Biochar amendment alters the relation between the Pb distribution and biological activities in soil

  • N. Nigam
  • V. Yadav
  • D. Mishra
  • T. Karak
  • P. KhareEmail author
Original Paper


In the present investigation, the impact of biochar amendments on the Pb fractionation pattern and soil enzymatic activities in soil was evaluated. Two spiking concentrations of exogenous Pb, two application rates (2% and 4%) of biochar and three plants such as Withania somnifera, Andrographis paniculata and Bacopa monnieri were taken for the study. Three experiment sets were designed for each plant. Distribution of Pb (in acid soluble, reducible, oxidizable and residual fractions), physicochemical and biological properties (β-glucosidase, acidic and alkaline phosphatases, urease and microbial biomass) of soil were examined. Several chemometric techniques were applied to this huge data to evaluate the association of soil microbial activities with Pb fractionation. The results revealed that biochar amendments altered the fractionation of Pb by shifting from mobile fraction (acid soluble) to immobile fraction (oxidizable and residual). The correlation analysis suggested that this could be attributed to the increase in cation exchange capacity, organic carbon and available phosphorus content in the soil after biochar amendments. The results clearly demonstrated that biochar amendments in Pb-contaminated soil improved the enzymatic activities in the soil. The multidimensional scaling, correlation and sequential equation modeling imply that biochar has a shielding effect on soil microbial activity against Pb stress from each fraction of soil.


Biochar Chemometrics Pb fractionation Soil enzymes 



Authors are also thankful to the Director of CSIR-CIMAP for his encouragement. Authors are thankful to CSIR laboratory (HCP-010) for financial assistance in major laboratory project.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

13762_2019_2257_MOESM1_ESM.docx (65 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 64 kb)


  1. Ahmad M, Lee SS, Lim JE, Lee S-E, Cho JS, Moon DH, Hashimoto Y, Ok YS (2014) Speciation and phytoavailability of lead and antimony in a small arms range soil amended with mussel shell, cow bone and biochar: EXAFS spectroscopy and chemical extractions. Chemosphere 95:433–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandara T, Herath I, Kumarathilaka P, Seneviratne M, Seneviratne G, Rajakaruna N, Vithanage M, Ok YS (2017) Role of woody biochar and fungal-bacterial co-inoculation on enzyme activity and metal immobilization in serpentine soil. J Soils Sediments 17:665–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baronti S, Vaccari F, Miglietta F, Calzolari C, Lugato E, Orlandini S, Pini R, Zulian C, Genesio L (2014) Impact of biochar application on plant water relations in Vitis vinifera (L.). Eur J Agron 53:38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batool Z, Yousafzai NA, Murad MS, Shahid S, Iqbal A (2017) Lead toxicity and evaluation of oxidative stress in humans. PSM Biol Res 2:79–82Google Scholar
  5. Beesley L, Moreno-Jiménez E, Gomez-Eyles JL, Harris E, Robinson B, Sizmur T (2011) A review of biochars’ potential role in the remediation, revegetation and restoration of contaminated soils. Environ Pollut 159:3269–3282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bray RH, Kurtz L (1945) Determination of total, organic, and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Sci 59:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castillo-Michel H, Hernandez-Viezcas J, Dokken KM, Marcus MA, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2011) Localization and speciation of arsenic in soil and desert plant Parkinsonia florida using μXRF and μXANES. Environ Sci Technol 45:7848–7854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman H (1965) Cation-exchange capacity. Methods Soil Anal Part 2 Chem Microbiol Prop 9:891–901Google Scholar
  9. Chavez E, He Z, Stoffella P, Mylavarapu R, Li Y, Baligar V (2016) Chemical speciation of cadmium: an approach to evaluate plant-available cadmium in Ecuadorian soils under cacao production. Chemosphere 150:57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen C, Chen Y, Xie T, Wang MK, Wang G (2015) Removal, redistribution, and potential risks of soil Cd, Pb, and Zn after washing with various extractants. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:16881–16888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Egamberdieva D, Renella G, Wirth S, Islam R (2010) Enzyme activities in the rhizosphere of plants. In: Shukla G, Varma A (eds) Soil enzymology. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  12. Fernández-Calviño D, Cutillas-Barreiro L, Paradelo-Núñez R, Nóvoa-Muñoz JC, Fernández-Sanjurjo MJ, Álvarez-Rodríguez E, Núñez-Delgado A, Arias-Estévez M (2017) Heavy metals fractionation and desorption in pine bark amended mine soils. J Environ Manag 192:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gautam M (2016) Synthesis, characterization and application of new adsorbents for removal of specific heavy metals from their aqueous solutions. Department of Applied Chemistry, School for Physical Sciences, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar UniversityGoogle Scholar
  14. Hagmann DF, Goodey NM, Mathieu C, Evans J, Aronson MF, Gallagher F, Krumins JA (2015) Effect of metal contamination on microbial enzymatic activity in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 91:291–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hass A, Gonzalez JM, Lima IM, Godwin HW, Halvorson JJ, Boyer DG (2012) Chicken manure biochar as liming and nutrient source for acid Appalachian soil. J Environ Qual 41:1096–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Igalavithana AD, Lee S-E, Lee YH, Tsang DC, Rinklebe J, Kwon EE, Ok YS (2017) Heavy metal immobilization and microbial community abundance by vegetable waste and pine cone biochar of agricultural soils. Chemosphere 174:593–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jeong CY, Dodla SK, Wang JJ (2016) Fundamental and molecular composition characteristics of biochars produced from sugarcane and rice crop residues and by-products. Chemosphere 142:4–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kenarova A, Radeva G, Traykov I, Boteva S (2014) Community level physiological profiles of bacterial communities inhabiting uranium mining impacted sites. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 100:226–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim Y-H, Lim J-H, An C-H, Jung B-K, Kim S-D (2012) Soil microbial community analysis using soil enzyme activities in red pepper field treated microbial agents. J Appl Biol Chem 55:47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lu H, Li Z, Fu S, Méndez A, Gascó G, Paz-Ferreiro J (2015) Combining phytoextraction and biochar addition improves soil biochemical properties in a soil contaminated with Cd. Chemosphere 119:209–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Matong JM, Nyaba L, Nomngongo PN (2016) Fractionation of trace elements in agricultural soils using ultrasound assisted sequential extraction prior to inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometric determination. Chemosphere 154:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Montiel-Rozas M, Madejón E, Madejón P (2016) Effect of heavy metals and organic matter on root exudates (low molecular weight organic acids) of herbaceous species: an assessment in sand and soil conditions under different levels of contamination. Environ Pollut 216:273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nigam N, Shanker K, Khare P (2017) Valorisation of residue of Mentha arvensis by pyrolysis: evaluation of agronomic and environmental benefits. Waste Biomass Valoriz 9:1–11Google Scholar
  24. Roy M, McDonald LM (2015) Metal uptake in plants and health risk assessments in metal-contaminated smelter soils. Land Degrad Dev 26:785–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tabatabai M, Bremner J (1972) Assay of urease activity in soils. Soil Biol Biochem 4:479–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Walkley A, Black IA (1934) An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci 37:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Xu Z, Wu J, Li H, Chen Y, Xu J, Xiong L, Zhang J (2018) Characterizing heavy metals in combined sewer overflows and its influence on microbial diversity. Sci Total Environ 625:1272–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yu L, Li H-G, Liu F-C (2017) Pollution in the urban soils of Lianyungang, China, evaluated using a pollution index, mobility of heavy metals, and enzymatic activities. Environ Monit Assess 189:34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zeng G, Wu H, Liang J, Guo S, Huang L, Xu P, Liu Y, Yuan Y, He X, He Y (2015) Efficiency of biochar and compost (or composting) combined amendments for reducing Cd, Cu, Zn and Pb bioavailability, mobility and ecological risk in wetland soil. RSC Adv 5:34541–34548CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Nigam
    • 1
  • V. Yadav
    • 1
  • D. Mishra
    • 1
  • T. Karak
    • 2
  • P. Khare
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Agronomy and Soil Science DivisionCSIR-Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic PlantsLucknowIndia
  2. 2.Upper Assam Advisory CentreTea Research AssociationDikom, DibrugarhIndia

Personalised recommendations