(19)30354-9 pmid: 31026693
[11]	XU X, CHEN C, WANG P, et al. Control of arsenic mobilization in paddy soils by manganese and iron oxides[J]. Environmental pollution, 2017, 231:37-47. doi: S0269-7491(17)30737-6 pmid: 28783611
[12]	鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社,1999.
[13]	黎亿状, 彭瑞雪, 陈晶, 等. 不同类型土壤调理剂对土壤-水稻体系中Cd迁移转化的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2025, 44(9):2284-2295.
[14]	孙约兵, 王朋超, 徐应明, 等. 海泡石对镉-铅复合污染钝化修复效应及其土壤环境质量影响研究[J]. 环境科学, 2014, 35(12):4720-4726.
[15]	吴拓铮, 詹娟, 周嘉文, 等. 不同调理剂对农田镉污染稳定效果及水稻吸收的影响[J]. 土壤, 2022, 54(3):572-578.
[16]	娄飞, 付天岭, 代良羽, 等. 不同土壤调理剂对黔中地区水稻Cd积累转运和产量的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(7):1493-1501. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.07.17
[17]	林小兵, 郭乃嘉, 雷礼文, 等. 矿物源调理剂对南方酸性镉污染水稻农田的修复作用[J]. 土壤与作物, 2023, 12(4):439-447.
[18]	武成辉, 李亮, 雷畅, 等. 硅酸盐钝化剂在土壤重金属污染修复中的研究与应用[J]. 土壤, 2017, 49(3):446-452.
[19]	陈杰, 宋靖珂, 张晶, 等. 不同钝化剂对铜污染土壤原位钝化修复[J]. 土壤, 2016, 48(4):742-747.
[20]	ZHANG J R, LI H Z, ZHOU Y Z, et al. Bioavailability and soil-to-crop transfer of heavy metals in farmland soils: A case study in the Pearl River Delta, South China[J]. Environmental pollution, 2018, 235:710-719. doi: S0269-7491(17)33815-0 pmid: 29339340
[21]	窦韦强, 安毅, 秦莉, 等. 稻米镉的生物富集系数与其影响因素的量化关系[J]. 土壤, 2021, 53(4):788-793.
[22]	陈伟盛, 黄连喜, 刘传平, 等. 炭基组配改良剂对早稻和晚稻 Cd-As 吸收转运影响的比较[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2025, 33(6):1157-1169.
[23]	易轩韬, 欧阳坤, 辜娇峰, 等. 谷壳灰硅肥改善土壤质量降低水稻镉砷累积的效应[J]. 环境科学, 2024, 45(3):1793-1802.

调理剂名称	编码	pH	主要成分	来源
营养型阻控剂	ZK	12.1	CaSiO₃、Ca(OH)₂、K₂SO₄、MgSO₄	广东省农业科学院农业资源与环境研究所研发，专利号ZL 201510532910.9
健地丰土壤调理剂	JF	11.8	SiO₂≥8%~20%，CaO≥35%~50%，MgO≥2%~8%	广东健地农业科技有限公司提供
石灰质土壤调理剂	SH	12.6	Ca(OH)₂、活性白泥、硅藻土等	购自广州帅源化工有限公司
壳粉基土壤调理剂	HK	8.9	CaCO₃，含镁、钾、磷、锰、铁、锌等元素	购自阳西县程村镇蚝壳粉购销部
金葵子土壤调理剂	JK	12.7	CaO≥20%，SiO₂≥10%，有机质≥5%	购自佛山金葵子植物营养有限公司
新江土壤调理剂	NK	7.8	有机质≥35%，总养分≥7%、总硫≥3%	购自江苏省连云港市新江环保材料有限公司
有机土壤调理剂	OF	8.8	有机质≥40%、有效活菌数≥0.2亿/g	购自广州新农科肥业科技有限公司

调理剂名称	编码	pH	主要成分	来源
营养型阻控剂	ZK	12.1	CaSiO₃、Ca(OH)₂、K₂SO₄、MgSO₄	广东省农业科学院农业资源与环境研究所研发，专利号ZL 201510532910.9
健地丰土壤调理剂	JF	11.8	SiO₂≥8%~20%，CaO≥35%~50%，MgO≥2%~8%	广东健地农业科技有限公司提供
石灰质土壤调理剂	SH	12.6	Ca(OH)₂、活性白泥、硅藻土等	购自广州帅源化工有限公司
壳粉基土壤调理剂	HK	8.9	CaCO₃，含镁、钾、磷、锰、铁、锌等元素	购自阳西县程村镇蚝壳粉购销部
金葵子土壤调理剂	JK	12.7	CaO≥20%，SiO₂≥10%，有机质≥5%	购自佛山金葵子植物营养有限公司
新江土壤调理剂	NK	7.8	有机质≥35%，总养分≥7%、总硫≥3%	购自江苏省连云港市新江环保材料有限公司
有机土壤调理剂	OF	8.8	有机质≥40%、有效活菌数≥0.2亿/g	购自广州新农科肥业科技有限公司

土壤调理剂	Cd		Pb		As	Cr		Hg
营养型阻控剂(ZK)	0.108		ND		8.7	13.1		ND
健地丰土壤调理剂(JF)	0.28		19.2		6.59	44.7		0.03
石灰质土壤调理剂(SH)	0.235	ND		0.41		8.71	0.003
新江土壤调理剂(NK)	0.2	12.0		4.0		22	0.2
壳粉基土壤调理剂（HK）	0.027	5.9		0.629		12.1	ND
金葵子土壤调理剂(JK)	0.018	ND		0.06		35.8	0.014
有机土壤调理剂(OF)	0.369	3.31		1.26		28	0.06
土壤污染风险筛选值(5.5<pH≤6.5)	0.4	100		30		250	0.5

土壤调理剂	Cd		Pb		As	Cr		Hg
营养型阻控剂(ZK)	0.108		ND		8.7	13.1		ND
健地丰土壤调理剂(JF)	0.28		19.2		6.59	44.7		0.03
石灰质土壤调理剂(SH)	0.235	ND		0.41		8.71	0.003
新江土壤调理剂(NK)	0.2	12.0		4.0		22	0.2
壳粉基土壤调理剂（HK）	0.027	5.9		0.629		12.1	ND
金葵子土壤调理剂(JK)	0.018	ND		0.06		35.8	0.014
有机土壤调理剂(OF)	0.369	3.31		1.26		28	0.06
土壤污染风险筛选值(5.5<pH≤6.5)	0.4	100		30		250	0.5

处理组	早造		晚造
处理组	产量/(t/hm²)	产量较CK增幅/%	产量/(t/hm²)	产量较CK增幅/%
CK	7.41±0.47	—	5.63±0.66	—
ZK	6.90±0.17	-6.8	5.94±0.57	5.5
JF	7.43±0.67	0.3	5.94±0.56	5.5
SH	7.19±0.78	-3.0	6.03±0.11	7.1
HK	6.98±0.17	-5.9	5.68±0.44	0.8
JK	7.18±0.18	-3.2	6.19±0.47	9.9
OF	7.09±0.11	-4.3	5.80±0.14	3.0
NK	7.34±0.54	-1.0	5.99±0.32	6.4