Phytoremediation of Mercury-Contaminated Soil Using Three Wild Plant Species and Its Effect on Maize Growth

N. Muddarisna¹, B.D. Krisnayanti^{2, 3}, S.R. Utami³ and E. Handayanto^3,

¹Postgraduate Program, University of Brawijaya, Jl. Veteran, Malang, Indonesia

²Department of Soil Science, University of Mataram, Jl. Pendidikan, Mataram, Indonesia

³IRC-MEDMIND, University of Brawijaya, Jl. Veteran, Malang, Indonesia

Cite this paper:
N. Muddarisna, B.D. Krisnayanti, S.R. Utami and E. Handayanto. Phytoremediation of Mercury-Contaminated Soil Using Three Wild Plant Species and Its Effect on Maize Growth. Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences. 2013; 1(3):27-32. doi: 10.12691/aees-1-3-1

Abstract

In West Lombok- Indonesia, gold amalgamation tailings are commonly discharged to agricultural lands resulting in reduced maize yield in the area. Phytoremediation can represent a low-cost alternative to traditional techniques such as soil removal. This study was aimed to elucidate the potential of Lindernia crustacea (L.) F., Paspalum conjugatum L., and Cyperus kyllingia Endl., for phytoremediation of mercury-contaminated soils in conjunction with the ammonium thiosulphate to phytoextract mercury and its effect on maize growth. Each of the plant seedlings was planted in a plastic pot containing 15kg of mercury-contaminated soil for 9 weeks. Treatments tested were three plant species), and two rates of ammonium thiosulphate application, i.e. 0 and 8g / kg of soil. Ammonium thiosulphate was applied one week before harvesting the plants. At harvest (9 weeks) shoots and roots were analyzed for mercury concentration. The remaining soils in the pots were used to grow maize for 8 weeks. The results showed that on average, the addition of ammonium thiosulphate increased the accumulation of mercury in plant shoots and roots by 82% and 47%, respectively, compared to the media without addition of ammonium thiosulphate. In comparison to the control treatment, the average increase of dry weight of maize (shoot+root) grown on media previously remediated with three plant species with addition of ammonium thiosulphate was 40%, while that grown on media previously remediated with three plant species without addition of ammonium thiosulphate was 62%.

Keywords:
lindernia crustacea paspalum conjugatum cyperus kyllingia phytoremediation mercury ammonium thiosulphate

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Figures

References:

[1]	Aspinall, C, Small-scale mining in Indonesia. International Institute for Environment and Development and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, England, September, 2001.
[2]	Veiga, M.M., Maxson, P.A. and Hylander, L.D, “Origin and consumption of mercury in small-scale gold mining”, Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 436-447, January, 2006.
[3]	Hylander, L.D., Plath, D., Miranda, C.R., Lucke, S., Ohlander, J. and Rivera, A.T.F, “Comparison of different gold recovery methods with regard to pollution control and efficiency”, Clean 35, 52-61, February, 2007.
[4]	Wuana, R.A. and Okieimen, F.E, “Heavy metals in contaminated soils: a review of sources, chemistry, risks and best available strategies for remediation”, ISRN Ecology 11, 1-19, August, 2011.
[5]	Fasani, E, Plants that hyperaccumalte Heavy Metals. In. Plants and Heavy Metals. A. Furini (ed). SpringerBriefs in Biometals, pp 55-74, April, 2012.
[6]	Banuelos, G.S. and Dhillon, K.S, “Developing a sustainable phytomanagement strategy for excessive selenium in Western United States and India”, International Journal of Phytoremediation 13, Suppl 1, 208-228, April, 2011.
[7]	Pedron, F., Petruzzelli, G., Barbafieri, M., Tassi, E., Ambrosini, P., and Patata, L, “Mercury mobilization in a contaminated industrial soil for phytoremediation”, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 42 (22), 2767-2777, November, 2011.
[8]	Lin, C., Zhu, T., Liu, T. and Wang, D, “Influences of major nutrient elements on Pb accumulation of two crops from a Pb-contaminated soil”, Journal of Hazardeous Materials 174 (1-3), 2002-2008, February, 2010.
[9]	Baya, A.P. and Van Heyst, B, “Assessing the trends and effects of environmental parameters on the behaviour of mercury in the lower atmosphere over cropped land over four seasons”, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 10, 8617-8628, September, 2010.
[10]	Lomonte, C., Doronila, A.I., Gregory, D., Baker, A.J.M., and Kolev, S.D, “Phytotoxicity of biosolids and screening of selected plant species with potential for mercury phytoextraction”, Journal of Hazardeous Materials 173 (1-3), 494-501, January, 2010.
[11]	Bhargava, A., Carmona, F.F., Bhargava, M., and Srivastava, S, “Approaches for enhanced phytoextraction of heavy metals”, Journal of Environmental Management 105, 103-120, August, 2012.
[12]	Slowey, A.J, “Rate of formation and dissolution of mercury sulfide nanoparticles: The dual role of natural organic matter”, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 74 (16), 4683-4708, August, 2010.
[13]	Hooda, P.S, Trace Elements in Soils, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, April, 2010.
[14]	Muddarisna, N., Krisnayanti, B.D., Utami, S.R. and Handayanto, E, “The potential of wild plants for phytoremediation of soil contaminated with mercury of gold cyanidation tailings”, IOSR Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology 4 (1), 15-19, May, 2013.
[15]	Wang, J., X, Feng, X. and C.W.N. Anderson, C.W.N, “Thiosulphate assisted phytoextraction of mercury (Hg) contaminated soils at the Wanshan mercury mining district, Southwest China” in Environmental, Socio-economic, and Health Impacst of Artisanal and Small-Scale Minings. E. Handayanto, B.D. Krisnayanti and Suhartini (eds). p 67-76. UB Press, Malang, Indonesia, February, 2012.
[16]	Rascio, N. and Navari-Izzo, F, “Heavy metal hyperaccumulating plants: How and why do they do it? And what makes them so interesting?”, Plant Science 180 (2), 169-181, February, 2011.
[17]	Nagajyoti, P.C., Lee, K.D. and Sreekanth, T.V.M, “Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: a review” Environmental Chemistry Letters 8 (3), 199-216, June, 2010.
[18]	Selin, N.E, “Global Biogeochemical Cycling of Mercury: A Review", Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34, 43-63, November, 2009.
[19]	Moreno, F.N., Anderson, C.W.N., Robinson, B.H. and Stewart, R.B, “Phytoremediation of mercury-contaminated mine tailings by induced plant-Hg accumulation”, Environmental Practice 6 (2), 165-175, June, 2004.
[20]	Moldovan, O.T., Meleg, I.N., Levei, E. and Terente, M, “A simple method for assessing biotic indicators and predicting biodiversity in the hyporheic zone of a river polluted with metals”, Ecological Indicators 24, 412-420, January, 2013.
[21]	Chen, J. and Yang, Z.M, “Mercury toxicity, molecular response and tolerance in higher plants”, BioMetals, 25 (5), 847-857, October, 2012.
[22]	Hinkelmann, K, Design and analysis of experiment, volume 3 Speciel design and applications. John Willey & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, New Jersy, 2012.