Switchgrass and Giant Reed Energy Potential when Cultivated in Heavy Metals Contaminated Soils
"> Figure 1
<p>Switchgrass dry biomass production on Cd- and Ni- contaminated soils. For each biomass fraction and year, different lower-case letters indicate statistical significance (<span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.05) between treatments. Cd<sub>4</sub> and Cd<sub>8</sub>, 4 and 8 mg Cd kg<sup>−1</sup> dry matter; Ni<sub>110</sub> and Ni<sub>220</sub>, 110 and 220 mg Ni kg<sup>−1</sup> dry matter.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Giant reed aboveground dry biomass production on Cd-, Ni-, and Cr-contaminated soils. For each total aerial biomass (leaves and stems) and year, different lower-case letters indicate statistical significance (<span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.05) between treatments. Cd<sub>4</sub> and Cd<sub>8</sub>, 4 and 8 mg Cd kg<sup>−1</sup> dry matter; Ni<sub>110</sub> and Ni<sub>220</sub>, 110 and 220 mg Ni kg<sup>−1</sup> dry matter; Cr<sub>300</sub> and Cr<sub>600</sub>, 300 and 600 mg Cr kg<sup>−1</sup> dry matter.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Giant reed belowground dry biomass production on Cd-, Ni-, and Cr-contaminated soils. For each belowground biomass, different lower-case letters indicate statistical significance (<span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.05) between treatments. Cd<sub>4</sub> and Cd<sub>8</sub>, 4 and 8 mg Cd kg<sup>−1</sup> dry matter; Ni<sub>110</sub> and Ni<sub>220</sub>, 110 and 220 mg Ni kg<sup>−1</sup> dry matter; Cr<sub>300</sub> and Cr<sub>600</sub>, 300 and 600 mg Cr kg<sup>−1</sup> dry matter.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Global evaluation of switchgrass energy potential when cultivated in Cd- and Ni-contaminated soils. Yields (g/m<sup>2</sup>) are related with ash content (% dry weight, dw) (<b>A</b>), HHV (MJ/kg) (<b>B</b>), % mBAF (modified bioaccumulation factor) (<b>C</b>), and nitrogen content (g.kg<sup>−1</sup> dry weight, dw) (<b>D</b>). Cd<sub>4</sub> and Cd<sub>8</sub>, 4 and 8 mg Cd kg<sup>−1</sup> dry matter; Ni<sub>110</sub> and Ni<sub>220</sub>, 110 and 220 mg Ni kg<sup>−1</sup> dry matter.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Global evaluation of giant reed stems energy potential when cultivated in Cd-, Cr-, and Ni-contaminated soils. Yields (g/m<sup>2</sup>) are related with ash content (% dry weight, dw) (<b>A</b>), HHV (MJ/kg) (<b>B</b>), % mBAF (modified bioaccumulation factor) (<b>C</b>), and nitrogen content (g.kg<sup>−1</sup> dry weight, dw) (<b>D</b>). Cd<sub>4</sub> and Cd<sub>8</sub>, 4 and 8 mg Cd kg<sup>−1</sup> dry matter; Cr<sub>300</sub> and Cr<sub>600</sub>, 300 and 600 mg Cr kg<sup>−1</sup> dry matter; Ni<sub>110</sub> and Ni<sub>220</sub>, 110 and 220 mg Ni kg<sup>−1</sup> dry matter.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Setup
2.2. Soil Analyses
2.3. Plant Analyses
2.4. Percolated Waters Analyses
2.5. Mathematical Formulas
2.6. Statistical Analyses
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Soil Characterization
3.2. Effects of Cadmium, Chromium, and Nickel on the Biomass Productivity of Giant Read and Switchgrass
3.3. Biomass Composition
3.4. Heavy Metal Concentration in Switchgrass and Giant Reed
3.5. Phytoremediation Indexes
3.6. Heavy Metal Content in Percolated Waters
3.7. Global Evaluation of Switchgrass and Giant Reed Energy Potential when Cultivated in Cd-, Cr-, and Ni-Contaminated Soils
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Parvez, A.M.; Afzal, M.T.; Victor Hebb, T.G.; Schmid, M. Utilization of CO2 in thermochemical conversion of biomass for enhanced product properties: A review. J. CO2 Util. 2020, 40, 101217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Jong, E.; Jungmeier, G. Biorefinery Concepts in Comparison to Petrochemical Refineries. In Industrial Biorefineries & White Biotechnology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 3–33. [Google Scholar]
- Scordia, D.; Cosentino, S.L.; Lee, J.W.; Jeffries, T.W. Bioconversion of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) hemicellulose hydrolysate to ethanol by Scheffersomyces stipitis CBS6054. Biomass Bioenergy 2012, 39, 296–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ubando, A.T.; Felix, C.B.; Chen, W.H. Biorefineries in circular bioeconomy: A comprehensive review. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lucia, L.A. Lignocellulosic biomass: A potential feedstock to replace petroleum. BioResources 2008, 3, 981–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, P.; Xia, H.; Tang, K.; Zhou, Y. Plasticizers derived from biomass resources: A short review. Polymers 2018, 10, 1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, C.; Sun, J.; Tao, Y.; Fang, L.; Zhou, J.; Dai, M.; Liu, M.; Fang, Q. Biomass materials derived from anethole: Conversion and application. Polym. Chem. 2020, 11, 954–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlsson, A.S.; Yilmaz, J.L.; Green, A.G.; Stymne, S.; Hofvander, P. Replacing fossil oil with fresh oil—with what and for what? Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2011, 113, 812–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tilman, D.; Socolow, R.; Foley, J.A.; Hill, J.; Larson, E.; Lynd, L.; Pacala, S.; Reilly, J.; Searchinger, T.; Somerville, C.; et al. Benefi cial Biofuels—The Food, Energy, and Environment Trilemma. Science 2009, 325, 4–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pires, J.R.A.; Souza, V.G.L.; Fernando, A.L. Production of nanocellulose from lignocellulosic biomass wastes: Prospects and limitations. Lect. Notes Electr. Eng. 2019, 505, 719–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission The European Green Deal. Eur. Comm. 2019, 53, 24. [CrossRef]
- Scordia, D.; Papazoglou, E.G.; Kotoula, D.; Sanz, M.; Ciria, C.S.; Pérez, J.; Cosentino, S.L. Towards identifying industrial crop types and associated agronomies to improve biomass production from marginal lands in europe. GCB Bioenergy 2022, 14, 12935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graham-Rowe, D. Agriculture: Beyond food versus fuel. Nature 2011, 474, S6–S8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, Z.; Lohr, L.; Escalante, C.; Wetzstein, M. Food versus fuel: What do prices tell us? Energy Policy 2010, 38, 445–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Cossel, M.; Lewandowski, I.; Elbersen, B.; Staritsky, I.; van Eupen, M.; Iqbal, Y.; Alexopoulou, E. Marginal agricultural land low-input systems for biomass production. Energies 2019, 12, 3123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cossel, M.V.; Wagner, M.; Lask, J.; Magenau, E.; Bauerle, A.; Cossel, V.V.; Winkler, B. Prospects of bioenergy cropping systems for a more social-ecologically sound bioeconomy. Agronomy 2019, 9, 605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abreu, M.; Reis, A.; Moura, P.; Fernando, A.L.; Luís, A.; Quental, L.; Gírio, F. Evaluation of the potential of biomass to energy in portugal-conclusions from the CONVERTE project. Energies 2020, 13, 937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Linger, P.; Mu, J. Industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) growing on heavy metal contaminated soil: Fibre quality and phytoremediation potential. Ind. Crops Prod. 2002, 16, 33–42. [Google Scholar]
- Cristaldi, A.; Oliveri Conti, G.; Cosentino, S.L.; Mauromicale, G.; Copat, C.; Grasso, A.; Zuccarello, P.; Fiore, M.; Restuccia, C.; Ferrante, M. Phytoremediation potential of Arundo donax (Giant Reed) in contaminated soil by heavy metals. Environ. Res. 2020, 185, 109427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novak, J.M.; Ippolito, J.A.; Watts, D.W.; Sigua, G.C.; Ducey, T.F.; Johnson, M.G. Biochar compost blends facilitate switchgrass growth in mine soils by reducing Cd and Zn bioavailability. Biochar 2019, 1, 97–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Collins, H.P.; Kimura, E.; Polley, W.; Fay, P.A.; Fransen, S. Intercropping switchgrass with hybrid poplar increased carbon sequestration on a sand soil. Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 138, 105558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, L.M.; Wang, Q.S.; Wen, H.H.; Luo, J.; Wang, S. Heavy metals in agricultural soils from a typical township in Guangdong Province, China: Occurrences and spatial distribution. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 168, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Motuzova, G.V.; Minkina, T.M.; Karpova, E.A.; Barsova, N.U.; Mandzhieva, S.S. Soil contamination with heavy metals as a potential and real risk to the environment. J. Geochem. Explor. 2014, 144, 241–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbosa, B.; Costa, J.; Fernando, A.L. Production of energy crops in heavy metals contaminated land: Opportunities and risks. In Land Allocation for Biomass Crops: Challenges and Opportunities with Changing Land Use; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 83–102. [Google Scholar]
- Ávila, P.F.; Ferreira da Silva, E.; Candeias, C. Health risk assessment through consumption of vegetables rich in heavy metals: The case study of the surrounding villages from Panasqueira mine, Central Portugal. Environ. Geochem. Health 2017, 39, 565–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adimalla, N.; Wang, H. Distribution, contamination, and health risk assessment of heavy metals in surface soils from northern Telangana, India. Arab. J. Geosci. 2018, 11, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papazoglou, E.G.; Fernando, A.L. Preliminary studies on the growth, tolerance and phytoremediation ability of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) grown on heavy metal contaminated soil. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 107, 463–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corno, L.; Pilu, R.; Adani, F.; Arundo donax, L. A non-food crop for bioenergy and bio-compound production. Biotechnol. Adv. 2014, 32, 1535–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbosa, B.; Fernando, A.L. Aided Phytostabilization of Mine Waste. In Bio-Geotechnologies for Mine Site Rehabilitation; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 147–157. [Google Scholar]
- Barbosa, B.; Costa, J.; Boléo, S.; Duarte, M.P.; Fernando, A.L. Phytoremediation of Inorganic Compounds. In Electrokinetics Across Disciplines and Continents; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 373–399. [Google Scholar]
- Fernando, A.L.; Costa, J.; Barbosa, B.; Monti, A.; Rettenmaier, N. Environmental impact assessment of perennial crops cultivation on marginal soils in the Mediterranean Region. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 111, 174–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernando, A.L.; Rettenmaier, N.; Soldatos, P.; Panoutsou, C. Sustainability of Perennial Crops Production for Bioenergy and Bioproducts. In Perennial Grasses for Bioenergy and Bioproducts; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 245–283. [Google Scholar]
- Fernando, A.L.; Barbosa, B.; Costa, J.; Papazoglou, E.G. Giant Reed (Arundo donax L.). In Bioremediation and Bioeconomy; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 77–95. [Google Scholar]
- Fernando, A.L.; Godovikova, V.; Oliveira, J.F.S. Miscanthus x giganteus: Contribution to a Sustainable Agriculture of a Future/Present—Oriented Biomaterial. Mater. Sci. Forum 2004, 455–456, 437–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Bassam, N. Handbook of Bioenergy Crops. A Complete Reference to Species, Development and Applications; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Fiorentino, N.; Ventorino, V.; Rocco, C.; Cenvinzo, V.; Agrelli, D.; Gioia, L.; Di Mola, I.; Adamo, P.; Pepe, O.; Fagnano, M. Giant reed growth and effects on soil biological fertility in assisted phytoremediation of an industrial polluted soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 575, 1375–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shrestha, P.; Bellitürk, K.; Görres, J.H. Phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated soil by switchgrass: A comparative study utilizing different composts and coir fiber on pollution remediation, plant productivity, and nutrient leaching. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wuana, R.A.; Okieimen, F.E. Heavy Metals in Contaminated Soils: A Review of Sources, Chemistry, Risks and Best Available Strategies for Remediation. ISRN Ecol. 2011, 2011, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, C.; Zhou, K.; Qin, W.; Tian, C.; Qi, M.; Yan, X.; Han, W. A Review on Heavy Metals Contamination in Soil: Effects, Sources, and Remediation Techniques. Soil Sediment. Contam. 2019, 28, 380–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbosa, B.; Boléo, S.; Sidella, S.; Costa, J.; Duarte, M.P.; Mendes, B.; Cosentino, S.L.; Fernando, A.L. Phytoremediation of Heavy Metal-Contaminated Soils Using the Perennial Energy Crops Miscanthus spp. and Arundo donax L. Bioenergy Res. 2015, 8, 1500–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atma, W.; Larouci, M.; Meddah, B.; Benabdeli, K.; Sonnet, P. Evaluation of the phytoremediation potential of Arundo donax L. for nickel-contaminated soil. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2017, 19, 377–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papazoglou, E.G. Arundo donax L. stress tolerance under irrigation with heavy metal aqueous solutions. Desalination 2007, 211, 304–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papazoglou, E.; Serelis, K.; Bouranis, D. Impact of high cadmium and nickel soil concentration on selected physiological parameters of Arundo donax L. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2007, 43, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papazoglou, E.G.; Karantounias, G.A.; Vemmos, S.N.; Bouranis, D.L. Photosynthesis and growth responses of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) to the heavy metals Cd and Ni. Environ. Int. 2005, 31, 243–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arora, K.; Sharma, S.; Monti, A. Bio-remediation of Pb and Cd polluted soils by switchgrass: A case study in India. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2016, 18, 704–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Wang, Q.H.; Xiao, B.; Li, Y.F. Phytoremediation potential of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) for Cr-polluted soil. ISWREP 2011—Proc. 2011 Int. Symp. Water Resour. Environ. Prot. 2011, 3, 1731–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Renewable Energy—Recast to 2030 (RED II). Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/jec/renewable-energy-recast-2030-red-ii (accessed on 13 March 2020).
- IRENA. Global Energy Transformation: A roadmap to 2050; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Decreto-Lei N.276/2009 Regime jurídico de utilização agrícola das lamas de depuração em solos agrícolas; Diário Da República No 192 Série I 2 Outubro 2009; MINISTÉRIO DO Ambient. DO Ordenam. DO Territ. E DO Desenvolv. Reg.: Lisbon, Portugal, 2009; pp. 7154–7165.
- Watts, S.; Lyndsay, H. Essential Environmental Science: Methods and Techniques; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Baize, D. Guide des Analyses en Pedologie, 2nd ed.; INRA: Paris, France, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Ross, D.S.; Ketterings, Q. Recommended Methods for Determining Soil Cation Exchange Capacity. In Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the Northeastern United States. Cooperative Bulletin; University of Delaware: Newark, DE, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Walkley, A.; Black, I. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934, 34, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsen, S.R.; Cole, C.V.; Watanabe, F.S.; Dean, L.A. Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soils by Extraction with Sodium Bicarbonate; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Circular 939; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA; New York, NY, USA, 1954. [Google Scholar]
- Watanabe, F.S.; Olsen, S.R. Test of an ascorbic acid method for determining phosphorus in water and NaHCO3 extracts from the soil. Soil Sci Soc. A. Proc. 1965, 29, 677–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO. ISO 11466. Soil Quality—Extraction of Trace Metals Soluble in Aqua Regia; ISO International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Iqbal, Y.; Bermond, A.; Lamy, L. Impact of miscanthus cultivation on trace metal availability in contaminated agricultural soils: Complementary insights from kinetic extraction and physical fractionation. Chemosphere 2013, 91, 287–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASTM E1755-(Reapproved 2015); Standard Test Method for Ash in Biomass. National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2005; pp. 1–3.
- Vandecasteele, C.; Block, B.C. Modern Methods for Trace Element Determination; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Chamberlain, C.; Edward; Freedman, R.W. Microdetermination of Volatile Matter and Rock Dust Concentration of Airborne Coal Mine Dust; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines: Washington, DC, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, C. Prediction of higher heating values of biomass from proximate and ultimate analyses. Fuel 2011, 90, 1128–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goering, H.R.; van Soest, P.J. Forage Fiber Analyses; Agricultural Handbook No. 379; United States Department of Agricultum: Washington, DC, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
- Tortosa Masiá, A.A.; Buhre, B.J.P.; Gupta, R.P.; Wall, T.F. Characterising ash of biomass and waste. Fuel Process. Technol. 2007, 88, 1071–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadav, S.K.; Juwarkar, A.A.; Kumar, G.P.; Thawale, P.R.; Singh, S.K.; Chakrabarti, T. Bioaccumulation and phyto-translocation of arsenic, chromium and zinc by Jatropha curcas L.: Impact of dairy sludge and biofertilizer. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 4616–4622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, G.P.; Yadav, S.K.; Thawale, P.R.; Singh, S.K.; Juwarkar, A.A. Growth of Jatropha curcas on heavy metal contaminated soil amended with industrial wastes and Azotobacter—A greenhouse study. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 2078–2082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbafieri, M.; Dadea, C.; Tassi, E.; Bretzel, F.; Fanfani, L. Uptake of heavy metals by native species growing in a mining area in Sardinia, Italy: Discovery native flora for phytoremediation. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2011, 13, 985–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabata-Pendias, A. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; ISBN 0849315751. [Google Scholar]
- Fernando, A.L.; Barbosa, B.; Boléo, S.; Duarte, M.P.; Sidella, S.; Costa, J.; Cosentino, S.L. Phytoremediation potential of heavy metal contaminated soils by the perennial energy crops miscanthus SPP. and arundo donax L. under low irrigation. In Proceedings of the European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, EUBCE, Copenhagen, Denmark, 14–18 May 2018; pp. 136–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, B.C.; Lai, H.Y.; Lee, D.Y.; Juang, K.W. Using chemical fractionation to evaluate the phytoextraction of cadmium by switchgrass from cd-contaminated soils. Ecotoxicology 2011, 20, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Gu, M.; Ma, X.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Y.; Cui, J.; Gao, W.; Gui, J. Model optimization of cadmium and accumulation in switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.): Potential use for ecological phytoremediation in Cd-contaminated soils. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 16758–16771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ao, M.; Sun, S.; Deng, T.; Zhang, F.; Liu, T.; Tang, Y.; Qiu, R. Natural source of Cr (VI) in soil: The anoxic oxidation of Cr (III) by Mn oxides. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 433, 128805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raptis, S.; Gasparatos, D.; Economou-Eliopoulos, M.; Petridis, A. Chromium uptake by lettuce as affected by the application of organic matter and Cr (VI)-irrigation water: Implications to the land use and water management. Chemosphere 2018, 210, 597–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabeen, M.; Mahmood, Q.; Irshad, M.; Fareed, I.; Khan, A.; Ullah, F.; Hussain, J.; Hayat, Y.; Tabassum, S. Cadmium Phytoremediation by Arundo donax L. from Contaminated Soil and Water. BioMed Res. Int. 2013, 2013, 324830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Shaheen, S.; Ahmad, R.; Mahmood, Q.; Mubarak, H.; Mirza, N.; Hayat, M.T. Physiology and selected genes expression under cadmium stress in Arundo donax L. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2018, 20, 1162–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shanker, A.K.; Cervantes, C.; Loza-Tavera, H.; Avudainayagam, S. Chromium toxicity in plants. Environ. Int. 2005, 31, 739–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Robinson, B.H.; Lombi, E.; Zhao, F.J.; Mcgrath, S.P. Uptake and distribution of nickel and other metals in the hyperaccumulator Berkheya coddii. New Phytol. 2003, 158, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shahzad, B.; Tanveer, M.; Rehman, A.; Cheema, S.A.; Fahad, S.; Rehman, S.; Sharma, A. Nickel; whether toxic or essential for plants and environment—A review. Plant. Physiol. Biochem. 2018, 132, 641–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ismael, M.A.; Elyamine, M.; Moussa, M.G.; Cai, M.; Hu, C. Cadmium in plants: Uptake, toxicity, and its interactions with selenium fertilizers. Metallomics 2019, 11, 255–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Z.H.; Miao, X.F. Growth changes and tissues anatomical characteristics of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) in soil contaminated with arsenic, cadmium and lead. J. Cent. South. Univ Technol 2010, 17, 770–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Z.; Sykes, R.; Davis, M.F.; Charles Brummer, E.; Ragauskas, A.J. Chemical profiles of switchgrass. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 3253–3257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemus, R.; Brummer, E.C.; Burras, C.L.; Moore, K.J.; Barker, M.F.; Molstad, N.E. Effects of nitrogen fertilization on biomass yield and quality in large fields of established switchgrass in southern Iowa, USA. Biomass Bioenergy 2008, 32, 1187–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yan, J.; Hu, Z.; Pu, Y.; Brummer, E.C.; Ragauskas, A.J. Chemical compositions of four switchgrass populations. Biomass Bioenergy 2010, 34, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saikia, R.; Chutia, R.S.; Kataki, R.; Pant, K.K. Perennial grass (Arundo donax L.) as a feedstock for thermo-chemical conversion to energy and materials. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 188, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oginni, O.; Singh, K. Pyrolysis characteristics of Arundo donax harvested from a reclaimed mine land. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 133, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Wang, X.; Shen, B.; Hu, Z.; Xu, L.; Yang, S. Lignin from energy plant (Arundo donax): Pyrolysis kinetics, mechanism and pathway evaluation. Renew. Energy 2020, 161, 963–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogden, C.A.; Ileleji, K.E.; Johnson, K.D.; Wang, Q. In-field direct combustion fuel property changes of switchgrass harvested from summer to fall. Fuel Process. Technol. 2010, 91, 266–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, C.-C.; Han, L.-P.; Xie, G.-H. Response of Switchgrass Grown for Forage and Bioethanol to Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium on Semiarid Marginal Land. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casagrande, C.A.; Repette, W.L.; Hotza, D. Effect of environmental conditions on degradation of NOx gases by photocatalytic nanotitania-based cement mortars after long-term hydration. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 274, 123067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- S2 Biom S2 Biom Tolls for Biomass Chain. Available online: http://s2biom.alterra.wur.nl/ (accessed on 19 October 2020).
- Gomes, L.; Fernando, A.L.; Santos, F. A toolbox to tackle the technological and environmental constraints associated with the use of biomass for energy from marginal land. In Proceedings of the ECOS 2018—31st International Conference on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems, Guimarães, Portugal, 17–22 June 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Basso, M.C.; Cerrella, E.G.; Buonomo, E.L.; Bonelli, P.R.; Cukierman, A.L. Thermochemical conversion of Arundo donax into useful solid products. Energy Sources 2005, 27, 1429–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vernersson, T.; Bonelli, P.R.; Cerrella, E.G.; Cukierman, A.L. Arundo donax cane as a precursor for activated carbons preparation by phosphoric acid activation. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 83, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monti, A.; Di Virgilio, N.; Venturi, G. Mineral composition and ash content of six major energy crops. Biomass and Bioenergy 2008, 32, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Niu, Y.; Tan, H.; Hui, S. Ash-related issues during biomass combustion: Alkali-induced slagging, silicate melt-induced slagging (ash fusion), agglomeration, corrosion, ash utilization, and related countermeasures. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2016, 52, 1–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bierdermann, F.; Obernberger, I. Ash-related Problems during Biomass Combustion and Possibilities for a Sustainable Ash Utilisation. In Proceedings of the International Conference “World Renewable Energy Congress (WREC), Aberdeen, UK, 22–27 May 2005; Elsevier B.V.: Oxford, UK, 2005; pp. 120–124. [Google Scholar]
- Vassilev, S.V.; Baxter, D.; Andersen, L.K.; Vassileva, C.G. An overview of the chemical composition of biomass. Fuel 2010, 89, 913–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hrdlička, J.; Skopec, P.; Dlouhý, T.; Hrdlička, F. Emission factors of gaseous pollutants from small scale combustion of biofuels. Fuel 2016, 165, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lachman, J.; Baláš, M.; Lisý, M.; Lisá, H.; Milčák, P.; Elbl, P. An overview of slagging and fouling indicators and their applicability to biomass fuels. Fuel Process. Technol. 2021, 217, 106804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiore, V.; Scalici, T.; Valenza, A. Characterization of a new natural fiber from Arundo donax L. as potential reinforcement of polymer composites. Carbohydr. Polym. 2014, 106, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giudicianni, P.; Cardone, G.; Sorrentino, G.; Ragucci, R. Hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin interactions on Arundo donax steam assisted pyrolysis. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2014, 110, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krička, T.; Matin, A.; Bilandžija, N.; Jurišić, V.; Antonović, A.; Voća, N.; Grubor, M. Biomass valorisation of Arundo donax L., Miscanthus × giganteus and Sida hermaphrodita for biofuel production. Int. Agrophysics 2017, 31, 575–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imam, T.; Capareda, S. Characterization of bio-oil, syn-gas and bio-char from switchgrass pyrolysis at various temperatures. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2012, 93, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brummer, E.C.; Burras, C.L.; Duffy, M.D.; Moore, K.J. Switchgrass Production in Iowa: Economic Analysis, Soil Suitability and Varietal Performance; Iowa Sate University: Ames, IA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Reed, R.L.; Sanderson, M.A.; Allen, V.G.; Zartman, R.E. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis Cadmium application and pH effects on growth and cadmium accumulation in switchgrass. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant. Anal. 2002, 33, 1187–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, X.; You, S. Soil pollution of abandoned tailings in one zinc antimony mine and heavy metal accumulation characteristics of dominant plants. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Materials, Environmental and Biological Engineering, Guilin, China, 28–30 March 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Decreto Lei n 236/98. Normas, critérios e objectivos de qualidade com a finalidade de proteger o meio aquático e melhorar a qualidade das águas em função dos seus principais usos. Diário da República 1998, 176, 3676–3722. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar]
- Costa, J.; Barbosa, B.; Fernando, A.L. Wastewaters Reuse for Energy Crops Cultivation. In Proceedings of the 7th IFIP WG 5.5/SOCOLNET Advanced Doctoral Conference on Computing, Electrical and Industrial Systems, DoCEIS 2016, Costa de Caparica, Portugal, 11–13 April 2016; 2016; Volume 470, pp. 507–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Apte, A.D.; Tare, V.; Bose, P. Extent of oxidation of Cr(III) to Cr(VI) under various conditions pertaining to natural environment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 128, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gomes, L.A.; Costa, J.; Santos, F.; Fernando, A.L. Environmental and socio-economic impact assessment of the.switchgrass production in heavy metals contaminated soils. Lect. Notes Mech. Eng. 2022, 410–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parameters | |
---|---|
pH | 8.4 ± 0.2 |
Electrical conductivity (dS m−1) | 0.29 ± 0.03 |
CEC (cmol(+)kg−1, dw) | 40 ± 3 |
Total organic carbon (g C kg−1, dw) | 8.6 ± 0.8 |
Total nitrogen (g N kg−1, dw) | 1.0 ± 0.2 |
Total phosphorus (g P kg−1, dw) | 0.72 ± 0.01 |
Available phosphorus (mg P kg−1, DW) | 216 ± 10 |
Total potassium (g K kg−1, dw) | 2.15 ± 0.01 |
Total calcium (g Ca kg−1, dw) | 20 ± 6 |
Total sodium (g Na kg−1, dw) | 8 ± 2 |
Total magnesium (g Mg kg−1, dw) | 5.30 ± 0.08 |
Total cadmium (mg Cd kg−1, dw) | 1.0 ± 0.4 |
Total chromium (mg Cr kg−1, dw) | 21 ± 2 |
Total nickel (mg Ni kg−1, dw) | 18 ± 4 |
Main Element of Contamination | Parameters | Soil Type | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Control | Low | High | ||
Cd | Total cadmium (mg Cd kg−1, dw) | 1.0 ± 0.4 | 4.8 ± 0.9 | 9.2 ± 1.4 |
Bioavailable cadmium (mg Cd kg−1, dw) | 0.76 ± 0.05 | 4.2 ± 0.5 | 9.9 ± 0.6 | |
Cr | Total chromium (mg Cr kg−1, dw) | 21 ± 2 | 345 ± 56 | 663 ± 82 |
Bioavailable chromium (mg Cr kg−1, dw) | 1.308 ± 0.002 | 67 ± 2 | 146 ± 13 | |
Ni | Total nickel (mg Ni kg−1, dw) | 18 ± 4 | 118 ± 18 | 242 ± 32 |
Bioavailable nickel (mg Ni kg−1, dw) | 5.8 ± 0.4 | 90 ± 6 | 182 ± 3 |
Contamination | Switchgrass TI | Giant Reed TI | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Aboveground | Belowground | Aboveground | Belowground | |
Cd4 | 1.1 ± 0.4 | 1.7 ± 0.6 | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.3 |
Cd8 | 0.5 ± 0.3 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.7 ± 0.2 |
Cr300 | - | - | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.3 |
Cr600 | - | - | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.4 |
Ni110 | 1.1 ± 0.4 | 1.9 ± 0.7 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.3 |
Ni220 | 0.4 ± 0.2 | 0.6 ± 0.2 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.3 |
Control | Cd4 | Cd8 | Ni110 | Ni220 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aerial Biomass | |||||
Volatile Matter (% dw) | 78.7 ± 0.5 a | 75.9 ± 0.1 b | 74.6 ± 0.1 c | 73.0 ± 0.1 d | 78.8 ± 1.2 a |
Ash (% dw) | 8.3 ± 0.3 a | 7.5 ± 0.2 b | 8.2 ± 0.2 a | 8.1 ± 0.2 a | 7.8 ± 0.8 ab |
Fixed Carbon (% dw) | 13.2 ± 0.4 d | 16.8 ± 0.1 c | 17.2 ± 0.2 b | 18.8 ± 0.1 a | 13.2 ± 2.4 d |
HHV (MJ.kg−1) | 18.3 ± 0.3 a | 18.7 ± 0.3 a | 18.5 ± 0.2 a | 18.6 ± 0.4 a | 18.6 ± 0.8 a |
N (%, dw) | 0.71 ± 0.01 d | 0.91 ± 0.08 b | 1.11 ± 0.07 a | 0.78 ± 0.03 c | 0.89 ± 0.08 bc |
P (g.kg−1, dw) | 0.52 ± 0.06 b | 0.63 ± 0.14 ab | 0.46 ± 0.12 b | 0.63 ± 0.01 a | 0.47 ± 0.08 b |
K (g.kg−1, dw) | 11.6 ± 0.9 a | 10.9 ± 0.9 a | 10.8 ± 1.2 a | 11.5 ± 0.7 a | 11.3 ± 0.9 a |
Ca (g.kg−1, dw) | 11 ± 2 a | 12 ± 3 a | 14 ± 3 a | 12 ± 2 a | 9 ± 2 a |
Mg (g.kg−1, dw) | 10.6 ± 1.0 a | 9.3 ± 0.9 a | 8.8 ± 1.2 a | 9.5 ± 0.7 a | 8.4 ± 1.4 a |
Na (g.kg−1, dw) | 1.09 ± 0.05 ab | 0.99 ± 0.09 b | 1.18 ± 0.08 a | 0.99 ± 0.07 b | 1.13 ± 0.08 a |
Control | Cd4 | Cd8 | Cr300 | Cr600 | Ni110 | Ni220 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Leaves | |||||||
Volatile Matter (% dw) | 76.6 ± 0.7 a | 74.9 ± 0.2 b | 73.3 ± 0.4 c | 74.2 ± 0.3 b | 74.7 ± 0.3 b | 76.6 ± 0.4 a | 77.6 ± 1.1 a |
Ash (% dw) | 9.2 ± 0.4 c | 10.4 ± 0.2 b | 11.1 ± 0.2 a | 11.0 ± 0.6 ab | 11.6 ± 0.6 a | 8.7 ± 0.4 c | 9.4 ± 0.9 bc |
Fixed Carbon (% dw) | 14.5 ± 0.7 ab | 14.8 ± 0.1 b | 15.7 ± 0.6 a | 15.3 ± 0.1 a | 14.1 ± 0.1 b | 15.1 ± 0.3 a | 13.5 ± 1.1 c |
HHV (MJ.kg−1) | 18.3 ± 1.1 a | 18.0 ± 0.0 a | 17.9 ± 0.1 a | 18.0 ± 0.0 a | 17.8 ± 0.1 a | 18.4 ± 0.0 a | 18.2 ± 0.1 a |
N (%, dw) | 1.7 ± 0.3 a | 1.6 ± 0.2 a | 1.9 ± 0.2 a | 1.6 ± 0.2 a | 1.6 ± 0.2 a | 1.5 ± 0.2 b | 1.7 ± 0.2 a |
P (%, dw) | 0.20 ± 0.01 b | 0.46 ± 0.18 a | 0.22 ± 0.04 b | 0.26 ± 0.05 b | 0.37 ± 0.06 a | 0.23 ± 0.08 b | 0.34 ± 0.05 a |
K (g.kg−1, dw) | 7.4 ± 1.9 b | 16.1 ± 2.6 a | 18.2 ± 2.8 a | 14.3 ± 2.4 a | 10.9 ± 2.3 b | 10.3 ± 2.4 b | 8.2 ± 2.1 b |
Ca (g.kg−1, dw) | 5.7 ± 2.1 b | 5.4 ± 1.3 b | 7.3 ± 2.0 b | 9.7 ± 3.1 ab | 6.4 ± 2.2 b | 7.6 ± 2.1 ab | 11.8 ± 2.1 a |
Mg (g.kg−1, dw) | 4.0 ± 0.8 a | 5.2 ± 1.2 a | 6.5 ± 1.3 a | 4.7 ± 1.3 a | 6.5 ± 1.7 a | 4.9 ± 1.5 a | 7.5 ± 1.8 a |
Na (g.kg−1, dw) | 2.0 ± 0.4 a | 0.92 ± 0.27 b | 0.85 ± 0.28 b | 0.73 ± 0.23 b | 0.86 ± 0.28 b | 0.65 ± 0.13 b | 0.99 ± 0.23 b |
Stems | |||||||
Volatile Matter (% dw) | 80.5 ± 0.0 a | 75.9 ± 0.4 b | 74.6 ± 0.2 b | 77.1 ± 0.0 b | 74.2 ± 0.2 b | 81.4 ± 0.2 a | 79.8 ± 0.2 a |
Ash (% dw) | 5.4 ± 1.3 b | 6.2 ± 0.3 b | 8.0 ± 1.4 ab | 7.4 ± 0.4 a | 6.2 ± 0.5 b | 6.2 ± 0.6 b | 7.4 ± 1.5 ab |
Fixed Carbon (% dw) | 15.1 ± 0.6 c | 18.2 ± 0.3 b | 18.3 ± 0.1 b | 15.8 ± 0.3 c | 19.4 ± 0.1 a | 12.7 ± 0.2 e | 13.7 ± 0.4 d |
HHV (MJ.kg−1) | 19.1 ± 1.3 a | 19.0 ± 0.1 a | 18.8 ± 0.1 a | 18.7 ± 0.2 a | 19.0 ± 0.1 a | 18.7 ± 0.2 a | 18.7 ± 0.2 a |
N (%, dw) | 0.77 ± 0.05 c | 1.6 ± 0.2 a | 2.0 ± 0.3 a | 1.0 ± 0.0 b | 1.4 ± 0.3 a | 1.3 ± 0.3 b | 1.2 ± 0.5 ab |
P (g.kg−1, dw) | 0.70 ± 0.10 b | 1.9 ± 0.7 a | 0.92 ± 0.25 ab | 0.48 ± 0.21 b | 0.87 ± 0.14 b | 0.62 ± 0.30 b | 0.58 ± 0.16 b |
K (g.kg−1, dw) | 11.1 ± 2.6 b | 15.8 ± 0.9 b | 15.2 ± 0.8 b | 16.4 ± 2.8 ab | 19.6 ± 1.8 a | 14.3 ± 2.3 b | 15.8 ± 1.5 b |
Ca (g.kg−1, dw) | 2.3 ± 0.1 a | 2.6 ± 0.8 ab | 2.0 ± 0.7 ab | 2.4 ± 0.2 a | 1.9 ± 0.2 b | 2.6 ± 0.5 ab | 2.4 ± 0.5 ab |
Mg (g.kg−1, dw) | 3.0 ± 0.2 a | 3.3 ± 0.7 a | 4.4 ± 1.2 a | 3.8 ± 1.3 a | 4.3 ± 0.9 a | 2.7 ± 0.8 a | 3.2 ± 0.7 a |
Na (g.kg−1, dw) | 1.8 ± 0.3 a | 0.75 ± 0.16 b | 0.87 ± 0.19 b | 0.80 ± 0.23 b | 0.77 ± 0.24 b | 1.2 ± 0.4 ab | 1.3 ± 0.3 ab |
Control | Cd4 | Cd8 | Cr300 | Cr600 | Ni110 | Ni220 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Giant reed stems | 0.8 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.1 |
Switchgrass | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | - | - | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.1 |
Hemicellulose | Cellulose | Lignin | Total Fiber | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Giant reed | Control | 31.5 ± 1.4 | 25.6 ± 5.1 | 20.0 ± 1.7 | 77.1 ± 2.0 |
stems | Cd4 | 29.7 ± 1.0 | 27.8 ± 4.5 | 21.2 ± 3.1 | 78.7 ± 2.5 |
Cd8 | 30.3 ± 4.7 | 26.5 ± 1.7 | 20.8 ± 2.7 | 76.7 ± 1.7 | |
Cr300 | 30.4 ± 1.3 | 19.5 ± 2.3 | 22.5 ± 1.4 | 72.3 ± 0.5 | |
Cr600 | 30.7 ± 1.1 | 22.5 ± 1.3 | 21.9 ± 1.4 | 75.1 ± 1.1 | |
Ni110 | 30.1 ± 0.7 | 26.3 ± 0.7 | 19.5 ± 1.9 | 75.9 ± 0.5 | |
Ni220 | 30.3 ± 2.0 | 25.1 ± 3.0 | 19.1 ± 0.4 | 74.5 ± 1.3 | |
Switchgrass | Control | 34.6 ± 0.7 | 22.3 ± 0.1 | 15.2 ± 1.4 | 72.1 ± 2.0 |
Cd4 | 35.6 ± 6.9 | 23.5 ± 1.6 | 14.9 ± 0.5 | 74.0 ± 5.7 | |
Cd8 | 34.0 ± 1.8 | 25.2 ± 1.0 | 14.7 ± 0.5 | 73.8 ± 1.3 | |
Ni110 | 30.0 ± 2.1 | 22.9 ± 4.8 | 18.1 ± 3.5 | 71.0 ± 0.8 | |
Ni220 | 33.4 ± 1.4 | 23.2 ± 5.5 | 19.8 ± 7.0 | 76.3 ± 0.1 |
Species | Treatment | Element Analyzed | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Switchgrass | Aboveground Fraction | Belowground Fraction | |||||
Control | Cadmium | 0.33 ± 0.01 b | 1.98 ± 0.02 c | ||||
Cd4 | 1.09 ± 0.14 a | 5.0 ± 0.6 b | |||||
Cd8 | 1.33 ± 0.01 a | 10.6 ± 1.2 a | |||||
Control | Chromium | 16.2 ± 1.9 | 8.8 ± 3.0 | ||||
Cr300 | - | - | |||||
Cr600 | - | - | |||||
Control | Nickel | 8.0 ± 2.0 b | 21 ± 3 b | ||||
Ni110 | 12.4 ± 3.8 ab | 53 ± 3 a | |||||
Ni220 | 14.7 ± 1.1 a | 58 ± 2 a | |||||
Giant reed | Leaves | Stems | Rhizomes | ||||
Control | Cadmium | 0.97 ± 0.30 b | 0.28 ± 0.18 c | 0.61 ± 0.04 c | |||
Cd4 | 3.1 ± 0.7 a | 0.91 ± 0.21 b | 1.88 ± 0.09 b | ||||
Cd8 | 4.3 ± 0.7 a | 4.4 ± 0.6 a | 4.6 ± 1.5 a | ||||
Control | Chromium | 20 ± 6 b | 7.5 ± 2.1 b | 29 ± 3 c | |||
Cr300 | 28 ± 7 b | 9.1 ± 1.0 b | 245 ± 70 b | ||||
Cr600 | 92 ± 11 a | 15.6 ± 0.8 a | 744 ± 94 a | ||||
Control | Nickel | 96 ± 14 a | 5.45 ± 0.02 c | 41 ± 7 c | |||
Ni110 | 77 ± 10 a | 9.6 ± 0.1 b | 54 ± 6 b | ||||
Ni220 | 90 ± 16 a | 15.1 ± 0.1 a | 134 ± 10 a |
Structure | Trial | mAI | mBCF | mBAF (%) | TF (Aboveground/Belowground) | mTF (Aboveground/Belowground) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Stems | Cr300 | 0.38 ± 0.20 | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.003 ± 0.001 | 0.15 | 0.01 | ||
Cr600 | 0.69 ± 0.35 | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.002 ± 0.001 | 0.38 | 0.03 | |||
Ni110 | 1.32 ± 0.27 | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.005 ± 0.001 | 0.77 | 0.12 | |||
Ni220 | 1.38 ± 0.55 | 0.08 ± 0.00 | 0.003 ± 0.001 | 0.93 | 0.13 | |||
Cd4 | 2.31 ± 1.73 | 0.22 ± 0.06 | 0.010 ± 0.003 | 0.32 | 0.05 | |||
Cd8 | 5.19 ± 3.79 | 0.44 ± 0.06 | 0.009 ± 0.003 | 0.46 | 0.06 | |||
Leaves | Cr300 | 0.39 ± 0.18 | 0.42 ± 0.10 | 0.021 ± 0.007 | ||||
Cr600 | 1.59 ± 0.79 | 0.63 ± 0.09 | 0.039 ± 0.015 | |||||
Ni110 | 0.60 ± 0.21 | 0.86 ± 0.13 | 0.115 ± 0.032 | |||||
Ni220 | 0.42 ± 0.13 | 0.49 ± 0.09 | 0.040 ± 0.009 | |||||
Cd4 | 2.19 ± 0.97 | 0.73 ± 0.18 | 0.091 ± 0.027 | |||||
Cd8 | 1.58 ± 0.73 | 0.43 ± 0.07 | 0.028 ± 0.009 | |||||
Roots | Cr300 | 1.09 ± 0.40 | 2.30 ± 0.25 | 1.869 ± 0.547 | ||||
Cr600 | 1.89 ± 0.70 | 1.30 ± 0.17 | 1.493 ± 0.463 | |||||
Ni110 | 1.16 ± 0.45 | 0.86 ± 0.18 | 1.015 ± 0.293 | |||||
Ni220 | 0.76 ± 0.35 | 0.41 ± 0.09 | 0.326 ± 0.123 | |||||
Cd4 | 1.36 ± 0.44 | 1.85 ± 0.35 | 1.930 ± 0.462 | |||||
Cd8 | 1.04 ± 0.37 | 0.95 ± 0.14 | 0.627 ± 0.168 |
Structure | Trial | mAI | mBCF | mBAF (%) | TF | mTF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aboveground | Ni110 | 1.77 ± 0.96 | 0.14 ± 0.04 | 0.032 ± 0.011 | 0.23 ± 0.07 | 0.15 ± 0.07 |
Ni220 | 0.68 ± 0.35 | 0.08 ± 0.01 | 0.006 ± 0.002 | 0.25 ± 0.02 | 0.17 ± 0.06 | |
Cd4 | 3.67 ± 1.85 | 0.26 ± 0.05 | 0.059 ± 0.014 | 0.22 ± 0.04 | 0.16 ± 0.06 | |
Cd8 | 2.14 ± 1.42 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.015 ± 0.007 | 0.13 ± 0.02 | 0.09 ± 0.05 | |
Belowground | Ni110 | 4.73 ± 1.84 | 0.59 ± 0.05 | 0.210 ± 0.067 | ||
Ni220 | 1.69 ± 0.54 | 0.32 ± 0.01 | 0.037 ± 0.008 | |||
Cd4 | 4.20 ± 1.61 | 1.19 ± 0.20 | 0.376 ± 0.134 | |||
Cd8 | 4.07 ± 0.93 | 1.07 ± 0.14 | 0.155 ± 0.023 |
Main Element of Contamination | Crop | Heavy Metal in Percolated Waters (mg.L−1) | Limit Values in the Discharge of Wastewater [96] | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control | Low | High | |||
Cd | Switchgrass | 0.048 ± 0.007 aB | 0.059 ± 0.012 bAB | 0.076 ± 0.012 bA | 0.2 mg.L−1 Cd |
Giant reed | 0.031 ± 0.008 aB | 0.111 ± 0.012 aA | 0.105 ± 0.015 aA | ||
Cr | Switchgrass | 0.418 ± 0.015 aB | 1.008 ± 0.101 aA | 0.632 ± 0.156 bB | 2.0 mg.L−1 Cr |
Giant reed | 0.399 ± 0.015 aC | 1.034 ± 0.056 aB | 4.344 ± 0.225 aA | ||
Ni | Switchgrass | 0.036 ± 0.007 aB | 0.128 ± 0.032 aA | 0.082 ± 0.016 bA | 2.0 mg.L−1 Ni |
Giant reed | 0.048 ± 0.008 aC | 0.105 ± 0.018 aB | 0.488 ± 0.062 aA |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gomes, L.; Costa, J.; Moreira, J.; Cumbane, B.; Abias, M.; Santos, F.; Zanetti, F.; Monti, A.; Fernando, A.L. Switchgrass and Giant Reed Energy Potential when Cultivated in Heavy Metals Contaminated Soils. Energies 2022, 15, 5538. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155538
Gomes L, Costa J, Moreira J, Cumbane B, Abias M, Santos F, Zanetti F, Monti A, Fernando AL. Switchgrass and Giant Reed Energy Potential when Cultivated in Heavy Metals Contaminated Soils. Energies. 2022; 15(15):5538. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155538
Chicago/Turabian StyleGomes, Leandro, Jorge Costa, Joana Moreira, Berta Cumbane, Marcelo Abias, Fernando Santos, Federica Zanetti, Andrea Monti, and Ana Luisa Fernando. 2022. "Switchgrass and Giant Reed Energy Potential when Cultivated in Heavy Metals Contaminated Soils" Energies 15, no. 15: 5538. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155538