Improvement of sewage sludge and enhanced measure on soil of rare earth mine wasteland
-
摘要:目的
探究添加城市污泥对稀土矿废弃地土壤的改良作用，以及在添加污泥基础上添加蔗渣和土壤调理剂的强化效果，以期为稀土矿区土壤改良提供理论依据，也为城市污泥资源化利用提供新思路。
方法以稀土矿区土壤为研究对象，设置3个处理：添加污泥(T1)、添加污泥+蔗渣(T2)、添加污泥+蔗渣+土壤调理剂(T3)，矿区土壤作为对照(CK)，以剑豆Canavalia gladiata为种植材料，通过盆栽试验验证土壤改良效果；测定土壤理化性质和剑豆生长指标，运用主成分分析和模糊隶属函数分析方法综合分析不同处理的土壤改良效果。
结果与对照相比，3种处理均极大地改善了矿区土壤的理化性质，促进了剑豆生长和氮、磷、钾养分元素吸收。其中，T1处理使土壤容重降低27.64%，总孔隙度提高23.91%，毛管持水量提高42.41%，有机质含量提高11.01倍，全磷、碱解氮、速效磷、速效钾含量大幅增加；T2处理的土壤物理性质优于T1，有机质含量提高25.9%，pH提高0.32；T3处理的土壤pH(7.22)最高，较T2提高49.17%，速效磷、速效钾含量分别提高0.46%和11.05%。T2和T3处理植株的总生物量显著高于T1和CK，且T2和T3处理之间无显著差异；单株氮、磷、钾的积累量均在T2处理达到最大值，分别为934.43、172.07、931.35 mg，且与其他处理差异显著。CK、T1、T2、T3的隶属函数平均值分别为0.06、0.56、0.83、0.90，土壤改良效果排序为T3>T2>T1。
结论添加污泥显著改良矿区土壤，在添加污泥基础上加入蔗渣和土壤调理剂的改良效果显著增强。
Abstract:ObjectiveTo study the improvement effect of urban sewage sludge addition on soil of rare earth mine wasteland, and the strengthening effects of adding bagasse and soil conditioner on the basis of sewage sludge, and provide a theoretical guidance for soil improvement of rare earth mining areas and utilization of urban sewage sludge resources.
MethodThe soil of rare earth mine wasteland was selected as research object. Three treatments including adding sewage sludge (T1), adding sewage sludge and bagasse (T2), adding sewage sludge, bagasse and soil conditioner (T3) were set. The soil of rare earth mine wasteland was used as control (CK). Canavalia gladiata was chosen as test material to verify soil improvement effect through pot experiment. The physicochemical properties of testing soil and C. gladiata growth indexes were determined, and the soil improvement effects of different treatments were comprehensively analyzed by principal component analysis and fuzzy membership function analysis.
ResultCompared with the control, three treatments greatly improved the physicochemical properties of soil in mining area, promoted the growth of C. gladiata and the absorption of N, P and K nutrient elements. T1 reduced soil bulk density by 27.64%, increased total porosity by 23.91%, increased capillary water holding capacity by 42.41%, increased the content of organic matter by 11.01 times, and meanwhile greatly increased the contents of total P, alkaline hydrolytic N, available P and available K. The soil physical properties of T2 were better than those of T1, with organic matter content increased by 25.9% and pH increased by 0.32. The soil pH (7.22) of T3 was the highest, which was 49.17% higher than T2, and the contents of available P and available K increased by 0.46% and 11.05% respectively. The total plant biomasses of T2 and T3 were significantly higher than those of T1 and CK, and there was no significant difference between T2 and T3. The accumulations of N, P and K per plant reached the maximums in T2, which were 934.43, 172.07 and 931.35 mg respectively, and significantly different from other treatments. The average subordinate function values of CK, T1, T2 and T3 were 0.06, 0.56, 0.83, 0.90 respectively, and the soil improvement effects were ranked as T3>T2>T1.
ConclusionThe addition of urban sewage sludge significantly improves the soil of mining area, and the improvement effect is significantly enhanced by adding bagasse and soil conditioner on the basis of adding sewage sludge.
-
Keywords:
- Canavalia gladiata /
- rare earth soil /
- sewage sludge /
- bagasse /
- soil conditioner
-
-
![]()
图 1 不同处理对植株养分元素积累量的影响
相同元素柱子上方的不同小写字母表示处理间差异显著(P<0.05，Duncan’s法)
Figure 1. Effects of different treatments on nutrient element accumulations in plant
Different lowercase letters on the columns of the same element indicated significant differences among different treatments(P<0.05, Duncan’s test)
![]()
图 2 土壤改良效果综合评价的主成分分析
图b中，1：pH，2：容重，3：总孔隙度，4：毛管持水量，5：有机质含量，6：全氮含量，7：全磷含量，8：全钾含量，9：碱解氮含量，10：速效磷含量，11：速效钾含量，12：植株高度，13：单株总生物量，14：单株氮积累量，15：单株磷积累量，16：单株钾积累量
Figure 2. Principal component analysis of comprehensive evaluation on soil improvement effect
In figure b, 1: pH, 2: Bulk density, 3: Total porosity, 4: Capillary moisture, 5: Organic matter content, 6: Total N content, 7: Total P content, 8: Total K content, 9: Alkaline hydrolytic N content, 10: Available P content, 11: Available K content, 12: Plant height, 13: Total biomass per plant, 14: Accumulation of N per plant, 15: Accumulation of P per plant, 16: Accumulation of K per plant
表 1 供试原土、污泥、土壤调理剂的理化性质及土地改良用泥国标
Table 1 Physicochemical properties of raw soil, sewage sludge, soil conditioner and national standard of sewage sludge for land improvement
供试材料
Test materialw/(g·kg−1) w/(mg·kg−1) 有机质
Organic matter全氮
Total N全磷
Total P全钾
Total K碱解氮
Alkaline hydrolytic N速效磷
Available P速效钾
Available K矿区土 Mine soil 7.93 1.71 0.01 42.85 17.38 2.85 105.49 污泥 Sewage sludge 220.20 21.04 23.63 13.83 1 658.67 1 750.53 2 229.47 土壤调理剂 Soil conditioner 8.31 0.08 0.30 18.39 5.83 8.50 405.61 供试材料
Test materialpH w/(mg·kg−1) Cu Zn Pb Cd Ni 矿区土 Mine soil 4.36 5.08 49.74 76.04 0.25 1.76 污泥 Sewage sludge 5.01 423.66 863.49 48.51 4.55 47.96 土壤调理剂 Soil conditioner 12.14 16.02 89.75 66.61 0.99 8.85 土地改良用泥国标[19] ＜6.5 ＜800 ＜2 000 ＜300 ＜5 ＜100 National standard of sewage sludge for land improvement ≥6.5 ≤1 500 ≤4 000 ≤1 000 ≤20 ≤200 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 不同处理对土壤物理性质的影响
Table 2 Effects of different treatments on soil physical properties
处理1)
Treatment容重 Bulk density 总孔隙度 Total porosity 毛管持水量 Capillary moisture 容重2)/(g·cm−3)
Bulk density变化率3)/%
Change rate总孔隙度2)/%
Total porosity变化率3)/%
Change rate毛管持水量2)/(g·kg−1)
Capillary moisture变化率3)/%
Change rateCK 1.23±0.02a 53.66±0.82c 345.44±19.86c T1 0.89±0.01b −27.64 66.49±0.47b 23.91 491.94±13.54b 42.41 T2 0.77±0.01c −37.40 70.17±0.46a 30.77 600.34±14.23a 73.89 T3 0.76±0.02c −38.21 70.78±0.69a 31.90 614.34±45.14a 77.84 1)CK：矿区土壤，T1：添加污泥，T2：添加污泥、蔗渣，T3：添加污泥、蔗渣、土壤调理剂；2)表中数据为平均值±标准误(n=5)，同列数据后的不同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05，Duncan’s法)；3)各处理的变化率均为与对照比较
1)CK: Mine soil, T1: Adding sewage sludge, T2: Adding sewage sludge and bagasse, T3: Adding sewage sludge, bagasse and soil conditioner; 2)Data were means ± standard errors (n=5), and different letters in the same column indicated significant differences(P<0.05, Duncan’s test); 3)The change rates of different treatments were compared with control
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 不同处理对土壤化学性质的影响1)
Table 3 Effects of different treatments on soil chemical properties
处理
TreatmentpH w/(g·kg−1) w/(mg·kg−1) 有机质
Organic matter全氮
Total N全磷
Total P全钾
Total K碱解氮
Alkaline hydrolytic N速效磷
Available P速效钾
Available KCK 4.36±0.12c 7.93±1.10c 1.71±0.55b 0.02±0.01c 42.85±1.59a 17.38±0.17b 2.85±0.26b 105.49±12.97d T1 4.52±0.02c 95.25±5.60b 5.97±0.24ab 8.44±1.48b 35.19±1.94b 757.22±53.20a 675.27±4.24a 866.26±20.51c T2 4.84±0.02b 119.92±9.34a 8.14±1.22a 10.07±0.40a 30.76±0.61b 849.43±77.01a 692.16±7.45a 1 014.74±51.03b T3 7.22±0.02a 120.46±3.54a 9.64±1.28a 11.42±0.31a 31.23±0.80b 739.68±29.22a 695.35±6.51a 1 126.88±14.44a 1)CK：矿区土壤，T1：添加污泥，T2：添加污泥、蔗渣，T3：添加污泥、蔗渣、土壤调理剂；表中数据为平均值±标准误(n=5)，同列数据后的不同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05，Duncan’s法)
1)CK: Mine soil, T1: Adding sewage sludge, T2: Adding sewage sludge and bagasse, T3: Adding sewage sludge, bagasse and soil conditioner; Data were means ± standard errors (n=5), and different letters in the same column indicated significant differences(P<0.05, Duncan’s test)
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 不同处理对植株生长的影响1)
Table 4 Effects of different treatments on the growth of plants
处理
Treatment植株高度/cm
Plant height单株生物量/g Biomass per plant 地上部
Aboveground of plant地下部
Underground of plant全株
Total plantCK 221.97±57.98a 5.90±1.57c 1.18±0.21a 7.08±1.73c T1 224.83±20.03a 13.48±0.34b 0.48±0.09b 13.96±0.43b T2 288.70±35.95a 23.41±1.55a 0.75±0.17ab 24.16±1.70a T3 318.17±43.50a 19.82±2.45a 0.52±0.04b 20.34±2.41a 1)CK：矿区土壤，T1：添加污泥，T2：添加污泥、蔗渣，T3：添加污泥、蔗渣、土壤调理剂；表中数据为平均值±标准误(n=5)，同列数据后的不同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05，Duncan’s法)
1)CK: Mine soil, T1: Adding sewage sludge, T2: Adding sewage sludge and bagasse, T3: Adding sewage sludge, bagasse and soil conditioner; Data were means ±standard errors (n=5), and different letters in the same column indicated significant differences(P<0.05, Duncan’s test)
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 土壤理化性质和植物生长状况的隶属函数值
Table 5 Subordinate function values of soil physicochemical properties and plant growth status
指标1) Index CK T1 T2 T3 pHa 0 0.12 0.17 1.00 容重b Bulk density 0 0.72 0.98 1.00 总孔隙度a Total porosity 0 0.75 0.96 1.00 毛管持水量a Capillary moisture 0 0.54 0.95 1.00 有机质含量a Organic matter content 0 0.78 1.00 1.00 全氮含量a Total N content 0 0.54 0.81 1.00 全磷含量a Total P content 0 0.74 0.88 1.00 全钾含量a Total K content 1.00 0.37 0 0.04 碱解氮含量aAlkaline hydrolytic N content 0 0.89 1.00 0.87 速效磷含量aAvailable P content 0 0.97 1.00 1.00 速效钾含量aAvailable K content 0 0.74 0.89 1.00 植株高度a Plant height 0 0.03 0.69 1.00 总生物量a Total biomass 0 0.40 1.00 0.78 单株氮积累量aN accumulation of plant 0 0.41 1.00 0.93 单株磷积累量aP accumulation of plant 0 0.51 1.00 0.96 单株钾积累量aK accumulation of plant 0 0.50 1.00 0.86 平均值 Mean 0.06 0.56 0.83 0.90 综合排序 Synthetic ordering 4 3 2 1 1) “a”表示该指标与土壤改良效果呈正相关，“b”表示呈负相关
1)“a” indicated the index was positively correlated with soil improvement effect, and “b” indicated the negative correlation
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 罗才贵, 罗仙平, 苏佳, 等. 离子型稀土矿山环境问题及其治理方法[J]. 金属矿山, 2014(6): 91-96. [2] 钟志刚, 周贺鹏, 胡洁, 等. 南方离子型稀土矿绿色提取技术研究进展[J]. 金属矿山, 2017(12): 76-81. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-1250.2017.12.016 [3] 郭伟, 付瑞英, 赵仁鑫, 等. 稀土开发导致的环境问题及土壤稀土污染治理措施初探[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2014, 14(5): 245-251. [4] 曾敏, 彭红霞, 刘凤梅, 等. 安远新龙稀土矿山地质环境综合治理研究[J]. 金属矿山, 2011(3): 136-139. [5] 闫美, 王璐, 郝存忠, 等. 煤矿废弃地生态修复的土壤有机碳效应[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(5): 1838-1845. [6] 白中科, 周伟, 王金满, 等. 再论矿区生态系统恢复重建[J]. 中国土地科学, 2018, 32(11): 1-9. [7] 李小飞, 陈志彪, 陈志强. 南方稀土采矿恢复地土壤稀土元素含量及植物吸收特征[J]. 生态学杂志, 2013, 32(8): 2126-2132. [8] ROBINSON B, GREEN S, MILLS T M, et al. Phytoremediation: Using plants as biopumps to improve degraded environments[J]. Soil Res, 2003, 41(3): 599-611. doi: 10.1071/SR02131
[9] 陈莺燕, 刘文深, 丁铿博, 等. 有机改良剂及生物炭对离子型稀土矿尾砂地生态修复的改良探究[J]. 环境科学学报, 2018, 38(12): 4769-4778. [10] 何士龙, 钱奎梅, 王丽萍, 等. 污泥在矿区废弃地复垦中的应用实验[J]. 环境科技, 2009, 22(4): 15-21. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-4829.2009.04.005 [11] 赖发英, 王国锋, 孙永明, 等. 城市污泥对矿区土壤性状的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2010, 24(2): 349-354. doi: 10.11869/hnxb.2010.02.0349 [12] 徐雪云, 朱航, 邹华. 混合污泥堆肥在无锡茶园的应用研究[J]. 华南农业大学学报, 2013, 34(2): 277-280. doi: 10.7671/j.issn.1001-411X.2013.02.029 [13] 何飞飞, 曾建兵, 吴爱平, 等. 改良剂修复利用镉污染菜地土壤的田间效应研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2012, 28(31): 247-251. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6850.2012.31.047 [14] 孙文博, 莫创荣, 安鸿雪, 等. 施用蔗渣对土壤镉赋存形态和生物有效性的影响研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2013, 32(9): 1793-1799. doi: 10.11654/jaes.2013.09.013 [15] 黄庆, 林小明, 柯玉诗, 等. 多元酸性土壤调理剂在辣椒上的施用效果研究[J]. 广东农业科学, 2007, 34(1): 42-44. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-874X.2007.01.019 [16] 中国科学院《中国植物志》编委会. 中国植物志: 第41卷[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1995: 208. [17] DE MELO RANGEL W, DE OLIVEIRA LONGATTI S M, FERREIRA P A A, et al. Leguminosae native nodulating bacteria from a gold mine As-contaminated soil: Multi-resistance to trace elements, and possible role in plant growth and mineral nutrition[J]. Int J Phytorem, 2017, 19(10): 925-936. doi: 10.1080/15226514.2017.1303812
[18] 董坚. 一种钼尾矿酸性土壤调理剂及其生产工艺: CN102826926A[P]. 2012-12-19. [19] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 城镇污水处理厂污泥处置土地改良用泥质: GB/T24600—2009[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2009. [20] 鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000. [21] 王婧, 莫其锋, 储双双, 等. 污泥堆肥对园林植物合果芋(Syngonium podophyllum)生长及重金属吸收累积的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2018, 37(6): 1752-1758. [22] 梁丹妮, 郭兴燕, 兰剑. 6份沿阶草种质对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J]. 草业科学, 2016, 33(2): 184-191. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2015-0346 [23] 万俐, 赵君凤, 付永胜, 等. 不同絮凝剂对活性污泥特性及除污效能的影响研究[J]. 环境工程, 2017, 35(2): 49-52. [24] 黄殿男, 谭杰, 傅金祥, 等. 城市污水处理厂污泥对沙漠化土壤的改良效果[J]. 水土保持学报, 2017, 31(1): 326-330. [25] 丘锦荣, 卫泽斌, 吴长安, 等. 不同干燥处理对城市污泥物理性质和农业利用的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2009, 18(1): 106-110. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5906.2009.01.021 [26] 孙永明, 郭衡焕, 孙辉明, 等. 城市污泥在矿区废弃地复垦中应用的可行性研究[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2008, 31(6): 28-31. [27] 张硕, 余宏军, 蒋卫杰. 发酵玉米芯或甘蔗渣基质的黄瓜育苗效果[J]. 农业工程学报, 2015, 31(11): 244-250. [28] 陈婵婵, 肖斌, 余有本, 等. 陕南茶园土壤有机质和pH值空间变异及其与速效养分的相关性[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2009, 37(1): 182-188. [29] 王洋, 刘景双, 王金达, 等. 土壤pH值对冻融黑土重金属Cd赋存形态的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2008, 27(2): 574-578. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1672-2043.2008.02.032 [30] 吴敏, 韦家少, 孙海东, 等. 植物物料及其生物炭对酸性土壤的改良[J]. 热带作物学报, 2016, 37(12): 2276-2282. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2016.12.006 [31] 付克强, 王殿武, 李贵宝, 等. 城市污泥与湖泊底泥土地利用对土壤−植物系统中养分及重金属Cd, Pb的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2006, 20(4): 62-66. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1009-2242.2006.04.015 [32] 张林丰, 任乐辉, 何月田, 等. 利用制糖副产物土壤化赤泥的效果[J]. 环境工程学报, 2018, 12(4): 1228-1236. doi: 10.12030/j.cjee.201710120 [33] 储双双, 赖灿, WEI X H, 等. 污泥堆肥混合基质对香彩雀生长开花的影响及植物适应性评价[J]. 生态学杂志, 2014, 33(4): 966-972. [34] 刘强, 陈玲, 邱家洲, 等. 污泥堆肥对园林植物生长及重金属积累的影响[J]. 同济大学学报(自然科学版), 2010, 38(6): 870-875. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-374x.2010.06.016 [35] 安志装, 王校常, 施卫明, 等. 重金属与营养元素交互作用的植物生理效应[J]. 土壤与环境, 2002, 11(4): 392-396. [36] 杨旭初, 叶会财, 李大明, 等. 基于模糊数学和主成分分析的长期施肥红壤旱地土壤肥力评价[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2018(3): 79-84. doi: 10.11838/sfsc.20180313 [37] 吴海燕, 金荣德, 范作伟, 等. 基于主成分和聚类分析的黑土肥力质量评价[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2018, 24(2): 325-334. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.17225 [38] 刘梦娇, 夏少攀, 王峻, 等. 城市污泥农用对植物−土壤系统的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(12): 4134-4142. [39] 杨帅, 高照良, 白皓, 等. 矿山废弃地植物种植模式对土壤改良效果[J]. 水土保持学报, 2017, 31(3): 134-140.
