Next Article in Journal
Telling Our Story—A Community-Based Meso-Level Approach to Sustainable Community Development
Next Article in Special Issue
Characterization of the Tunisian Phosphate Rock from Metlaoui-Gafsa Basin and Bio-Leaching Assays
Previous Article in Journal
Reconstruction of Surface Seawater pH in the North Pacific
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 7
10.3390/su15075793
sustainability-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

Assessing the Effects of Treated Wastewater Irrigation on Soil Physico-Chemical Properties

by
Wiem Sdiri
1,
Huda S. AlSalem
2,
Soha T. Al-Goul
3,
Mona S. Binkadem
4 and
Hedi Ben Mansour
1,*
1
Research Unit of Analysis and Process Applied on the Environment—APAE UR17ES32, Higher Institute of Applied Sciences and Technology, University of Monastir, Mahdia 5121, Tunisia
2
Department of Chemistry, College of Science, Princess Nourah bint Abdul Rahman University, Riyadh 11671, Saudi Arabia
3
Department of Chemistry, Rabigh College of Sciences & Arts, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
4
Department of Chemistry, College of Science, University of Jeddah, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(7), 5793; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075793
Submission received: 17 February 2023 / Revised: 22 March 2023 / Accepted: 25 March 2023 / Published: 27 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resilience to Environmental Risks)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
For assessing the effects of wastewater on soil physical and chemical properties, manual irrigation (MI) and surface drip irrigation (SDI) systems were investigated. The experiment was conducted over 12 months. Before and after the experiment, soil samples were collected from three depths (0–20 cm, 20–40 cm and 40–60 cm) for analysis. The obtained results indicated that wastewater application probably preserves soil quality by maintaining its pH-water values whatever the irrigation system used. This study suggested that nutrient input from wastewater promotes soil microbial activity and organic matter (OM) mineralization. In fact, at the soil depths of 0–20 cm and 20–40 cm, MI using treated wastewater (TWW) leads to decrease OM content. P input may justify treated wastewater fertilizing effect in the topsoil. Moreover, TWW fertilizing effect was demonstrated by increased potassium (K) amount in the two upper soil layers (0–20 cm and 20–40 cm) following SDI system. This last system may block metals (iron (Fe), copper (Cu), cobalt (Co) and selenium (Se)) translocation to plants and their accumulation in soil. In contrast, metal translocation was maintained by the MI system. The present data is encouraging to reuse TWW for agricultural purposes, especially for orchard irrigation.

1. Introduction

The Mediterranean basin suffers from high evapotranspiration demands and is subject to water scarcity [1]. Moreover, water shortage is a chronic problem worldwide. In arid and semi-arid regions, agriculture was closely related to irrigation to obtain satisfactory yields [2]. On the other hand, these regions suffer from water scarcity. Moreover, in this situation, growing populations and agricultural activities consume high volumes of conventional water [3]. Therefore, large volumes of wastewater were generated and discharged into the environment. Most of the discharged wastewater is not treated at all or partially treated, and this practice may present environmental risks because of harmful elements and heavy metals loading into the ecosystem [4,5]. In fact, effluent heavy metal resistance and their toxic effects cause a serious environmental problem.
To preserve fresh water for human consumption, the reuse of wastewater can be a safe option to alleviate the water shortage problem and to reduce environmental pollution. This reuse may be in agriculture, especially for crop irrigation. Wastewater is rich with potassium, nitrogen and micro-nutrients. Therefore, wastewater irrigation reduces the need for chemical fertilizers. In the agricultural production field, treated municipal wastewater was used to irrigate forests and horticultural crops. This reuse was observed in many countries [6].
For human health safety and environment protection, wastewater treatment before reuse is imperatively recommended to reduce effluent pollutants [7]. Wastewater treatment before its use for irrigation was applicable only in developed countries. Developing countries applied the wastewater in agriculture directly without treatment [8]. Wastewater application in irrigation presents negative effects on agricultural soil such as destroying its structure, increasing heavy metal content and reducing soil acidity [9,10]. Therefore, treated wastewater can be used as an irrigation source only if all trace elements’ concentrations were within guidelines for crop irrigation [11].
Rice plants cultivated in contaminated soils with industrial irrigation water accumulated high concentrations of heavy metals like cadmium (Cd). For humans, animals and plants, metal amounts into the food chain are potentially toxic [12]. In wastewater irrigation conditions, plants can adapt this situation by increasing specific organic solutes synthesis. This adaptation can depend on the plant mechanism of salt avoidance [13]. In this situation, a decline in osmotic potential is observed in response to salinity. This phenomenon is achieved by water leaving from the vacuole and solute accumulation within the plant cell [6].
Understanding pollutant transport in the subsurface soil is very important and the effects of high electrical conductivity on soil destruction are quite clear [14]. Industrial wastewater can change soil chemical properties or only increases its salinity [15]. High salinity condition is considered as a major cause of land abandonment and leads to a reduction in crop productivity. Contrariwise, wastewater is a source of nutrients and organic matter for plants, as a result, increasing crop yield. Therefore, research highlighting the effect of treated wastewater irrigation on soil properties and recommended management options are needed.
Intrinsic soil conditions, such as organic matter, electrical conductivity, pH, percentage of clay content etc., influence the form of metallic elements in the farming soil. In fact, metallic elements supplied into soil following treated wastewater irrigation are not all in bioavailable or an available form. For this reason, local evaluation of metal accumulation in soil and crop is recommended. This evaluation can be carried out by new methods which have been developed [16]. In a chronic water scarcity situation, rainfall is insufficient to support economic yields in many regions. In Tunisia, wastewater irrigation has been practiced for several decades to support economic yields like olive oil production. Olive tree irrigation with high quality water is impractical and they are commonly irrigated with marginal water sources [1]. Several research works were carried out on olive orchard irrigation. Scientifics suggested the reuse of treated wastewater as a sustainable solution to water scarcity. Bedbabis et al. [17] conducted their research with an olive orchard planted in sandy soil. Many irrigation treatments with treated wastewater were applied and results indicated significant increase of soil organic matter, sodium adsorption ratio and electrical conductivity. In addition, the authors reported a significant decrease of soil pH.
Building on previous studies, this study investigates the treated wastewater impact on soil physico-chemical properties. Thus, we firstly studied the modification of soil pH, electrical conductivity (EC), organic matter (OM) and active calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Then, we evaluated soil element contents as a result of TWW irrigation. Two irrigation systems were applied to examine this water source effect on soil characteristics.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area, Experimental Design and Irrigation Treatments

The experiment was conducted between March 2017 and February 2018. The region’s climate was described in our previous work [3]. This region is characterized by a Mediterranean climate. The mean annual temperature is 19.80 °C, and the mean annual rainfall is 348 mm. The study area was beside the dairy industry, the source of the treated wastewater used for olive tree irrigation.
Physical and chemical properties of soil at three depths (0–20 cm, 20–40 cm and 40–60 cm) were determined at the experiment’s beginning and in the following 12 months of irrigation. The experiment included two types of water (tap water (TW) and treated wastewater (TWW)) and two irrigation systems (manual irrigation (MI) and surface drip irrigation (SDI)).
For each irrigation system, two randomized experimental plots were used. Each experimental plot was irrigated using TW or TWW and was conducted five times. Complementary water irrigation was applied to the young olive trees growing. For SDI system, TWW was delivered with two drip emitters per plant (one per side) delivering both “14 l/plant/irrigation”. This irrigation was applied twice per week from June to August and weekly during other months of the year and lasted 24 min. For the MI system, plants received the same doses which were previously described.
Doses were chosen based on crop evapotranspiration rate (ETc). Annual requirements were covered by irrigation applied and effective rainfall [18]. Water requirements were calculated considering the recommended crop coefficient (Kc) and reduction coefficient (Kr) depending on the percentage of ground surface covered by the crop [19,20].

2.2. Treated Wastewater Irrigation Source

TWW used in this study comes from the dairy industry wastewater treatment plant. Wastewater was secondarily treated (biologically) using bacteria. Treated wastewater’s physico-chemical characteristics were illustrated in our previous work [7]. The treated wastewater used in the present study can be considered as a soil fertilizer. In fact, this water source contains high nutrient amounts as well as essential elements (nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), etc.). In addition, TWW can be used safely as an irrigation water source and is devoid of pesticides and heavy metals. Treated wastewater physico-chemical parameters (electrical conductivity (EC), biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), pH, cadmium (Cd), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), iron (Fe) and chromium (Cr)) are within the limits established for TWW reuse in irrigation [21].

2.3. Soil Sampling

Soil samples from olive trees growing in the field were collected. TWW or TW irrigation was practiced weekly in March, April and May and twice from June until the experiment’s end. For each treatment, composite samples consisting of randomly collected subsamples were obtained from 0–20 cm, 20–40 cm and 40–60 cm depths and five soil samples were randomly taken. For analysis, soil samples were air-dried and ground to pass a 2 mm sieve size.

2.4. Soil Chemical Properties

Soil pH-water and pH-KCl values were determined in 1:2.5 (w/v) soil to solution ratio using pH-meter [22]. The electrical conductivity (EC) was quantified for saturated paste solution using an electrical conductivity meter (conductimeter WTW 315i). For elements and heavy metals analysis, acid extraction was performed using microwave digestor Ethos (Milestone, Bergamo, Italy). For this analysis, 0.5 g of each soil sample was acid digested using HCl (37%) and HNO3 (65%). The element contents were determined using Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS), using an iCAP Q (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) spectrometer equipped with an autosampler ASX520 (Cetac Technologies Inc., Omaha, NE, USA). The analysis conditions were described by Di Bella et al. [23].

2.5. Soil Texture, Organic Matter and Active CaCO3

The Robinson pipette method, described by Gee and Bauder [24], was used to determine particle size distribution (clay, sand and silt contents) at soil depths (0–20 cm, 20–40 cm and 40–60 cm). According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil texture triangle and as shown in Table 1, soil of the experimental site was classified as sandy-loam in the topsoil (0–20 cm), silty clay sandy at a depth of 20–40 cm and silty-sand deeply at a soil layer of 40–60 cm.
The Walkley and Black dichromate oxidation method was adopted to determine soil organic matter (OM) [22,25]. Active CaCO3 was estimated according to AFNOR NF X31-106 standard.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Data were subjected to the statistical Duncan test to evaluate the effect of TWW and irrigation system on soil properties at three depths. Differences between means were tested for significance (p < 0.05) by Duncan’s test. All statistical analyses were performed using the statistical package, SPSS (SPSS, IBM version 23.0).

3. Results

3.1. Soil pH Changes Following TWW Use

3.1.1. Soil pH-Water

The effects of treatments on soil pH-water are presented in Table 2. Table 2 shows that the average pH values at the beginning of the experimental period (T0) ranged from 7.67 (0–20 cm) to 7.31 (40–60 cm). The irrigation, whatever the water source or the irrigation system, raised significantly (p < 0.05) the pH-water when compared with pH values of soils before irrigation. Specifically, TWW irrigation using MI (TWWMI) leads to register the highest pH-water values in the two first soil layers (0–20 cm and 20–40 cm) to reach 10.2 and 9.51, respectively. More deeply (40–60 cm), this enhancement was assured by the SDI system following TWW irrigation and pH value was 9.13.

3.1.2. Soil pH-KCl

It can be revealed from Table 3 that the soil samples from plots received TWW, whatever the irrigation system used, leads to increased topsoil pH-KCl. At this soil layer (0–20 cm), statistically, the highest pH-KCl value was obtained following TWWSDI treatment application to reach a value of 8.75. At a soil depth of about 40–60 cm, this last treatment caused the most important pH-soil enhancement to achieve a value of about 8.04.

3.2. Effect of TWW Irrigation on Soil Textural Properties

As clearly observed from data presented in Table 1, particle size distribution did not vary significantly following all treatments applied in the present study.

3.3. Effect of Treatments on Soil Electrical Conductivity (EC)

As shown in Figure 1, TWWMI had no effect on topsoil layer EC. Contrarily, a significant rise of EC values was recorded in the 20–40 cm and 40–60 cm layers to reach 6.44 and 2.46 mS cm−1, respectively. This enhancement was compared with values obtained before irrigation (T0) and following TWMI application.

3.4. Effect of Wastewater Irrigation on Soil Organic Matter (OM)

Compared with the SDI system, the MI system leads to a decrease in OM contents in response to TWW irrigation (TWWMI) at the soil depths of 0–20 cm and 20–40 cm to record a value of about 0.28% and 0.19%, respectively (see Figure 2). At these depths, OM amounts were enhanced to 0.61% and 0.73%, respectively, following TWWSDI application.

3.5. CaCO3 Content Changes in Response to TWW Irrigation

Based on the results presented in Figure 3, the irrigation leads to a decrease in CaCO3 content in topsoil, compared with the value registered before applying treatments. In the third soil layer (40–60 cm), this decrease was revealed only in response to TWWMI treatment application to reach a value of 4%.

3.6. Soil Element Content as a Result of TWW Use

Data showed that TWW irrigation using the SDI system (TWWSDI) influenced the content of some chemicals in the soil. It can be revealed from Figure 4 that this treatment raised topsoil P and the two upper soil layers’ (0–20 cm and 20–40 cm) K contents to reach 3103.26 mg kg−1 and 2137.35 mg kg−1, respectively. Moreover, a highly significant accumulation of Fe, Cu, Co and Se was observed in the topsoil when adopting TWWSDI (see Figure 4). TWW irrigation with MI system seems to be without effect in terms of Co content for the two soil depths, 0–20 cm and 40–60 cm, compared with soils at the initial conditions.

4. Discussion

As shown by the results (see Table 2), TWW irrigation, whatever the system used, did not cause pH-water decrease for the three studied soil depths. Contrarily, in previous works of Wang et al. [26] and Adrover et al. [27], wastewater irrigation lowered soil pH. This decrease was about 0.6. Additionally, Rattan et al. [28] found that long-term effluent irrigation causes soil pH-water decrease. This contrast can be referred to irrigation water characteristics or irrigation period. It can be asserted from the present work that this agronomic practice preserves soil quality. In fact, pH-soil decrease can lead to soil leaching in response to wastewater irrigation [29]. These last data were not observed in our study.
On the other hand, the present results showed that TWW irrigation affected some soil parameters. In fact, for the soil depths of 0–20 cm and 20–40 cm, manual irrigation (MI) using this type of water leads to a decrease in organic matter content (see Figure 2). For these soil depths, pH-water increase was also observed. Probably, soil nutrient input from wastewater promotes its microbial activity leading to OM mineralization [30,31].
In contrast, the SDI system leads to an increase in OM content on the topsoil following TWW irrigation. These results are in line with those obtained by Areola et al. [32]. In our study, this enhancement may explain topsoil P accumulation which is consistent with data recorded by Bedbabis et al. [33] following wastewater olive tree irrigation (see Figure 4). Bedbabis et al. [2] revealed that OM coming from wastewater protects soil P against its insolubilization. P input may justify treated wastewater fertilizing effect by soil humus content enhancement as a result of wastewater irrigation [34]. Furthermore, treated wastewater fertilizing effect was demonstrated by an increased K amount in the two upper soil layers following SDI (see Figure 4). Consequently, it can be deduced that this agronomic practice presents ecological and economic advantages by reducing chemical fertilizer use [35]. Our results confirm those of Bedbabis et al. [2] and Ramirez-Fuentes et al. [30], indicating that wastewater irrigation using the SDI system leads to an increase in soil K content. Nasini et al. [36] reported that K amount enhancement results from an equilibrium reached between K adsorbed on soil colloids and that in soil solution.
In the present work, TWW irrigation would be expected to cause greater soil EC than TW (see Figure 1). In fact, TWW presents EC value greater than TW (results are shown in our previous work [7]). However, TWW application using SDI (TWWSDI) leads to a decrease in EC at soil depths of 20–40 and 40–60 cm, compared with values obtained following TWSDI treatment application. According to Heidarpour et al. [37], this decrease may result from solution absorption by plants. In contrast with our finding, Mohammad et al. [38] reported EC enhancement as a response to TWW use for irrigation in soil depth higher than 20 cm. This enhancement was then noticed in the work of Abegunrin et al. [4] and Aman et al. [9]. These last authors explained soil EC increase to the wastewater used which contained dissolved nutrients.
According to Tarchouna et al. [39], pH-water enhancement in the topsoil layer (see Table 2) may result from basic cation adsorption. These data were observed in our work whatever the irrigation system applied. Contrarily, Abegunrin et al. [4] reported that wastewater irrigation did not present significant effect on soil layers’ pH-water (0–10 cm and 10–20 cm).
It was revealed from our results (see Figure 4) that soil Mg and K contents increased following manual and drip TWW irrigation (0–20 cm and 20–40 cm). These data agree with the finding obtained by Thapliyal et al. [5] and Kiziloglu et al. [40] in response to wastewater irrigation.
In 0–20 cm soil layer, a highly significant accumulation of Fe, Cu, Co and Se was observed in soil which received TWWSDI treatment (see Figure 4). This accumulation remained in the soil and did not reach the plant organs in contrast with plants which received TWWMI treatment which were contaminated with more heavy metals (results are not shown). These last plants remained cultivated in less contaminated soils after experimentation (TWWMI irrigation). Therefore, it can be asserted that heavy metals in plant translocation was maintained by the MI system and blocked by the SDI system which caused soil metal accumulation. Additionally, TWW irrigation with the MI system seems to be without effect in terms of Co accumulation for the two soil depths of 0–20 cm and 40–60 cm compared with soils at initial conditions. These data were not in line with results obtained by Abedi-Koupai et al. [41] showing that in the same soil depths, Co content was enhanced in response to TWW surface irrigation of sugar beet, corn and sunflower crops.
Areola et al. [32] reported that TWW irrigation increased soil Hg content. This increase was recorded for the 0–30 cm layer, while the present data showed Hg content enhancement for 20–40 cm soil depth following irrigation, whatever the water source, and the irrigation system used (see Figure 4). In addition, soils which received tap water were the most contaminated with Hg.
Compared with initial conditions, TWW irrigation leads to a decrease in Ni values in the soils sampled at 0–20 cm and 20–40 cm depths (see Figure 4). This result can reflect that the soils are naturally high in Ni element and that olive tree cultivation under TWW irrigation has actually lowered this heavy metal content [32].
It appears that Cd and Pb contents were lower on TWW irrigated soils (40–60 cm) using the two irrigation systems than on those which received TW (see Figure 4). It seems that TWW can be used safely and did not cause soil degradation due to increasing Cd and Pb contents which leads to accelerate the desertification process [14].

5. Conclusions

Olive orchard irrigation with treated wastewater (TWW) is of pivotal importance in countries suffering from water shortage. The fundamental purpose of this study suggests daily TWW use to irrigate young olive trees (Chemlali cultivar). This is to preserve fresh water for the growing population’s consumption. Treated wastewater was collected from the wastewater treatment plant of a dairy industry. This source was treated at a secondary level using biological processes.
In the present work, manual irrigation and surface drip irrigation systems were applied to irrigate olive trees. Following 12 months of experimentation, soil analysis showed that TWW application preserves soil quality and does not cause soil degradation. The fertilizing effect of treated wastewater was proved by P, K and Mg soil input. The results suggest the important role of the irrigation system used in the case of treated wastewater application. In fact, significant accumulation of Fe, Cu, Co and Se was observed in soils that received this type of water using the SDI system.
The data obtained in the present study clearly show that TWW reuse for olive orchard irrigation could be an excellent sustainable practice to deal with water scarcity. Under the light of these results, we suggest that the use of wastewater can be an option to save water resources for domestic uses. The current results are promising and encouraging to recommend the use of treated wastewater as an alternative option for orchard irrigation.
This work can be completed by investigating the effect of treated wastewater and irrigation systems on olive plant biochemical traits. In fact, the assessment of the phenols of olive tree roots and leaves, soluble sugars and mineral element contents is intriguing and deserving of study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.S.A. and S.T.A.-G.; Methodology, W.S., S.T.A.-G., M.S.B. and H.B.M.; Validation, W.S.; Formal analysis, W.S., H.S.A., S.T.A.-G. and M.S.B.; Investigation, W.S.; Resources, H.S.A.; Writing—original draft, H.B.M.; Writing—review & editing, M.S.B. and H.B.M.; Supervision, H.B.M.; Project administration, M.S.B.; Funding acquisition, H.S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Researchers Support Project number (PNURSP2023R185), Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Acknowledgments

We thank Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Researchers Support Project number (PNURSP2023R185), Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Soda, N.; Ephrath, J.E.; Dag, A.; Beiersdorf, I.; Presnov, E.; Yermiyahu, U.; Ben-Gal, A. Root growth dynamics of olive (Olea europaea L.) affected by irrigation induced salinity. Plant Soil 2017, 411, 305–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bedbabis, S.; Ben rouina, B.; Boukhris, M.; Ferrara, G. Effect of irrigation with treated wastewater on soil chemical properties and infiltration rate. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 133, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sdiri, W.; Dabbou, S.; Chehab, H.; Selvaggini, R.; Servili, M.; Di Bella, G.; Ben Mansour, H. Quality characteristics and chemical evaluation of Chemlali olive oil produced under dairy wastewater irrigation. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 236, 106124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Abegunrin, T.P.; Awe, G.O.; Idowu, D.O.; Adejumobi, M.A. Impact of wastewater irrigation on soil physico-chemical properties, growth and water use pattern of two indigenous vegetables in southwest Nigeria. Catena 2016, 139, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Thapliyal, A.; Vasudevan, P.; Dastidar, M.G.; Tandon, M.; Mishra, S. Irrigation with wastewater: Responses on the growth and yield of ladyfinger Abelmoschus esculentus and on soil nutrients. J. Environ. Biol. 2011, 32, 645–651. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Al-Absi, K.M. Growth and biochemical constituents of olives as influenced by irrigation with treated industrial wastewater. J. Plant Nutr. 2010, 33, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  7. Sdiri, W.; Chehab, H.; Reyns, T.; Van Loco, J.; Mechri, B.; Boujnah, D.; Bua, G.D.; Ben Mansour, H.; Di Bella, G. Incidence of dairy wastewater on morphological and physiological comportment of Chemlali and Chetoui olive. Water Resour. Ind. 2018, 20, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dhir, B.; Srivastava, S. Effect of short-term irrigation with treated and untreated wastewater on growth and physio-biochemical parameters of wheat. Ind. J. Plant Physiol. 2014, 19, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Aman, M.S.; Jafari, M.; Reihan, M.K.; Motesharezadeh, B.; Zare, S. Assessing the effect of industrial wastewater on soil properties and physiological and nutritional responses of Robinia pseudoacacia, Cercis siliquastrum and Caesalpinia gilliesii seedlings. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 217, 718–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Blum, J.; Herpin, U.; Melfi, A.J.; Montes, C.R. Soil properties in a sugarcane plantation after the application of treated sewage effluent and phosphogypsum in Brazil. Agric. Water Manag. 2012, 115, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shatanawi, M.; Fayyad, M. Effect of Khirbet As-Samra treated effluent on the quality of irrigation water in the Central Jordan Valley. Water Res. 1996, 30, 2915–2920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Majid, N.M.; Islam, M.M.; Riasmi, Y. Heavy metal uptake and translocation by Jatropha curcas L. in sawdust sludge contaminated soils. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2012, 6, 891–898. [Google Scholar]
  13. Toze, S. Reuse of effluent water—benefits and risks. Agric. Water Manag. 2006, 80, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Dastorani, M.T.; Hkimzadeh, M.A.; Klantari, S. Evaluation of the effects of industrial wastewater on soil properties and land desertification. Desert 2008, 13, 203–210. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gerhart, V.J.; Kane, R.; Glenn, E.P. Recycling industrial saline wastewater for landscape irrigation in a desert urban area. J. Arid. Environ. 2006, 67, 473–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Belaid, N.; Franck-Neel, C.; Ayoub, T.; Kallel, M.; Ayadi, A.; Baudu, M. The Impact of Wastewater Irrigation on the Vertical transfer of Metals in soils and to Plants. Int. Res. J. Ear. Sci. 2019, 3, 46–53. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bedbabis, S.; Trigui, D.; Ben Ahmed, C.; Clodoveo, M.L.; Camposeo, S.; Gaetano, A.V.; Ben Rouina, B. Long-terms effects of irrigation with treated municipal wastewater on soil, yield and olive oil quality. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 160, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. FAO. Les besoins en eau des cultures. FAO Bull. Irrig. Dr. 1976, 24. [Google Scholar]
  19. FAO. Crop evapotranspiration. Guideline for computing crop water requirements. FAO Bull. Irrig. Dr. 1998, 56. [Google Scholar]
  20. Masmoudi-Charfi, C.; Masmoudi, M.; Ben Mechlia, N. Irrigation de l’olivier: Cas de jeunes plantations intensive. Rev. Ezzaitouna 2004, 10, 37–51. [Google Scholar]
  21. Norme Tunisienne Homologuée NT 106.03: Protection de L’environnement-Utilisation des Eaux Usées Traitées à des Fins Agricoles: Spécifications Physico-Chimiques et Biologiques; Institut National de la Normalisation et de la Propriété: Tunis, Tunisia, 1989.
  22. Jackson, M.L. Soil Chemical Analysis; Prentice Hall Inc.: Engle Wood Cliffs, NJ, USA; Subtropics Longman Scientific and Technical Essex: New York, NY, USA, 1958. [Google Scholar]
  23. Di Bella, G.; Naccari, C.; Bua, G.D.; Rastrelli, L.; Turco, V.L.; Potortì, A.G.; Dugo, G. Mineral composition of some varieties of beans from Mediterranean and Tropical areas. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2016, 67, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gee, G.W.; Bauder, J.W. Particle size analysis. In Handbook of Soil Analysis; Pansu, M., Gautheyrou, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2006; pp. 15–63. [Google Scholar]
  25. Walkley, A.; Black, C.A. An examination of Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and proposed modification of the chromatic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934, 37, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, Z.; Chang, A.; Wu, L.; Crowley, D. Assessing the soil quality of long-term reclaimed wastewater irrigated cropland. Geoderma 2003, 114, 261–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Adrover, M.; Farrús, E.; Moyà, G.; Vadell, J. Chemical properties and biological activity in soils of Mallorca following twenty years of treated wastewater irrigation. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 95, 188–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rattan, R.K.; Datta, S.P.; Chhonkar, P.K.; Suribabu, K.; Singh, A.K. Long-term impact of irrigation with sewage effluents on heavy metal content in soils, crops and groundwater-a case study. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2005, 109, 310–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Solis, C.; Andrade, E.; Mireles, A.; Reyes-Solis, I.E.; Garcia-Calderon, N.; Lagunas-Solar, M.C.; Pina, C.U.; Flocchini, R.G. Distribution of heavy metals in plants cultivated with wastewater irrigated soils during different periods of time. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 2005, 241, 351–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Magesan, G.N.; Williamson, J.C.; Yeates, G.W.; Lloyd-Jones, A.R. Wastewater C:N ratio effects on soil hydraulic conductivity and potential mechanisms for recovery. Bioresour. Technol. 2000, 71, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ramirez-Fuentes, E.; Lucho-Constantino, C.; Escamilla-Silva, E.; Dendooven, L. Characteristics, and carbon and nitrogen dynamics in soil irrigated with wastewater for different lengths of time. J. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 85, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Areola, O.; Dikinya, O.; Mosime, L. Comparative effects of secondary treated waste water irrigation on soil quality parameters under different crop types. Afr. J. Plant Sci. Biotechnol. 2011, 5, 41–55. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bedbabis, S.; Ferrara, G.; Ben rouina, B.; Boukhris, M. Effects of irrigation with treated wastewater on olive tree growth, yield and leaf mineral elements at short term. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 126, 345–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Khan, S.; Rehman, S.; Khan, A.; Khan, M.A.; Shah, M.T. Soil and Vegetables Enrichment with Heavy Metals from Geological Sources in Gilgit, Northern Pakistan. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2010, 73, 1820–1827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Di Serio, M.; Tesser, R.; Pengmei, L.; Santacesaria, E. Heterogeneous Catalysts for Biodiesel Production. Energy Fuels 2008, 22, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nasini, L.; Gigliotti, G.; Balduccini, M.A.; Federici, E.; Cenci, G.; Proietti, P. Effect of solide olive-mill waste amendement on soil fertility and olive (Olea europaea L.) tree activity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 164, 292–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Heidarpour, M.; Mostafazadeh-Fard, B.; Abedi Koupai, J.; Malekian, R. The effects of treated wastewater on soil chemical properties using subsurface and surface irrigation methods. Agric. Water Manag. 2007, 90, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mohammad, M.J.; Hinnawi, S.; Rousan, L. Long term effect of wastewater irrigation of forage crops on soil and plant quality parameters. Desalination 2007, 215, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tarchouna, L.G.; Merdy, P.; Raynaud, M.; Pfeifer, H.R.; Lucas, Y. Effects of long-term irrigation with treated wastewater. Part I: Evolution of soil-chemical properties. Appl. Geochem. 2010, 25, 1703–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kiziloglu, F.; Tuean, M.; Sahin, U.; Angin, I.; Anapali, O.; Okuroglu, M. Effects of wastewater irrigation on soil and cabbage plant (Brassica olereacea var. capitate cv. Yavola-1) chemical properties. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2007, 170, 166–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Abedi-Koupai, J.; Mostafazadeh-Fard, B.; Afyuni, M.; Bagheri, M.R. Effect of treated wastewater on soil chemical and physical properties in an arid region. Plant Soil Environ. 2006, 52, 335–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 15 05793 g001 550
Figure 1. Average values of electrical conductivity (EC) in the 0–20 cm, 20–40 cm and 40–60 cm soil layers before and following irrigation treatments (T0 = before irrigation; TWMI = tap water irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWWMI = treated wastewater irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWSDI = tap water irrigation using surface drip irrigation system; TWWSDI = treated wastewater irrigation using surface drip irrigation system). In the same soil layer, values with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% probability level according to Duncan’s test. ± standard deviation (vertical bars).
Figure 1. Average values of electrical conductivity (EC) in the 0–20 cm, 20–40 cm and 40–60 cm soil layers before and following irrigation treatments (T0 = before irrigation; TWMI = tap water irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWWMI = treated wastewater irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWSDI = tap water irrigation using surface drip irrigation system; TWWSDI = treated wastewater irrigation using surface drip irrigation system). In the same soil layer, values with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% probability level according to Duncan’s test. ± standard deviation (vertical bars).
Sustainability 15 05793 g001
Sustainability 15 05793 g002 550
Figure 2. Effect of irrigation treatments on soil organic matter (OM) contents. T0 = before irrigation; TWMI = tap water irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWWMI = treated wastewater irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWSDI = tap water irrigation using surface drip irrigation system; TWWSDI = treated wastewater irrigation using surface drip irrigation system. In the same soil layer, values with the same letter(s) are not significantly different at 5% probability level according to Duncan’s test. ± standard deviation (vertical bars).
Figure 2. Effect of irrigation treatments on soil organic matter (OM) contents. T0 = before irrigation; TWMI = tap water irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWWMI = treated wastewater irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWSDI = tap water irrigation using surface drip irrigation system; TWWSDI = treated wastewater irrigation using surface drip irrigation system. In the same soil layer, values with the same letter(s) are not significantly different at 5% probability level according to Duncan’s test. ± standard deviation (vertical bars).
Sustainability 15 05793 g002
Sustainability 15 05793 g003 550
Figure 3. Effect of irrigation treatments on soil active CaCO3 contents. T0 = before irrigation; TWMI = tap water irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWWMI = treated wastewater irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWSDI = tap water irrigation using surface drip irrigation system; TWWSDI = treated wastewater irrigation using surface drip irrigation system. In the same soil layer, values with the same letter(s) are not significantly different at 5% probability level according to Duncan’s test. ± standard deviation (vertical bars).
Figure 3. Effect of irrigation treatments on soil active CaCO3 contents. T0 = before irrigation; TWMI = tap water irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWWMI = treated wastewater irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWSDI = tap water irrigation using surface drip irrigation system; TWWSDI = treated wastewater irrigation using surface drip irrigation system. In the same soil layer, values with the same letter(s) are not significantly different at 5% probability level according to Duncan’s test. ± standard deviation (vertical bars).
Sustainability 15 05793 g003
Sustainability 15 05793 g004a 550Sustainability 15 05793 g004b 550
Figure 4. Average values of mineral elements and heavy metals of the 0–20 cm, 20–40 cm and 40–60 cm soil layers before irrigation and the following applied treatments (T0 = before irrigation; TWMI = tap water irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWWMI = treated wastewater irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWSDI = tap water irrigation using surface drip irrigation system; TWWSDI = treated wastewater irrigation using surface drip irrigation system). In the same soil layer, values with the same letter(s) are not significantly different at 5% probability level according to Duncan’s test. ± standard deviation (vertical bars).
Figure 4. Average values of mineral elements and heavy metals of the 0–20 cm, 20–40 cm and 40–60 cm soil layers before irrigation and the following applied treatments (T0 = before irrigation; TWMI = tap water irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWWMI = treated wastewater irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWSDI = tap water irrigation using surface drip irrigation system; TWWSDI = treated wastewater irrigation using surface drip irrigation system). In the same soil layer, values with the same letter(s) are not significantly different at 5% probability level according to Duncan’s test. ± standard deviation (vertical bars).
Sustainability 15 05793 g004aSustainability 15 05793 g004b
Table
Table 1. Soil texture of the experimental site before and after the irrigation.
Table 1. Soil texture of the experimental site before and after the irrigation.
Depth (cm)T0TWMITWWMITWSDITWWSDI
0–20sandy-loamsandy-loamsandy-loamsandy-loamsandy-loam
20–40silty-clay-sandysilty-clay-sandysilty-clay-sandysilty-clay-sandysilty-clay-sandy
40–60silty-sandsilty-sandsilty-sandsilty-sandsilty-sand
Note that: T0 = before irrigation; TWMI = tap water irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWWMI = treated wastewater irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWSDI = tap water irrigation using surface drip irrigation system; TWWSDI = treated wastewater irrigation using surface drip irrigation system.
Table
Table 2. Influence of treated wastewater irrigation on soil depths (0–20, 20–40 and 40–60 cm) pH-water.
Table 2. Influence of treated wastewater irrigation on soil depths (0–20, 20–40 and 40–60 cm) pH-water.
Depth (cm)T0TWMITWWMITWSDITWWSDI
0–207.67 ± 1.07 (c)9.10 ± 0.12 (b)10.2 ± 0.06 (a)9.57 ± 0.04 (ab)10.30 ± 0.03 (a)
20–407.32 ± 0.68 (c)8.78 ± 0.19 (b)9.51 ± 0.11 (a)8.48 ± 0.32 (b)8.60 ± 0.22 (b)
40–607.31 ± 0.66 (c)8.29 ± 0.46 (ab)8.92 ± 0.54 (ab)8.11 ± 0.61 (b)9.13 ± 0.20 (a)
Note that: Data represents mean values ± standard deviation. Horizontally, values with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% probability level according to Duncan’s test. T0 = before irrigation; TWMI = tap water irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWWMI = treated wastewater irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWSDI = tap water irrigation using surface drip irrigation system; TWWSDI = treated wastewater irrigation using surface drip irrigation system.
Table
Table 3. Influence of treated wastewater irrigation on soil depth (0–20, 20–40 and 40–60 cm) pH-KCl.
Table 3. Influence of treated wastewater irrigation on soil depth (0–20, 20–40 and 40–60 cm) pH-KCl.
Depth (cm)T0TWMITWWMITWSDITWWSDI
0–20 7.52 ± 0.03 (d)7.47 ± 0.34 (d)8.35 ± 0.16 (b)7.90 ± 0.04 (c)8.75 ± 0.06 (a)
20–40 7.36 ± 0.20 (b)7.42 ± 0.06 (b)7.67 ± 0.09 (ab)7.59 ± 0.20 (ab)7.76 ± 0.20 (a)
40–607.63 ± 0.06 (b)7.43 ± 0.00 (b)7.55 ± 0.21 (b)7.65 ± 0.04 (b)8.04 ± 0.21 (a)
Note that: Data represents mean values ± standard deviation. Horizontally, values with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% probability level according to Duncan’s test. T0 = before irrigation; TWMI = tap water irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWWMI = treated wastewater irrigation using manual irrigation system; TWSDI = tap water irrigation using surface drip irrigation system; TWWSDI = treated wastewater irrigation using surface drip irrigation system.
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

Sdiri, W.; AlSalem, H.S.; Al-Goul, S.T.; Binkadem, M.S.; Ben Mansour, H. Assessing the Effects of Treated Wastewater Irrigation on Soil Physico-Chemical Properties. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5793. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075793

AMA Style

Sdiri W, AlSalem HS, Al-Goul ST, Binkadem MS, Ben Mansour H. Assessing the Effects of Treated Wastewater Irrigation on Soil Physico-Chemical Properties. Sustainability. 2023; 15(7):5793. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075793

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sdiri, Wiem, Huda S. AlSalem, Soha T. Al-Goul, Mona S. Binkadem, and Hedi Ben Mansour. 2023. "Assessing the Effects of Treated Wastewater Irrigation on Soil Physico-Chemical Properties" Sustainability 15, no. 7: 5793. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075793

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