A Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Various Acrylic Polymers on Mitigating the Mobility of Selected Heavy Metals in a Contaminated Soil

آب و خاک

Article 6, Volume 38, Issue 2 - Serial Number 94, May and June 2024, Pages 253-267   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jsw.2024.86611.1378

Authors

A. Barikloo; P. Alamdari^* ; A. Golchin

Soil Science Department, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Heavy metals such as lead, aluminum, mercury, copper, cadmium, nickel, and arsenic are now commonly found worldwide. Among these, cadmium and lead are the most hazardous, posing significant risks to both the environment and human health. Cleaning soils contaminated with organic and inorganic contaminants is one of the most significant and fundamental challenges facing society today. One effective method for soil purification is to extract or immobilize the contaminant within the soil.
 
Materials and Methods
It is unclear how water-soluble polymers contribute to the immobilization of heavy metals. The purpose of this study is to examine how various polymers affect the immobilization of lead, zinc, and cadmium in the soil near a lead and zinc mine in the province of Zanjan. A factorial experiment with three replications was conducted using a randomized complete block design. The experimental treatments included one type of soil and three different kinds of acrylic polymers (cationic, nonionic, and anionic) applied at four different levels (0, 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2). The absorbable amounts of lead, zinc, and cadmium were tested at various intervals after the polymers were applied to the soil samples. After that, SAS statistical software was used to examine the data. To do this, the Duncan multiple range test was used to compare the means. The necessary tables and graphs were then created using Excel.
 
Results and Discussion
The findings demonstrated that, at 1% probability level, the kind of polymer had a considerable impact on the amount of lead, zinc, and cadmium that may be absorbed in the soil. The average concentration of soil-absorbable lead for the different types of polymers employed was 239.8, 260.15, and 267.65 mg/kg; anionic polymer had the lowest concentration. Stated differently, anionic polymer decreases the capacity to absorb lead and stabilizes more lead in the soil than the other two forms of polymer. Anionic polymers most likely have a stronger impact on soil granulation. Additionally, at 1% probability level, the impact of acrylic polymer intake on the amount of lead, zinc, and cadmium absorbable in the soil was considerable. With an increase in the amount of polymer utilized in the soil, the greatest absorbable lead concentration (301.58 mg/kg) in the control treatment dropped to the lowest absorbable lead concentration (0.2). It was possible to determine the polymer percentage and the lead concentration, which came out to be 205.9 mg/kg of soil. Zinc concentration dropped as acrylic polymer consumption increased; in the control treatment, absorbable zinc concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 83.5 mg/kg of soil, with 0.2 being the highest concentration. At 1% probability level, the impact of the polymer's contact time with the soil on the amount of lead, zinc, and cadmium that the soil may absorb was significant. As a result, the tested soil had 414.52 mg of these elements at the initial stage of polymer treatment. The quantity of absorbable lead in the soil became 66% immobilized after a month, and after 720 hours, the amount of absorbable lead dropped to 141.83 mg/kg. As the polymer's contact time with the soil increased, so did the concentration of absorbable zinc in the soil. At 1% probability level, there was a strong correlation between the kind and amount of acrylic polymers and the amount of lead, zinc, and cadmium that may be absorbed in the soil. The ingestion of 0.2% anionic polymer resulted in the largest amount of lead immobilization, lowering the soil's absorbable lead concentration from 300 to 192 mg/kg of soil. A higher amount of anionic polymer immobilized the lead, and both cationic and non-ionic polymers were positioned after it. Additionally, anionic polymer was more prevalent than cationic polymer. It caused the non-ionic polymer's absorbable zinc to become immobile. Following 720 hours of polymer treatment, the soil's absorbable zinc element was immobilized to a greater extent by the anionic polymer (20%) than by the cationic and non-ionic polymers (26%), respectively. In comparison to the original concentration, the largest amount of immobilization by anionic polymer after one month was 78%, and the lowest amount of immobilization by nonionic polymer was 61%. Anionic polymer was 27% more effective than non-ionic polymer, 18% more effective than cationic polymer, and stabilized more cadmium.
 
Conclusion
 The results of this study showed that with increasing the duration of contact of polymers used with the soil, the amount of mobility of heavy metals in the soil decreased and also with increasing the amount of polymer consumption, the rate of metal stabilization in the soil increased. Anionic polymers immobilize more lead, zinc and cadmium in soil. To reduce the mobility of lead, zinc and cadmium and improve the stability and increase aggregation in soil, the use of acrylic polymer in contaminated soil is recommended.

Keywords

Anionic polymer; Cationic polymer; Heavy metal stabilization; Nonionic polymer

References

1. Al-Khashman, O.A. (2007). The investigation of metal concentrations in street dust samples in Aqaba city, Jordan. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 29, 197-207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-006-9065-x
2. Aram, H., & Golchin, A. (2015). The effect of different levels of water-soluble polymer and mycorrhizal fungi on cadmium of berseem clover. Journal of Soil Management and Sustainable Production, 5(1), 253-262. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/20.1001.1.23221267.1394.5.1.17.8
3. Boisson, J., Mench, M., Vangronsveld, J., Ruttens, A., Kopponen, P., & De Koe, T. (1999). Immobilization of trace metals and arsenic by different soil additives: evaluation by means of chemical extractions. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 30(3-4), 365-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103629909370210
4. Bremner, J.M. (1996). N-total. Methods of Soil Analysis, part 3, 1085-1121.
5. (2010). Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
6. Chen, S., Chao, L., Sun, L.N., & Sun, T.H. (2012). Competition absorption and desorption dynamic character of cadmium, lead and zinc by soil in north-east of China. Advanced Materials Research, 356, 52-58.
7. Cherfi, A., Abdoun, S., & Gaci, O. (2014). Food survey: levels and potential health risks of chromium, lead, zinc and copper content in fruits and vegetables consumed in Algeria. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 70, 48-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2014.04.044
8. Cornforth, I.S. (1968). Relationships between soil volume used by roots and nutrient accessibility. Journal of Soil Science, 19(2), 291-301.
9. Dhiman, J., Prasher, S. O., ElSayed, E., Patel, R., Nzediegwu, C., & Mawof, A. (2020). Use of polyacrylamide superabsorbent polymers and plantain peel biochar to reduce heavy metal mobility and uptake by wastewater-irrigated potato plants. Transactions of the ASABE, 63(1), 11-28.
10. Hamidpour, M., Akbari, L., & Shirani, H. (2017). Effects of co-application of zeolites and vermicompost on speciation and phytoavailability of cadmium, lead, and zinc in a contaminated soil. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 48(3), 262-273.
11. Farfel, M.R., Orlova, A.O., Chaney, R.L., Lees, P.S., Rohde, C., & Ashley, P.J. (2005). Biosolids compost amendment for reducing soil lead hazards: a pilot study of Orgro® amendment and grass seeding in urban yards. Science of the Total Environment, 340(1-3), 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.08.018
12. Friesl, W., Lombi, E., Horak, O., & Wenzel, W.W. (2003). Immobilization of heavy metals in soils using inorganic amendments in a greenhouse study. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 166(2), 191-196. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/jpln.200390028
13. Gee, G.W., & Bauder, J. W. (1986). Particle‐size analysis. Methods of soil analysis: Part 1 Physical and mineralogical methods, 5, 383-411.
14. Geebelen, W., Vangronsveld, J., Adriano, D.C., Carleer, R., & Clijsters, H. (2002). Amendment-induced immobilization of lead in a lead-spiked soil: evidence from phytotoxicity studies. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 140, 261-277. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020147901365
15. Guiwei, Q., De Varennes, A., & Cunha‐Queda, C. (2008). Remediation of a mine soil with insoluble polyacrylate polymers enhances soil quality and plant growth. Soil Use and Management, 24(4), 350-356. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2008.00173.x
16. Helmke, P.A., & Sparks, D.L. (1996). Lithium, sodium, potassium, rubidium, and cesium. Methods of soil analysis: Part 3 Chemical Methods, 5, 551-574. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.3.c19
17. Lindsay, W.L., & Norvell, W. (1978). Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese, and copper. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 42(3), 421-428.
18. Mansouri, T. (2017). Reduction of arsenic mobilization in soil by application of hematite nanoparticles and acrylic polymers. Journal of Water and Soil Conservation, 23(6), 79-99. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/ 10.22069/JWFST.2017.10254.2473
19. Mench, M., Manceau, A., Vangronsveld, J., Clijsters, H., & Mocquot, B. (2000). Capacity of soil amendments in lowering the phytoavailability of sludge-borne zinc. Agronomie, 20(4), 383-397.
20. Miretzky, P., & Cirelli, A.F. (2010). Remediation of arsenic-contaminated soils by iron amendments: a review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 40(2), 93-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10643380802202059
21. Mulligan, C.N., Yong, R.N., & Gibbs, B.F. (2001). Remediation technologies for metal-contaminated soils and groundwater: an evaluation. Engineering Geology, 60(1-4), 193-207.
22. Nelson, D.A., & Sommers, L. (1983). Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2 Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 9, 539-579.
23. Park, J.H., Bolan, N.S., Chung, J.W., Naidu, R., & Megharaj, M. (2011). Environmental monitoring of the role of phosphate compounds in enhancing immobilization and reducing bioavailability of lead in contaminated soils. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 13(8), 2234-2242.
24. Sparks, D.L. (2003). Environmental soil chemistry: An overview. Environmental Soil Chemistry, 2, 1-42.
25. Sumner, M.E., & Miller, W.P. (1996). Cation exchange capacity and exchange coefficients. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 3 Chemical Methods, 5, 1201-1229.
26. Thompson, J.A., & Jarvinen, G. (1999). Using water-soluble polymers to remove dissolved metal ions. Filtration & Separation, 36(5), 28-32.
27. Varennes, A., Cunha‐Queda, C., & Ramos, A.R. (2009). Polyacrylate polymers as immobilizing agents to aid phytostabilization of two mine soils. Soil Use and Management, 25(2), 133-140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2009.00208.x
28. Varennes, A., Goss, M.J., & Mourato, M. (2006). Remediation of a sandy soil contaminated with cadmium, nickel, and zinc using an insoluble polyacrylate polymer. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 37(11-12), 1639-1649. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103620600710264
29. Walkley, A., & Black, I.A. (1934). An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science, 37(1), 29-38.
30. Xiang, Y., Li, C., Hao, H., Tong, Y., Chen, W., Zhao, G., & Liu, Y. (2021). Performances of biodegradable polymer composites with functions of nutrient slow-release and water retention in simulating heavy metal contaminated soil: Biodegradability and nutrient release characteristics. Journal of Cleaner Production, 294, 126278.