Reduction of chromium toxicity by applying various soil amendments in artificially contaminated soil

Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Soil Science, School of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz AND Institute of Science and High Technology and Environmental Sciences, Graduate University of Advanced Technology, Kerman, Iran

2 Department of Soil Science, School of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran


Six soil amendments including municipal solid waste compost (MSWC), coal fly ash (CFA), rice husk biochar prepared at 300°C (B300) and 600°C (B600), zerovalent iron (Fe0), and zerovalent manganese (Mn0) were evaluated to determine their ability to reduce mobility of chromium (Cr) in a Cr-spiked soil. The Cr-spiked soil samples were separately incubated with selected amendments at 2 and 5% [weight by weight (W/W)] for 90 days at 25°C. The efficacy of amendment treatments was evaluated using desorption kinetic experiment and sequential extraction producer. Results showed that applications of various amendments had significant effects on desorption and chemical forms of Cr. Addition of amendments considerably decreased mobility factor (except for CFA5%) of Cr compared to the control treatment. The addition of Fe0, MSWC, and B300 to soil significantly decreased Cr release, compared to other amendments. The lowest Cr desorption was achieved by Fe0 at 5%. Application of B600 and CFA increased soil pH and caused the oxidation of Cr(III) to Cr(VI). Based on the obtained highest values of coefficient of determination (R2) and lowest values of standard error (SE) of the estimate, the two first-order reaction model could be best fitted for describing Cr release in soil samples. In general, from the practical view, Fe0, MSWC, and B300 treatments are effective in Cr immobilization, while application of Fe0 at 5% was the best treatment for stabilization of Cr. Therefore, these treatments can be recommended for the immobilization of Cr from polluted soil. 


  1. Kumpiene J, Lagerkvist A, Maurice C. Stabilization of As, Cr, Cu, Pb and Zn in soil using amendments? A review. Waste Management 2008; 28(1): 215-25.
  2. Banks MK, Schwab AP, Henderson C. Leaching and reduction of chromium in soil as affected by soil organic content and plants. Chemosphere 2006; 62(2): 255-64.
  3. Kumpiene J, Ore S, Renella G, Mench M, Lagerkvist A, Maurice C. Assessment of zerovalent iron for stabilization of chromium, copper, and arsenic in soil. Environmental Pollution 2006; 144(1): 62-9.
  4. Pantsar-Kallio M, Reinikainen SP, Oksanen M. Interactions of soil components and their effects on speciation of chromium in soils. Analytica Chimica Acta 2001; 439(1): 9-17.
  5. Seaman JC, Arey JS, Bertsch PM. Immobilization of nickel and other metals in contaminated sediments by hydroxyapatite addition. J Environ Qual 2001; 30(2): 460-9.
  6. Krishnamurti GS, Huang PM, Kozak LM. Sorption and Desorption Kinetics of Cadmium from Soils: Influence of Phosphate. Soil Science 1999; 164(12): 888-98.
  7. Violante A, Krishnamurti GS. Factors Affecting the Sorption-Desorption of Trace Elements in Soil Environments. In: Violante A, Huang PM, Gadd GM, editors. Biophysico-Chemical Processes of Heavy Metals and Metalloids in Soil Environments.New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2007. p. 169-213.
  8. Saffari M, Yasrebi J, Karimian N, Shan XQ. Effect of Calcium Carbonate Removal on the Chemical Forms of Zinc in Calcareous Soils by Three Sequential Extraction Methods. Research Journal of Biological Sciences 2009; 4(7): 858-65.
  9. Jalali M, Sajadi Tabar S. Kinetic Extractions of Nickel and Lead from Some Contaminated Calcareous Soils. Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal 2013; 22(1): 56-71.
  10. Santos S, Costa CA, Duarte AC, Scherer HW, Schneider RJ, Esteves VI, et al. Influence of different organic amendments on the potential availability of metals from soil: a study on metal fractionation and extraction kinetics by EDTA. Chemosphere 2010; 78(4): 389-96.
  11. Sahuquillo A, Rigol A, Rauret G. Overview of the use of leaching/extraction tests for risk assessment of trace metals in contaminated soils and sediments. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2003; 22(3): 152-9.
  12. Sparks DL. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 3, Chemical methods, Part 3. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America; 1996.
  13. Sposito G, Lund LJ, Chang AC. Trace Metal Chemistry in Arid-zone Field Soils Amended with Sewage Sludge: I. Fractionation of Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb in Solid Phases1. Soil Sci Am J 1982; 46(2): 260-4.
  14. Bartlett R, James B. Behavior of chromium in soils: III. Oxidation. J Environ Qual 1979; 8(1): 31-5.
  15. Singh JP, Karwasra SP, Singh M. Distribution and forms of copper, iron, manganese, and zinc in calcareous soils of India. Soil Sci 1989; 146: 359-66.
  16. Salbu B, Krekling T. Characterisation of radioactive particles in the environment. Analyst 1998; 123(5): 843-50.
  17. Kalembkiewicz J, Soeo E. Investigations of Chemical Fraction of Cr in Soil. Polish J of Environ Stud 2005; 14(5): 593-8.
  18. Pakula K, Kalembasa D. Fractions of chromium and lead in forest Luvisols of South Podlasie Lowland. Environ Prot Eng 2009; 35(1): 57-64.
  19. Pouran HM, Fotovat A, Haghnia G, Halajnia A, Chamsaz M. A Case Study: Chromium Concentration and its Species in a Calcareous Soil Affected by Leather Industries Effluents. World Applied Sciences Journal 2008; 5(4): 484-9.
  20. Fendorf SE. Surface reactions of chromium in soils and waters. Geoderma 1995; 67: 55-71.
  21. Kim JG, Dixon JB. Oxidation and fate of chromium in soils. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 2002; 48(4): 483-90.
  22. Yasrebi J, Karimian N, Maftoun M, Abtahi A, Sameni AM. Distribution of zinc forms in highly calcareous soils as influenced by soil physical and chemical properties and application of zinc sulfate. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 1994; 25(11-12): 2133-45.
  23. Mench M, Bussi?re S, Boisson J, Castaing E, Vangronsveld J, Ruttens A, et al. Progress in remediation and revegetation of the barren Jales gold mine spoil after in situ treatments. Plant and Soil 2003; 249(1): 187-202.
  24. Kirpichtchikova TA, Manceau A, Spadini L, Fr?d?ric, Marcus MA, Jacquet T. Speciation and solubility of heavy metals in contaminated soil using X-ray microfluorescence, EXAFS spectroscopy, chemical extraction, and thermodynamic modeling. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 2006; 70(9): 2163-90.
  25. Di PL, Mecozzi R. Heavy metals mobilization from harbour sediments using EDTA and citric acid as chelating agents. J Hazard Mater 2007; 147(3): 768-75.
  26. Sadegh L, Fekri M, Gorgin N. Effects of poultry manure and pistachio compost on the kinetics of copper desorption from two calcareous soils. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 2012; 5(4): 571-8.
  27. Jones B, Turki A. Distribution and speciation of heavy metals in surficial sediments from the Tees Estuary, north-east England. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1997; 34(10): 768-79.
  28. Polettini A, Pomi R, Rolle E. The effect of operating variables on chelant-assisted remediation of contaminated dredged sediment. Chemosphere 2007; 66(5): 866-77.
  29. Labanowski J, Monna F, Bermond A, Cambier P, Fernandez C, Lamy I, et al. Kinetic extractions to assess mobilization of Zn, Pb, Cu, and Cd in a metal-contaminated soil: EDTA vs. citrate. Environmental Pollution 2008; 152(3): 693-701.
  30. Fangueiro D, Bermond A, Santos E, Carapua H, Duarte A. Kinetic approach to heavy metal mobilization assessment in sediments: choose of kinetic equations and models to achieve maximum information. Talanta 2005; 66(4): 844-57.
  31. Brunori C, Cremisini C, D'Annibale L, Massanisso P, Pinto V. A kinetic study of trace element leachability from abandoned-mine-polluted soil treated with SS-MSW compost and red mud. Comparison with results from sequential extraction. Anal Bioanal Chem 2005; 381(7): 1347-54.