Effects of ammonium thiosulphate amendment on phytoremediation of mercury-polluted soil

Chinese Journal of Ecology

Volumn 29, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 1998-2002

  Wang, Jian Xu ^a,b   Feng, Xin Bin ^a   Shang, Li Hai ^a   Bao, Zheng Duo ^a,b   Qiu, Guang Le ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF GEOCHEMISTRY   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (China)

Author keywords

Ammonium thiosulfate; Mercury polluted soil; Phytoremediation

Indexed keywords

AMMONIUM SULFATE; BIOAVAILABILITY; BIOMASS; EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT; MERCURY (ELEMENT); PHYTOREMEDIATION; SOIL AMENDMENT; SOIL POLLUTION;

BRASSICA; BRASSICA JUNCEA;

EID: 77958041077     PISSN: 10004890     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Campbell PGC, Errécalde O, Fortin C, et al. 2002. Metal bioavailability to phytoplankton: Applicability of the biotic ligand model. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part C, 133:189-206.
2. Chaney RL. 1983. Plant uptake of inorganic waste constituents//Parr JF, ed. Land Treatment of Hazardous Wastes. Noyes Data Corporation, New Jersey: Park Ridge: 50-76.
3. Harada M. 1995. Minamata disease: Methylmercury poisoning in Japan caused by environmental pollution. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 25:1-24.
4. Hogberg HT, Kinsner-Ovaskainen A, Coecke S, et al. 2010. mRNA expression is a relevant tool to identify developmental neurotoxicants using an in vitro approach. Toxicological Science, 113:95-115.
5. Holmes P, James KAF, Levy LS. 2009. Is low-level environmental mercury exposure of concern to human health? Science of the Total Environment, 408:171-182.
6. Li Y, Yang L, Ji Y, et al. 2009. Quantification and fractionation of mercury in soils from the Chatian mercury mining deposit, southwestern China. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 31:617-628.
7. Moreno FN, Anderson CWN, Stewart RB, et al. 2004. Phytoremediation of mercury-contaminated mine tailings by induced plant-mercury accumulation. Environmental Practice, 6:165-175.
8. Moreno FN, Anderson CWN, Stewart RB, et al. 2005. Induced plant uptake and transport of mercury in the presence of sulphur-containing ligands and humic acid. New Phytologist, 166:445-454.
9. Rasmussen LD, Sørensen SJ, Turner RR, et al. 2000. Application of a mer-lux biosensor for estimating bioavailable mercury in soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 32:639-646.
10. Regnell O, Tunlid A. 1991. Laboratory study of chemical speciation of mercury in lake sediment and water under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 57:789.
11. Rodriguez L, Rincon J, Asencio I, et al. 2007. Capability of selected crop plants for shoot mercury accumulation from polluted soils: Phytoremediation perspectives. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 9:1-13.
12. Slotton DG, Reuter JE, Goldman CR. 1995. Mercury uptake patterns of biota in a seasonally anoxic northern California Reservoir. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 80:841-850.
13. Stern AH. 2005. A review of the studies of the cardiovascular health effects of methylmercury with consideration of their suitability for risk assessment. Environmental Research, 98:133-142.
14. Sterckeman T, Gomez A, Ciesielski H. 1996. Soil and waste analysis for environmental risk assessment in France. Science of the Total Environment, 178:63-69.
15. Stone M, Marsalek J. 1996. Trace metal composition and speciation in street sediment: Sault Ste. Marie, Canada. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 87:149-169.
16. Wang YD, Greger M. 2006. Use of iodide to enhance the phytoextraction of mercury-contaminated soil. Science of the Total Environment, 368:30-39.