Evaluation of Heavy Metal Passivation in Contaminated Paddy Fields Based on Soil Quality and Rice Safety

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0239

Abstract

Abstract:

With the popularization and application of heavy metal passivation technology in polluted arable land, comprehensive and integrated evaluation techniques are urgently needed for the treatment and remediation effects of heavy metal polluted rice fields. In this study, the commonly used passivation application patterns, including CK, lime 4500 kg/hm² (LM), sepiolite 12000 kg/hm² (SEP), lime +biochar 1:1 mixed application 9000 kg/hm² (F1), lime+ biochar + calcium magnesium phosphate 1:1:0.5 mixed application 9000 kg/hm² (F2) and lime+ biochar + sepiolite 1:1:1 mixed application 9000 kg/hm² (F3), were compared in typical contaminated plots in Zhuji City (ZJ) and Yuecheng District (YC) of Shaoxing City, Zhejiang Province. The emphasis was on the effect of passivation on pollution indicators and soil quality. The remediation effect was evaluated by rice yield, heavy metal content in rice and heavy metal DTPA extractable amount in soil; the soil quality was evaluated by soil physicochemical indexes (soil organic matter, CEC, available nitrogen and clay) and biological indexes (microbial biomass carbon and soil sucrose activity) to build a comprehensive evaluation system. The evaluation results showed that: compare to those of CK, DTPA extractable Cd of F1 (YC) and LM (ZJ) soil decreased by <15%, organic matter and available nitrogen of F1 (ZJ) and LM (ZJ) soil decreased by >10%, the sucrose activity of F1 (YC) decreased by 43.4%, so the comprehensive evaluation conclusion for F1 and LM was ‘poor’. For SEP (ZJ) soil, the organic matter decreased by 20%, the microbial carbon decreased by 25.7%, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion was ‘poor’. The rice yield of F2 and F3 decreased by <8%, heavy metal content in rice were lower than the limited value of GB2762, and soil DTPA extractable Cd, Cr and Pb were reduced by more than 15%, 30% and 25%, respectively; and the reduction of soil physical, chemical and biological indexes were <10%, the overall evaluation conclusion of F2 and F3 was ‘excellent’. According to the constructed comprehensive evaluation system, F2 and F3 are the most effective treatments in remediating heavy metal contaminated paddy soil in the study sites.

Key words: rice, heavy metal, remediation, evaluation, soil quality

ZHAO Shouping, XIAO Wendan, CHEN De, YE Xuezhu, ZHANG Qi, WU Shaofu, HU Jing, GAO Na, HUANG Miaojie. Evaluation of Heavy Metal Passivation in Contaminated Paddy Fields Based on Soil Quality and Rice Safety[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(8): 51-62.

Figures/Tables 8

References 34

[1]	YE X, XIAO W, ZHANG Y, et al. Assessment of heavy metal pollution in vegetables and relationships with soil heavy metal distribution in Zhejiang province, China[J]. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2015, 187:378. doi: 10.1007/s10661-015-4604-5 pmid: 26013654
[2]	WANG L, CHEN L, TSANG D C, et al. Recycling dredged sediment into fill materials, partition blocks, and paving blocks: technical and economic assessment[J]. Journal of cleaner production, 2018, 199:69-76. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.165 URL
[3]	中华人民共和国环境保护部、国土资源部. 全国土壤污染状况调查公报[R/OL].[2018-02-13]. Http://www.zhb.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/qt/201404/t20140417_270670.htm.
[4]	HUANG Y, WANG L, WANG W, et al. Current status of agricultural soil pollution by heavy metals in China: a meta-analysis[J]. Science of the total environment, 2019, 651:3034-3042. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.185 URL
[5]	HOU D, LI F. Complexities surrounding China's soil action plan[J]. Land degradation & development, 2017,28,2315-2320.
[6]	胡红青, 黄益宗, 黄巧云, 等. 农田土壤重金属污染化学钝化修复研究进展[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(6):1676-1685.
[7]	ZHANG Y, ZHANG Y, AKAKURU O U, et al. Research progress and mechanism of nanomaterials-mediated in-situ remediation of cadmium-contaminated soil: A critical review[J]. Journal of environmental science, 2021, 104:351-364.
[8]	魏玮, 李平, 郎漫. 不同结构改良剂对铜镉污染土壤水稻生长和重金属吸收的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2021, 42(9):4462-4470.
[9]	LAHORI A H, MIERZWA-HERSZTEK M, RASHID M, et al. Residual effects of tobacco biochar along with different fixing agents on stabilization of trace elements in multi-metal contaminated soils[J]. Journal of environmental sciences, 2020, 87:299-309. doi: 10.1016/j.jes.2019.07.003 URL
[10]	HAMID Y, LIN T, MUHAMMAD Y, et al. Comparative efficacy of organic and inorganic amendments for cadmium and lead immobilization in contaminated soil under rice wheat cropping system[J]. Chemosphere, 2019, 214:259-268. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.09.113 URL
[11]	SENEVIRATNE M, WEERASUNDARA L, OK Y S, et al. Phytotoxicity attenuation in Vigna radiata under heavy metal stress at the presence of biochar and N fixing bacteria[J]. Journal of environmental management, 2017, 186:293-300. doi: S0301-4797(16)30461-3 pmid: 27527669
[12]	USMAN M, BYRNE J M, CHAUDHARY A, et al. Magnetite and green rust: synthesis, properties, and environmental applications of mixed-valent Iron minerals[J]. Chemical reviews, 2018, 118:3251-3304. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00224 pmid: 29465223
[13]	O'CONNOR D, PENG T, ZHANG J, et al. Biochar application for the remediation of heavy metal polluted land: a review of in situ field trials[J]. Science of the total environment, 2018, 619:815-826.
[14]	HAMID Y, TANG L, IRFAN-SOHAIL M, et al. An explanation of soil amendments to reduce cadmiumphy to availability and transfer to food chain[J]. Science of the total environment, 2019, 660:80-96. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.419 URL
[15]	PALANSOORIYA K N, WONG J T F, HASHIMOTO Y, et al. Response of microbial communities to biochar amended soils: a critical review[J]. Biochar, 2019, 1:3-22. doi: 10.1007/s42773-019-00009-2
[16]	CHEN H P, WANG P, CHANG J D, et al. Producing Cd-safe rice grains in moderately and seriously Cd contaminated paddy soils[J]. Chemosphere, 2021, 267:128893. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128893 URL
[17]	袁林, 赖星, 杨刚, 等. 钝化材料对镉污染农田原位钝化修复效果研究[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2019, 429(3):90-97.
[18]	周亮, 肖峰, 肖欢, 等. 施用石灰降低污染稻田上双季稻镉积累的效果[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(4):780-791. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.04.010
[19]	YANG Y, LI Y, WANG M, et al. Limestone dosage response of cadmium phytoavailability minimization in rice: A trade-off relationship between soil pH and amorphous manganese content[J]. Journal of hazardous materials, 2021, 403:123664. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123664 URL
[20]	陈思慧, 张亚平, 李飞, 等. 钝化剂联合农艺措施修复镉污染水稻土[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2019, 38(3):563-572.
[21]	CHEN D, YE X, ZHANG Q, et al. The effect of sepiolite application on rice Cd uptake-A two-year field study in Southern China[J]. Journal of environmental management, 2020, 254:109788. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109788 URL
[22]	陶玲, 管天成, 刘瑞珍, 等. 热改性坡缕石对土壤Cd污染的钝化修复研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2021, 40(4):782-790.
[23]	KUMUDUNI N P, SHAHEEN S M, CHEN S S, et al. Soil amendments for immobilization of potentially toxic elements in contaminated soils: A critical review[J]. Environment international, 2020, 134:105046. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105046 URL
[24]	GONG L, WANG J, ABBAS T, et al. Immobilization of exchangeable Cd in soil using mixed amendment and its effect on soil microbial communities under paddy upland rotation system[J]. Chemosphere, 2021, 262:127828. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127828 URL
[25]	HAMID Y, LIN T, WANG X, et al. Immobilization of cadmium and lead in contaminated paddy field using inorganic and organic additives[J]. Scientific reports, 2018, 8:17839. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35881-8 pmid: 30546027
[26]	PAUL A L D, RUFUS LC. 2017. Effect of soil amendments on Cd accumulation by spinach from a Cd-mineralized soil[J]. Journal of environmental quality,2017, 46(4):707. doi: 10.2134/jeq2016.07.0251 URL
[27]	LWIN C S, SEO B H, KIM HU, et al. Application of soil amendments to contaminated soils for heavy metal immobilization and improved soil quality—a critical review[J]. Soil science and plant nutrition, 2018, 64 (2):156-167. doi: 10.1080/00380768.2018.1440938 URL
[28]	RINKLEBE J J, SHAHEEN S M. Miscellaneous additives can enhance plant uptake and affect geochemical fractions of copper in a heavily polluted riparian grassland soil[J]. Ecotoxicology and environmental Safety, 2015, 119:58-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.04.046 pmid: 25968602
[29]	ZHANG M, GAO B, VARNOOSFADERRANI S, et al. Preparation and characterization of a novel magnetic biochar for arsenic removal[J]. Bioresource technology, 2013, 130:457-462. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.11.132 pmid: 23313693
[30]	REHMAN M Z, KHALID H, AKMAL F, et al. Effect of limestone, lignite and biochar applied alone and combined on cadmium uptake in wheat and rice under rotation in an effiuent irrigated field[J]. Environmental pollution, 2017, 227:560-568. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.05.003 URL
[31]	周利军, 武琳, 林小兵, 等. 土壤调理剂对镉污染稻田修复效果[J]. 环境科学, 2019, 40(11):5098-5106.
[32]	李义纯, 王艳红, 陈勇, 等. 基于土壤质量的改良剂修复镉污染稻田综合效果评价[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2021, 40(6):1219-1228.
[33]	DENG X, CHEN Y X, YANG Y, et al. Cadmium accumulation in rice (Oryza sativa L.)alleviated by basal alkaline fertilizers followed by topdressing of manganese fertilizer[J]. Environmental pollution, 2020, 262:114289. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114289 URL
[34]	何赢, 杜平, 石静, 等. 土壤重金属钝化效果评估—基于大田试验的研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2020, 39(8):1734-1740.

指标	诸暨土	越城土	石灰	海泡石	生物炭	钙镁磷肥
有机质/(g/kg)	35.4	47.5	/	/	/	/
速效氮/(mg/kg)	169	184	/	/	/	/
有效磷/(mg/kg)	38.9	36.2	/	/	/	/
阳离子交换量/[cmol₍₊₎/kg]	11.8	17.5	/	/	/	/
黏粒/%	29	32	/	/	/	/
粉砂粒/%	33	58	/	/	/	/
砂粒/%	38	10	/	/	/	/
pH	5.33	5.48	12.47	9.5	9.95	/
Cd/(mg/kg)	0.431	0.405	0.113	0.137	0.195	0.17
Cr/(mg/kg)	45.6	78.9	8.51	7.85	16.1	14.6
Pb/(mg/kg)	28.2	62.1	10.4	9.51	7.30	5.48
Ni/(mg/kg)	23.8	34.5	7.83	2.99	11.9	8.63
Cu/(mg/kg)	24.5	36.2	3.73	13.5	22.8	15.3
Zn/(mg/kg)	99.7	217	10.6	7.87	78.9	/

指标	诸暨土	越城土	石灰	海泡石	生物炭	钙镁磷肥
有机质/(g/kg)	35.4	47.5	/	/	/	/
速效氮/(mg/kg)	169	184	/	/	/	/
有效磷/(mg/kg)	38.9	36.2	/	/	/	/
阳离子交换量/[cmol₍₊₎/kg]	11.8	17.5	/	/	/	/
黏粒/%	29	32	/	/	/	/
粉砂粒/%	33	58	/	/	/	/
砂粒/%	38	10	/	/	/	/
pH	5.33	5.48	12.47	9.5	9.95	/
Cd/(mg/kg)	0.431	0.405	0.113	0.137	0.195	0.17
Cr/(mg/kg)	45.6	78.9	8.51	7.85	16.1	14.6
Pb/(mg/kg)	28.2	62.1	10.4	9.51	7.30	5.48
Ni/(mg/kg)	23.8	34.5	7.83	2.99	11.9	8.63
Cu/(mg/kg)	24.5	36.2	3.73	13.5	22.8	15.3
Zn/(mg/kg)	99.7	217	10.6	7.87	78.9	/

试验地点	处理	产量/(kg/hm²)	变化幅度/%
ZJ	CK	7875±597 ab	—
	LM	7800±578 ab	-0.95
	Sep	8040±655 ab	+2.10
	F1	8425±813 ab	+6.98
	F2	8800±649 ab	+11.8
	F3	7750±608 b	-1.59
YC	CK	8508±748 ab	—
	LM	7838±720 b	-7.88
	Sep	8350±829 ab	-1.85
	F1	7926±783 b	-6.83
	F2	9043±799 ab	+6.29
	F3	9753±839 a	+14.6

试验地点	处理	产量/(kg/hm²)	变化幅度/%
ZJ	CK	7875±597 ab	—
	LM	7800±578 ab	-0.95
	Sep	8040±655 ab	+2.10
	F1	8425±813 ab	+6.98
	F2	8800±649 ab	+11.8
	F3	7750±608 b	-1.59
YC	CK	8508±748 ab	—
	LM	7838±720 b	-7.88
	Sep	8350±829 ab	-1.85
	F1	7926±783 b	-6.83
	F2	9043±799 ab	+6.29
	F3	9753±839 a	+14.6

重金属	试验地点	处理	糙米含量/(mg/kg)	降低幅度/%	土壤DTPA提取态含量/(mg/kg)	降低幅度/%
Cd	ZJ	CK	0.226±0.023 a	—	0.156±0.013 a	—
		LM	0.0694±0.005 c	69.29	0.134±0.013 b	14.10
		Sep	0.0192±0.001 e	91.50	0.128±0.011 bc	17.95
		F1	0.0322±0.002 d	85.75	0.115±0.012 cd	26.28
		F2	0.016±0.001 e	92.92	0.114±0.011 cd	26.92
		F3	0.0227±0.002 de	89.96	0.110±0.009 d	29.49
	YC	CK	0.176±0.015 b	—	0.134±0.012 b	—
		LM	0.0155±0.001 e	91.19	0.107±0.009 d	20.15
		Sep	0.0193±0.002 e	89.03	0.111±0.009 cd	17.16
		F1	0.0157±0.001 e	91.08	0.114±0.010 cd	14.93
		F2	0.0222±0.002 de	87.39	0.111±0.009 cd	17.16
		F3	0.0126±0.001 e	92.84	0.098±0.009 d	26.87
Cr	ZJ	CK	1.11±0.105 a	—	0.0237±0.002 a	—
		LM	0.952±0.074 ab	14.23	0.00795±0.007 c	66.46
		Sep	0.854±0.046 b	23.06	0.00965±0.007 b	59.28
		F1	0.902±0.085 b	18.74	0.0077±0.001 c	67.51
		F2	0.783±0.056 b	29.46	0.00755±0.001 c	68.14
		F3	0.872±0.069 b	21.44	0.00945±0.001 b	60.13
	YC	CK	1.21±0.111 a	—	0.0101±0.00091 b	—
		LM	1.05±0.099 ab	13.22	0.00335±0.0002 g	66.83
		Sep	0.925±0.085 b	23.55	0.0054±0.0003 e	46.53
		F1	0.800±0.059 b	33.88	0.00625±0.0002 d	38.12
		F2	0.837±0.073 b	30.83	0.00306±0.0001 g	69.70
		F3	0.788±0.085 b	34.88	0.00368±0.0001 f	63.56
Pb	ZJ	CK	0.0893±0.005 a	—	5.46±0.346 d	—
		LM	0.0591±0.004 bc	33.82	3.32±0.222 e	39.19
		Sep	0.0531±0.004 cd	40.54	3.21±0.164 e	41.21
		F1	0.0662±0.005 bc	25.87	3.21±0.158 e	41.21
		F2	0.0537±0.005 cd	39.87	3.10±0.139 e	43.22
		F3	0.0564±0.004 cd	36.84	3.19±0.101 e	41.58
	YC	CK	0.0819±0.006 a	—	28.8±2.34 a	—
		LM	0.0607±0.005 bc	25.89	14.9±1.02 c	48.26
		Sep	0.0462±0.005 d	43.59	14.8±1.33 c	48.61
		F1	0.0569±0.006 cd	30.53	13.2±1.07 c	54.17
		F2	0.0518±0.006 cd	36.75	20.3±1.99 b	29.51
		F3	0.046±0.004 d	43.83	19.3±1.87 b	32.99