The Roles of Diethylenetriamine Pentaacetate (DTPA) and Ethylenediamine Disuccinate (EDDS) in Remediation of Selenium from Contaminated Soil by Brussels Sprouts (Brassica oleracea var. gemmifera)

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of adding different rates of diethylenetriamine pentaacetate (DTPA) at different concentrations (0, 0.5, 1, and 5 mmol kg −1 ) and ethylenediamine disuccinate (EDDS) at 0, 5, 7.5, and 10 mmol kg −1 on the capacity of Brussels sprouts plants to take up Se from soils contaminated with 0, 5, 10, and 15 mg kg −1 NaSeO 4 , under a greenhouse conditions. Results indicated that the application of DTPA and EDDS to Se-contaminated soils significantly affect plant Se concentration, Se uptake, and dry matter yield of plants. Se concentration in the plant leaves, stems, and roots increased with increase in DTPA and EDDS application doses, but total Se uptake increased from 0 to 1.0 and 7.5 mmol kg −1 DTPA and EDDS application doses, respectively, and decreased after those levels due to toxic Se concentration for plant. Most plant available fractions and the carbonate, metal oxide, and organic matter-bound fractions increased linearly with Se application. At all DTPA and EDDS application rates, the Se concentrations in the leaves were about two to three times higher than those in the roots and about three to four times higher than those in the stems. This study suggests that the above-ground organs like leaf and shoots of Brussels sprouts can effectively be used in the removal of Se from soils contaminated with Se. Under the conditions in this experiment, Brussels sprouts were capable of removing 0.9-1.8 mg Se pot −1 when harvested at maturity without any chelating agent take into consideration one growing season per year. Based on the data of present experiment, it would be necessary to approximately 57-67 growing seasons without EDDS and EDTA to remove all total Se from polluted soil. Selenium removal can be further increased 12-to 20-fold with 7.5 mmol kg −1 EDDS and 1.0 mmol kg −1 DTPA application, respectively.

Selenium Toxicity in Plants and Environment: Biogeochemistry and Remediation Possibilities

“…Chelating agents such as EDDS, DTPA, and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) are considered as a potential weapon to increase the availability of metal/metalloids for increasing the efficiency of phytoextraction. However, the utility of various chelating agents depends on the plant species and the elements to be removed [174,206,207]. On the other hand, chelator-assisted phytoextraction may induce water contamination as they increase the mobilization of toxic ions, ultimate leaching [208,209].…”

“…On the other hand, chelator-assisted phytoextraction may induce water contamination as they increase the mobilization of toxic ions, ultimate leaching [208,209]. In Brassica oleracea, Esringü and Turan [174] reported that the application of EDDS (7.5 mmol kg −1 ) and DTPA (1 mmol kg −1 ) increased Se removal by 12-20 fold from the contaminated soil.…”

A critical analysis of sources, pollution, and remediation of selenium, an emerging contaminant

“…Lot of research work has been done so far to better understand the application of this green technology approach for seleniferous soil treatment under various environments. Study conducted by Esringü and Turan ( 2012 ) found that adding ethylenediamine disuccinate and diethylenetriamine pentaacetate (synthetic chelating agents)with Se-contaminated soil helped soil particles to free Se by making it more readily available for roots uptake. As a result, Brussels sprouts increase Se elimination by 12- to 20 times.…”

Selenite sorption by carbonate substituted apatite

“…Currently, there are no inexpensive and easily implemented technologies for remediation of selenium contaminated groundwater. Methods to remove selenium from water and groundwater include phytoremediation (Esringü and Turan, 2012), biological treatment (Hageman et al, 2013), ion exchange, evaporation, chemical treatment and filtration (Bond, 2000) and permeable reactive barriers (PRB) (Zhang et al, 2008). All of these methods with the exception of using PRB are active treatment technologies that have significant capital costs, create waste streams, can expose workers to the contaminant and have significant long-term operational costs (Moore, 2003;Moore et al, 2004;Naftz et al, 2002).…”