Advertisement

Assessment of Biochar Potential to Neutralize the Effect of Olive Mill Wastewater on Plant Growth in Alkaline Sand

  • Obiageli P. Umeugochukwu
  • Andrei B. RozanovEmail author
  • Ailsa G. Hardie
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Earth System Sciences book series (LNESS)

Abstract

The biotic-abiotic interactions are particularly challenging in alkaline conditions. Growth of plants is an ultimate indicator of such interactions. The on-land disposal of olive mill wastewater (OMW) negatively affects plant growth due to its high phytotoxic organic polyphenol content. Our previous study has shown that phenols may be successfully sorbed on biochar—one of the most promoted soil amendments. A greenhouse experiment was conducted to determine the combined and separate effect of OMW (applied at 50, 100 and 200 m3 ha−1) and pinewood biochar (applied at 0.5, 2.5 and 5%) on the growth of wheat and green beans in an alkaline sand. Results showed that increasing OMW rate significantly suppressed wheat growth especially the above ground phytometrics, and that biochar addition did not significantly mitigate this effect. This was mainly attributed to unsuitable high pH growing conditions of the wheat, which was enhanced by application of OMW and biochar. In contrast, the lowest OMW only and 5% biochar only treatments positively affected bean phytometrics, though not statistically significant. A significant positive interaction was obtained in the bean total biomass when 2.5 and 5% biochar was applied on soil that received 100 m3 ha−1 OMW. Findings showed that pinewood biochar application at 2.5 and 5% enhanced tolerance of beans to OMW applied at 100 and 200 m3 ha−1 likely due to not only reduction of phenol toxicity but also due to increased available soil P and K.

Keywords

Alkaline sand Green beans Phytotoxicity Polyphenols Spring Wheat 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the financial support of the TRECCAfrica scholarship program.

References

  1. Achak M, Mandi L, Ouazzani N (2009) Removal of organic pollutants and nutrients from olive mill wastewater by a sand filter. J Environ Manage 90:2771–2779.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.03.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsworth E, Gillespie K (2007) Estimation of total phenolic content and other oxidation substrates in plant tissues using Folin-Ciocalteu reagent. Nat Protoc 2:875–877.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2007.102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Malah K, Azzam M, Abu-Lail N (2000) Olive mills effluent (OME) wastewater post-treatment using activated clay. Sep Purif Technol 20:225–234.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1383-5866(00)00114-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alhakmani F, Kumar S, Khan S (2013) Estimation of total phenolic content, in-vitro antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity of flowers of Moringa oleifera. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed 3:623–627.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s2221-1691(13)60126-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Angiolini C, Landi M, Pieroni G et al (2013) Soil chemical features as key predictors of plant community occurrence in a Mediterranean coastal ecosystem. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 119:91–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2012.12.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aziz A, Ngadi N, Amin N (2012) Phenol adsorption by activated carbon of different fibre size derived from empty fruit bunches. J Oil Palm Res 24:1524–1532Google Scholar
  7. Barbera AC, Maucieri C, Cavallaro V et al (2013) Effects of spreading olive mill wastewater on soil properties and crops, a review. Agric Water Manag 119:43–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.12.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrow C (2012) Biochar: potential for countering land degradation and for improving agriculture. Appl Geogr 34:21–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.09.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Belaid C, Khadraoui M, Mseddi S et al (2013) Electrochemical treatment of olive mill wastewater: treatment extent and effluent phenolic compounds monitoring using some uncommon analytical tools. J Environ Sci 25:220–230.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(12)60037-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borja R, Raposo F, Rincón B (2006) Treatment technologies of liquid and solid wastes from two-phase olive oil mills. Grasas Aceites 57:32–46.  https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.2006.v57.i1.20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bremner J (1996) Nitrogen-total. In: Sparks D, Bartels J (eds) Methods of soil analysis part 3-chemical, SSSA Book. Soil Science Society of America, Inc. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Madison, WI, 53711, pp 1085–1121Google Scholar
  12. Deng G, Wang X, Shi X, Hong Q (2013) Adsorption characteristics of phenol in aqueous solution by Pinus massoniana Biochar. Appl Mech Mater 295–298:1154–1160.  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.295-298.1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farrell M, Macdonald L, Chirino-valle I et al (2014) Biochar and fertiliser applications influence phosphorus fractionation and wheat yield Biochar and fertiliser applications influence phosphorus fractionation and wheat yield. Biol Fertil Soils 50:169–178.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-013-0845-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fenu G, Carboni M, Acosta A, Bacchetta G (2013) Environmental factors influencing coastal vegetation pattern: new insights from the Mediterranean Basin. Folia Geobot 48:493–508.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12224-012-9141-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. FSSA (2007) FSSA fertilizer handbook. Fertilizer Society of South Africa, Lynwood Ridge, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  16. Gee G, Or D (2002) Particle-size analysis. In: Dane J, Topp G (eds) Methods of soil analysis part 4-physical methods. Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, WI 53711, USA, pp 255–278Google Scholar
  17. Gell K, van Groenigen J, Cayuela M (2011) Residues of bioenergy production chains as soil amendments: immediate and temporal phytotoxicity. J Hazard Mater 186:2017–2025.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.12.105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hachicha S, Cegarra J, Sellami F et al (2009) Elimination of polyphenols toxicity from olive mill wastewater sludge by its co-composting with sesame bark. J Hazard Mater 161:1131–1139.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.04.066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Havlin J, Beaton J, Tisdale S, Nelson W (2005) Soil fertility and fertilizers. Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  20. Hina K, Hedley M, Camps-Arbestain M, Hanly J (2015) Comparison of pine bark, biochar and zeolite as sorbents for NH4 + -N removal from water. Clean—Soil Air Water 43:86–91.  https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201300682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jien S, Wang C, Lee C, Lee T (2015) Stabilization of organic matter by biochar application in compost-amended soils with contrasting pH values and textures. Sustain 7:13317–13333.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su71013317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kapellakis I, Tsagarakis K, Crowther J (2008) Olive oil history, production and by-product management. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 7(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. López-Cano I, Roig A, Cayuela M et al (2016) Biochar improves N cycling during composting of olive mill wastes and sheep manure. Waste Manag 49:553–559.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lykas C, Vagelas I, Gougoulias N (2014) Effect of olive mill wastewater on growth and bulb production of tulip plants infected by bulb diseases. Spanish J Agric Res 12:233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McNamara C, Anastasiou C, O’Flaherty V, Mitchell R (2008) Bioremediation of olive mill wastewater. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 61:127–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2007.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mekki A, Dhouib A, Sayadi S (2013) Review: effects of olive mill wastewater application on soil properties and plants growth. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric 2:15.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2251-7715-2-15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mekki A, Dhouib A, Sayadi S (2009) Evolution of several soil properties following amendment with olive mill wastewater. Prog Nat Sci 19:1515–1521.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2009.04.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mekki A, Dhouib A, Sayadi S (2007) Polyphenols dynamics and phytotoxicity in a soil amended by olive mill wastewaters. J Environ Manage 84:134–140.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.05.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mohan D, Sarswat A, Ok Y, Pittman C (2014) Organic and inorganic contaminants removal from water with biochar, a renewable, low cost and sustainable adsorbent–a critical review. Biores Technol 160:191–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nelson D, Sommers L. (1996) Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In: Sparks D (ed) Methods of soil analysis part 3-chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America, Inc. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, WI 53711, USA, pp 995–1001Google Scholar
  31. Non-Affiliated Soil Analysis Work Committee of the Soil Science Society of South Africa (1990) Handbook of Standard Soil Testing Methods for Advisory Purposes. PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  32. Ouzounidou G, Asfi M, Sotirakis N et al (2008) Olive mill wastewater triggered changes in physiology and nutritional quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum mill) depending on growth substrate. J Hazard Mater 158:523–530.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.01.100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paraskeva P, Diamadopoulos E (2006) Technologies for olive mill wastewater (OMW) treatment : a review. 1485:1475–1485.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb
  34. Romano N, Santini A (2002) Field water capacity. In: Dane J, Topp G (eds) Methods of soil analysis part 4-physical methods. Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, WI 53711, USA, pp 721–736Google Scholar
  35. Rusan MJM, Albalasmeh AA, Zuraiqi S, Bashabsheh M (2015) Evaluation of phytotoxicity effect of olive mill wastewater treated by different technologies on seed germination of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 22:9127–9135.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-4004-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sekar S (2012) The effects of biochar and anaerobic digester effluent on soil quality and crop growth in Karnataka, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  37. Schulz H, Glaser B (2012) Effects of biochar compared to organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil quality and plant growth in a greenhouse experiment. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 175:410–422.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201100143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sika M, Hardie A (2014) Effect of pine wood biochar on ammonium nitrate leaching and availability in a South African sandy soil. Eur J Soil Sci 65:113–119.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Standard Methods (2012) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewaterGoogle Scholar
  40. Tateno R, Hishi T, Takeda H (2004) Above- and belowground biomass and net primary production in a cool-temperate deciduous forest in relation to topographical changes in soil nitrogen. For Ecol Manage 193:297–306.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2003.11.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thomas G. (1996) Soil pH and Soil acidity. In: Sparks DL (ed) Methods of soil analysis part 3-chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America, Inc. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, WI 53711, USA, pp 475–490Google Scholar
  42. Umeugochukwu O (2016) Mitigation of soil and ground water pollution caused by on-land disposal of olive mill wastewater. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Stellenbosch, South AfricaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Obiageli P. Umeugochukwu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrei B. Rozanov
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ailsa G. Hardie
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Soil ScienceStellenbosch UniversityMatielandSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of Soil ScienceFederal University of TechnologyMinnaNigeria

Personalised recommendations