Assessment of the effects of Cr, Cu, Ni and Pb soil contamination by ecotoxicological tests

Abstract

This study aimed to assess soil quality by chemical and ecotoxicological investigations and to check the correspondence between soil metal concentrations and ecotoxicity. For these purposes, surface soils collected at four adjacent roadside urban parks and at a former industrial area were characterized for C/N, organic matter content, texture, and pH. Cr, Cu, Ni and Pb, chosen among the most representative soil metal contaminants, were measured as total content and as available and water soluble fractions. In addition, the total concentrations of the investigated metals were used to calculate two chemical indices: the contamination and the potential ecological risk factors. The toxicity of the investigated soils was evaluated by an ecotoxicity test battery carried out on both soil samples (Vibrio fischeri, Heterocypris incongruens and Sinapis alba) and elutriates (Vibrio fischeri, Daphnia magna and Selenastrum capricornutum). The findings, both by the chemical and ecotoxicological approaches, would suggest that the soils with high metal contamination pose ecological risks. On the other hand, moderately metal contaminated soils did not exclude soil ecotoxicity. In fact, toxic effects were also highlighted in soils with low metal content, toxicity being affected by metal availability and soil characteristics. Moreover, the results suggest the importance of using a battery of tests to assess soil ecotoxicity.

Geochemistry and environmental threats of soils surrounding an abandoned mercury mine

“…In contrast, the growth inhibition of the microalgae R. subcapitata showed an extreme sensitivity that correlated significantly with Zn content in water extracts (r = 0.996, p < 0.01). Consequently, tests with algae estimated the lowest EC50 values for all samples and became the most metal-sensitive among the aquatic ecotoxicity tests applied, as previously reported by Maisto et al (2011) andde Paiva Magalhães et al (2014). D. magna was moderately affected by water extracts, showing significant correlations with their pH (r = -0.913, p < 0.01) and Pb contents (r = 0.94, p < 0.01).…”

“…D. magna was moderately affected by water extracts, showing significant correlations with their pH (r = -0.913, p < 0.01) and Pb contents (r = 0.94, p < 0.01). Samples A3 and A5 caused no mortality to the crustaceans while extremely high toxicity was observed for samples A2, A4 and A6, thus becoming more sensitive than V. fischeri to this type of contamination (Alvarenga et al 2013) but not as metal-sensitive as algal growth rate (Maisto et al 2011). As expected, bioassays with fish were the least sensitive among all tested species due to their particular resistance to most metals (de Paiva Magalhães et al 2014).…”

“…The observed toxic effects in the bacterial bioluminescence inhibition assay were not sufficient to estimate EC50 values for samples A1, A3, A5 and A7 whereas extracts A2 and A4 were very toxic and A6 presented moderate toxicity. The lesser sensitivity of V. fischeri luminescence towards leachates from mine soils was previously documented (Alvarenga et al 2008;Maisto et al 2011) and might be related with the pH correction of the leachate suggested by standard methods (Alvarenga et al 2013). In contrast, the growth inhibition of the microalgae R. subcapitata showed an extreme sensitivity that correlated significantly with Zn content in water extracts (r = 0.996, p < 0.01).…”

“…More recently, it was concluded that chemical extractions of metals from multi-contaminated soils did not provide enough information about their bioavailable fractions (Alexander 2000;Ehlers and Luthy 2003;Semple et al 2004;Harmsen 2007) and were not able to reflect the toxicity of all substances in soil, their synergic and antagonistic effects and their interactions with the soil matrix and organisms (Gruiz 2005). In this context, th e application of batteries of terrestrial ecotoxicity tests gained special relevance as complementary, inexpensive, simple and quick tools able to report realistic and nonoverestimated effects of contaminated sites to soil organisms (Leitgib et al 2007;Alvarenga et al 2008;Maisto et al 2011;Alvarenga et al 2012;Agnieszka et al 2014;Bes et al 2014;. At the same time, aquatic bioassays traditionally applied for the toxicity determination of aquatic pollutants (Lopez-Roldan et al 2012), industrial effluents (Riva et al 1993;Riva and Valles 1994;Riva et al 2007) or extracts of sediments (Pereira-Miranda et al 2011) were incorporated to assess the impacts of soil composition and runoffs on receiving waters (Loureiro et al 2005a;Rocha et al 2011).…”

Review of the Extraction Methods of Soil Extracts, Soil Elutriates, and Soil Suspensions for Ecotoxicity Assessments

“…매체로서 토양공극수(Soil pore water, soil solutions, soil water, 또는 leachate solutions)나 토양추출액(Soil elutriates, soil extracts, 또는 soil suspensions)을 적용한 것으로 보고된 바 있다 (Cook et al, 2002;Maderova et al, 2011;Tiensing et al, 2001;Romkens et al, 1999;Shen and Shen, 2001;Arnold et al, 2003;Power and de Pomerai, 1999;Anbalagan et al, 2012Anbalagan et al, , 2013Thomas et al, 1990;Hammel et al, 1998;Baun et al, 2002;Aruoja et al, 2004;Robidoux et al, 2004;Antunes et al, 2010;Maisto et al, 2011;Marques et al, 2011;Bowers et al, 1997;Ronnpagel et al, 1998;Loureiro et al, 2005;Ore et al, 2010;Miranda et al, 남선화·안윤주 J. Soil Groundw.…”