Accumulation of Heavy metals (Cd, Cr, Ni, Co, Cu and Fe) in various parts of Zea mays treated with asbestos effluent

published IN Indian science congress

Accumulation of Heavy metals (Cd, Cr, Ni, Co, Cu and Fe) in various parts of Zea mays treated with asbestos effluent

Amar Nath Giri

 Abstract:

The treated asbestos effluent was collected from asbestos industry. Different concentrations mainly control (0%), 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% were prepared from the asbestos effluent using and Maize (Zea mays) was grown in sand pot culture. all metals (Cr, Cd, Cu, Ni, Fe and Co)  concentration was increased with increasing concentration of treated effluent of asbestos industry in tissues of root, stem and leaves. The Cd concentration was significant by higher in root on 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% of concentration of asbestos effluent.

Key words:

Introduction:

            Cotruvo (1983) briefly reviewed its impact on future regulatory decisions regarding the possible control of asbestos fiber in drinking water. The results of animal feeding studies indicate that asbestos fails to demonstrate toxicity in whole-animal lifetime exposures. The epidemiologic evidence of risk from ingestion of water containing asbestos fibers is not convincing, and in view of the lack of confirmation by animal studies, the existence of a risk has not been proven; however occupational gastrointestinal cancer may indicate ingestion risk. Whether or not there is a risk from asbestos in drinking water, however, common sense tells us to deal with an undesirable situation by employing means that are commonly and economically available. Well-known methods can minimize the presence of asbestos fibers in finished drinking water. In the case of natural fiber in raw water, standard or augmented filtration practices are extremely effective. If the source of asbestos fiber is asbestos-cement pipe that is being attacked by corrosive water, then, there is more than sufficient economic reason to correct the corrosivity of the water.

Varga (2000) discussed the possibility of a carcinogenic effect of consuming drinking water contaminated by asbestos fibres. According to Joshi and Gupta (2003) locally mined asbestos is not enough for its current needs in India, hence a great deal of asbestos is imported from Canada.

Materials and Methods:

The treated asbestos effluent was collected from asbestos industry Mohan Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.). Different concentrations mainly control (0%), 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% were prepared from the asbestos effluent using distilled water. Maize (Zea mays) was grown in sand pot culture. Metal analysis (Cr, Cd, Cu, Ni, Fe and Co) in plants was done by Piper method (1942) using A.A.S.

Results:

               Effects on metal  concentration in tissue of Zea mays  due to application of  different  dilution (20%, 40%, 60% and 100%)  of asbestos  industry effluent  on  50 and 90 days  of exposure  period are  shown in table 1 to 6.  The metal concentration was increased with increasing concentration of treated effluent of asbestos industry in tissues of root, stem and leaves. The Cd concentration was significant by higher in root on 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% of concentration of asbestos effluent on 50 days of exposure period and at 90 days on 60% and 80% of roots and 100% of leaves of effluent concentration value was significant compared with control. The chromium  concentration  was increased  and statistically significant  in root at 20%, 40% and 80% of  concentration of effluent  on  50 days of  exposure period and in stem at 20%, 40%, 80% and 100%  value was statistically  significant  compared with  control. In stem  at 90 days of exposure  period  showed  statistically  significant  value  compared  with control on 60% concentration of treated  effluent  of asbestos industry effluent. The quantity of Ni in root, stem and leaves was slightly and gradually increased with increased effluent concentration.

An effect of asbestos industry effluent on cobalt concentration in root, stems and leaves on 50 and 90 days of exposure period. The cobalt at 50 days of exposure period showed significant high value in root, stem and leaves 20% and 80 % in root, 20%, 60%, 80% and 100% in stem and 40% 80% and 100% on leaves value were significant as compared with control root, stem and leaves. The copper, a micronutrient was also increased with the increase in effluent concentration and 50 days of exposure period. The Iron value was increased with increasing concentration of treated effluent.

Table 1: “Effect of asbestos industry effluent on tissue Cr and Cd concentration on 50 days of Zea mays”.

	Cr			Cd
Treatments	Root	Stem	Leaves	Root	Stem	Leaves
control	8±0.577	2±0.577	1±0.015	2.20±0.057	1.40±0.176	9.60±0
20%	12*±0 .577	5*±0.577	3±0.144	4.10±0.057	1.50±0.028	9.70±.0577
40%	14*±0.577	6*±.0577	4±0.289	6.00±0.289	5.98* ±0.133	10.00±.289
60%	29±0.577	7±0.289	8±0.577	7.50±0.289	9.60*±0.115	12.00±.289
80%	36*±2.309	7*±0.577	9±0.577	7.80±0.115	12.80*±0.115	12.90±.0577
100%	48±1.115	9*±0.577	10±0.577	9.80±0.115	13.60*±0.058	14.00±.577

Metals: µg/gm, values are mean of three replicates ±SE and (*) statistically significant at 0.05 level

Table 2:  “Effect of asbestos industry effluent on tissue Cr and Cd concentration on 90 days of Zea mays”.

	Cr			Cd
Treatments	Root	Stem	Leaves	Root	Stem	Leaves
control	8±0.145	3.00±0	1.20±0	2.30±0.577	1.30±0	11.90±0.520
20%	15±0.577	8.00±1.155	5.66±0.441	5.10±0.577	3.00±0.144	13.40±.115
40%	21±0.577	8.00±0.577	6.03±0.260	6.80±0.577	12.00±0.058	14.00±1.115
60%	32±0.577	10.07* ±0.706	9.00±0.2890	8.40±0.577	12.60±0.346	14.00±1.115
80%	42±1.115	9.80±0.462	9.50±0.289	8.33*±0.086	15.00±±0.577	16.00±±0.577
100%	52±1.115	10.00±0.577	11.00±0.577	9.48±0.130	16.98±.159	18.13*±.882

Table 3: “Effect of asbestos industry effluent on tissue Ni and Co 50 day’s concentration of Zea mays”.                               

	Ni			Co
Treatments	Root	Stem	Leaves	Root	Stem	Leaves
control	4±.0577	0.50±.0289	0.13±0.006	46±0.577	4.30±0.058	4.20±0.058
20%	11±0.577	1.00±.0115	0.85* ±0.014	85*±0.577	7.50* ±0.058	5.00±0.173
40%	14±0.577	1.80±0.115	1.60±0.011	89±1.115	7.70±0.0115	5.50*±0.056
60%	28±.0.577	4.20±0.289	3.60±0.058	92±1.115	7.90*±0.058	6.00±0.058
80%	36±.0.577	5.00±0.144	4.10±0.058	98*±0.577	8.40* ±0.058	6.50*±0.058
100%	48±.0.577	7.00±0.231	6.00±0.115	102±1.115	8.50* ±0.058	6.70*±0.058

Metals: µg/gm, values are mean of three replicates ±SE and (*) statistically significant at 0.05 level

Table 4: “Effect of asbestos industry effluent on tissue Ni and Co concentration on 90 days of Zea mays”

	Ni			Co
Treatments	Root	Stem	Leaves	Root	Stem	Leaves
control	4.70±0.058	0.58±0.011	0.14±0.006	49±0.577	4.60±0.058	4.20±0.115
20%	14.00±0.577	1.50±0.011	1.20±0.0289	88±1.155	8±0.289	6.20*±0.115
40%	18.00±0.577	2.46±0.033	2.00±0.057	92±1.115	8.60±0.115	7.80±0.115
60%	36.00±0.577	5.00±0.115	4.00±0.057	96* ±.577	9.20±0.115	7.00* ±0.289
80%	38.33±1.202	6.00±0.289	4.60±0.015	107*±0.577	10.20±0.115	8.50±0.289
100%	55.00±0.577	8.00±0144	7.00±0.144	112±1.732	12.00±0.577	9.00±0.115

Metals: µg/gm, values are mean of three replicates ±SE and (*) statistically significant at 0.05 level

Table 5: “Effect of asbestos industry effluent on tissue Cu and Fe concentration 50 day’s concentration of Zea mays”.

	Cu			Fe
Treatments	Root	Stem	Leaves	Root	Stem	Leaves
Control	5.02±0.012	2.22±0.012	2.04±0.023	42±0.577	32±0.577	16.40±0.116
20%	7.00±0.289	3.00±0.087	3.00±0.144	43±0.577	35*±0.577	19.60*±0.115
40%	7.20±0.058	4.50±0.144	3.06±0.142	48±1.155	41±0.115	20.00±1.155
60%	7.80±0.115	5.00±0.144	4.20±0.115	48*±0.577	42*±0.577	22.40±1.155
80%	8.00±0.012	5.65±0.087	4.38±0.144	54±0.577	43±0.115	22.67±0.115
100%	8.53±0.145	6.33*±0.220	5.00±0.144	55±2.887	52±1.155	33.00±0.577

Metals: µg/gm, values are mean of three replicates ±SE and (*) statistically significant at 0.05 level

Table 6: “Effect of asbestos industry effluent on tissue Cu and Fe concentration 90 day’s concentration of Zea mays”.

	Cu			Fe
Treatments	Root	Stem	Leaves	Root	Stem	Leaves
Control	5.28±0.017	2.60±0.057	2.25±0.028	11±0.577	33±0.577	18±0.577
20%	7.40±0.115	4.11±0.208	3.40±0.058	50*±1.155	36*±0.577	20±0.577
40%	8.12±0.012	7.00±0.289	3..30±0.058	52±0.577	42±1.155	21±0.577
60%	8.30±0.173	7.15±0.086	3..39±0.212	58*±1.155	46*±0.577	23±0.462
80%	8.50±0.012	7.50±0.057	4.50±0.058	58.5±0.577	50±0.577	28±0.577
100%	9.20±0.058	8.13±0.075	5..32±0.012	60*±1.155	57*±0.577	32.5±0.289

Metals: µg/gm, values are mean of three replicates ±SE and (*) statistically significant at 0.05 level

Discussion:

Previously, several scientists Cotruvo (1983); Czuba et al. (1992); Varga (2000); Joshi and Gupta (2003, 2004); Martino et al. (2004); Trivedi et al. (2004), Gotloib (2005); have revealed the asbestos toxicity and their effects on health, drinking water, magnitude of risk, oxidative injury, sclerosis, effects on growth, physiological and biological parameters of plants, interaction of soil fungi with asbestos, contamination of soil and agricultural plants. Siddaramaiah et al. (1998) reported the chlorophyll a, b and total carotenoid contents of the leaves of Capsicum annumm L exposed to heavy metal rich industrial effluents using pot culture technique.

           Hara and Somoda, (1979), studied toxic effects of different heavy metals in cabbage growth and found that (Cr VI), Cu, Cd and Hg (II) in the solution were more toxic to the plant growth and Mn, Fe, and Zn were relatively less toxic. They also found that Mn, Zn, Cr, Ni and Cd were translocated into all the plant organs while V, Cr (III), Cr (VI), Fe, Cu, Hg and Hg (II) got accumulated in the roots.

Although effluent from industrial unit account for only 20% loss but their toxic value is constantly higher. Industrial pollutants viz acid alkali, oil, grease and pH, halogen sulphate, sulphuric phosphates, fluorides, sodium, calcium, potassium, detergent, carbonates, bicarbonates and heavy metals like Hg, Cu, Pb, Cr, Co, Mg, Fe etc. while present in the effluent causes colossal damage to the crop efficiency. Dissolve oxygen in water is associated with higher BOD and useful to the survival of aquatic flora and fauna. Pollution by toxic metals can be much more serious and insidious problem than by organic substance, because these are intrinsic component of environment. At high concentrations, all the metals are toxic to animals and plant both (Rai and Chandra, 1992; Sinha, et al., 1997). The continuous input of polluted water from point and non point sources have been causing harm to aquatic ecosystem and consequently to the flora and fauna. Heavy metals cannot be eliminated from the water bodies as they persist in sediments from where they are slowly released into the water. After their release from sediments heavy metals again pose serious hazards to aquatic organisms including algae. All living organism require trace amount of the metals, which are essential for normal metabolic function. Instead of this the elements namely As, Cd, Co, Cu, Cr, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Se and Zn are major environmental pollutants, potentially considered as cytotoxic, mutagenic, carcinogenic, although a few of them are essential for vital metabolic processes (Hadjiliadis, 1997). Some heavy metals such as Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu and Mo are ‘essential’ for the growth of higher plants, some are called ‘beneficial’ because they seem to be essential for some plant groups e.g. Ni, Co, and V, other are thought to be ‘non-essential’ e.g. Pb, Cd, Al, Cr, Hg and Bg (Bolland, 1983; Marschner, 1986; Woolhouse, 1983). High concentration of heavy metals in the environment creates serious pollution problems and cause deleterious effects in aquatic plants (Wang, 1992).

According to Pandey and Srivastava (2002) adjacent areas along with the drain of industrial effluent and domestic sewage are highly polluted and represent a sink for heavy metals and a large variety of chemicals. The accumulation of heavy metals like Cd, Cu, Zn, Hg, Ni, Pb, Cr etc., has been studied in industrial waste water amended soil. The cropland is increasingly becoming unsuitable for agriculture due to the indiscriminate disposal of industrial effluent. The industrial pollutants change the quality (pH and electrical conductivity) of soil and water (Sekar, 2001). It is evident that industrial wastewater adversely affects the soil characteristics, making it unfit for cultivation. It is estimated that in India about 36% of the irrigated area suffer from soil and water related problems because of indiscriminate use of poor quality water and in the absence of proper soil water crop management practices.

References:

Bollard, E.G. (1983). Involvement of unusual elements in plant growth and nutrition. In: Lanchi and R.L. Bieleski (eds) Encyclopedia of plant physiology, New series, 153, Springer, Berlin, 695-744.

Cotruvo, JA. (1983). Asbestos in drinking water: a status report. Environ Health Perspect. 53:181-3.

Czuba, R., Andruszczak E., Chodak, T., Bogda, A., Straczynski, S. (1992). Serpentine mine "Naslawice" as the source of contamination of soil and agricultural plants with metals and fibrous minerals] Med Pr. 43 (3):227-33.

Gotloib, L., Wajsbrot, V., Shostak, A.A. (2005). Short review of experimental peritoneal sclerosis: from mice to men. Int J Artif Organs. Feb; 28 (2):97-104.

Hadjiliadis, N.D. (1997). Cytotixicity mutagenic and carcinogenic potential of heavy metals related to human environment. 26. Kluwer. Dordrecht. pp. 629.

Hara, T. and Somoda, Y. (1979).Composition of the toxicity of heavy metals to cabbage growth. Plant Soil, 51 (1): 127-133.

Joshi, T.K., Gupta, R.K. (2003). Asbestos-related morbidity in India. Int J Occup Environ Health. 9 (3):249-53.

Joshi, T.K., Gupta, R.K. (2004). Asbestos in developing countries: magnitude of risk and its practical implications. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 17(1):179-85.

Marschner, H. (1986). Mineral nutrition of higher plants. Academic press London.

Martino, E., Cerminara, S., Prandi, L., Fubini, B., Perotto, S. (2004). Physical and biochemical interactions of soil fungi with asbestos fibers. Environ Toxicol Chem. 23(4):938-44.

Pandey, S. and Srivastava, V.S. (2002). Heavy metal accumulation in industrial solid waste amended soils. Nature Env. Polln. Techno. 1 (1): 73-75.

Piper, C.S. (1942). Soil and Plant analysis. Univ. of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.

Rai, U.N. and Chandra, P. (1992). Accumulation of copper, lead, manganese and iron by field population of Hydrodictyon reticulum (L). Lagerheim. Sci. Total Environ. 116: 203-211.

Sekar, C. (2001). Industrial pollution and its impact on soil, water crop in Karuganbathur Villore district, Tamilnadu, India. Second Bi-annual Conf. Bhopal (19-21).

Siddaramaiah, R.K., Ramakrishnaiah, H., Somashekar and Subramanya, S. (1998). Assessment of toxicity of heavy metal rich industrial effluents using germination and chlorophyll content tests. Jr. of Industrial Pollution Control. 14 (1): 27-35.

Sinha, S., Gupta, M. and Chadra, P. (1997). Oxidative stress induced by iron in Hydrilla verticillata (D.F.) Doyle response of antioxidants. Ecotoxicol Env. Saftey 38: 286-291.

Trivedi, A.K, Ahmad, I., Musthapa, M.S, Ansari, F.A., Rahman, Q. (2004). Environmental contamination of chrysotile asbestos and its toxic effects on growth and physiological and biochemical parameters of Lemna gibba. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 47 (3):281-289.

Varga C. (2000). Asbestos fibres in drinking water: are they carcinogenic or not? Med Hypotheses 55 (3):225-6.

Wang, W. (1992). Use of plants for the assessment of environmental contaminants Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 126: 87-127.

Woolhouse, H.W. (1983). Toxicity and tolerance in the responses of plants to metals in encyclopedia of plant physiology. Physiological plant Ecology. III Lange O.L., Nobel, P.S., Osmond, C.B. and Ziegler Springer, Berlin. 12: 245.