Abstract
Effluents discharged from various industries contain heavy metals. They reach the environment and affect the quality of air, water and soil. Though they are needed in trace quantities for living organisms, they become toxic when they exceed the threshold concentrations. Hence the present study has been designed to test the efficiency of
Author Contributions
Copyright© 2020
Devi S Yamuna, et al.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Competing interests The authors declare that they have n competing interests, which may have inappropriate influenced them in writing this article.
Funding Interests:
Citation:
Introduction
Several heavy metals are well known not only for their applications but also for their toxicity. Industrial effluents with heavy metals are directly released into the environment without proper treatment. These toxic substances affect the quality of soil as well as water bodies and ultimately damage the living organisms including human beings through the food chain Plants have the potential to accrue the essential metals like Ca, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Ni, Zn and so on from the soil. The requirement and type of metals needed for growth and development may vary depending upon the plants. This property helps the plants to accrue some of the non-essential metals like Cd, Cr, Hg, U and so on, even though they don’t have any known biological functions The essential heavy metal, zinc is required for higher plants and animals including human beings as a primary mineral Phytoremediation is one of the most promising practices in recent times. It is most commonly used because of its cost-effective and environment friendly nature. In this, plants and their allied microorganisms are used to recover the polluted soils, sediments and ground water
Materials And Methods
10 g of air-dried and thoroughly processed soil sample was weighed. It was transferred to a 100 mL narrow mouth polyethylene/ polypropylene bottle or 100 mL conical flask. To this 20 mL of the DTPA-extracting solution was added. The bottle or flask has been subjected to shaking by electric shaker for exactly two hours at 25°C. Later, the contents of the flask were filtered through Whatman No.1 or 42 filter paper ensuring that the filtrate is free of colloidal matter. Then the filtrate was analysed for Zn, Cu, Fe and Mn with an atomic absorption spectrophotometer The plants that were removed from the soil after 60 days of zinc treatment were taken separately. Root and shoot portions were separated and the samples were washed immediately under running tap water in order to make them free from dust or any other adhering substance. Subsequently, these samples were washed with acidified distilled water (1mL concentrated HCl/litre) followed by thorough rinsing of sample twice with distilled water. After washing, the excess water in the samples was blotted by placing them in the folds of filter paper. The samples for various concentrations of zinc were dried as rapidly as possible so as to reduce chemical and biological changes to a minimum. Samples were dried in a hot air oven at 70°C for 24 to 36 hrs. Care was taken to ensure that the plant samples were not bunched together in oven. The oven dried samples were ground using a mortar and pestle. After grinding, the leaf samples were mixed thoroughly and transferred to polyethylene bags labeled clearly and stored in room free of dust and soil. Wet digestion was performed for digesting the samples.
Results
In the present study, metal extractant capacity of The concentrations of manganese and iron in soil exposed to different concentrations of zinc sulphate and treatment with The uptake of metals in the above ground parts of Two way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for different tested factors was done at the end of the present study to find out the statistical significance of the variations. The variations in iron concentration in soil treated with
ZnSo4 concentration (ppm)
Zn concentration (ppm)
Metal uptake (ppm)
Cu
Zn
Fe
Mn
0
0
90
90
185
10
100
22.71
85
90
185
0
200
45.42
90
90
185
0
300
68.14
105
90
185
0
400
90.85
125
90
185
0
500
113.56
140
90
185
0
ZnSo4 concentration (ppm)
Zn concentration (ppm)
Metal uptake (ppm)
Cu
Zn
Fe
Mn
0
0
40
90
185
0
100
22.71
40
90
185
0
200
45.42
40
90
185
0
300
68.14
40
90
185
0
400
90.85
40
90
185
0
500
113.56
40
90
185
0
ZnSo4 concentration (ppm)
OD value at
Chlorophyll amount
645nm
663nm
Chlorophyll a
Chlorophyll b
Total
0
0.559
0.996
0.0111
0.0081
0.0192
100
0.276
0.639
0.0073
0.0033
0.0106
200
0.669
1.590
0.0183
0.0078
0.0262
300
0.706
1.602
0.0184
0.0086
0.0271
400
0.332
0.752
0.0086
0.0040
0.0127
500
0.642
1.518
0.0289
0.0076
0.0251
Sl.No
Microbial colony
Number of colonies in control soil which is not exposed to Zn (cfu/ml)
Number of colonies in control soil exposed to high concentration of Zn (cfu/ml)
1
Bacteria
2.4 x 108
1.8 x 108
2
Fungi
1.3 x 106
0.6 x 106
3
Actinomycetes
1.8 x 105
1.2 x 105
Factor
Source of Variation
Sum of Squares
Degrees of Freedom
Mean Sum of Squares
Calculated F Value
Table F Value
Level of Significance
Iron
Zinc Concentration
10.591
5
2.118
1.0828
2.901
Not Significant
Treatment Period
83.227
3
27.742
14.181
3.287
Significant P < 0.05
Copper
Zinc Concentration
13.804
5
2.761
3.292
2.901
Significant P < 0.05
Treatment Period
15.448
3
5.149
6.140
3.287
Significant P < 0.05
Zinc
Zinc Concentration
39.522
5
7.904
32.903
2.901
Significant P< 0.05
Treatment Period
12.223
3
4.074
16.960
3.287
Significant P< 0.05
Manganese
Zinc Concentration
6.454
5
1.291
0.873
2.901
Not Significant
Treatment Period
283.375
3
94.458
63.881
3.287
Significant P < 0.05
Percent Removal of Zinc
Zinc Concentration
635.659
4
158.915
79.543
3.259
Significant P< 0.05
Treatment Period
45.914
3
15.305
7.661
3.490
Significant P< 0.05
Discussion
The heavy metals like zinc, cadmium, copper, lead and others are subsequently added in to the soil through various human activities. Vast utilization of pesticides and fertilizers in agriculture spoils the nature of soil and ultimately its results in soil contamination. Like that, release of industrial effluents and dumping of waste materials are also the major reasons for soil pollution. These kinds of activities not only affect the nature of soil and also affect the quality of ground water and other surrounding water bodies. Due to the uptake of heavy metals by plants from the contaminated soil at the time of their growth and development, heavy metals enter in to the animals including human beings through the food chain Various methods are employed in order to recover the contaminated soils. Among them, phytoremediation is considered as one of the most economic as well as eco-friendly methods Plants should possess high level of translocate ability of elements from roots to shoots. Metal concentration in roots is normally more than in the shoots, but in hyperaccumullator plants, shoot metal concentration can exceed root levels Various factors are responsible for the success of phytoremediation. At the time of accumulation of more metals, the plants must produce adequate amount of biomass. In hyperaccumulator plants, the metals are concentrated in their aerial portions in huge level when compared with the level of metal accumulation in soil. These plants have the potential to accumulate more amounts of contaminants in different parts of the plant. Metal hyperaccumulator as plants contain more than or up to 0.1% of Cu, Cd, Cr, Pb, Ni or 1% of Zn or manganese in dry matter
Conclusion
The tomato plants were able to take up metals like Cu, Zn and Fe from the soil both in the above ground and below ground parts. The chlorophyll content of the leaves of the plants was not affected during zinc treatment. These plants can be used as a means of phytoremediation of soil contaminated with heavy metals.