4.7 Article

Soil quality indicators response to application of hydrophilic polymers to a soil from a sulfide mine

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 192, 期 3, 页码 1836-1841

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.07.020

关键词

Factor analysis; Polyacrylate polymers; Sulfide mine; Soil quality; Plant growth; Soil cover

资金

  1. foundation for Science and Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In soils impacted by mining activities a vegetal cover is required to protect the site from the erosive forces of water and wind. The success of this objective depends on plant establishment and canopy closure. Polyacryalate polymers aid the growth of crops and indigenous plants in soils from sulfide mines. Soil characteristics change as a consequence of polymer application, but indicators that pinpoint these changes have not been identified yet. Our objectives were to (1) identify the sensitive indicators of changes in soil quality following polymer application. (2) relate these with assessment based on plant growth and soil cover. A mine soil was left unamended or received a characterized polyacrylate, a polyacrylate removed from diapers, or shredded diapers. Biomass of Spergularia purpurea was measured and proportion of soil cover evaluated. Soil enzymes, microbial activity, and respiration were analyzed. Availability of potentially toxic trace elements was estimated by their concentration in shoots. Factor analysis identified three factors that accounted for 94% of the variation in parameters, and the scores separated the four treatments. The indicators with greatest communality were correlated with plant growth and soil cover. The best soil quality indicators were As and Zn in shoots, protease, beta-glucosidase, and fructose-induced respiration. It seems that the most important indicators to be used to assess the restoration of sulfide mine soils are those related with bioavailability of trace elements and soil enzymatic activities. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据