4.7 Article

Distribution and transformation of lead in rice plants grown in contaminated soil amended with biochar and lime

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 165, 期 -, 页码 589-596

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.09.039

关键词

Biochar; Lime; Lead; Rice; Transformation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1305232]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the effects of rice straw biochar and lime (RBL) on the remediation of lead (Pb)-contaminated soil and mitigation of Pb translocation in rice plants by using pot experiments. Lead-contaminated soil collected from a farmland near a Pb-zinc (Zn) mine, biochar, limestone powder, and indica rice (Oryza sativa L.) were used in the present study. The experimental treatments included: (1) control (CK), (2) 2.5% biochar (RB1), (3) 5% biochar (RB2), (4) 0.6% lime (L1), (5) 1.2% lime (L2), (6) 2.5% biochar + 0.6% lime (RBL1), and (7) 2.5% biochar + 1.2% lime (RBL2). The results revealed that the treatment with RBL was more efficient than the treatment with only biochar or lime in decreasing CaCl2-extractable Pb content in the soil by increasing soil pH and soluble sulfate content in the soil. Treatment with RBL reduced in the accumulation of Pb in the shoot of rice plants, this was mainly attributed to the decrease in the concentration of available Pb in the soil. The RBL2 treatment not only decreased the concentration of Pb in brown rice by 84.33% and Pb distribution in rice embryo, but also increased rice yield by 53.38% from that of the control. Further, unlike biochar treatment, RBL and lime treatments decreased the translocation of Pb in rice plants. The RBL treatment increased the proportion of Pb distributed in the cell wall and reduced the mobility of Pb in plant tissues. Thus, application of biochar and lime in combination is more effective than their individual application in reducing the availability of Pb in the soil and Pb accumulation in brown rice.

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