CC BY
5NAUKI ROLNICZE |CEAbCK0X03flMCTBEHHblE HAYKM
SOIL ESTIMATION AND LAND USE IN THE IMPACT ZONE OF METALLURGICAL
FACTORIES (MIDDLE URALS, RUSSIA)
Gusev Alexey S.,
candidate of biology, associate professor, Department of Land Management, Urals State Agrarian University
Vashukevich Nadezhda V. candidate of biology, associate professor, Department of Land Management, Urals State Agrarian University
ABSTRACT
Heavy metals complex effect in the surface soils and land using possibilities in the impact zone of metallurgical factories were analyzed. Ecological risk was assessed with Zc index and soil buffering to heavy metals. According to the current level of pollution in the survey area, we have proposed restrictions on land use basic categories.
Key words: degraded soils; land use; heavy metals; pollution assessment; soil buffering, bioindication;
Introduction
Sverdlovsk region is the largest industrial centre of Russia, located in the Middle Urals. The historical development in the Urals of siderurgy and non-ferrous metallurgy factories with old technologies leads to significant environ-ment pollution with gas and dust emissions. As result, the formation of local technogenic geochemical anomalies around metallurgical factories of the Urals, which are characterized by high heavy metals content in soils, and adverse sani-tary and environmental situation. Anomalies scales and its components of metal-lurgy enterprises in the Sverdlovsk and other regions are studied in detail now [11, 3, 22, 15, 24].
Heavy metals (HM) contamination is one of the most dangerous and wide-spread type of environment pollution [21, 9, 1, 25]. Soils polluted with heavy metals have direct effects of toxicity to biota and indirect threats to human health from ground water and food chain contamination [13]. Heavy metals can quite substantially change the soil formation process, removing the barriers preventing flow of excess amounts of heavy metals through the food chain to humans.
One of the perspective methods to assess soil contamination is bioindica-tion. A bioindicator is defined as an organism, part of an organism, the product of an organism (e.g., enzyme), collection of organisms or biological process which can be used to obtain information on the quality of all or part of the environment [14]. The bioindication is integrated investigation of various biological test sys-tems, which in connection with other environmental factors tend to ascertain the environmental pollution [26].
Soil enzymes have been reported as useful soil quality biological indicators due to their relationship to soil biology, being operationally practical, sensitive, integrative, ease to measure. They are also indicative of changes in the biological status of soil due to pollution [17, 23]. .
The purpose of this article
An important problem is that different levels of contamination with heavy metals fall on different soils with different properties
and, therefore, to identify the effect of singular pollution factor on soil properties, and even to compare properties of contaminated and pure, without technogenic pollution, soils is al-most impossible.
Our objectives in this study to explore the complex influence on soil of the industrial enterprises in Pervouralsky-Revdinsky industrial hub emissions and land using possibilities this territory.
Materials and methods Description of the study area and sampling Pervouralsk-Revdinsky industrial hub covers an area between Pervouralsk and Revda towns (within 56° 54' 19" - 56° 48'00" N; and within 59° 56' 36" - 59° 55' 00" E) .This territory is located near the Middle Urals watershed part; mainly coincide to Revdinsky - Ishim depression that contained between the Konovalovsk - Ufaley and Revdinsky ridges. A significant part of this depression occupied by valleys of the rivers Chusovaya and Revda. The climate in the region is temperate continental, with an annual mean temperature of 1.9°C and a mean annual rainfall 500 mm year-1. Dominant soils occurring in the research area are classified as Greyzems in the FAO System or Grey Forest Soils (zonal soils of the forest-steppe, in Russia).
The study area is confined to the impact zones of two major factories of Pervouralsk-Revdinsky industrial hub. The Middle Urals copper smelting plant (SUMZ) - environment polluter by copper, lead, zinc, cadmium and other HM together with oxides of sulphur and nitrogen, hydrogen fluoride. «Chrompick» - the plant for production chromium-containing materials, in which emissions chromium compounds, are dominated. Sampling of surface soil and vegetation were carried out radially, considering mainstream wind rose within a distance of 0.5-3.5 km from the emission sources.
Difficulty in applying bioindication method to remove the influence on the biotesting of soil uniformity that is usual for impact zones around point polluter. In our research agricultural lands with different levels of contamination, but quite homogeneous soils were selected to assess the emissions
impact from the SUMZ and the «Chrompick» on bioindicators. Sampling was performed on the basis soil maps of farms in the emissions area (1: 10,000) and soil contamination maps (1: 25,000).
Soil and plant analyses
Air-dried samples were gently broken up in a porcelain mortar and passed through a 1.0-mm sieve for soil parameter (particle size, pH, soil enzyme activity and respiration). A subsample was then crushed to 0.25 mm in the same mortar for soil organic carbon (SOC) content, total heavy metal contents and sesquiox-ides concentrations.
The particle size distribution of the soils was determined by the Kachinsky pipette method [18]. SOC was determined using the acid-dichromate wet oxida-tion method of Tjurin as described by Ponomariova and Plotnikova (1980) [19]. Determination of soil humus, meaning by it the percent of soil organic carbon multiplied by the factor of 1.724. Sesquioxides concentrations determined by the method as described by Rinkis et al. (1987) [20]. The concentrations of heavy metals in soil and plant ash were determined by atomic absorption with flame atomization, using PE 5300VI spectrophotometers. The pH KCl of soil samples was measured in a 1:2.5 soil/water ratio using pH-meters Sartorius PB-11.
We studied the reaction of the biological indicators of different organization levels [2]. Activities of contaminated soil on the substantive level were investigat-ed by enzyme activity (urease and invertase); biological activity, characterized by active microbiocenoses studied by soil respiration, and phototoxicity, associated with the reaction of plant macro-organisms, was determined by the weight and length of radish plantlets.
Invertase activity determined by the Chunderova method, urease activity - the Galstyan method; the respiration rate in the laboratory - the Makarov meth-od; biological activity - the
Aristovskaya-Chugunova method [16]; phototoxicity of soil solution were determined by the Berestetsky method [5].
All statistical analyses were conducted with STATISTICA 6.1.Statistical procedures used in the data analysis consisted of correlation analysis to deter-mine the relations between metals concentrations and phytotoxicity, soil buffer-ing properties. Regression analyses are used to analyses associations between heavy metal contents, soil properties and other factors [12]. Only significant rela-tionships are reported
Results and discussion
Heavy metal pollution of soils
To estimate the soils chemical pollution level with heavy metals as the indi-cator of unfavorable effects on human health the summarized index of pollution (Zc) used. This index is equal to the sum of the chemical elements concentration coefficient and can be expressed in the following form [16]:
m
X KKji - (m -1)
j=1
Zc=
where, KKji are clarkes concentration j element in the i sample greater than or equal to 1, KKji = Cji / Kj, where Cji - content j element in the i sample; Kj - clark j elements in the Urals soils; m -the number of the j elements to be summarised with KK > 1
If concentration factor KK> 1 then Zc > 1 which means that a threat to technogeneous exists from pollutants the degree, which is graded as follows: Zc < 16- degree of threat of the territory pollution estimated as permissible one; 16 < Zc < 32-moderately threatening; 32 < Zc < 128- threatening; Zc > 128- extremely threatening
Data for estimating the distribution of heavy metals according to the dis-tance from point pollution (the SUMZ and the«Chrompick») plants are given in Table 1.
Table 1
The level of soil contamination according to the distance from point pollution
Sampling district (distance from point pollution, km) The content of heavy metals, (mg kg-1) Zc Technogeneous pollution degree of soils
Cr Pb As Cd Ni Zn
SUMZ
0,5 1000 300 300 0,2 150 5000 545,8 extremely threating
1,0 400 70 100 0,2 60 900 263,3 extremely threating
1,5 400 20 2 0,2 50 150 121,6 threating
2,0 150 70 2 0,2 70 400 32,2 threating
2,5 100 50 2 0,2 60 150 31,1 moderately hreating
3,0 180 70 2 0,2 90 200 37,6 threating
3,5 700 50 2 0,2 60 180 34,9 threating
«Chrompick»
0,5 9990 100 2 0,2 100 150 134,4 extremely threating
1,0 1500 40 2 0,2 180 150 28,8 moderately threating
1,5 200 15 2 0,2 60 150 23,5 moderately threating
2,0 400 40 2 0,2 180 150 28,8 moderately threating
2,5 600 30 2 0,2 180 150 33,8 threating
3,0 400 70 2 0,2 70 400 30,5 moderately threating
3,5 300 60 2 0,2 90 150 27,7 moderately threating
4,0 300 50 2 0,2 60 100 25,2 moderately threating
The level of HM pollution in the studied soils varied widely and is linked to, composition of industrial emissions and distance from point pollution. The greater heavy metal contents were in soils around the SUMZ plant, within 1.5 kilometers, the pollutants degree was assessed as extremely threatening, index Zc ranged from 263.3 to 545.6. The main pollutants were copper, chromium, lead, arsenic.
Total heavy metal contents multiple times exceeded the maximum allowa-ble concentrations (copper by 50 times, arsenic by 150 times, chromium by 10 times, lead by 6 times). With distance from the pollution source the heavy metal content decreases somewhat, but still exceeds MPC by several times (copper and chromium by 2-4 times, lead by 1.5-2 times).
Soil pollution around the «Chrompick» was lower (extremely threatening contaminated soils are found only within 0.5 kilometers zone). The contamina-tion level characterized as moderately threatening, index Zc ranged from 23.5 to 30.5.
The main pollutant is chromium; its content within 0.5 km zone was almost 100 times higher than MPC. Excess of maximum allowable concentrations indi-cated for lead (3 times), and copper (5 times). In soils, more remote from the en-terprise, pollution is lower. Chromium content exceeded MPC by 3-6 times, lead by 1.5-2 times, copper 1.5-3 times.
Soil properties and buffering
The particle size distribution of the soils and other properties are shown in Table 2. Textural classes, according Soil Textural Classification by Kachinsky [18] were heavy loam and light clay. This corresponds to a content of physical clay (particles <
Estimation of soil b
0.01 mm) 45 and 68%. Significant content clay particles in the soil caused high content of sesquioxides (7-10%) - one of the main components of clay fractions. Despite the acidic nature, soils were weakly alkaline, it obviously is the result of periodic liming farm land from which samples were taken. pH of soils in immediate vicinity of the SUMZ - acidic, which we attribute to the influ-ence of sulfuric acid enterprise emissions.
For a detailed evaluation buffer capacity of soils to heavy metals used scale proposed V. Iliyn (1995) [10]. This scale is based on data on the inactivating ef-fect on HM humus, physical clay, sesquioxides, carbonates, and pH. It was found that the leading inactivation factors in automorphic soils are the fine particles and pH, inactivating effect of other indicators was significantly lower. Soil acidity has a particular significance in the buffering assessing, with increasing pH, the buffer in relation to the metals mobile in acidic conditions is increased, but to the met-als mobile in alkaline is reduced. The degree of soil buffering is estimated by summing the scores of all indicators on the following grading scale «buffering de-gree / grades»: very low / 10; low / 10-20; average / 21-30; increased / 31-40; high / 41-50; very high / >50.
Studied soils are similar and were belonged to the group with high buffer-ing (Table 2). The proportion separate defining factors of this buffering varied and decreased in the following sequence: particle size distribution (30-60%), pH (5-50%), sesquioxides (15-25%), humus (10-20%). Because of studied soils were formed on carbonate-free rocks, the carbonates content not taken in the buffering assessing.
Table 2
ffering to heavy metals
Sampling district (distance from point pollution, km) Acidity of the soil Humus Physical clay (particles< 0.01 mm) Sesquioxides Gradessu-mmed up
pH KCl grades % grades % grades % grades
SUMZ
0,5 3,9 2,5(15,0) 4,4 5,0 61,5 20,0 9,0 7,0 34,5(47,0)*
1,0 4,9 2,5(15,0) 3,7 3,5 67,6 20,0 8,1 7,0 33,0(45,5)
1,5 6,3 7,5(10,0) 3,3 3,5 62,6 20,0 7,0 7,0 38,0(40,5)
2,0 6,8 10,0(7,5) 3,4 3,5 59,2 15,0 8,5 7,0 35,5(33,0)
2,5 6,1 7,5(10,0) 4,2 5,0 59,5 15,0 6,5 7,0 32,0(39,5)
3,0 5,8 5(12,5) 2,3 3,5 57,5 15,0 7,0 7,0 34,5(37,0)
3,5 6,3 7,5(10,0) 4,0 5,0 46,4 15,0 7,1 7,0 37,0(34,5)
«Chrompick»
0,5 6,9 10,0(7,5) 4,1 5,0 44,9 10,0 8,6 7,0 32,0(29,5)
1,0 6,8 10,0(7,5) 3,4 3,5 48,8 15,0 9,2 7,0 35,5(33,0)
1,5 5,9 5,0(12,5) 4,1 5,0 47,5 15,0 10,5 7,0 32,0(39,5)
2,0 5,0 2,5(15,0) 4,6 5,0 41,9 10,0 7,4 7,0 24,5(37,0)
2,5 6,5 7,5(10,0) 2,9 3,5 47,5 15,0 9,0 7,0 33,0(35,5)
3,0 5,8 5,0(12,5) 4,3 5,0 47,1 15,0 8,8 7,0 32,0(39,5)
3,5 6,5 7,5(10,0) 4,0 5,0 53,1 15,0 8,6 7,0 34,5(37,0)
4,0 6,8 10,0(7,5) 4,1 5,0 53,7 15,0 7,3 7,0 37,0(34,5)
* in the parentheses - grades for elements mobile in alkalin condition
Bioindication of soils
Data of an assessment of soils biological activity according to the distance from point pollution (the SUMZ and the «Chrompick») plants are presented in Tables 3, 4.
Table 3
Bioindication of soils (biological and enzymatic activity)
Sampling district(distance from point pollution, km) Respiration rate C02,mg / 1 g soil per day Urease activity NH4,mg / 1 g soil per day Invertase activity glucose mg / 1 g soil per day
SUMZ
0,5 0,98 0,50 15,37
1,0 1,10 0,58 22,40
1,5 2,08 0,54 11,68
2,0 1,00 0,80 6,67
2,5 2,32 1,80 12,25
3,0 1,60 3,00 11,96
3,5 2,17 7,20 10,22
«Chrompick»
0,5 2,11 4,26 11,45
1,0 2,44 1,08 10,50
1,5 1,22 2,66 25,41
2,0 0,88 0,76 17,59
2,5 0,66 0,82 14,86
3,0 0,41 0,52 15,01
3,5 2,08 1,80 20,42
4,0 1,67 3,10 14,01
Table 4
Bioindication of soils (plant biotest)
Sampling district(distance from point pollution, km) germination, % mass, g length (sm)
stems roots stems roots
«Chrompick»
0,5 84 0,17 0,06 4,43 3,92
1,0 94 0,17 0,07 5,62 4,47
1,5 76 0,14 0,07 5,1 6,43
2,0 92 0,17 0,07 6,56 3,99
2,5 92 0,15 0,06 4,92 3,74
3,0 93 0,17 0,07 4,51 4,84
3,5 86 0,16 0,07 4,87 5,24
4,0 96 0,17 0,06 5,57 5,5
SUMZ
0,5 86 0,15 0,04 2,81 1,88
1,0 93 0,14 0,05 2,66 2,87
1,5 92 0,15 0,06 2,94 2,76
2,0 88 0,16 0,06 2,69 2,56
2,5 88 0,15 0,08 2,7 2,13
3,0 86 0,13 0,06 2,55 2,98
3,5 90 0,16 0,04 3,44 2,35
All studied bioindication parameters were sensitive to technogenic pollu-tion. Thus, the most toxic effects possessed plant emissions the SUMZ that re-duce the respiratory activity of greater than 2 times, urease activity - more than six times, invertase by 1.5. Bioindi cation plant tests have shown the largest in-hibition from pollution subjected to root system of plants.
The ways of land use in accordan
Features of land with technogenic pollution use According to the current level of pollution in the survey area, we have pro-posed restrictions on land use basic categories. It is recommended to minimize the use of land in the contaminated areas in agriculture, the introduction of special water and forest protection procedures, as well as recultivation methods of agricultural land (Table 5).
Table 5
; with their anthropogenic pollution
Land category Moderately hazardous pollution Slightly hazardous pollution
Settlements lands Exclusion of lands be-longing to agricultural use, increase of the recreation zone area Diagnosis of the air pollu-tion level, limiting the agricultural land use
Water lands Holding of special pro-tection measures, envi-ronmental monitoring of water objects Periodic monitoring of drinking water and wastewater type
Forest lands Limit of deforestation, conducting forest moni-toring Retesting forest invento-ry, conducting forest monitoring
Agricultural lands Requires removal of land from agricultural use The use of special measures for recultivation. The introduction of special crop rotation
Conclusions
Under the influence of the basic factories of Pervouralsky-Revdinsky indus-trial hub the SUMZ and the «Chrompick» and other factories, vehicles etc the regional soils are contaminated with HM complex at large areas (about 71%) and belong to the soils of areas with ecological emergencies (Zc from 32 to 128), and in some places (up 17.5%) - to soils areas of ecological disaster (Zc >128). At the centers of pollution, levels of HM dozen times or more great than the amount set by clark quantities and levels of maximum allowable concentrations (MPC). Around the SUMZ (1-2 km) the area of technogenic desert landscape with a high-ly degraded soils enriched with mobile forms of TM is allocated; it is replaced by the zone of 0.5-2 km wide with degraded soils of varying degrees and oppressed vegetation, after that - a zone of small-changed soils and vegetation also contami-nated with HM.
The researches of the Urals State Agrarian University
scientists were de-voted to the study of the characteristics and the possibility of using this land area [8].
Special attention to areas with increased anthropogenic level demands to be given to the agricultural lands use because of high pollution levels can significant-ly degrade the quality of plant products derived from contaminated soils. At the present time, the zoning principle of crop production was developed in relation to the location of the inhabited locality. Developers of similar subjects pay atten-tion to the agricultural land condition, which, in our opinion, should be actively used in the practice of areas distribution [6].
The principle of «biological dilution» allows reducing the concentration of toxic elements during the passage of the trophic chains (plant - animal - people). Therefore, in one case we can replace crops to more stable and increase the food chain, in the other - to reject of food crops and replace them with technical cul-tures.
The processes of pollution prevention and melioration of contaminated lands are improved (purification of contaminated wastewater, using sorbents etc.) [4,7]. The cost of these activities is not too high, but we consider the appropriate connection procedures as a promotion for developers of these techniques, as well as for those who apply them, by the departments of the Ministries of Natu-ral Resources and Agriculture.
Thus, contaminated to an acceptable level the Middle Urals can be used for agricultural purposes, while required quality control.
List of references
1. Alloway BJ. 1995. Heavy metals in soils. London: Blackie.
2. Andreyuk EI, Iutinskaya GA, Valagurova EV, Kozyritskaya VE, Ivanov NI, Ostapenko AD. 1997. The hierarchical system of biological indication of soils contaminated by heavy metals. Eura-sian Soil Science.12: 1419-1496.
3. Baikin YL and Gusev AS. 2000. The chemical composition of the soil solution gray forest soil contaminated with heavy metals. Proceedings of the III Congress of the Dokuchaev Society of Soil Scientists; 2000; Jul 11-15; Suzdal. Russia: 232233
4. Baikin YL et al. 2001. The method of growing crops on soils contaminated with heavy metals. Russian Federation patent 2189712.
5. Berestetskiy OA. 1971. Methods for determining the toxicity of soils. Microbiological and bio-chemical studies of soils: 239-243.
6. BryzhkoVG and Kostina AB. 2004. Features of agricultural production at the contaminated terri-tories. Achievements of agricultural science and technology.2:32-33.
7. Buraev ME et al. 2008. The sorbent for purification the industrial wastewater from the com-pounds of lead and cadmium and the method of its application. Russian Federation patent 2412756.
8. Firsov IO., Gusev AS., Belichev A.A., Vashukevich N.V. 2015. Features of land with technogen-ic pollution use (on the example of Pervouralsky-Revdinsky industrial hub) .Proceedings of the In-ternational conference «Land Quality and Landscape Processes»; 2015; June 2-4; Keszthely, Hungary: 41-44.
9. Ilyin VB. 1991.Heavy metals in soil-plant system. Novosibirsk: Nauka.
10. Ilyin VB. 1995. Evaluation of soil buffering with respect to heavy metals Agrohimiya.10:109-113.
11.Gusev AS. 2000. The impact of anthropogenic pollution on soil properties of the industrial areas of the Sverdlovsk region. Abstract of dissertation for the PhD degree. Tyumen: Tyumen State Agri-cultural Academy.
12. Gusev AS, Baikin YL, Zorin AP. 2014. The use of mathematical methods in the evaluation of land affected by anthropogenic pollution. Proceedings of the International Scientific-Practical Con-ference «Integration of science and education in the modern world»; 2014; May 22-23; Ekaterinburg: Urals State Agrarian University: 44-47.
13. Kabata-Pendias A and Pendias H. 2001. Trace elements in soils and plants. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press.
14.Killham K. 2002. Bioindicators and Sensors of Soil Health and the Application of Geostatistics. In: Burns RG, Dick RP (eds.) Enzymes in the Environment: Activity, Ecology and Applications. Marcel Dekker Inc. USA.
15. Kozlov MV, Zvereva EL, Zverev VE. 2009. Impacts of point polluters on terrestrial biota: Comparative analysis of 18 contaminated areas. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
16. Methodical recommendations on the survey and mapping of soil on the level of pollution by industrial emissions. 1987. Moscow: Dokuchaev Soil Science Institute.
17.Nannipieri P. 1994. The Potential use of Soil Enzymes as Indicators of Productivity, Sustainabil-ity and Pollution. In: Pankhurst CE, Doube BM, Gupta VVSR, Grace PR (eds.).Soil Biota: Man-agement in Sustainable Farming Systems. East Melbourne:CSIRO.
18. Petrenko LR and Berezhnyak YeM. 2008. Soil Science: Practical Methods Manual Methodolog-ical Instruction Book for the Undergraduate Students of Agronomy and Ecology. Kyiv: Publishing house NAU.
19. Ponomariova VV, Plotnikova TA. 1980. Humus and soil formation (Methods and results). Mos-cow: Nauka.
20. Rinkis GYa, Ramana HK, Kunitsky TA. 1987. Methods of analysis of soils and plants. Riga: Zinatne.
21. Saet YE, Revich BA, Yanin EP. 1990.Environmental Geochemistry. Moscow: Nedra
22. Semyachkov AI and Pochechun VA.2007. Estimation of ecological consequences of realization of the project «Ural industrial- Ural polar» for Average Ural. Economics of Region.52:98-105.
23.Trasar-Cepeda C, Leiros MC, Seoane S, Gil-Sotres F. 2000. Limitation of Soil Enzymes as Indi-cators of Soil Pollution. Soil Biol. Biochem. 32: 1867-1875
24. Vasiliev AA and Chashchin AN. 2011.Heavy metals in the soils of the city Chusovoy: assess-ment and diagnosis of pollution. Perm: P erm State Agricultural Academy.
25. Vodyanitsky YN. 2008. Heavy metals and metalloids in soils. Moscow: Dokuchaev Soil Science Institute, Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences.
26. Wilkominski B.2013.History of bioindication (Historia bioindykacji). Monitoring Srodowiska Przyrodniczego.14:137-142.
