The Ameliorating Effect of Poultry Manure and Its Biochar on Petroleum-Contaminated Soil Remediation at Two Times of Cultivation
Subject Areas : Journal of Chemical Health RisksMaryam Barati 1 , Sedigheh Safarzadeh 2 , Dariush Mowla 3 , Fereshteh Bakhtiari 4 , Amirhossein Najafian 5 , Fateh Tavakoli 6
1 - Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Shahid Rajaee, Shiraz Branch, Technical and Vocational University, Shiraz, Iran
2 - Department of Soil Science, School of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
3 - Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Department, School of Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
4 - Department of Chemical Engineering, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran
5 - Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
6 - Bandar Abbas Oil Refining Company, Bandar Abbas, Iran
Keywords: Poultry manure, Biochar, plants, Total petroleum hydrocarbon, Time of phytoremediation,
Abstract :
To investigate the effect of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) contamination levels, organic fertilizers (poultry manure (PM) and poultry manure derived biochar (PMB)) and time of cultivation on growth characteristics of Oat (Avena sativa)and barley (Hordeum vulgare) in TPHs-contaminated soil, a pot experiment was conducted. The two studied plants had the potential for soil phytoremediation in highly TPHs contaminated soil; however, the plant growth decreased significantly with increasing the TPHs contamination. A high TPHs content had a toxicity effect on plant growth and degradation of TPHs. The results showed that the best degradation was achieved in the lowest TPHs level for soil cultivated with barleyplant and the degradation of TPHs increased by adding fertilizer. According to the results in TPHs contaminated soil samples, the highest average of relative growth rate (RGR) of roots observed in barley plants as compared to the oat plants. Also, at each period of growth, barley plants showed an increased root/shoot ratio in TPHs contaminated soil compared to the oat plants (27.6% after 10 weeks and 64.17% after 20 weeks). Application of PMB improved mean shoot height, mean root, and shoot weight by about 17.25, 52.7, and 33.88% for oat plants, and 4, 10.23, and 46.28% for barely plants compared to the un-amended treatments, respectively. The most degradation was achieved after 20 weeks for PMB treatment with barley plant at the lowest TPHs level (53.41%) in which oat degraded more than 45% of TPHs from the soil. Generally, the results showed that phytoremediation of TPHs can be affected by different factors such as type of plant, type of fertilizer application, and period of remediation.
1. Huang X.D., El-Alawi Y., Gurska J., Glick B.R., Greenberg B.M., 2005. A multi-process phytoremediation system for decontamination of persistent total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) from soils. Microchem J. 81(1), 139-147.
2. Merkl N., Schultze-Kraft R., Infante C., 2005. Phytoremediation in the tropics–influence of heavy crude oil on root morphological characteristics of graminoids. Environ Pollut. 138(1), 86-91.
3. Zhou, Q.X., Song, Y.F., 2004. Remediation of contaminated soils: principles and methods. Sci Press. 7,345-346.
4. Wang Z., Xu Y., Zhao J., Li F., Gao D., Xing B., 2011. Remediation of petroleum contaminated soils through composting and rhizosphere degradation. J Hazard Mater. 190(1-3), 677-685.
5. Redondo-Gómez S., Mateos-Naranjo E., Vecino-Bueno I., Feldman S.R., 2011. Accumulation and tolerance characteristics of chromium in a cordgrass Cr-hyperaccumulator, Spartina argentinensis. J Hazard Mater. 185(2-3), 862-869.
6. Qiu X., Leland T.W., Shah S.I., Sorensen D.L., and Kendall E.W. 1997. Field study: Grass remediation for clay soil contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. In: Phytoremediation of Soil and Water Contaminants, ACS Symposium Series 664, pp. 186–199. (Kruger, E.L., Anderson, T.A., and Coats, J.R., Eds.) Washington, DC, American Chemical Society.
Qiu, X., Leland, T.W., Shah, S.I., Sorensen, D.L., and Kendall, E.W. 1997. Field study: Grass remedi-
ation for clay soil contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. In: Phytoremediation
of Soil and Water Contaminants, ACS Symposium Series 664, pp. 186–199. (Kruger, E.L.,
Anderson, T.A., and Coats, J.R., Eds.) Washington, DC, American Chemical Society.
Qiu, X., Leland, T.W., Shah, S.I., Sorensen, D.L., and Kendall, E.W. 1997. Field study: Grass remedi-
ation for clay soil contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. In: Phytoremediation
of Soil and Water Contaminants, ACS Symposium Series 664, pp. 186–199. (Kruger, E.L.,
Anderson, T.A., and Coats, J.R., Eds.) Washington, DC, American Chemical Society.
Qiu, X., Leland, T.W., Shah, S.I., Sorensen, D.L., and Kendall, E.W. 1997. Field study: Grass remedi-
ation for clay soil contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. In: Phytoremediation
of Soil and Water Contaminants, ACS Symposium Series 664, pp. 186–199. (Kruger, E.L.,
Anderson, T.A., and Coats, J.R., Eds.) Washington, DC, American Chemical Society.
7. Gaskin S., Soole K., Bentham R., 2008. Screening of Australian native grasses for rhizoremediation of aliphatic hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. Int J Phytorem. 10(5), 378-389.
8. Günther T., Dornberger U., Fritsche W., 1996. Effects of ryegrass on biodegradation of hydrocarbons in soil. Chemosphere. 33(2), 203-215.
9. Kamath R., Rentz J.A., Schnoor J.L., Alvarez P.J.J., 2004. Phytoremediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils: principles and applications. Stud Surf Sci Catal. 151,447-478.
10. Tang J.C., Wang R.G., Niu X.W., Wang M., Chu H.R., Zhou Q.X., 2010. Characterisation of the rhizoremediation of petroleum-contaminated soil: effect of different influencing factors. Biogeosciences. 7(12), 3961-3969.
11. Pratt P.F., Chapman H.D., 1961. Methods of Analysis for Soils, Plants and Water. Univerisity of California. pp.60
12. Thomas G.W., 1996. Soil pH and soil acidity. Methods of soil analysis: part 3 Chemical Methods. 5, 475-490.
13. Rhoades J.D., 1996. Salinity: electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids. In: Sparks D.L., editors. Method of soil analysis, Part III. 3rd ed. Madison (WI): ASA and SSSA. 417–436.
14. Gee G.W., Bauder J.W., 1996.Particle size analysis – hydrometer method. In: Sparks DL, et al. editor. Methods of soil analysis. Part III. 3rd ed. Madison (WI): ASA and SSSA. 383–411.
15. Sumner M.E., Miller W.P., 1996. Cation exchange capacity and exchange coefficients. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 3 Chemical Methods. 5, 1201-1229.
16. Nelson D.W., Sommers L.E., 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. Methods of soil analysis: Part 3 Chemical Methods. 5, 961-1010.
17. Bremner J.M., 1996. Nitrogen‐total. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 3. Chemical Methods. 5, 1085-1121.
18. Lindsay W.L., Norwel W.A., 1978. Development of DTPA Soil Test For Zink, Iron, Manganase and Copper. Soil Sci Soc of Amer Journal. 42, 421-428.
19. Minai-Tehrani D., Herfatmanesh A., 2007. Biodegradation of aliphatic and aromatic fractions of heavy crude oil–contaminated soil: A pilot study. Biorem J. 11(2), 71-76.
20. Banks M.K., Kulakow P., Schwab A.P., Chen Z., Rathbone K., 2003. Degradation of crude oil in the rhizosphere of Sorghum bicolor. Int J Phytorem. 5(3),225-234.
21. Adam G., Duncan H.J., 1999. Effect of diesel fuel on growth of selected plant species. Environ. Geochem. Health. 21(4), 353-357.
22. Chupakhina G.N., Maslennikov P.V., 2004. Plant adaptation to oil stress. Russ J Ecol. 35(5), 290-295.
23. Ogboghodo I.A., Iruaga E.K., Osemwota I.O. and Chokor J.U., 2004. An assessment of the effects of crude oil pollution on soil properties, germination and growth of maize (Zea mays) using two crude types–Forcados light and Escravos light. Environ Monit Assess. 96(1-3), 143-152.
24. Amadi A., Dickson A.A., Maate G.O., 1993. Remediation of oil polluted soils: 1. Effect of organic and inorganic nutrient supplements on the performance of maize (Zea may L.). Water Air Soil Pollut. 66(1-2), 59-76.
25. Xu J.G., Johnson R.L., 1997. Nitrogen dynamics in soils with different hydrocarbon contents planted to barley and field pea. Can J Soil Sci. 77(3), 453-458.
26. Schwendinger R.B., 1968. Reclamation of soil contaminated with oil. J Inst Petrol. 54, 182-197.
27. Issoufi I., Rhykerd R.L., Smiciklas K.D., 2006. Seedling growth of agronomic crops in crude oil contaminated soil. J Agron Crop Sci. 192(4), 310-317.
28. Hutchinson S.L., Schwab A.P., Banks M.K., 2001. Phytoremediation of aged petroleum sludge: effect of irrigation techniques and scheduling. J Environ Qual. 30(5), 1516.
29. Bossert I., Bartha R., 1985. Plant growth in soils with a history of oily sludge disposal. Soil Sci. 140(1), 75-77.
30. Penã-Castro J.M., Barrera-Figueroa B.E., Fernández-Linares L., Ruiz-Medrano R., Xoconostle-Cázares B., 2006. Isolation and identification of up-regulated genes in bermudagrass roots (Cynodon dactylon L.) grown under petroleum hydrocarbon stress. Plant Sci. 170(4), 724-731.
31. De Jong E., 1980. The effect of a crude oil spill on cereals. Environ. Pollut. Series A, Ecological and Biological. 22(3), 187-196.
32. Martınez-Galera M., López-López T., Gil-Garcıa M.D., Martınez-Vidal J.L., Vázquez P.P., 2001. Determination of benzoylureas in tomato by high-performance liquid chromatography using continuous on-line post-elution photoirradiation with fluorescence detection. J Chromatogr A. 918(1), 79-85.
33. Pezeshki S.R., DeLaune R.D., Jugsujinda A., 2001. The effects of crude oil and the effectiveness of cleaner application following oiling on US Gulf of Mexico coastal marsh plants. Environ Pollut. 112(3), 483-489.
34. Chaineau C.H., Morel J.L., Oudot J., 1997. Phytotoxicity and plant uptake of fuel oil hydrocarbons. J Environ Qual. 26(6), 1478-1483.
35. Liste H.H., Felgentreu D., 2006. Crop growth, culturable bacteria, and degradation of petrol hydrocarbons (PHCs) in a long-term contaminated field soil. Applied Soil Ecology. 31(1-2),43-52.
36. Cheema S.A., Khan M.I., Tang X., Zhang C., Shen C., Malik Z., Ali S., Yang J., Shen K., Chen X., Chen Y., 2009. Enhancement of phenanthrene and pyrene degradation in rhizosphere of tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea). J Hazard Mater. 166(2-3), 1226-1231.
37. Cheema S.A., Khan M.I., Shen C., Tang X., Farooq M., Chen L., Zhang C., Chen Y., 2010. Degradation of phenanthrene and pyrene in spiked soils by single and combined plants cultivation. J Hazard Mater. 177(1-3), 384-389.
38. Cutright T.J., 1995. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon biodegradation and kinetics using Cunninghamella echinulata var. elegans. Int Biodeter Biodegr. 35(4),397-408.
39. Steffensen W.S., Alexander M., 1995. Role of competition for inorganic nutrients in the biodegradation of mixtures of substrates. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 61(8), 2859-2862.
40. Lin Q., Mendelssohn I.A., 1998. The combined effects of phytoremediation and biostimulation in enhancing habitat restoration and oil degradation of petroleum contaminated wetlands. Ecolo Eng. 10(3), 263-274.
41. Kaimi E., Mukaidani T., Tamaki M., 2007. Screening of twelve plant species for phytoremediation of petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. Plant Prod Sci. 10(2), 211-218.
42. Steinbeiss S., Gleixner G., Antonietti M., 2009. Effect of biochar amendment on soil carbon balance and soil microbial activity. Soil Biol Biochem. 41(6), 1301-1310.
43. Cunningham S.D., Anderson T.A., Schwab A.P., Hsu F.C., 1996. Phytoremediation of soils contaminated with organic pollutants. Adv Agron. 56(1), 55-114.
44. Kroening S.J., Leung D.W.M., Greenfield L.G., Galilee C., 2001. Losses of diesel oil by volatilisation and effects of diesel oil on seed germination and seedling growth. Environ Tech. 22(9), 1113-1117.
45. Nedunuri K.V., Govindaraju R.S., Banks M.K., Schwab A.P., Chen Z., 2000. Evaluation of phytoremediation for field-scale degradation of total petroleum hydrocarbons. J Environ Eng. 126(6), 483-490.
46. Hou F.S.L., Milke M.W., Leung D.W.M., MacPherson D.J., 2001. Variations in phytoremediation performance with diesel-contaminated soil. Environ Tech. 22(2), 215-222.
47. Chen B., Yuan M., 2011. Enhanced sorption of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by soil amended with biochar. J Soils Sediments. 11(1), 62-71.
48. Oleszczuk P., Jośko I., Futa B., Pasieczna-Patkowska S., Pałys E., Kraska P., 2014. Effect of pesticides on microorganisms, enzymatic activity and plant in biochar-amended soil. Geoderma. 214, 10-18.
49. Uchimiya M., Lima I.M., Klasson K.T., Wartelle L.H., 2010. Contaminant immobilization and nutrient release by biochar soil amendment: roles of natural organic matter. Chemosphere. 80(8), 935-940.
50. Ogbonnaya U., Semple K.T., 2013. Impact of biochar on organic contaminants in soil: a tool for mitigating risk? Agron. 3(2), 349-375.
51. Karhu K., Mattila T., Bergström I., Regina K., 2011. Biochar addition to agricultural soil increased CH4 uptake and water holding capacity–Results from a short-term pilot field study. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 140(1-2), 309-313.
52. Beesley L., Moreno-Jiménez E., Gomez-Eyles J.L., Harris E., Robinson B., Sizmur T., 2011. A review of biochars’ potential role in the remediation, revegetation and restoration of contaminated soils. Environ Pollut. 159(12), 3269-3282.
53. Qin G., Gong D., Fan M.Y., 2013. Bioremediation of petroleum-contaminated soil by biostimulation amended with biochar. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegradation. 85, 150-155.
54. Liu W., Luo Y., Teng Y., Li Z., Ma L.Q., 2010. Bioremediation of oily sludge-contaminated soil by stimulating indigenous microbes. Environmental Geochem. Health. 32(1), 23-29.