As Mining Contamination

7/31/2019 As Mining Contamination

1/9

Accumulation of arsenic in Lemna gibba L. (duckweed) in tailing

waters of two abandoned uranium mining sites in Saxony, Germany

Martin Mkandawire*, E. Gert Dudel

Institute of General Ecology and Environmental Protection, Dresden University of Technology, Pienner Strae 8, D-01737 Tharandt, Germany

Received in revised form 1 June 2004; accepted 2 June 2004

Abstract

Accumulation of arsenic in Lemna gibba L. was investigated in tailing waters of abandoned uranium mine sites, following

the hypothesis that arsenic poses contamination risks in post uranium mining in Saxony, Germany. Consequently, macrophytes

growing in mine tailing waters accumulate high amounts of arsenic, which might be advantageous for biomonitoring arsenic

transfer to higher trophic levels, and for phytoremediation. Water and L. gibba sample collected from pond on tailing dumps of

abandoned mine sites at Lengenfeld and Neuensalz-Mechelgrun were analysed for arsenic. Laboratory cultures in nutrient

solutions modified with six arsenic and three PO43 concentrations were conducted to gain insight into the arsenicL. gibba

interaction. Arsenic accumulation coefficients in L. gibba were 10 times as much as the background concentrations in both

tailing waters and nutrient solutions. Arsenic accumulations in L. gibba increased with arsenic concentration in the milieu but

they decreased with phosphorus concentration. Significant reductions in arsenic accumulation in L. gibba were observed withthe addition of PO4

3 at all six arsenic test concentrations in laboratory experiments. Plant samples from laboratory trials had on

average twofold higher bioaccumulation coefficients than tailing water at similar arsenic concentrations. This would be

attributed to strong interaction among chemical components, and competition among ions in natural aquatic environment. The

results of the study indicate that L. gibba can be a preliminary bioindicator for arsenic transfer from substrate to plants and

might be used to monitor the transfer of arsenic from lower to higher trophic levels in the abandoned mine sites. There is also

the potential of using L. gibba L. for arsenic phytoremediation of mine tailing waters because of its high accumulation capacity

as demonstrated in this study. Transfer of arsenic contamination transported by accumulations in L. gibba carried with flowing

waters, remobilisation through decay, possible methylisation and volatilisation by L. gibba need to be considered.

D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tailing waters; Arsenic accumulation; Bioaccumulation; Phytoremediation; Bioindication; Phosphates

1. Introduction

The states of Saxony and Thuringia in southeastern

Germany were the third largest uranium producers in

the world during the Cold War era (Meinrath et al.,

2003). Unfortunately, uranium mining and processing

were done with little consideration for the environ-

ment. Inherent to this, the contamination impact of

abandoned uranium mine sites has come beyond

active mining operations, remaining an issue despite

decades of remediation initiatives (Enderle and Frie-

drich, 1995; Diehl, 1998; Diehl, 2003). During ura-

0048-9697/$ - see front matterD 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.06.002

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-351-463-31393; fax: +49-

351-463-31399.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Mkandawire).

www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Science of the Total Environment 336 (2005) 8189


2/9

nium mining and extraction, large amounts of ore

were excavated because the ores often contain only

between 0.1% and 0.2% uranium (Diehl, 1995; Diehl,

2003). In the process, nontarget elements were ex-posed. Consequently, abandoned uranium mine waste

dumps and tailings may be sources of not only

radioactive pollutants (i.e. uranium and daughter ele-

ments) but also heavy metals (e.g. iron, copper, zinc,

cadmium, nickel, cobalt), arsenic and sulphates,

which are potentially toxic (Diehl, 2003).

Arsenic requires equal attention in post-uranium

mining remediation because of its high toxicity (Mole-

nat et al., 2000; Dieter, 2003), and its high mobility in

the environment (Roussel et al., 2000; Farquhar et al.,

2002). Arsenic shows toxicity even at low-level

exposures. Because of this, the World Health Organi-

sation (WHO) has set concentration limits for drinking

water at 10 Ag l 1 and for foodstuffs at 2 mg l 1

(Dikshit et al., 2000; Robinson et al., 2003a). The

predominant form of arsenic in the environment is As

(V) because As (III) is oxidised by atmospheric

oxygen (Bissen and Frimmel, 2000; Molenat et al.,

2000). Under prolonged reducing conditions, almost

all of the adsorbed arsenic is reduced to As3 + (Chak-

ravarty et al., 2002; Giusti and Zhang, 2002). Arsenic

occurs in various mineral forms, of which 60% are

arsenates, 20% are sulphides and sulphosalts, 10% areoxides and the remainder are arsenides, native ele-

ments and metal alloys. Aqueous arsenic concentra-

tions are controlled by anion exchange and by co-

precipitation with iron and manganese oxyhydroxides.

Arsenate anion exchange dynamics are analogous to

those of phosphate, with competition for exchange

sites favouring phosphate over arsenate (Mkandawire

et al., in press, 2004). Arsenic uptake by plants has

also been shown to be associated with phosphate,

where presumably arsenate is taken up as a phosphate

analogue (Meharg and Macnair, 1991). Under reduc-ing conditions, the ferric iron is reduced to ferrous

iron, resulting in mobilisation of some of the adsorbed

arsenic, particularly from sediments and the plant root

zone (Khattak et al., 1991; Giusti and Zhang, 2002;

Kneebone et al., 2002).

In view of this, it was hypothesised that arsenic

poses equal contamination risks in waters from

abandoned uranium mines and that it transfers easily

to higher trophic levels through accumulation in

macrophytes. The accumulation of arsenic in floating

macrophytes is further influenced by physicochemi-

cal properties of the aquatic system like the arsenic

phosphate ratio, which affect the macrophyte growth,

and the bioavailability of arsenic and growth limitingnutrients. Hence, the accumulation in some macro-

phytes may open opportunities for contamination

monitoring and phytoremediation. Lemna gibba L.

(duckweed) was chosen for the current investigations

because it was found growing naturally in wetland

tailing ponds of former uranium mining sites at

Lengenfeld and Neuensalz-Mechelgrun in southwest-

ern Saxony in an earlier study (Mkandawire and

Dudel, 2002). In this earlier study, Mkandawire and

Dudel (2002) showed that this floating macrophyte is

capable of accumulating relatively large uranium

quantities. Most members of the Lemna genus are

used as model plants for phytoremediation, nutrient

and metal uptake studies, and bioassays (Ensley et

al., 1996). The aim was to determine the capacity of

arsenic accumulation in L. gibba under the influence

of arsenic and phosphorus concentration in the

milieu. The ultimate goal was to assess the possibil-

ity to use L. gibba L. for bioindication and phytor-

emediation of arsenic contamination in the tailing

waters.

2. Methods

2.1. Field sampling

Plants and water were sampled several times from

wetland ponds of a tailing dam at three sampling

points on the Lengenfeld uranium mine site between

August and December 2001 and at five sampling

points in the Neuensalz-Mechelgrun mine from Feb-

ruary to December 2002 (Fig. 1). The sampling for

both plants and water was repeated four times at eachsampling point during each sampling time. Reference

samples were collected in a stream above the mine

tailing dumps at Lengenfeld. Water samples were

filtered right in the field through cellulose acetate

filter membranes (0.45-Am pore size), and each sam-

ple was divided into two portions. One portion was

adjusted to pH 2 with 2% HNO3 for arsenic determi-

nation, and the other was without pH adjustment for P

analysis. All water samples were handled according to

German standards (DIN 38 405-30; 38 404; 38 402

M. Mkandawire, E.G. Dudel / Science of the Total Environment 336 (2005) 818982


3/9

and 38 412 specification). All plant samples were

freeze-dried until constant weight was achieved and

were digested using HNO3 H2O2 mixture in a mi-

crowave digester (MW-Digestion, CEM MARS 5,

Matthews, NC, USA). Total arsenic in water and plantsamples was determined by ICP-MS (PQ2+, VG

Elemental, Winsford, UK), and P was determined

using ICP-OES (Perkin Elmer Plasma 2, Wellesley,

USA). The samples were diluted 10 times with 2%

HNO3 for ICP-MS determination. Drift correction

was done with addition of 10 ppb rhodium and 10

ppb lutetium as internal standards. Certified reference

materials NIST1575 and GBW7604, which were

digested and diluted in the same manner as the

samples, were used. All sample set contained at least

four blanks, and all measurements were repeated four

times.

2.2. Laboratory experiments

Stock-cultured L. gibba L., a strain collected from

the arboretum of Humboldt University, Berlin-Baum-

schulweg, was used in two-factor diluted modified

Hutner nutrient solution. The experiments were set in

semicontinuous culture mode on Lemna culture equip-

ment (Mkandawire and Dudel, 2002) placed in the

ecotron (plant growth chamber, NEMA, Netzchkau,

Germany). The ecotrons environmental conditions

were set as described elsewhere (Mkandawire and

Dudel, 2002, Mkandawire et al., in press, 2004). Six

Fig. 1. Location of the study sitesabandoned uranium mines at Lengenfeld and Neuensalz-Mechelgrun; and, sketch map detailing sampling

plans in the study sites.

M. Mkandawire, E.G. Dudel / Science of the Total Environment 336 (2005) 8189 83


4/9

arsenic test concentrations (10, 50, 100, 250, 500, and

1000 Ag l 1) prepared from NaHAsO47H2O and

three phosphate concentrations (0.013, 13.61, 20.0,

and 40.0 mg l 1

) prepared from K2HPO4 were used.All reagents in the study were of analytical grade. One

hundred and fifty fronds (two or three leaves per

frond) of similar size from a 7-day-old preculture

were inoculated systematically into each vessel con-

taining 700 ml of test solutions. Aliquots were sam-

pled at the start and then every second day. The

experiments lasted 21 days. At the end of the exper-

iment, Lemna biomass was harvested and an aliquot

was sampled. All experiments were replicated four

times in a factorial random design, and parallel control

experiments were run.

2.3. Data analysis

The bioaccumulation coefficient (u) represented

the frond/solution element concentration quotient. It

was estimated by: u=[Cfrond]/[CH2

O], where [Cfrond] is

the element concentration (mg l 1) accumulated in

the frond and [CH2O] is the soluble metal concentra-

tion (mg l 1) in the solution. Statistical analysis was

performed with natural logarithmic (ln)-transformed

values, using ANOVA, and correlations using Spear-

man. All statistical analyses were performed usingprogram SPSS 10.1.0 for Windows.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Arsenic and its speciation in mine tailing waters

Arsenic concentration in tailing waters and that

accumulated in L. gibba L. at different sampling

points are summa rised in Table 1. The results

revealed that on average the tailing waters in samplesfrom both Lengenfeld and Neuensalz-Mechelgrun

had significantly higher arsenic content than did

waters from the reference site. Large standard devia-

tions are due to temporal variations in Neuensalz-

Mechelgrun speciation calculation with geochemical

modelling software, PhreeqC+ 2.8.0.0 Alpha version

(Parkhurst and Appelo, 1999), which indicate that in

ambient systems, arsenic occurred as arsenate

(Hn

AsO43 n) or arsenite (H

nAsO3

3 n) complexes.

Over the pH value range of 6.08.1 found in tailing

waters, the predominant species of As (V) was

H2AsO4 and that of As (III) was H3AsO3, of which

the reduced form is the more mobile. The content of

arsenic at the Lengenfeld sampling points differedsignificantly (data not shown). Due to the short

sampling period, the temporal variation was not

significant. Differences in arsenic water content from

sampling points in Neuensalz-Mechelgrun were both

temporally and spatially significant. The content of

arsenic was the lowest in water between July and

August 2002. The following factors might have

contributed to this: the year 2002 had the highest

rainfall recorded in the area for a decade, and dilution

took place; high temperatures were also recorded

during the period. This was also the productive periodfor macrophytes in the tailing ponds (data not

shown). Aquatic plants play a key role in remobilis-

ing arsenic (Hallberg and Johnson, 2003). Ferrous

iron oxidised to ferric form, which leads to precipi-

tation of iron oxyhydroxides in the rhizosphere (iron

plaque) (Godowski et al., 1995; Arienzo et al., 2002).

As a result, there is a decreasing concentration

gradient of dissolved iron towards the plant roots.

The iron oxyhydroxides consequently bind arsenic

(Robinson et al., 2003b).

Table 1

Arsenic concentrations in water and L. gibba samples from

reference sites, Lengenfeld and Neuensalz-Mechelgrun

Site Sample

point

[As] in surface

mine water

(Ag l 1)

As accumulation

(mg kg 1

dry biomass)

Reference RW1 7.55F 3.40*** 77.83F 35.05***

RW2 3.04F 2.13*** 29.71F 21.54***

RW3 5.61F 3.11*** 44.98F 28.91***

Lengenfeld LTW1 47.01F11.2** 519.61F 64.75***

LTW2 62.96F 20.77** 937.62F 253.03*

LTW3 265.42F 228.31 1543.22F 238.29

Neuensalz- MTW1 106.71F 30.46 1296.90F 241.17

Mechelgrun MTW2 109.84F 72.31 1107.78F 312.87

MTW3 167.92F 90.97 1447.96F 522.03

MTW4 64.03F 21.11** 1035.74F 381.43

MTW5 57.50F 21.71** 707.26F 310.09

MTW6 53.48F 22.98** 687.43F 395.75

Sampling periods: reference site and Lengenfeld between August

and October 2001, n = 31; Neuensalz-Mechelgrun between February

and December 2002, and n = 108. Values are means of four repeated

measuresF standard deviation.

*p = 0.05.

**p = 0.01.

***p = 0.001.



5/9

3.2. Arsenic accumulation in L. gibba samples from

the field

3.2.1. Influence of the milieu arsenic concentrationArsenic accumulation in L. gibba L. from the tailing

water ranged from 0.54 to 110.8 mg kg 1 in fresh

mass, and 61.7 to 1966.48 mg kg 1 in dry biomass.

Mean accumulations are presented in Table 1. Effect of

arsenic on L. gibba growth and yield has been studied

(Mkandawire et al.,in press, 2004) Uptake and accu-

mulation of arsenic in L. gibba in both Lengenfeld and

Neuensalz-Mechelgrun increased with arsenic concen-

tration in the milieu tailing waters fitting in a sigmoid

regression (r2 = 0.93 in Lengenfeld, r2 = 0.89 in Neu-

ensalz-Mechelgrun; p < 0.05 at 95% confidence inter-

val; Fig. 2). The accumulation pattern in the fronds

suggests that the water uptake by L. gibba induced

arsenic migration via mass flow into the frond until the

fronds were saturated with arsenic. Thus, arsenic might

have entered the fronds, either via the symplastic or via

the apoplastic pathways where some active or passive

filtering might occur (Blinda et al., 1997; Parker and

Pedler, 1997; Samardakiewicz and Wozny, 2000).

Mkandawire et al., in press, 2004 found that under

laboratory condition L. gibba tolerated arsenic toxicity

in the range of 10500 Ag l 1 and suddenly shows

toxicity. Robinson et al. (2003b) showed that plantsthat tolerate high concentrations of toxic elements have

an active uptake mechanism for the nonessential

elements. Such plants have constantu over a narrow

concentration range (Robinson et al., 2003b) similar to

the behaviour demonstrated by L. gibba in the labora-

tory investigation (see below). As the element concen-

tration increases in the milieu, a sudden increase in the

plant element concentration occurs. This happens

when the uptake control mechanisms break down,due to overload of the regulatory mechanism (Zhao

et al., 2002). When this phenomenon occurs, the plants

show toxicity symptoms and biomass production is

reduced (Wenzl et al., 2001). The current result and

results from the previous studies on arsenic toxicity to

L. gibba(Mkandawire et al., in press, 2004) attest to the

general phenomenon.

3.2.2. Influence of milieu phosphorus concentration

Fig. 3 shows that accumulation of arsenic in L.

gibba at both sites correlated negatively to the P

content of the tailing waters (r2 = 0.916; at p = 0.05

and 95% confidence interval). This phenomenon has

been observed in other plant species too (Creger and

Peryea, 1994; Carbonell-Barrachina et al., 1998;

Peryea, 1998; Cao et al., 2003). Phosphates have

long been reported to suppress plant uptake of

arsenate (Pickering et al., 2000). For instance, phos-

phorus addition resulted in a reduction of arsenic

uptake by 5572% over the control in Indian mus-

tard (Brassica juncea) (Pickering et al., 2000). Most

of the studies which reported this relationship were

conducted in either amended soil or hydroponicculture experiments in laboratory (e.g. Bissen and

Frimmel, 2000; Jackson and Bertsch, 2001; Cao et

al., 2003). This study reports results that demonstrate

the behaviour in the natural aquatic system. Howev-

er, the effect of phosphates on arsenate uptake seems

Fig. 2. Accumulation of arsenic in L. gibba in relation to arsenic concentration in milieu tailing waters.



6/9

to differ from one plant species to another, and the

medium used. A few variations have been reported

in the literature where phosphorus increases arsenic

uptake by plant in soils (e.g. Marin et al., 1993;

Elvira et al., 2003). Much as L. gibba has demon-

strated the relationship between arsenic uptake and

phosphorus, it should not be taken for granted that

most macrophytes in the tailing ponds in the sites

behave in the same way. Hence, investigations of

other macrophyte species in the tailing waters are

necessary.

3.3. Accumulation of arsenic in controlled phosphate

supply

At the completion of the laboratory trials, the

arsenic concentrations in all the plants had reached

equilibrium, indicated by a negligible decrease in the

solution arsenic concentrations. Fig. 4 shows that the

levels for arsenic in the fronds ofL. gibba at the end of

the laboratory experiments ranged from 0.02 (in 40

mg l 1 PO43 ) to 106 mg kg 1 dry biomass (in

0.0136 mg l 1

PO43

) and 0.00187.79 mg kg 1

Fig. 4. Accumulation of arsenic in L. gibba under variable initial PO43 and AsO4

3 concentrations in nutrient solution. The values are means of

four replications and the error bars are standard deviations.

Fig. 3. Relationship between arsenic accumulation in L. gibba to concentration in tailing water.



7/9

fresh weight. Toxicity behaviour of arsenic in the

concentration range in nutrient solution has been

reported in Mkandawire et al. (2004, in press). Arsenic

concentrations in L. gibba L. dry biomass have astrong positive correlation with the arsenic concen-

trations of the milieu water (r2 = 0.96; p < 0.05 at 95%

confidence interval), as demonstrated in the field

samples (see above). The arsenic concentration ratio

of plant/solution increased exponentially as the arsenic

concentration in the solution increased. These results

resemble the work of Robinson et al. (2003a) who

described this type of increase to be associated with

active exclusion; viz. at low concentrations, plants are

able to exclude the toxic element, and the barrier

breaks down at higher concentrations. The accumula-

tion of arsenic in L. gibba decreased significantly with

increasing phosphate concentration at all six levels of

test arsenic concentration in the nutrient solution.

These results agree with earlier results by Mkandawire

et al. (2004), Meharg and Macnair (1990), and Rob-

inson et al. (2003a). Speciation modelling with

PhreeqC predicted increasing desorption due to sim-

ilarities in thermodynamic and kinetic properties be-

tween AsO43 and PO4

3 . AsO43 is a sorption

analogy of PO43 and, PO4

3 competes with AsO43

for sorption sites (Mkandawire et al., 2004). There-

fore, it should be expected that more arsenic should bedesorbed in the solution with increasing phosphate. In

spite of this, the uptake of arsenic by L. gibba was

affected. Because arsenate is the dominant form of

arsenic under aerobic conditions and is an analogue of

phosphate, they compete for the same uptake carriers

in the plasmalemma (Smith and Read, 1997). Thus,

arsenate uptake in L. gibba is obviously suppressed by

phosphate, as shown by the much lower arsenic

uptake rates in both laboratory and mine tailing plants

at high P supply, supporting the view that arsenate

uptake is mediated by phosphate transporters.

3.4. Arsenic interaction with L. gibba

The results of arsenic accumulation by L. gibba in

the field samples and in laboratory experiments

showed an increase in the arsenic accumulation with

increasing arsenic concentration in the milieu. This

indicates that the uptake of arsenic by L. gibba occurs

through active exclusion mechanisms. The results also

showed that in the field, arsenic accumulation corre-

lated negatively to increasing P concentration in the

milieu and reduced arsenic accumulation in the labo-

ratory with PO43 concentration. This has been related

to As (V) uptake through PO43

uptake pathway. Afew works argued that active exclusion is not consis-

tent with arsenic uptake via the phosphate uptake

pathway (Smith and Read, 1997; Robinson et al.,

2003a). Our laboratory results show that L. gibba

exhibited arsenic uptake through active exclusion and

at the same time phosphate uptake. This suggests that

it is important to consider arsenic concentrations

together with phosphorus or, indeed, with other ele-

ments like sulphur, manganese, iron, etc., that may

affect speciation in the milieu when investigating

arsenic uptake by L. gibba.

3.5. Comparison of accumulation in laboratory and

field samples

Generally, the arsenic concentrations in L. gibba

samples from tailing waters were approximately two-

fold less than similar arsenic concentrations in solu-

tions. This is because L. gibba in the surface mine

waters was exposed to arsenic for an undefined

period, whereas samples used in laboratory trials were

certified to contain a below-detection amount of

arsenic and were exposed to arsenic only for 21 days.However, the mean bioaccumulation coefficients for

the field L. gibba samples were twofold higher in the

laboratory than in the field. This might be attributed to

the fact that nutrient solutions had limited and defined

amount of ions, whereas tailing waters had an unde-

fined and unlimited amount of ions that definitely

competed with arsenic for uptake sites. The ease with

which elements enter the plants symplast is affected

by the amount of ions present in water (Keltjens and

Van Beusichem, 1998; Samardakiewicz and Wozny,

2000), as well as by other factors such as pH, Eh, andtemperature (Del Castilho and Chardon, 1995). These

factors determine chemical speciation in the milieu.

3.6. Arsenic and uranium accumulation in L. gibba

The mean background concentrations of uranium

in tailing waters found in our earlier studies were

186.0F 56.31 and 277.01F10.18 Ag l 1 in Lengen-

feld and Neuensalz-Mechelgrun, respectively (unpub-

lished data). The mean uranium concentrations were



8/9

significantly higher than the arsenic background con-

centrations at both sites. Uranium accumulations in L.

gibba were within the ranges of 514.47F 83.71 and

612.36F 143.6 mg kg 1

U dry biomass in Lengen-feld and Neuensalz-Mechelgrun, respectively (unpub-

lished data). Comparison of the bioaccumulation

coefficients for uranium found in an earlier study

(Mkandawire et al., in press) with those for arsenic

revealed that the values for uranium were significantly

lower than the values for arsenic. Accumulation of

arsenic and uranium in L. gibba increased with an

increase in the milieu concentration but differed in

relation to PO43. Previous studies showed that ura-

nium accumulation increased within a short range

with PO43 concentration before levelling off. Speci-

ation calculation predicted precipitation of uranyl

phosphates at higher concentrations of both UO22 +

and PO43 in the aquatic system. Hence, much as

phosphate increases U uptake, U bioavailability is

generally reduced (Mkandawire and Dudel, 2002).

4. Conclusions

The results reveal that arsenic accumulates con-

siderably in L. gibba growing in tailing ponds of

abandoned uranium mines at Lengenfeld and Neu-ensalz-Mechelgrun. This indirectly proves that arse-

nic contamination exists in abandoned uranium mine

sites. The accumulation is directly influenced by the

milieu concentration of arsenic and phosphorus. If the

accumulation in other macrophytes is similar to that

observed in L. gibba, arsenic could transfer more

easily from contaminated waters to higher trophic

levels than uranium. Thus, arsenic may pose more

risk than uranium. The results also suggest that L.

gibba should be used as an indicator for arsenic and

for arsenic transfer from contaminated waters toplants. The high arsenic bioaccumulation coefficients

and the ability of L. gibba to reduce arsenic on

average by 40.3% in the solutions show that the

species has potential for arsenic phytoextraction from

contaminated waters. Unfortunately, L. gibba is a

small floating macrophyte that can be transported to

uncontaminated areas with flowing water. Hence,

investigations on the remobilisation and biominerali-

sation mechanisms of arsenic in L. gibba are required.

Further investigations are also required on L. gibbas

defence mechanism against arsenic toxicity, e.g. bio-

methylisation, assimilation, or compartmentalisation.

The influence of fungi and other microorganisms that

enhance phosphate acquisition by the host plant on L.gibba accumulation of arsenic is worth investigating

because of the interaction between phosphate and

arsenate. The study has also opened an area that

requires further investigation to clarify whether active

exclusion and the phosphate pathway uptake mecha-

nism are simultaneously employed in Lemna species

and in other organisms.

Acknowledgements

The German Federal Ministry of Education and

Research (BMBF) supported the study under Project

Grant No. 02WB0222. Arndt Weiske did ICP-MS

analyses, with laboratory assistance from Karin

Klinzmann and Annet Jost. Phosphate analysis with

ICP-OES was done at the Landesforstprasidium of the

State of Saxony, Graupa. Dmitry Tychinin (IPBBM of

the Russian Academy of Sciences) read the manuscript

and made valuable contributions to the language.

References

Arienzo M, Adamo P, Chiarenzelli J, Bianco MR, De Martino A.

Retention of arsenic on hydrous ferric oxides generated by elec-

trochemical peroxidation. Chemosphere 2002;48:1009 18.

Bissen M, Frimmel FH. Speciation of As(III), As(V), MMA and

DMA in contaminated soil extracts by HPLC-ICP/MS. Frese-

nius J Anal Chem 2000;367:515.

Blinda A, Koch B, Ramanjulu S, Dietz K-J. De novo synthesis and

accumulation of apoplastic proteins in leaves of heavy metal-

exposed barley seedlings. Plant Cell Environ 1997;20:969 81.

Cao X, Ma LQ, Shiralipour A. Effects of compost and phosphate

amendments on arsenic mobility in soils and arsenic uptake by

the hyperaccumulator, Pteris vittata L. Environ Pollut 2003;126:15767.

Carbonell-Barrachina AA, Aarabi MA, DeLaune RD, Gambrell RP,

Patrick WH. The influence of arsenic chemical form and con-

centration on Spartina patens and Spartina alterniflora growth

and tissue arsenic concentration. Plant Soil 1998;198:3343.

Chakravarty S, Dureja V, Bhattacharyya G, Maity S, Bhattacharjee

S. Removal of arsenic from groundwater using low cost ferru-

ginous manganese ore. Water Resour 2002;36:62532.

Creger TL, Peryea FJ. Phosphate fertilizer enhances arsenic uptake

by apricot liners grown in lead arsenate-enriched soil. HortS-

cience 1994;29:8892.

Del Castilho P, Chardon WJ. Uptake of soil cadmium by three field



9/9

crops and its prediction by a pH-dependent Freundlich sorption

model. Plant Soil 1995;171:2636.

Diehl P. Uranabbau in Europa-Die Folgen fur Mensch und Umwelt.

BBU argumente. Bonn: BBU; 1995. p. 58.

Diehl JF. Food contaminantsexposition and risk assessment to-day: Part I. Warnings, approvals, heavy metals and chlorohy-

drocarbons. Ernahr.-Umsch 1998;45:40.

Diehl P. Uranium mining in Eastern Germany: the WISMUT leg-

acy. Arnsdorf: WISE Uranium Project; 2003.

Dieter HH. Vorkommen und Toxikologie von Arsen und seine

gesundheitliche Beduetung im Trinkwasser. In: Grohmann A,

Hasselbarth U, Schwerdtfeger W, editors. Die Trinkwasserver-

ordnung: Einfuhrung und Erlauterungen fur Wasserversor-

gungs-unternehmen und Uberwachungsbehorden. Berlin: Erich

Schmidt Verlag; 2003. pp. 115 25.

Dikshit AK, Pallamreddy K, Reddy LVP, Saha JC. Arsenic in

groundwater and its sorption by kimberlite tailings. J Environ

Sci Health 2000;35:6585.

Elvira E, Carpena RO, Meharg AA. High-affinity phosphate/arse-

nate transport in white lupin (Lupinus albus) is relatively insen-

sitive to phosphate status. New Phytol 2003;158:165 73.

Enderle GJ, Friedrich K. East German uranium miners (Wismut):

exposure conditions and health consequences. Stem Cells

1995;13:7889.

Ensley HE, Sharma HA, Barber JT, Polito MA. Metabolism of

chlorinated phenols by Lemna gibba, duckweed. In: Kruger

EL, Anderson TA, Coats JR, Society AC, editors. Phytoreme-

diation of soil and water contaminants. Orlando (FL): Ameri-

can Chemical Society; 1996. pp. 23853.

Farquhar M, Charnock J, Livens F, Vaughan DJ. Mechanisms of

arsenic uptake from aqueous solution by interaction with Goe-

thite, Lepidocrocite, Mackinawite, and Pyrite: an X-ray absorp-tion spectroscopy study. Environ Sci Technol 2002;36:1757 62.

Giusti L, Zhang H. Heavy metals and arsenic in sediments, mussels

and marine water from Murano (Venice, Italy). Environ Geo-

chem Health 2002;24:4765.

Godowski PJ, Costa D, Marcus P. Surface segregation of arsenic in

iron. J Mater Sci 1995;30:516672.

Hallberg KB, Johnson DB. Passive mine water treatment at the

former Wheal Jane tin mine, Cornwall: important biogeochem-

ical and microbiological lessons. Land Contam Reclam 2003;

11:21320.

Jackson BP, Bertsch PM. Determination of arsenic speciation in

poultry wastes by IC-ICP-MS. Environ Sci Technol 2001;35:

486873.

Keltjens WG, Van Beusichem ML. Phytochelatins as biomarkersfor heavy metal toxicity in maize: single metal effects of copper

and cadmium. J Plant Nutr 1998;21:63548.

Khattak AK, Page AL, Parker DR, Bakhtar D. Accumulation and

interactions of arsenic, selenium, molybdenum and phosphorus

in Alfalfa. J Environ Qual 1991;20:1658.

Kneebone PE, ODay PA, Jones N, Hering JG. Deposition and fate

of arsenic in iron- and arsenic-enriched reservoir sediments.

Environ Sci Technol 2002;36:3816.

Marin AR, Pezeshki SR, Masschelen PH, Choi HS. Effect of dime-

thylarsenic acid (Dmaa) on growth, tissue arsenic, and photo-

synthesis of rice plants. J Plant Nutr 1993;16:86580.

Meharg AA, Macnair MR. An altered phosphate uptake system

in arsenate-tolerant Holcus lanatus L. New Phytol 1990;116:

2935.

Meharg AA, Macnair MR. Uptake, accumulation and translocation

of arsenate in arsenate-tolerant and non-tolerant Holcus lanatusL. New Phytol 1991;117:22531.

Meinrath A, Schneider P, Meinrath G. Uranium ore and depleted

uranium in the environment, with reference to uranium in the

bio sph ere from Erz geb irg e/S ach sen , Ger man y. J Env iron

Radioac 2003;64:17593.

Mkandawire M, Dudel GE. Uranium attenuation from tailing waters

by floating macrophyte Lemna gibba L. In: Merkel JB, Planer-

Friedrich B, Wolkersdorfer C, editors. Uranium in the aquatic

environment. Berlin: Springer; 2002. pp. 62330.

Mkandawire M, Taubert B, Dudel EG. Capacity ofLemna gibba L.

(Duckweed) for uranium and arsenic phytoremediation in mine

tailing waters. Int J Phytoremediat. [in press].

Mkandawire M, Lyubun YV, Kosterin PV, Dudel EG. Toxicity of

arsenic species to Lemna gibba L. and influence of phosphate on

arsenic bioavailability. Environ Toxicol 2004;19:2635.

Molenat N, Holeman M, Pinel R. Arsenic as a pollutant of the

environment: origins, repartition, biotransformations and eco-

toxicity. Actual Chim. 2000;1223.

Parker DR, Pedler JF. Reevaluating the free-ion activity model of

trace metal availability to higher plants. Plant Soil 1997;196:

2238.

Parkhurst DL, Appelo CAJ. Users guide to PhreeqC (version

2)a computer program for speciation, batch-reaction, one-

dimensional transport, and inverse geochemical calculations.

Water-resources investigation report 99-4259. Denver (CO):

U.S. Geological Survey; 1999. p. 340.

Peryea FJ. Phosphate starter fertilizer temporarily enhances soilarsenic uptake by apple trees grown under field conditions.

HortScience. 1998;826 9.

Pickering IJ, Prince RC, George MJ, Smith RD, George GN, Salt

DE. Reduction and coordination of arsenic in Indian mustard.

Plant Physiol 2000;122:1171 7.

Robinson B, Duwig C, Bolan N, Kannathasan M, Saravanan A.

Uptake of arsenic by New Zealand watercress (Lepidium sati-

vum). Sci Total Environ 2003a;3017:6773.

Robinson BH, Lombi E, Zhao FJ, McGrath SP. Uptake and distri-

bution of nickel and other metals in the hyperaccumulator Ber-

kheya coddii. New Phytol 2003b;158:27985.

Roussel C, Bril H, Fernandez A. Arsenic speciation: involvement

in evaluation of environmental impact caused by mine wastes.

J Environ Qual 2000;29:1828.Samardakiewicz S, Wozny A. The distribution of lead in duckweed

(Lemna minorL.) root tip. Plant Soil 2000;226:10711.

Smith SE, Read DJ. Mycorrhizal symbiosis. San Diego: Academic

Press; 1997.

Wenzl P, Patino GM, Chaves AL, Mayer JE, Rao IM. The high

level of aluminum resistance in signal grass is not associated

with known mechanisms of external aluminum detoxification in

root apices. Plant Physiol 2001;125:1473 84.

Zhao FJ, Dunham SJ, McGrath SP. Arsenic hyperaccumulation by

different fern species. New Phytol 2002;156:2731.


As Mining Contamination

Documents

Transcript of As Mining Contamination