Next Article in Journal
Emergency Pump-Rate Regulation to Mitigate Water-Hammer Effect—An Integrated Data-Driven Strategy and Case Studies
Previous Article in Journal
Electromechanical Energy-Based 3D-Controllable Motion of Small Matter toward Tiny Machines
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 17
Issue 5
10.3390/en17051156
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impact of Soil Contamination with Lead on the Biomass of Maize Intended for Energy Purposes, and the Biochemical and Physicochemical Properties of the Soil

by
Jadwiga Wyszkowska
*,
Edyta Boros-Lajszner
and
Jan Kucharski
Department of Soil Science and Microbiology, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Plac Łódzki 3, 10-727 Olsztyn, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2024, 17(5), 1156; https://doi.org/10.3390/en17051156
Submission received: 30 January 2024 / Revised: 26 February 2024 / Accepted: 27 February 2024 / Published: 29 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Section A: Sustainable Energy)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The subject of our research was to assess the suitability of maize grown in lead-contaminated soil for energy purposes. Lead is toxic to the natural environment. Therefore, the recultivation of soil polluted with this element is very important in stabilizing the natural environment. In the present research, maize was used as a remediating plant, and its effects were enhanced by soil fertilization with biocompost and biochar. The aim of the research was to determine the influence of Pb2+ on maize biomass, its combustion heat and heating value, and the biochemical and physicochemical properties of the soil. It was accomplished in a pot experiment by testing the effects of 800 mg Pb2+ kg−1 d.m. soil and biocompost and biochar applied of 20 g kg−1 d.m. soil. Lead was found to drastically deteriorate soil quality, which reduced the biomass of maize. Lead negatively affected the activity of the soil enzymes tested and modified the physicochemical properties of the soil. Fertilization with biocompost and biochar mitigated lead-induced interference with soil enzymatic activity. The applied biocomponents also had positive effects on the chemical and physicochemical properties of the soil. Maize cultivated on lead-polluted soil did not lose its energetic properties. The heating value of maize was stable, which shows its potential in the recultivation of lead-contaminated soils.

1. Introduction

The accumulation of heavy metals in the soil is a serious problem, because it adversely affects soil homeostasis and the growth and development of plants [1,2,3,4,5]. Lead (Pb) is one of the most toxic metals in the environment and is dangerous to humans and other living organisms [6,7]. Harmful trace elements of it threaten sustainable agricultural ecosystems when resulting from activities such as mining, landfilling and excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides [8,9]. Pb2+ accumulates in the soil and is easily taken up by plants, which can be dangerous to human and animal health [10,11]. The average content of lead in European soils in mg per kg is 16.40, in the USA—12.30, in Iran—6.12, and in China—25.56 [6,12]. According to Tótha et al. [13], the abundance of Pb2+ in the soils of the European Union member states varies from 1.63 to 151.12 mg kg−1, but most often does not exceed 50 mg kg−1. Nevertheless, certain plants, such as: Triticum L., Hordeum L., Helianthus annunus L., Sinapis alba, and Glycine max, are very sensitive to this metal and their growth may be inhibited even by a lead dose as low as 30 mg Pb2+ kg−1 d.m. soil [14]. There is also a group of plants, including Noccaea rotondifolia subsp. Cepaeifolia, which can tolerate Pb2+ doses of up to 1.000 mg kg−1 d.m. soil [15]. Lead has a strong influence on various developmental characteristics of exposed plants; for example, it inhibits seed germination, growth of aerial parts and roots, and photosynthesis [16,17,18,19]. Therefore, soil contaminated with Pb2+ should be remediated, as this is crucial for ensuring soil safety and sustainable agricultural development [20]. Physical extraction, chemical immobilization, and bioremediation are remediation methods deployed to mitigate the toxicity of heavy metals in the soil and improve plant performance [21,22,23]. Jiang et al. [24], Lahori et al. [25], and Zama et al. [26] have shown that the introduction of organic additives, such as compost and biochar, into the soil can immobilize heavy metals and that this type of soil amendment is considered environmentally friendly. Organic additives can modify the speciation of heavy metals by precipitation, adsorption, ion exchange reactions, and formation of organo-mineral complexes in the soil [27,28,29]. The efficiency of soil enzymes determines the cycling of nutrients needed by plants and is a good test of soil quality [30].
Compost increases the amount of humus in the soil and improves its structure, which indirectly contributes to plant development. Biochar is a solid renewable fuel produced from different types of biomass through pyrolysis [31]. The International Biochar Initiative [32] defines biochar is defined as a fine-grained carbonate with a high carbon content and low biodegradability. Its characteristic features include: an alkaline pH [33,34], a developed specific surface (from below 1 m2 g−1 up to several hundred m2 g−1) [34], and a porous structure with pore sizes from nano- to micrometers [35]. The porous structure of biochar is formed upon the release of vapors during biomass pyrolysis [36].
Apart from the use of additives of organic origin, the negative influence of trace elements can be ameliorated by means of phytoremediation, an increasingly frequently deployed bio-remediation technique [37,38]. Nevertheless, the plant efficacy in phytoremediation depends on heavy metals type and content. Compared to other remediation methods, phytoremediation produces higher quality soil [39]. It increases soil fertility by releasing organic matter [38,40]. The present experiment focused on maize and aimed to analyze its phytoremediation potential in removing Pb2+ from the soil. Maize can be used not only for food purposes but also for the production of biofuels [41,42]. The advantage of this plant is its high productivity, which can reach more than 15–20 tonnes ha−1 [37].
The following hypotheses were proposed in the present work: (a) the heating value of maize grown on soil under Pb2+ pressure is stable, (b) biocompost and biochar mitigate the negative impact of lead on the growing maize, and on the enzymatic, chemical, and physicochemical properties of the soil. The aim of the research was to evaluate the impact of soil contamination with Pb2+ on the biomass, combustion heat, heating value of maize, enzymatic activity, and physicochemical properties of the soil, and to estimate the impact of biocompost and biochar on these parameters.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

The pot experiment was carried out in north-eastern Poland under controlled conditions (average air temperature was 16.90 °C and air humidity was 76.50%). The soil used in the study was loamy sand (sand—78%, silt—21%, clay—1%), which had the following properties: pHKCl—4.20; HAC—21.13 mmol(+) kg−1; EBC—34.00 mmol(+) kg−1; CEC—55.13 mmol(+) kg−1; BS—61.68%; content of Corg—5.79 g kg−1, and NTotal—0.89 g kg−1. The above abbreviations are explained in Table 1. This was a two-factor experiment: (1) dose of Pb2+ [Pb(NO₃)₂]: 0 and 800 mg Pb2+ kg−1 d.m. soil, (2) use of biocompost and biochar in doses of: 0 and 20 g kg−1 d.m. soil. These additives have been applied to the soil in order to mitigate the potentially adverse influence of Pb2+ on maize growth and development, soil enzymatic activity and its chemical and physicochemical properties. Chemical composition of the biocompost and biochar are provided in Table 2 and their appearance in Figure 1. The dose of lead was determined based on the results of our preliminary research and the Regulation of the Minister of the Environment [43], according to which the allowed abundance of lead in 1 kg d.m. soil at a depth of 0–0.25 m varies from 100 mg for agricultural areas and allotment gardens to 1000 mg on the premises of production facilities, mining areas, and areas of public and internal roads. The soil was also amended with macronutrients according to the nutritional demands of the test plant (in mg kg−1 soil): N—140 [CO(NH2)2], P—50 g [KH2PO4], K—100 [KCl], and Mg—15 [MgSO4 × 7H2O]. When planning fertilizing doses of nitrogen, account was taken of its content that has been introduced into the soil in the form of Pb(NO₃)₂. During experiment preparation, the aqueous solution of lead nitrate, biocompost and biochar, as well as macroelements was mixed with a 3.5 kg portion of soil that was then transferred to plastic pots. Maize was selected as a phytoremediating plant because it is relatively resistant to heavy metal stress. An additional advantage in favor of using maize in the study was the fact that it is a frequently cultivated plant around the world [44,45]. Maize of the Garantio cultivar was used in the study. Throughout the experiment (60 days), soil moisture level was kept at 50% of the capillary water capacity, and the leaf greenness index (SPAD) was determined twice. The experiment was conducted in four replications. The maize was harvested in phase BBCH 39, and the biomass and their lead content were determined. The aerial parts of maize were also determined for the Q. Soil samples taken on the day of harvest were used to determine the activity of soil enzymes Deh, Cat, Ure, Pac, Pal, Glu, and Aryl, and the content of lead, Corg, NTotal, pH, HAC, EBC, CEC, and BS [Table 1].
Detailed procedures for determining the enzymatic activity of the soil were provided in our earlier work [52,53], as were those for the analysis of its physicochemical properties [54]. To determine the lead content of the soil and plant samples, the experimental material was crushed in a mortar. Then, samples of plant material weighing 0.3 g were mineralized in 10 cm3 65% HNO3, and soil samples weighing 0.5 g were mineralized in 9 cm3 HCl and 3 cm3 65% HNO3 in the MARS 6-CEM Corporation mineralizer (Matthews, NC, USA). The mineralized samples were diluted with demineralized water to 100 cm3 and the lead content was determined [Table 1].

2.2. Calculations and Statistical Methods

On the basis of the activity of the soil enzymes under investigation, a soil quality index (BA) was calculated [53]. In addition, the indices of the effect of the biocompost (IFK) and biochar (IFB) on the enzymatic activity of the soil were calculated using the following formula:
I F K / B = A K / B A
where
IFK/B—index of biocompost/biochar,
AK/B—enzymes in soil with biocompost/biochar,
A—enzymes in soil without biocompost/biochar.
Using the heat of combustion (Q) of maize biomass and the biomass of its aerial parts, the heating value of plants (Hv) and the amount of energy generated from plant biomass (YEP) from 1 kg of soil were determined [52,55]. The results of the study were developed statistically based on the analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the Statistica 13.5 program [56]. The coefficient of variation of all analyzed variables (η2) was determined using the analysis of variance method (ANOVA), and Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between dependent and independent variables. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was performed as well.

3. Results

3.1. Energy Value of the Biomass of Maize Grown on Soil Contaminated with Lead

In the experimental variants without the addition of biocompost and biochar, soil contamination with a lead dose of 800 mg Pb2+ kg−1 d.m. resulted in a significant reduction in the amount of biomass of the aerial parts (by 17.42%) and roots (by 25.76%) of maize (Table 3 and Figure 2). Soil amendment with biocompost had a significant effect on plant growth and development. In the uncontaminated soil samples, only biocompost caused a significant increase in the yield of aerial parts (by 7.6%) and an increase in root biomass (by 45.5%). On the other hand, in soil contaminated with Pb2+, there was a reduction in the yield of aerial parts by 9.58% in facilities with biocompost and by 13.82% with biochar, and of roots by 37.97% and 9.70%, respectively, compared to soil uncontaminated with this metal (Table 3). Both preparations significantly mitigated the negative effects of Pb2+ on the yield of the aerial parts of maize, while biocompost also mitigated the effects on the roots. In conclusion, biocompost elicited better results compared to biochar.
The impact index of biocompost (IFK) and biochar (IFB) confirms the positive effect of these additives on the biomass of the aerial parts and roots of maize (Figure 3). In uncontaminated sites, both biocompost and biochar stimulated the biomass of maize. The exception was root biomass from soil supplemented with biochar. Also, in soil contaminated with Pb2+, the stimulating effect of the applied improvers was found.
Soil contamination with Pb2+ induced a significant decrease in the value of the leaf greenness index (SPAD) of maize, both on day 14 and 48 of plant growth (Table 4). The introduction of biocompost and biochar to the soil did not cause significant changes in SPAD value on day 14, while decreased it on day 48 of plant growth. The adverse effect of Pb2+ on SPAD was only visible on day 14, in both biocompost- and biochar-treated soils. In all soil samples, both uncontaminated and contaminated, treated and not treated with the enhancers, the SPAD values were significantly lower on day 48 than on day 14 of crop vegetation.
The heat of combustion of maize biomass obtained in the control variant increased significantly under the influence of Pb2+, was constant regardless of the soil type amended with biochar, and significantly decreased in the soil contaminated with lead and treated with biocompost (Table 5). The values of this parameter in the biomass of maize grown on lead-contaminated and uncontaminated soil with the addition of biocompost ranged from 18,325 to 18,510 MJ kg−1 p.dm. In turn, the heating value of maize was independent of soil contamination with Pb2+, and of its treatment with biocompost and biochar. It ranged from 16.301 to 16.621 MJ kg−1, and the differences between the soil samples were statistically insignificant. The energy obtained from maize biomass produced from 1 kg of soil was higher in the variants with biocompost and biochar than in those without these additives. A dose of 800 mg Pb2+ kg−1 reduced energy production from maize biomass. This adverse effect of Pb2+ was in part alleviated by both biocompost and biochar.
The Pb2+ amount in the aerial parts and roots of maize and uncontaminated soil, regardless of the application of the substances used, remained at similar levels (Table 6). The content of Pb2+ in the aerial parts of maize grown on soil with lead at 800 mg kg−1 d.m. soil in the series without additives was 17.39 times, and in the series with biocompost 13.64 times and biochar 12.48 times higher compared to uncontaminated soil. In the soil samples with lead at 800 mg kg−1, the highest Pb2+ content in the aerial parts of maize was determined in sites with biochar, followed by control, and the lowest one on the sites with biocompost. For roots and soil, the highest Pb2+ content was determined in the control object, followed by the biochar and biocompost objects. The Pb2+ content of maize roots and soil in lead-contaminated sites was 35.78–fold and 63.50–fold, respectively, in the series without biocompost, 26.38–fold and 33.45–fold, and with biochar 11.38–fold and 45.99–fold higher compared to uncontaminated soil.

3.2. Effect of Lead on the Enzymatic Activity and Chemical and Physicochemical Properties of Soil

The soil samples uncontaminated with Pb2+ were characterized by the highest enzyme activity regardless of biocompost and biochar addition (Figure 4). After soil treatment with a lead dose of 800 mg kg−1 d.m., the activities of Deh, Cat, Ure, Pac, Pal, Glu, and Aryl were suppressed, both in the control soil samples and those supplemented with biocompost and biochar. In the control variant without biocompost and biochar addition, Deh, Cat, and Pal were more sensitive to Pb2+ than Ure, Pac, Aryl, and Glu. The sensitivity of enzymes to Pb2+ could be ordered as follows: Deh > Pal > Cat > Ure > Pac > Aryl > Glu. In addition, it can be concluded that the added substances contributed to alleviating lead stress in the soil.
The measures of the indicator of the impact of biocompost (IFK) and biochar (IFB) on enzymatic activity confirms the positive effect of these additives on soil biochemical properties (Figure 5). In the uncontaminated soil, both biocompost and biochar stimulated the activity of all enzymes. Their stimulating effects were also observed in the soil samples contaminated with Pb2+. The exception was catalase activity in the soil supplemented with biocompost. In the case of Pal, higher IFK and IFB values were computed in the case of the contaminated soil samples than in the uncontaminated samples. Similar was the case with Deh, except in the variants with biocompost addition.
The application of biocompost and biochar and the influence of Pb2+ on soil enzyme activity resulted in changes in the soil quality index (Figure 4). In the control variant, its value decreased by 27% under the influence of Pb2+, as well as by 25% and 34% upon soil treatment with biocompost and biochar, respectively. Soil supplementation with both biocompost and biochar resulted in a 19% increase in BA in the uncontaminated soil. In soil exposed to Pb2+, biocompost increased the BA value by 23% and biochar by 7%.
Soil contamination with Pb2+ did not significantly alter Corg and NTotal content (Table 7). In turn, the supplementation of uncontaminated soil with biocompost and biochar caused a significant increase in Corg and NTotal content by 16.5% and 91.1% as well as 17.9% and 19.1%, respectively. Also, in the case of soil contaminated with Pb2+, both biocomponents increased the content of Corg and NTotal. Regardless of biocompost and biochar addition, the soil pH and EBC increased, whereas HAC decreased under the influence of Pb2+ (Table 6). Similar observations were made for CEC and BS, whose values were higher in the soil contaminated with Pb2+. To sum up, biocompost and biochar positively influenced the chemical and physicochemical properties of the soil.

3.3. Interactions between Soil Contamination with Lead and Maize Biomass, Enzymatic Activity, Chemical and Physicochemical Properties of Soil

The percentage share of the observed variability factors indicates that the yield of the aerial parts of maize was most influenced by biocompost and biochar (54.83%), and that of the roots by soil contamination with Pb2+ (50.51%) (Figure 6). Soil Pb2+ pollution had the most pronounced impact on the activity of the analyzed soil enzymes, and this effect accounted for: Pac—95.64%, Deh—93.47%, Glu—92.92%, Ure—87.01%, Cat—80.84%, Pal—68.42%, and Aryl—57.13%. The effect of biocompost and biochar on soil biochemical properties was weaker, with the strongest impact observed on Aryl (36.22%), Pal (21.99%), and Cat (15.85%).
All enzyme activity and maize biomass were significantly negatively correlated with soil and plant lead content (Figure 7), whereas plant biomass was positively correlated with soil enzyme activity. The biomass yield of the maize aerial parts and roots was negatively correlated with lead content in the plant, soil, the EBC, and the CEC. The activity of all tested enzymes was positively correlated with each other. A positive correlation was observed between Corg content and soil pH, EBC, CEC, and BS, whereas a negative one was observed between Corg and HAC. In turn, NTotal was positively correlated with soil pH and CEC.
The distribution of vectors describing the correlations between the biomass of maize, enzymatic activity, Pb2+ content in the plant and soil, and the chemical and physicochemical properties of the soil was presented by means of the PCA (Figure 8). The activity of all soil enzymes, crop yield and the amount of energy obtained from maize biomass were negatively correlated with the increased content of lead in the soil and maize. Thus, the suppression of enzyme activity indirectly contributed to the impairment of maize growth and development, with lead likely also having a direct adverse effect on the cultivated crop.

4. Discussion

4.1. Effect of Lead on Parameters Associated with Plant Growth

Soil pollution by trace elements, such as lead, is a major environmental problem [1,2,57,58,59], as it contributes to a reduction in crop productivity and directly or indirectly reduces biodiversity [7,60,61]. Our research showed that soil pollution with lead at 800 mg kg−1 soil significantly reduced the biomass of maize. This is because trace elements, including lead, exert toxic effects on various plant growth attributes. This is associated with improper nutrient uptake from plant roots [62,63,64]. The present study also showed a negative impact of lead on the SPAD of maize. In turn, Ali et al. [65] demonstrated that lead toxicity reduced plant growth and caused chlorosis and root blackening. Furthermore, this metal was found to inhibit photosynthesis, nutrient uptake, and enzyme activity, as well as inhibit seed production and seedling growth [66]. In addition, it can alter cell membrane permeability, initiate cation-sulfhydryl (-SH) reactions, and react with phosphate and active ADP and ATP groups [65]. Another study [67], showed that seed germination, root length, length of the aerial parts, and their dry matter content were reduced by increasing doses of lead (1, 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 mM). Sofy et al. [68] found that lead could adversely affect plant metabolism. The use of biocompost and biochar in the soil in the present study alleviated its negative effects on maize. Both additives are of natural origin and have positive effects on soil characteristics. Plants grown on such soil are better able to tolerate its contamination with heavy metals [69].
The combustion heat and heating value of maize were also measured in the present study, and the results obtained prove that their values recorded in uncontaminated and lead-contaminated soil were similar. This indicates the feasibility of using biomass from the areas contaminated with Pb2+ for energy purposes. The calorific values of maize and other plants are shown below in Table 8.
The biomass of the aerial parts of maize derived from such cultivation can serve as an alternative energy source and be used to produce biofuels [37]. Maize can also be used for phytoremediation purposes [73]. Plants can be hyperaccumulators or phytostabilizers of soils contaminated with trace elements. Plants such as Alyssum bertolonia, Thlaspi caerulescens, Calendula officinalis, and Tagetes erecta have a high capacity for hyperaccumulation of trace elements [74]. Panicum aquaticum, Lolium perenne, Paspalum fasciculatum, and Vetiveria zizanioides are also effective in remediating soils contaminated with Pb and other trace elements [74,75,76,77,78]. The present study has shown an increase in Pb2+ content in maize and in soil polluted with this metal. Dinake et al. [79] report that there are areas in the world where the content of lead in the 0 to 30 cm soil layer is very high, for example, Switzerland may have 471 mg, Norway 3200 mg, Belgium 2167 mg, Spain 720 mg, Australia 4697 mg, China 2763 mg, and Poland 4600 mg kg−1.

4.2. Effect of Lead on the Enzymatic Activity and Chemical and Physicochemical Properties of Soil

Soil enzyme activity is an important property reflecting its fertility and quality [80,81]. Soil microorganisms are the main source of enzymes that determine the course of the most important biochemical processes [82]. Our study showed that the activity of the enzymes tested was negatively affected by excessive amounts of Pb2+ in the soil. Soil amendment with biocompost and biochar alleviated the detrimental impact of lead on its biochemical properties. As in the studies of other authors [83,84,85], biochar mitigated the adverse effects of lead on enzyme activity, such as urease and catalase. The increased enzyme activity observed in the biocompost- and biochar-amended soils in our study may be due to the protective effects of these amendments on the soil microbiota. Perhaps this effect was due to the metal being sequestered in the soil, making it inaccessible [86,87]. Biocompost and biochar can increase soil nutrients levels and improve water and air conditions, creating an environment conducive to the development of soil microbes. Numerous studies [88,89,90] show that the microbial community and the related soil enzymatic activity are positively influenced by the chemical elements and organic matter of compost and biochar.
Ondrasek et al. [91] showed that plant growth is influenced by soil organic carbon content, among other factors. In our current study, the application of biocompost and biochar, to both unpolluted and Pb2+-polluted soils resulted in an increase in organic carbon and total nitrogen levels. Biochar [92] and biocompost [93,94] were also reported to increase soil abundance in macroelements and microelements and improve its physicochemical properties. Our research has shown that biocompost is more effective than biochar in improving the biochemical properties of Pb2+-polluted soil and on maize growth and development. According to the literature [95,96,97], the addition of compost reduces the levels of trace elements in the soil solution as a result of precipitation or increased metal sorption (immobilization), due to the formation of strong complexes between organic matter and heavy metals. In addition, Angelov et al. [95] demonstrated that compost and vermicompost application generally decreased the heavy metal content of soil by immobilizing heavy metals with humic substances. In a study by Irfan et al. [57], both compost and biochar were found to reduce the presence of Pb, Cd, Cr in the soil, thereby reducing their toxicity to plants. The authors achieved better results by applying biochar. These elements increase the production potential of soil. This, in turn, positively correlated with its biological properties. Thus, the impact of compost and biochar on soil quality can be both direct and indirect.

5. Conclusions

A lead dose of 800 mg kg−1 d.m. soil drastically disrupts the enzymatic activity of the soil and reduces its productivity, measured by maize biomass yield. However, it does not cause any changes in the heating value of maize, which makes this plant suitable for the remediation of soils contaminated with this element, since it can be used for energy purposes without posing a risk to the natural environment in the broadest sense. The quality of soil contaminated with lead can be improved by its fertilization with biocompost and biocarbon. Based on the maize biomass obtained and the enzymatic activity of the soil, it is recommended to grow maize on lead-contaminated soil with simultaneous fertilization with biocompost, which is more effective at improving soil quality than biochar.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.B.-L., J.W. and J.K.; experimental design and methodology, E.B.-L., J.W. and J.K.; investigation, J.W.; statistical analyses, E.B.-L.; writing original draft, E.B.-L.; review and editing, J.W.; supervision, J.K., project administration, J.W.; funding acquisition J.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Soil Science and Microbiology (grant No. 30.610.006-110) and was financially supported by the Minister of Science under the program “The Regional Initiative of Excellence Program” for the years.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Younis, U.; Danish, S.; Malik, S.A.; Ahmed, N.; Munir, T.M.; Rasheed, M.K. Role of cotton sticks biochar in immobilization of nickel under induced toxicity condition and growth indices of Trigonella corniculata L. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 1752–1761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Shah, A.A.; Bibi, F.; Hussain, I.; Yasin, N.A.; Akram, W.; Tahir, M.S.; Ali, H.M.; Salem, M.Z.M.; Siddiqui, M.H.; Danish, S.; et al. Synergistic Effect of Bacillus thuringiensis IAGS 199 and putrescine on alleviating cadmium-induced phytotoxicity in Capsicum annum. Plants 2020, 9, 1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Zafar-ul-Hye, M.; Naeem, M.; Danish, S.; Khan, M.J.; Fahad, S.; Datta, R.; Brtnicky, M.; Kintl, A.; Hussain, G.S.; El-Esawi, M.A. Effect of Cadmium-tolerant rhizobacteria on growth attributes and chlorophyll contents of bitter gourd under cadmium toxicity. Plants 2020, 9, 1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Zafar-ul-Hye, M.; Tahzeeb-ul-Hassan, M.; Abid, M.; Fahad, S.; Brtnicky, M.; Dokulilova, T.; Datta, R.; Danish, S. Potential role of compost mixed biochar with rhizobacteria in mitigating lead toxicity in spinach. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 12159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Zafar-ul-Hye, M.; Tahzeeb-ul-Hassan, M.; Wahid, A.; Danish, S.; Khan, M.J.; Fahad, S.; Brtnicky, M.; Hussain, G.S.; Battaglia, M.L.; Datta, R. Compost mixed fruits and vegetable waste biochar with ACC deaminase rhizobacteria can minimize lead stress in mint plants. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 6606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Shi, T.; Ma, J.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, C.; Hu, Y.; Gong, Y.; Wu, X.; Ju, T.; Hou, H.; Zhao, L. Status of lead accumulation in agricultural soils across China (1979–2016). Environ. Int. 2019, 129, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Abedi, T.; Gavanji, S.; Mojiri, A. Lead and zinc uptake and toxicity in maize and their management. Plants 2022, 11, 1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Adler, A.; Devarajan, N.; Wildi, W.; Poté, J. Metal distribution and characterization of cultivable lead-resistant bacteria in shooting range soils. Soil Sediment Contam. 2016, 25, 378–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fu, F.L.; Wang, Q. Removal of heavy metal ions from wastewaters: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Deng, Z.J.; Cao, L.X.; Zhang, R.D.; Wang, W.F.; Shi, Y.; Tan, H.M.; Wang, Z.Y.; Cao, L.X. Enhanced phytoremediation of multi-metal contaminated soils by interspecific fusion between the protoplasts of endophytic Mucor sp. CBRF59 and Fusarium sp. CBRF14. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2014, 77, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ma, X.L.; Zuo, H.; Tian, M.J.; Zhang, L.Y.; Meng, J.; Zhou, X.N.; Min, N.; Chang, X.Y.; Liu, Y. Assessment of heavy metals contamination in sediments from three adjacent regions of the Yellow River using metal chemical fractions and multivariate analysis techniques. Chemosphere 2016, 144, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ahmadi, M.; Jorfi, S.; Azarmansuri, A.; Jaafarzadeh, N.; Mahvi, A.H.; Soltani, R.D.C.; Akbari, H.; Akhbarizadeh, R. Zoning of heavy metal concentrations including Cd, Pb and As in agricultural soils of Aghili plain, Khuzestan province. Iran. Data Br. 2017, 14, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Tóth, G.; Hermann, T.; Da Silva, M.R.; Montanarella, L. Heavy metals in agricultural soils of the European Union with implications for food safety. Environ. Int. 2016, 88, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Usman, K.; Abu-Dieyeh, M.H.; Zouari, N.; Al-Ghouti, M.A. Lead (Pb) bioaccumulation and antioxidative responses in Tetraena qataranse. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 17070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Reeves, R.D.; Baker, A.J.; Jaffré, T.; Erskine, P.D.; Echevarria, G.; van Der Ent, A. A global database for plants that hyperaccumulate metal and metalloid trace elements. New Phytol. 2018, 218, 407–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Orhue, E.R.; Ekhomun, A.M. Chromium effects on growth of early water leaf (Talinum triangulare) in an Ulitisol. Am.-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. 2010, 7, 586–590. [Google Scholar]
  17. Naseem, S.; Yasin, M.; Ahmed, A.; Faisal, M. Chromium accumulation and toxicity in corn (Zea mays L.) seedlings. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2015, 24, 899–904. [Google Scholar]
  18. Akhtar, S.; Iram, S. In-vitro assessment of heavy metal removal from contaminated agricultural soil by native plant species. Pak. J. Anal. Environ. Chem. 2017, 18, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kanwal, A.; Farhan, M.; Sharif, F.; Hayyat, M.U.; Shahzad, L.; Ghafoor, G.Z. Effect of industrial wastewater on wheat germination, growth, yield, nutrients and bioaccumulation of lead. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 11361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. García-Delgado, C.; Fresno, T.; Rodríguez-Santamaría, J.J.; Diaz, E.; Mohedano, A.F.; Moreno-Jimenez, E. Co-application of activated carbon and compost to contaminated soils: Toxic elements mobility and PAH degradation and availability. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 16, 1057–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Diaconu, M.; Pavel, L.V.; Hlihor, R.M.; Rosca, M.; Fertu, D.I.; Lenz, M.; Corvini, P.X.; Gavrilescu, M. Characterization of heavy metal toxicity in some plants and microorganisms-A preliminary approach for environmental bioremediation. New Biotechnol. 2020, 56, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hu, Z.H.; Zhuo, F.; Jing, S.H.; Li, X.; Yan, T.X.; Lei, L.L.; Lu, R.R.; Zhang, X.F.; Jing, Y.X. Combined application of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and steel slag improves plant growth and reduces Cd, Pb accumulation in Zea mays. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2019, 21, 857–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Meng, J.; Cui, Z.H.; Zhang, H.L.; Zhang, J.; Tang, X.J.; Wong, M.H.; Shan, S.D. Combined effects of arbuscular mycorrhizae fungus and composted pig manure on the growth of ryegrass and uptake of Cd and Zn in the soil from an e-waste recycling site. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 28, 12677–12685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Jiang, J.; Xu, R.K.; Jiang, T.Y.; Li, Z. Immobilization of Cu(II), Pb(II) and Cd(II) by the addition of rice straw derived biochar to a simulated polluted Ultisol. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 229, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Lahori, A.H.; Guo, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Li, R.; Mahar, A.; Awasthi, M.K.; Shen, F.; Kumbhar, F.; Sial, T.A.; Kumbhar, F.; et al. Use of biochar as an amendment for remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils: Prospects and challenges. Pedosphere 2017, 27, 991–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zama, E.F.; Reid, B.J.; Arp, H.P.H.; Sun, G.X.; Yuan, H.Y.; Zhu, Y.G. Advances in research on the use of biochar in soil for remediation: A review. J. Soils Sediments 2018, 18, 2433–2450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, H.; Dong, X.; da Silva, E.B.; de Oliveira, L.M.; Chen, Y.; Ma, L.Q. Mechanisms of metal sorption by biochars: Biochar characteristics and modifications. Chemosphere 2017, 178, 466–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, L.; Hu, L.L.; Tang, J.J.; Li, Y.F.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, X. Food safety assessment of planting patterns of four vegetable-type crops grown in soil contaminated by electronic waste activities. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 93, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Al-Wabel, M.I.; Usman, A.R.A.; El-Naggar, A.H.; Aly, A.A.; Ibrahim, H.M.; Elmaghraby, S.; Al-Omran, A. Conocarpus biochar as a soil amendment for reducing heavy metal availability and uptake by maize plants. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2015, 22, 503–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Borowik, A.; Wyszkowska, J.; Zaborowska, M.; Kucharski, J. The impact of permethrin and cypermethrin on plants, soil enzyme activity, and microbial communities. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 2892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Qu, J.; Li, Z.; Bi, F.; Zhang, Y. A multiple Kirkendall strategy for converting nanosized zero-valent iron to highly active Fenton-like catalyst for organics degradation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2023, 120, e2304552120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Report. International Biochar Initiative. Available online: http://www.biochar-international.org/biochar (accessed on 10 May 2012).
  33. Cely, P.; Gascó, G.; Paz-Ferreiro, J.; Méndez, A. Agronomic properties of biochars from different manure wastes. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2015, 111, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tomczyk, A.; Sokołowska, Z.; Boguta, P. Biochar physicochemical properties: Pyrolysis temperature and feedstock kind effects. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2020, 19, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lu, S.; Zong, Y. Pore structure and environmental serves of biochars derived from different feedstocks and pyrolysis conditions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 30401–30409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Jindo, K.; Mizumoto, H.; Sawada, Y.; Sanchez-Monedero, M.A.; Sonoki, T. Physical and chemical characterization of biochars derived from different agricultural residues. Biogeosciences 2014, 11, 6613–6621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jasinskas, A.; Petlickaite, R.; Jotautiene, E.; Lemanas, E.; Soucek, J. Assessment of energy properties of maize and multi-crop pellets and environmental impact of their combustion. In Proceedings of the 21st International Scientific Conference Engineering for Rural Development, Jelgava, Latvia, 25–27 May 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jacob, J.M.; Karthik, C.; Saratale, R.G.; Kumar, S.S.; Prabakar, D.; Kadirvelu, K. Biological approaches to tackle heavy metal pollution: A survey of literature. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 217, 56–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Usman, K.; Al-Ghouti, M.A.; Abu-Dieyeh, M.H. The assessment of cadmium, chromium, copper, and nickel tolerance and bioaccumulation by shrub plant Tetraena qataranse. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 5658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. 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, 402647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zbytek, Z.; Dach, J.; Pawłowski, T.; Smurzyńska, A.; Czekała, W.; Janczak, D. Energy and economic potential of maize straw used for biofuels production. MATEC Web Conf. 2016, 60, 04008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Šarauskis, E.; Buragienė, S.; Masilionytė, L.; Romaneckas, K.; Avižienytė, D.; Sakalauskas, A. Energy balance, costs and CO2 analysis of tillage technologies in maize cultivation. Energy 2014, 69, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Regulation of the Minister of the Environment of 1 September 2016 Applicable in Poland (Journal of Laws Item 1395). Available online: https://ietu.pl/en/services/site-contamination-assessment/ (accessed on 7 October 2023).
  44. Seleiman, M.F.; Kheir, A.M. Saline soil properties, quality and productivity of wheat grown with bagasse ash and thiourea in different climatic zones. Chemosphere 2018, 193, 538–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bello-Pérez, L.A.; Flores-Silva, P.C.; Sifuentes-Nieves, I.; Agama-Acevedo, E. Controlling starch digestibility and glycaemic response in maize-based foods. J. Cereal Sci. 2021, 99, 103222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Öhlinger, R. Dehydrogenase activity with the substrate TTC. In Methods in Soil Biology; Schinner, F., Ohlinger, R., Kandler, E., Margesin, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1996; pp. 241–243. [Google Scholar]
  47. Johnson, J.L.; Temple, K.L. Some variables affecting the measurement of “catalase activity” in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1964, 28, 207–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Alef, K.; Nannipieri, P. (Eds.) Methods in Applied Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry; Academic London: London, UK, 1988; pp. 316–365. [Google Scholar]
  49. Carter, M.R. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis; Canadian Society of Soil Science; Lewis Publishers: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  50. Klute, A. Methods of Soil Analysis; Agronomy Monograph 9; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  51. ISO 18125:2017-07; Solid Biofuels—Determination of Calorific Value. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2010. Available online: https://pkn.pl/pn-en-iso-18125-2017-07 (accessed on 10 October 2023).
  52. Wyszkowska, J.; Boros-Lajszner, E.; Kucharski, J. Calorific value of Festuca rubra biomass in the phytostabilization of soil contaminated with nickel, cobalt and cadmium which disrupt the microbiological and biochemical properties of soil. Energies 2022, 15, 3445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wyszkowska, J.; Borowik, A.; Zaborowska, M.; Kucharski, J. The usability of sorbents in restoring enzymatic activity in soils polluted with petroleum-derived products. Materials 2023, 16, 3738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Zaborowska, M.; Wyszkowska, J.; Borowik, A.; Kucharski, J. Effect of separate and combined toxicity of bisphenol A and zinc on the soil microbiome. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 5937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Kopetz, H.; Jossart, J.; Ragossnig, H.; Metschina, C. European Biomass Statistics 2007; European Biomass Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  56. TIBCO Software Inc. Statistica (Data Analysis Software System), Version 13. 2017. Available online: http://statistica.io (accessed on 23 November 2023).
  57. Irfan, M.; Mudassir, M.; Khan, M.J.; Dawar, K.M.; Muhammad, D.; Mian, I.A.; Ali, W.; Fahad, S.; Saud, S.; Hayat, Z.; et al. Heavy metals immobilization and improvement in maize (Zea mays L.) growth amended with biochar and compost. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 18416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Awad, M.; El-Desoky, M.A.; Ghallab, A.; Kubes, J.; Abdel-Mawly, S.E.; Danish, S.; Ratnasekera, D.; Sohidul Islam, M.; Skalicky, M.; Brestic, M.; et al. Ornamental plant efficiency for heavy metals phytoextraction from contaminated soils amended with organic materials. Molecules 2021, 26, 3360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Malik, K.M.; Khan, K.S.; Rukh, S.; Khan, A.; Akbar, S.; Billah, M.; Bashir, S.; Danish, S.; Alwahibi, M.S.; Elshikh, M.S.; et al. Immobilization of cd, pb and zn through organic amendments in wastewater irrigated soils. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Shi, T.; Ma, J.; Wu, X.; Ju, T.; Lin, X.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; Gong, Y.; Hou, H.; Zhao, L.; et al. Inventories of heavy metal inputs and outputs to and from agricultural soils: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 164, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Liu, P.; Wu, Z.; Luo, X.; Wen, M.; Huang, L.; Chen, B.; Zheng, C.; Zhu, C.; Liang, R. Pollution assessment and source analysis of heavy metals in acidic farmland of the karst region in southern China—A case study of Quanzhou County. Appl. Geochem. 2020, 123, 104764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Singh, S.; Parihar, P.; Singh, R.; Singh, V.P.; Parsad, S.M. Heavy metal tolerance in plants: Role of transcriptomics, metabolomics, and ionomics. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 6, 1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ashraf, U.; Hussain, S.; Akbar, N.; Anjum, S.A.; Hassan, W.; Tang, X. Water management regimes alter Pb uptake and translocation in fragrant rice. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 149, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Bargagli, R.; Ancora, S.; Bianchi, N.; Rota, E. Deposition, abatement and environmental fate of pollutants in urban green ecosystems: Suggestions from long-term studies in Siena (Central Italy). Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 46, 126483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ali, M.; Nas, F.S. The effect of lead on plants in terms of growing and biochemical parameters: A review. MOJ Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2018, 3, 265–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mishra, S.; Srivastava, S.; Tripathi, R.D.; Kumar, R.; Seth, C.S.; Gupta, D.K. Lead detoxification by coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum L.) involves induction of phytochelatins and antioxidant system in response to its accumulation. Chemosphere 2006, 65, 1027–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hussain, A.; Abbas, N.; Arshad, F.; Akram, M.; Khan, Z.I.; Ahmad, K.; Mansha, M.; Mirzaei, F. Effects of diverse doses of lead (Pb) on different growth attributes of Zea-mays L. Agric. Sci. 2013, 4, 262–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sofy, M.R.; Seleiman, M.F.; Alhammad, B.A.; Alharbi, B.M.; Mohamed, H.I. Minimizing Adverse Effects of Pb on maize plants by combined treatment with jasmonic, salicylic acids and proline. Agronomy 2020, 10, 699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mindari, W.; Sasongko, P.E.; Kusuma, Z.; Syekhfani, S.; Aini, M. Efficiency of various sources and doses of humic acid on physical and chemical properties of saline soil and growth and yield of rice. AIP Conf. Proc. 2019, 2018, 030001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Núñez-Retana, V.D.; Rosales-Serna, R.; Prieto-Ruíz, J.Á.; Wehenkel, C.; Carrillo-Parra, A. Improving the physical, mechanical and energetic properties of Quercus spp. wood pellets by adding pine sawdust. PeerJ 2020, 8, e9766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Morales-Máximo, M.; Ruíz-García, V.M.; López-Sosa, L.B.; Rutiaga-Quiñones, J.G. Exploitation of wood waste of Pinus spp for briquette production: A Case study in the community of San Francisco Pichátaro, Michoacán, Mexico. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jóvér, J.; Antal, K.; Zsembeli, J.; Blaskó, L.; Tamás, J. Assessment of gross calorific value of crop and bio-energy residues. Res. Agric. Eng. 2018, 64, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Boros-Lajszner, E.; Wyszkowska, J.; Kucharski, J. Phytoremediation of soil contaminated with nickel, cadmium and cobalt. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2021, 23, 252–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Glick, B.R. Plant growth-promoting bacteria: Mechanisms and applications. Scientifica 2012, 2012, 963401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Alvarenga, P.; Goncalves, A.; Fernandes, R.; De Varennes, A.; Vallini, G.; Duarte, E.; Cunha-Queda, A. Organic residues as immobilizing agents in aided phytostabilization: (I) effects on soil chemical characteristics. Chemosphere 2009, 74, 1292–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Andra, S.S.; Datta, R.; Sarkar, D.; Saminathan, S.K.M.; Mullens, C.P.; Bach, S.B.H. Analysis of phytochelatin complexes in the lead tolerant vetiver grass Vetiveria zizanioides (L.) using liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry. Environ. Pollut. 2009, 157, 2173–2183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Dipu, S.; Kumar, A.A.; Thanga, S.G. Effect of chelating agents in phytoremediation of heavy metals. Remediat. J. 2012, 22, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Pires-Lira, M.F.; de Castro, E.M.; Lira, J.M.S.; de Oliveira, C.; Pereira, F.J.; Pereira, M.P. Potential of Panicum aquanticum Poir, for the phytoremediation of aquatic environments contaminated by lead. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 193, 110336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Dinake, P.; Kelebemang, R.; Sehube, N.A. Comprehensive approach to speciation of lead and its contamination of firing range soils: A Review. Soil Sediment Contam. 2019, 28, 431–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kong, L.; Chu, L.M. Subtropical urban turfs: Carbon and nitrogen pools and the role of enzyme activity. J. Environ. Sci. 2018, 65, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ouyang, L.; Tang, Q.; Yu, L.Q.; Zhang, R.D. Effects of amendment of different biochars on soil enzyme activities related to carbon mineralisation. Soil Res. 2014, 52, 706–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Mierzwa-Hersztek, M.; Gondek, K.; Baran, A. Effect of poultry litter biochar on soil enzymatic activity, ecotoxicity and plant growth. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2016, 105, 144–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Awasthi, M.K.; Wang, Q.; Chen, H.Y.; Awasthi, S.K.; Wang, M.J.; Ren, X.N.; Zhao, J.C.; Zhang, Z.Q. Beneficial effect of mixture of additives amendment on enzymatic activities, organic matter degradation and humification during biosolids co-composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 247, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Bandara, T.; Herath, I.; Kumarathilaka, P.; Seneviratne, M.; Seneviratne, G.; Rajakaruna, N.; Vithanage, M.; Yong, S.O. Role of woody biochar and fungal-bacterial co-inoculation on enzyme activity and metal immobilization in serpentine soil. J. Soils Sediments 2017, 17, 665–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Meng, J.; Tao, M.; Wang, L.; Liu, X.; Xu, J. Changes in heavy metal bioavailability and speciation from a Pb-Zn mining soil amended with biochars from co-pyrolysis of rice straw and swine manure. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 633, 300–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Khan, M.A.; Mahmood-ur-Rahman; Ramzani, P.M.A.; Zubair, M.; Rasool, B.; Khan, M.K.; Ahmed, A.; Khan, S.A.; Turan, V.; Iqbal, M. Associative effects of lignin-derived biochar and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi applied to soil polluted from Pb-acid batteries effluents on barley grain safety. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 710, 136294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Naeem, I.; Masood, N.; Turan, V.; Iqbal, M. Prospective usage of magnesium potassium phosphate cement combined with Bougainvillea alba derived biochar to reduce Pb bioavailability in soil and its uptake by Spinacia oleracea L. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 208, 111723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Foster, E.J.; Hansen, N.; Wallenstein, M.; Cotrufo, M.F. Biochar and manure amendments impact soil nutrients and microbial enzymatic activities in a semi-arid irrigated maize cropping system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 233, 404–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ge, G.F.; Li, Z.; Fan, F.L.; Chu, G.X.; Hou, Z.N.; Liang, Y.C. Soil biological activity and their seasonal variations in response to long-term application of organic and inorganic fertilizers. Plant Soil 2010, 326, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Paz-Ferreiro, J.; Gascó, G.; Gutiérrez, B.; Méndez, A. Soil biochemical activities and the geometric mean of enzyme activities after application of sewage sludge and sewage sludge biochar to soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2012, 48, 511–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ondrasek, G.; Kranjčec, F.; Filipović, L.; Filipović, V.; Bubalo Kovačić, M.; Jelovica Badovinac, I.; Peter, R.; Petravić, M.; Macan, J.; Rengel, Z. Biomass bottom ash & dolomite similarly ameliorate an acidic low-nutrient soil, improve phytonutrition and growth, but increase Cd accumulation in radish. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 753, 141902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Oustriere, N.; Marchand, L.; Galland, W.; Gabbon, L.; Lottier, N.; Motelica, M.; Mench, M. Influence of biochars, compost and iron grit, alone and in combination, on copper solubility and phytotoxicity in a Cu-contaminated soil from a wood preservation site. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 566, 816–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Białobrzewski, I.; Mikš-Krajnik, M.; Dach, J.; Markowski, M.; Czekała, W.; Głuchowska, K. Model of the sewage sludge-straw composting process integrating different heat generation capacities of mesophilic and thermophilic microorganisms. Waste Manag. 2015, 43, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lu, D.; Wang, L.; Yan, B.; Ou, Y.; Guan, J.; Bian, Y.; Zhang, Y. Speciation of Cu and Zn during composting of pig manure amended with rock phosphate. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 1529–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Angelova, V.R.; Akova, V.I.; Artinova, N.S.; Ivanov, K.I. The effect of organic amendments on soil chemical characteristics. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 2013, 19, 958–971. [Google Scholar]
  96. Sayara, T.; Basheer-Salimia, R.; Hawamde, F.; Sánchez, A. Recycling of organic wastes through composting: Process performance and compost application in agriculture. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Wyszkowski, M.; Kordala, N. Role of Different Material amendments in shaping the content of heavy metals in maize (Zea mays L.) on soil polluted with petrol. Materials 2022, 15, 2623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 17 01156 g001
Figure 1. Appearance of biocompost (a) and biochar (b).
Figure 1. Appearance of biocompost (a) and biochar (b).
Energies 17 01156 g001
Energies 17 01156 g002
Figure 2. Maize at BBCH 39 stage. (a)—0 mg Pb2+ kg−1 soil; (b)—800 Pb2+ kg−1 soil; C—Control; K—Biocompost; B—Biochar.
Figure 2. Maize at BBCH 39 stage. (a)—0 mg Pb2+ kg−1 soil; (b)—800 Pb2+ kg−1 soil; C—Control; K—Biocompost; B—Biochar.
Energies 17 01156 g002
Energies 17 01156 g003
Figure 3. Indicator impact of biocompost (IFK) and biochar (IFB) on maize biomass. K—biocompost; B—biochar; 1—0 mg Pb2+; 2—800 mg Pb2+; AP—yield of aerial parts; R—yield of roots. Homogeneous groups are indicated by the letters a–c for biocompost and a–d for biochar.
Figure 3. Indicator impact of biocompost (IFK) and biochar (IFB) on maize biomass. K—biocompost; B—biochar; 1—0 mg Pb2+; 2—800 mg Pb2+; AP—yield of aerial parts; R—yield of roots. Homogeneous groups are indicated by the letters a–c for biocompost and a–d for biochar.
Energies 17 01156 g003
Energies 17 01156 g004
Figure 4. Enzyme activity in 1 kg of d.m. soil h−1. The abbreviations of the enzyme names are given in Table 1. TFF—triphenyl formazan; PNP—p-nitrophenol; BA—soil quality index. The abbreviations of the object names are explained in Figure 2. Homogeneous groups are indicated by the letters a–f.
Figure 4. Enzyme activity in 1 kg of d.m. soil h−1. The abbreviations of the enzyme names are given in Table 1. TFF—triphenyl formazan; PNP—p-nitrophenol; BA—soil quality index. The abbreviations of the object names are explained in Figure 2. Homogeneous groups are indicated by the letters a–f.
Energies 17 01156 g004
Energies 17 01156 g005
Figure 5. Indicator impact of biocompost (IFK) and biochar (IFB) on the soil enzymes. The abbreviations of the enzyme names are given in Table 1. The abbreviations of the object names are explained in Figure 2. Homogeneous groups are indicated by the letters a–g.
Figure 5. Indicator impact of biocompost (IFK) and biochar (IFB) on the soil enzymes. The abbreviations of the enzyme names are given in Table 1. The abbreviations of the object names are explained in Figure 2. Homogeneous groups are indicated by the letters a–g.
Energies 17 01156 g005
Energies 17 01156 g006
Figure 6. Percentage of factors contributing to the observed variability of η2. AP—yield of aerial parts; R—yield of roots; The abbreviations of the enzyme names are given in Table 1. The abbreviations of the object names are explained in Figure 2.
Figure 6. Percentage of factors contributing to the observed variability of η2. AP—yield of aerial parts; R—yield of roots; The abbreviations of the enzyme names are given in Table 1. The abbreviations of the object names are explained in Figure 2.
Energies 17 01156 g006
Energies 17 01156 g007
Figure 7. Correlation coefficients between variables in lead-contaminated objects. The abbreviations of the names of the tested parameters are given in Table 1. * r—coefficient of correlation significant at: p = 0.05, n = 45.
Figure 7. Correlation coefficients between variables in lead-contaminated objects. The abbreviations of the names of the tested parameters are given in Table 1. * r—coefficient of correlation significant at: p = 0.05, n = 45.
Energies 17 01156 g007
Energies 17 01156 g008
Figure 8. Relationships between variables illustrated by the PCA method. The abbreviations of the names of the tested parameters are given in Table 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3.
Figure 8. Relationships between variables illustrated by the PCA method. The abbreviations of the names of the tested parameters are given in Table 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3.
Energies 17 01156 g008
Table 1. Soil and plant analysis methods.
Table 1. Soil and plant analysis methods.
ParameterParameter Determination Methods/Source of MethodologyParameter Parameter Determination Methods/Source of Methodology
Soil
Deh—dehydrogenasesÖhlinger [46]LeadSpectrAA 240 FS spectrophotometer (Varian Inc., Mulgrave, Australia) with atomic absorption spectrophotometry
Total organic carbon (Corg)Elementary macroanalyzer Vario MaxCube CN (Hanau, Germany)
Cat—catalaseJohnson, Temple [47]Total nitrogen
(NTotal)
Ure—urease Alef, Nannpieri [48]pHKCl soilsoil to solution ratio KCl 1:2.5
Glu—ß-glucosidaseHydrolytic acidity (HAC)Kappena [49]
Pac—acid phosphatase Total exchangeable cations (EBC)
Pal—alkaline phosphataseTotal exchange capacity of soil (CEC) Klute [50]
Aryl—arylsulfataseBasic cations saturation ratio in soil (BS)
Plant
Heat of Combustion (Q)Calorimeter C-2000 by IKA WERKE, Northchase Pkwy Se, Wilmington, USA [51]Greenness index (SPAD)Chlorophyll Meter Spectrum Technologies, Inc. (KONICA MINOLTA, Inc., Chiyoda, Japan
LeadSpectrAA 240 FS spectrophotometer (Varian Inc., Mulgrave, Australia)
Table 2. Characteristics of biocompost and biochar.
Table 2. Characteristics of biocompost and biochar.
Biocompost
Companies KRONEN (Poland)		Biochar
Companies NTP Sp. Zoo. (Poland)
pH—8.25pH—9.79
NTotal—0.50%NTotal—0.91%
Corg—8.70%Corg—83.92%
C:N ratio—10.09C:N ratio—92.22
Table 3. Effect of biocompost and biochar on the amount of dry biomass of maize, g pot−1.
Table 3. Effect of biocompost and biochar on the amount of dry biomass of maize, g pot−1.
mg Pb2+ kg−1 d.m. soilControlBiocompostBiochar
Aerial parts
059.163 b ± 0.217 63.688 a ± 0.52759.205 b ± 1.154
80048.858 d ± 0.65057.585 b ± 0.94651.020 c ± 0.921
Roots
08.890 b ± 1.29912.935 a ± 1.9907.658 ab ± 0.314
8006.495 c ± 1.0168.023 ab ± 1.2726.915 c ± 1.475
Homogeneous groups are indicated by the letters a–d.
Table 4. Leaf greenness index (SPAD) of maize.
Table 4. Leaf greenness index (SPAD) of maize.
mg Pb2+ kg−1 d.m. soilControlBiocompostBiochar
14 days
044.881 a ± 0.98444.869 a ± 2.05743.369 a ± 1.629
80039.600 b ± 2.07137.600 c ± 2.80537.894 c ± 0.954
48 days
026.631 d ± 9.75722.325 e ± 0.78823.056 e ± 2.089
80022.375 e ± 0.70621.881 e ± 2.18623.463 e ± 1.432
Homogeneous groups are indicated by the letters a–e.
Table 5. Heat of combustion and heating value of maize.
Table 5. Heat of combustion and heating value of maize.
mg Pb2+ kg−1 d.m. soilControlBiocompostBiochar
Heat of Combustion in MJ kg−1
018.395 bc ± 0.00818.510 a ± 0.04018.483 ab ± 0.037
80018.486 a ± 0.03818.325 c ± 0.03118.528 a ± 0.027
Heating Value in MJ kg−1
016.478 a ± 0.01616.541 a ± 0.01316.621 a ± 0.012
80016.540 a ± 0.01516.301 a ± 0.01416.620 a ± 0.011
Energy Production in MJ kg−1
00.279 b ± 0.0120.301 a ± 0.0130.281 b ± 0.014
8000.231 e ± 0.0150.268 c ± 0.0130.242 d ± 0.015
Homogeneous groups are indicated by the letters a–e.
Table 6. Lead content in maize and soil, mg kg−1.
Table 6. Lead content in maize and soil, mg kg−1.
mg Pb2+ kg−1 d.m. soilControlBiocompostBiochar
Aerial parts
04.550 d ± 0.0835.283 d ± 0.6178.716 d ± 1.650
80079.142 b ± 2.91672.043 c ± 3.316108.772 a ± 1.183
Roots
024.080 d ± 1.65019.965 d ± 0.06761.011 d ± 4.916
800861.531 a ± 4.809526.581 c ± 6.727694.414 b ± 2.014
Soil
010.400 d ± 0.54015.730 d ± 0.69012.980 d ± 0.840
800660.380 a ± 6.700526.220 c ± 6.040596.910 b ± 0.610
Homogeneous groups are indicated by the letters a–d.
Table 7. Physicochemical properties of the soil at the end of plant vegetation.
Table 7. Physicochemical properties of the soil at the end of plant vegetation.
mg Pb2+ kg−1 d.m. soilControlBiocompostBiochar
Total Organic Carbon in g kg−1
06.060 c ± 0.0107.060 b ± 0.01011.580 a ± 0.018
8005.960 c ± 0.0116.100 c ± 0.00310.840 a ± 0.016
Total Nitrogen in g kg−1
00.890 b ± 0.0021.050 a ± 0.0011.060 a ± 0.001
8000.820 b ± 0.0021.010 a ± 0.0011.030 a ± 0.001
pHKCl
04.067 d ± 0.0584.400 b ± 0.0294.300 c ± 0.028
8004.300 c ± 0.0294.500 a ± 0.0504.433 ab ± 0.027
Hydrolytic Acidity in mmol(+) kg−1 soil
020.750 a ± 0.21718.250 e ± 0.21020.125 b ± 0.220
80019.750 bc ± 0.22019.250 cd ± 0.22218.875 d ± 0.218
Total Exchangeable Base Cations in mmol(+) kg−1 soil
020.000 e ± 0.11028.000 d ± 0.12028.000 d ± 0.116
80030.000 c ± 0.11932.000 b ± 0.11740.000 a ± 0.114
Total Cation Exchange Capacity in mmol(+) kg−1 soil
040.750 f ± 0.21746.250 e ± 0.22248.125 d ± 0.223
80049.750 c ± 0.22051.250 b ± 0.22058.875 a ± 0.219
Base Cations Saturation Ratio in Soil in %
049.081 e ± 0.26064.866 a ± 0.30458.183 d ± 0.262
80060.302 c ± 0.26358.537 d ± 0.24761.147 b ± 0.224
Homogeneous groups are indicated by the letters a–f.
Table 8. Calorific values of Zea mays compared to other plants.
Table 8. Calorific values of Zea mays compared to other plants.
PlantCalorific Values in
MJ kg−1		References
Zea mays16.48Present study
Zea mays16.87[37]
Pinus spp.17.60[70]
Quercus spp.19.50[71]
Festuca rubra18.21[52]
Triticum16.55[72]
Helianthus14.39[72]
Sorghum16.57[72]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wyszkowska, J.; Boros-Lajszner, E.; Kucharski, J. The Impact of Soil Contamination with Lead on the Biomass of Maize Intended for Energy Purposes, and the Biochemical and Physicochemical Properties of the Soil. Energies 2024, 17, 1156. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17051156

AMA Style

Wyszkowska J, Boros-Lajszner E, Kucharski J. The Impact of Soil Contamination with Lead on the Biomass of Maize Intended for Energy Purposes, and the Biochemical and Physicochemical Properties of the Soil. Energies. 2024; 17(5):1156. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17051156

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wyszkowska, Jadwiga, Edyta Boros-Lajszner, and Jan Kucharski. 2024. "The Impact of Soil Contamination with Lead on the Biomass of Maize Intended for Energy Purposes, and the Biochemical and Physicochemical Properties of the Soil" Energies 17, no. 5: 1156. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17051156

APA Style

Wyszkowska, J., Boros-Lajszner, E., & Kucharski, J. (2024). The Impact of Soil Contamination with Lead on the Biomass of Maize Intended for Energy Purposes, and the Biochemical and Physicochemical Properties of the Soil. Energies, 17(5), 1156. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17051156

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop