Next Article in Journal
Effects of Rice Root Development and Rhizosphere Soil on Methane Emission in Paddy Fields
Previous Article in Journal
When Light Is Crucial, but Wind Is Rather Trivial: A Basil Case Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Unveiling the Behavior of an Endangered Facultative Cuprophyte Coincya Species in an Abandoned Copper Mine (Southeast Portugal)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Physiological Response of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) Grown on Technosols Designed for Soil Remediation

by
Mateo González-Quero
1,†,
Antonio Aguilar-Garrido
2,*,†,
Mario Paniagua-López
2,
Carmen García-Huertas
1,
Manuel Sierra-Aragón
2 and
Begoña Blasco
1
1
Department of Plant Physiology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Granada, Av. de Fuente Nueva s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain
2
Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences, University of Granada, Av. de Fuente Nueva s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Plants 2024, 13(22), 3222; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13223222
Submission received: 28 August 2024 / Revised: 13 November 2024 / Accepted: 14 November 2024 / Published: 16 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Potential Hazardous Elements Accumulation in Plants)

Abstract

:
This study focuses on the physiological response of lettuce grown on Technosols designed for the remediation of soils polluted by potentially harmful elements (PHEs: As, Cd, Cu, Fe, Pb, and Zn). Lettuce plants were grown in five treatments: recovered (RS) and polluted soil (PS) as controls, and three Technosols (TO, TS, and TV) consisting of 60% PS mixed with 2% iron sludge, 20% marble sludge, and 18% organic wastes (TO: composted olive waste, TS: composted sewage sludge, and TV: vermicompost of garden waste). The main soil properties and PHE solubility were measured, together with physiological parameters related to phytotoxicity in lettuce such as growth, photosynthetic capacity, oxidative stress, and antioxidant defence. All Technosols improved unfavourable conditions of PS (i.e., neutralised acidity and enhanced OC content), leading to a significant decrease in Cd, Cu, and Zn mobility. Nevertheless, TV was the most effective as the reduction in PHEs mobility was higher. Furthermore, lettuce grown on TV and TO showed higher growth (+90% and +41%) than PS, while no increase in TS. However, lower oxidative stress and impact on photosynthetic rate occurred in all Technosols compared to PS (+344% TV, +157% TO, and +194% TS). This physiological response of lettuce proves that PHE phytotoxicity is reduced by Technosols. Thus, this ecotechnology constitutes a potential solution for soil remediation, with effectiveness of Technosols depending largely on its components.

1. Introduction

Soil pollution by potentially harmful elements (PHEs) poses a major risk to ecosystems and public health, with more than five million polluted sites worldwide and increasing due to the expansion of industrial, mining, smelting, and agricultural activities [1,2]. Metal mining industry, in particular, contributes significantly because inadequate management of mining waste (e.g., tailings and acidic waters) can release PHEs (As, Cd, Cu, Fe, Pb, and Zn) into the environment impacting the soil-plant-water system [3]. Therefore, proper management of these sites is essential to avoid damage to the environment and human health.
The use of Technosols specifically designed for the environmental problem in question is one of the most widely applied emerging ecotechnologies to remediate polluted areas [4]. Most Technosols applied in soil remediation are waste-based, as this ecotechnology also aims to deal with non-sustainable waste generation and contribute to the circular economy [5]. Besides general soil functions, Technosols have the capacity to promote different biogeochemical and edaphic processes (e.g., neutralise acidity, decrease sulphide oxidation, immobilise PHEs, increase soil fertility and biological activity, and reduce phytotoxicity), leading to the sustainability of the rehabilitation process in the medium and long term [6,7]. The effectiveness of this ecotechnology has been tested for different Technosols and climatic regions both in microcosm studies under controlled conditions [8,9,10,11] and in large-scale interventions [12,13,14,15].
Most studies on soil remediation evaluate the effectiveness of the applied ecotechnology by focusing on soil properties and PHE mobility/bioavailability [16,17], but additional assessments such as microbial community characterisation [18], ecotoxicity [19], and phytotoxicity tests [20] provide a more comprehensive understanding of the remediation outcomes.
Exposure to PHEs can cause various phytotoxic effects, such as growth inhibition, decreased photosynthesis and respiration, oxidative stress, altered enzyme activity and stomatal function, and DNA damage [21]. Plants can uptake PHEs through roots and subsequently be stored there or translocated to aerial parts, depending on the PHE and plant species [22]. Furthermore, this toxicity may differ depending on the interactions between PHEs, through antagonistic or synergistic functions in their uptake and translocation using, e.g., the same transporter [23,24].
PHEs can be taken up as free ions and soluble metal complexes, although most of them are captured, transported to the xylem, and translocated to shoots as chelates. It has been documented that most PHEs can be sequestered in roots as an adaptative response, causing no photosynthetic damage, due to various processes such as blockage by Casparian strips, chelation, compartmentalisation in rhizodermal vacuoles, and immobilisation in root cell walls [25,26]. However, when PHEs accumulate in sensitive parts, they can disrupt photosynthesis, e.g., by reducing the presence of photosynthetic pigments such as chlorophyll due to Fe and Mg deficiencies caused by PHEs [27] or by decreasing the efficiency of photosystem II through PHE interference with the electron transport chain [28].
The presence of PHEs also triggers the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) due to an imbalance in electron flow during photosynthesis or through Haber-Weiss reactions, leading to oxidative stress [29], for example, causing membrane destabilisation due to lipid peroxidation and subsequent formation of malondialdehyde (MDA) [29,30], increasing permeability for certain PHEs. In addition, elevated ROS levels in cells can lead to protein carbonylation and DNA damage [31,32]. To compensate for the effects of ROS, plants develop mechanisms to maintain cellular redox homeostasis, such as the induction of antioxidant systems based both on enzyme and non-enzymatic antioxidants [33,34,35], for example, the ascorbate-glutathione cycle [30,36] involved in the removal of H2O2 and lipid peroxides and the expression of stress-responsive genes [29]. Other more basic mechanisms rely solely on the synthesis of a metabolite such as proline (Pro) [34].
This study aims to evaluate the physiological response of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) plants grown on three Technosols employed in the remediation of PHE-polluted soils. This plant was selected because of its global consumption and its high sensitivity to pollution; in fact, it is among the species recommended to assess ecological effects of toxic substances [37,38]. Therefore, by assessing the reduction in phytotoxicity in lettuce through the measurement of plant growth, photosynthetic capacity, oxidative stress, and antioxidant defence, together with an evaluation of the capacity of Technosols to improve soil properties and reduce the solubility of PHEs, the effectiveness of this remediation ecotechnology can be proven.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Set-Up and Sampling

This study was conducted in the polluted areas remaining in the Guadiamar Green Corridor (Seville, Spain) more than 25 years after the Aznalcóllar mining accident (37°00′–37°30′ N, 6°10′–6°20′ W). The tailings pond breach at the Aznalcóllar pyrite mine (April 1998) resulted in the discharge of 3.6 hm3 of acidic water and 0.9 hm3 of toxic tailings with high concentrations of PHEs (i.e., Zn, Cu, Cd, As, and Pb), causing severe soil and water pollution. Several remediation actions were implemented, namely removal of potentially toxic tailings and highly polluted topsoils, followed by assisted natural remediation based on the application of organic and inorganic amendments and on phytostabilisation with native vegetation [39], achieving remediation of almost the entire affected area. However, some areas remain residually polluted, posing a long-term toxic risk to living organisms in the area [16,40,41]. For this work, a composite sample was taken from these soils polluted by PHEs (i.e., As, Cd, Cu, Fe, Pb, and Zn) (PS) at 0–10 cm depths at five different locations identified by the absence of vegetation using satellite images [16]. Furthermore, a composite sample of recovered soil (RS), consisting of soils affected by the spill but now recovered due to the applied remediation actions, was taken in the vicinity of the polluted patches at 0–10 cm depths to serve as a control (Figure S1).
The assay consisted of five treatments placed in pots of 1.6 dm3 volume with eight pots per treatment. The treatments were (i) recovered soil (RS), (ii) polluted soil (PS), (iii) Technosol TO, (iv) Technosol TS, and (v) Technosol TV. Technosols were designed and produced by mixing 60% of polluted soil (PS) with 18% of organic-rich waste (TO: composted solid olive-mill by-product [OL], TS: composted sewage sludge [WS], and TV: vermicompost from pruning and gardening waste [VC]), 20% of marble cutting and polishing sludge [MS], and 2% of iron oxyhydroxide-rich sludge [IO] (Figure 1). These amendments were selected to provide the Technosols with the capacity to cope with the polluted status in PS, with proportions based on the actual doses applied in the field in previous remediation actions in this affected area [42]. Marble sludge provides pH buffering capacity; organic wastes (OL, WS, and VC), rich in organic matter, support the recovery of biological activity and contribute to soil aggregation; and iron-rich waste (IO) promotes the retention capacity of anionic PHEs (i.e., As and Sb). Characterisation with the physicochemical properties and PHE contents of these wastes can be found in Tables S1 and S2 extracted from [43]; furthermore, it should be noted that they are non-hazardous, and in particular, the organic ones are sanitised and pathogen-free due to the composting process and the raw material used [44,45]. To produce the Technosols, wastes were dried, sieved to <4 mm, and mixed manually together with the dry polluted soil (total fraction) in plastic trays. Technosols were incubated for two months at room temperature (20–25 °C) with regular watering and aeration (every three days) to maintain 70% of the field capacity.
One seedling of Lactuca sativa (L.) cv. Phillipus per pot and treatment was planted. These seedlings were obtained from seed germination and growth for 35 days in cell flats (90 cm3) filled with perlite placed on benches in an experimental greenhouse in southern Spain (Granada, Motril, Saliplant S.L.). After transplanting, the seedlings were transferred to a growth chamber under controlled environmental conditions: temperature 25/15 °C and photoperiod 16/8 h (day/night), relative humidity 60–80%, and 350 μmol m−2 s−1 photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) measured with a 190 SB quantum sensor (LI-COR Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA). The plants were watered by capillary irrigation in lightweight polypropylene trays with 3 l volume. Seven days after transplanting, acute phytotoxic effects (i.e., chlorosis, necrosis, and reduced plant growth) started to be observed in some treatments (PS and TS), so ten days later, all L. sativa plants from each treatment were collected. Full expanded leaves and roots were washed with distilled water, dried on filter paper, and weighed to obtain fresh weight (FW). Half of the roots and leaves of each treatment were frozen at −40 °C for biochemical characterisation, and the other half of the plant materials was lyophilised to obtain dry weight (DW) and to analyse the PHE concentrations. The experimental design consisted of a randomised complete block with five treatments (RS, PS, TO, TS, and TV), arranged in individual benches with eight plants per treatment and three replications each.

2.2. Soil Analysis

A composite sample per treatment was taken from 100 g aliquots of soil from each pot. From this soil sample, three replicates per treatment (RS, PS, TO, TS, and TV) were taken and subsequently air-dried at room temperature, homogenised, and sieved at 2 mm, and a small fraction was finely ground for the following characterisation: pH in water (1:2.5 m:V) with 914 pH/conductometer (Metrohm AG, Herisau, Switzerland); electrical conductivity (EC) in water (1:5 m:V) using an Eutech CON700 conductometer (Oakton Instruments, Vernon-Hills, IL, USA); organic carbon (OC) content by wet oxidation [46]; calcium carbonate (CaCO3) content by volumetric gases using a modified Bernard calcimeter [47]; cation exchange capacity (CEC) and extractable Na+ by the ammonium/sodium acetate method [48]; and total and water-soluble PHE concentrations (As, Cd, Cu, Fe, Pb, and Zn). Total PHE concentrations were extracted by acid digestion in aqua regia (HNO3 + HCl 3:1 V:V) in a Mars XP1500 Plus microwave (CEM Corporation, Matthews, CN, USA) and soluble PHE concentrations were determined with distilled water (1:5 m:V) [49]. Both fractions were measured by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) using a PerkinElmer NexION 300D spectrometer (PerkinElmer, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA). The precision and accuracy of this method were evaluated by testing (n = 3) the certified reference material CRM 052–050 (RT-Corporation Limited, Salisbury, UK) and using procedural blanks. Calibration standards were also prepared from ICP single-element standard solutions (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) after dilution with 10% HNO3. The measured values for all elements were within the prediction range of the certified value (Table S3).

2.3. Plant Analysis

2.3.1. Relative Growth Rate (RGR) Determination

To determine the RGR, before starting the assay (Ti), the leaves of eight L. sativa seedlings from the Saliplant S.L. nursery were lyophilised to record dry weight (DW). After 17 days of growth (Tf), DW was also determined. Thus, the RGR can be calculated from the increase in leaf DW from the beginning to the end of cultivation using the following equation: RGR = (ln DWfln DWi)/(T), where T is the assay duration (17 days).

2.3.2. PHE Concentrations in Plants

The composite sample of lyophilised plants, separated into aerial part and roots, was ground, and then, three replicates per treatment were taken. Acid digestion in aqua regia (HNO3 + HCl 3:1 V:V) was performed in a Mars XP1500 Plus microwave (CEM Corporation, Matthews, CN, USA) to measure PHE concentrations (As, Cd, Cu, Fe, Pb, and Zn) in their tissues by ICP-MS in a PerkinElmer NexION 300D spectrometer (PerkinElmer, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA). The precision and accuracy of this method were assessed by measuring (n = 3) the certified reference material of lichen BCR®-482 (EC-JRC-IRMM, Geel, Belgium). The analysis of the CRM gave satisfactory results for all elements considered (Table S4).

2.3.3. Leaf Gas Exchange Parameters

Leaf gas exchange parameters were recorded with an infrared gas analyser LICOR 6800 Portable Photosynthesis System (IRGA: LI-COR Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA). Intermediate leaves of three plants for each treatment were placed in a leaf cuvette set with optimal growth conditions. The instrument was warmed up at 25 °C for 30 min and calibrated before measurements, with standard optimum cuvette conditions of 400 μmol mol−1 CO2 concentration, 500 μmol m2 s−1 PAR, 70% relative humidity, and room temperature. Net photosynthesis rate (ACO2), transpiration rate (E), stomatal conductance (gs), and intercellular CO2 (Ci) were recorded. Data were analysed with Photosyn Assistant software v. 3 (Dundee Scientific, Dundee, Scotland, UK). Instantaneous water use efficiency (WUE) was calculated as the A/E quotient.

2.3.4. Oxidative Stress Indicators and Antioxidant Activity

Malondialdehyde (MDA) concentration was determined according to the method of Fu and Huang [50] by measuring absorbance at 532 nm. The non-specific absorbance value at 600 nm was obtained to correct for turbidity. MDA concentration was calculated using 155 mM−1 cm−1 as an extinction coefficient. Proline (Pro) concentration was measured using the method adapted from Bieleski and Turner [51] by measuring absorbance at 515 nm and using standard curves made from Pro stock solutions.
Two reactive oxygen species (ROS) were also determined: hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and superoxide ion (O2). The H2O2 content of the leaf samples was determined by colorimetry according to the method of Junglee et al. [52], based on a reaction with potassium iodide and an absorbance reading at 350 nm compared to H2O2 standard curves. For O2 content, the method of Kubiś [53] was followed, where the ability of extracts to reduce nitroblue tetrazolium (NBT) was determined by measuring absorbance at 580 nm and using standard curves from sodium nitrite.
Superoxide dismutase (SOD; EC 1.15.1.1) activity was determined by inhibition of the photochemical reduction of NBT according to the methods of Giannopolitis-Ries and Beyer-Fridovich modified by Yu [54,55,56]. One unit of SOD activity was defined as the amount of enzyme required to cause 50% inhibition of the reduction of NBT as monitored at 560 nm. Catalase (CAT; EC 1.11.1.6) activity was determined by the methods of Nakano-Asada and Rao et al. [57,58], based on the measurement of H2O2 consumption at 240 nm. The protein concentration of the extracts was determined according to Bradford [59], using bovine serum albumin as a standard.

2.3.5. Ascorbate-Glutathione Cycle

The concentrations of total glutathione (GSH Total) and oxidised glutathione (GSH Oxid) were determined according to Noctor and Foyer’s method [60]. Reduced glutathione (GSH Red) content was estimated from the difference between total and oxidised glutathione. The concentrations of total ascorbate (AsA Total) and its reduced form (AsA Red) were determined by the method of Law [61]. Standard curves made from stock solutions of each of these compounds (GSH Total, GSH Oxid, AsA Total, and AsA Red) were used to measure their concentration.
The method described by Rao [62] was used to determine both ascorbate peroxidase (APX; EC 1.11.1.11) and glutathione reductase (GR; EC 1.6.4.1). For APX activity, the disappearance of H2O2 was measured at 290 nm, and for GR activity, the oxidation of NADPH was measured at 340 nm. The protein concentration of the extracts was determined according to Bradford [59], using bovine serum albumin as a standard.
All biochemical parameters analysed in this and the previous section were performed with an Infinite 200 Nanoquat spectrophotometer (Tecan, Männedorf, Switzerland).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Data were subjected to a simple ANOVA at 95% confidence using Statgraphics Centurion 16.1.03 software. Differences between treatment means were compared using Fisher’s least-significant difference (LSD) test. Significance levels are expressed as * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, or NS (not significant).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Soil Properties and PHE Levels

The polluted soil (PS) was characterised by an extremely acid pH, as opposed to the neutral to slightly alkaline pH of recovered soil (RS) (Table 1), due to the formation of sulphuric acid by oxidation of sulphides contained in the pyritic sludge dumped in the Aznalcóllar mining accident [63]. For this reason, one of the remediation actions undertaken immediately afterwards was the addition of calcium carbonate-rich amendments to neutralise acidity and consequent mobilisation of PHEs due to their high pH buffering capacity [64]. This explains the low CaCO3 content in RS (Table 1), as partial dissolution of carbonates occurred to buffer pH [65]. In this regard, because pH exerts a strong influence on the mobility of PHEs, which generally decreases with increasing pH [40], the Technosols have been designed with a composition of 20% carbonate-rich waste, the marble sludge (MS), to provide them buffering capacity. Consequently, the Technosols TO, TS, and TV, despite the high percentage of PS in their composition, had neutral to slightly alkaline pH and considerable CaCO3 content (Table 1).
Likewise, PS showed low organic carbon (OC) content and low cation exchange capacity (CEC) (Table 1), which limits both chemical and physical fertility. These soils are not only poor in nutrients but also tend to crust, which further limits the possibility of vegetation development [66]. In contrast to RS, where previous remediation actions allowed the growth and development of plants, significantly increasing the soil organic matter compared to PS [67]. For this reason, an 18% organic amendment was included in the three Technosols, resulting in a much higher OC content than PS. However, there was a large variability in OC content among Technosols (TO: 4.1%, TS: 5.6%, and TV: 2.1%) due to the different OC richness of the organic wastes (Table S1). In addition, the nature of the organic waste can lead to variations in the evolution of the organic matter during the incubation period along the Technosol production, thereby contributing to differences in the fertility status of each Technosol [11]. In fact, TO had a higher CEC than TS despite its lower OC content. Thus, the composted solid olive-mill by-product (OL) used in TO was much more reactive than the sewage sludge (WS) used in TS. In the case of TV, the decrease in its CEC compared to the others was due to the lower OC input with the vermicompost from pruning and gardening waste (VC), which presumably is also more easily mineralised (Table 1 and Table S1).
The high electrical conductivity (EC) values in PS (Table 1) were a consequence of the oxidation of sulphides to soluble sulphates in the pyritic sludge upon drying [63]. Technosols include 60% PS, which justifies the EC levels in them (Table 1). However, TO and TS showed a considerably higher EC than PS and TV because of the organic wastes used (Table S1). The same occurred with exchangeable sodium (Na+), which showed very high values in TO and TS (Table 1), even reaching levels that can cause stress for plant development and compromise their growth [68].
At present, despite the remediation measures implemented by the Regional Government of Andalusia and more than 25 years after the accident, some PHEs (As, Cu, Pb, and Zn) are still of concern in the area because of their potential environmental risk due to their solubility and long-term bioavailability [18], especially in areas close to the mine without vegetation. Indeed, total soil concentrations of As and Pb in PS (mg kg−1; As: 346, Pb: 546; Table 2) exceeded the regulatory levels of 36 and 275 mg kg−1 [69] by 9.6 and 2, respectively. In any case, these remediation efforts were effective in almost the entire affected area [39,42], leading not only to an improvement in soil conditions but also to decreased PHE concentrations. As shown in our results, the total concentrations of most PHEs in RS were significantly lower than in PS (Table 2). Except for Zn, whose total concentration in RS was higher than in PS because its solubility is strongly controlled by pH. In PS, Zn has leached intensively over time due to soil acidity, thus reducing its total concentration compared to RS [70,71].
The potential toxicological risk of these PHEs depends largely on their mobility, rather than their total concentrations [72,73], since the water-soluble fraction is the most readily accessible to plants and living soil organisms and can therefore cause damage to the ecosystem and/or enter the trophic chain [74,75]. Therefore, it is essential to assess their mobility, as the risk of pollution could be over- or under-estimated if it is only based on total concentrations. Furthermore, the remediation of residually polluted soils with Technosols is not expected to modify the total PHEs content but will reduce their mobility and phytoavailability. Indeed, the total PHE concentrations in Technosols were high, as 60% of them were composed of PS, although in TS, the concentration of ZnT was even higher because of Zn concentration in sewage sludge (Table S2).
The solubility of PHEs in Technosols changed strongly compared with that of PS. The high water-soluble concentrations of Cd, Cu, and Zn in PS decreased significantly in most Technosols to values roughly close to those in RS (Table 2). Because the solubility of Cd, Cu, and Zn is strongly conditioned by soil properties, it decreases as pH rises [76]. The pH neutralisation in Technosols was mediated by carbonates [77] provided by the marble sludge. Furthermore, the increased OC content in Technosols may also contribute to the decrease in their solubility [76,78]. However, in TO, CuW concentration did not decrease with respect to PS, and in contrast, it was even higher (Table 2); this may be due to the fact that Cu is not as pH-dependent as Cd and Zn [79] and that this element has a strong affinity for organic matter [18,80]. This was in agreement with our data, as the organic waste used in TO (solid olive-mill by-product: OL) was characterised by being more reactive than the other two organic wastes (WS and VC). This organic waste (OL) showed the highest CEC (Table S1), which could allow for the adsorption of a greater amount of Cu in exchangeable form that can pass into the soil solution and, thus, be more available to the plant. Furthermore, soluble Cd and Zn presented significantly lower concentrations in TV than in TO and TS (Table 2), with the only difference between Technosols being the organic waste added. On the other hand, although the same proportion of iron oxyhydroxide-rich sludge was used in all Technosols, FeW concentration was significantly higher in TS (Table 2) due to the contribution of more forms in this Technosol from the added organic waste, sewage sludge (WS) (Table S1) [43]. Hence, the nature and composition of the components of the Technosols are decisive in characterising the solubility of PHEs.
Water-soluble As in Technosols increased significantly compared to PS, varying among Technosols (Table 2). Arsenic solubility is strongly conditioned by pH; however, the acidity of the soil solution decreases the presence of soluble forms of As, whereas they increase at pH close to neutrality [81]. In this sense, Simón et al. [65] pointed out that the liming of soils polluted by PHEs should be performed cautiously because above pH 6.5, this element can be solubilised. To counteract this, 2% of iron oxyhydroxide-rich sludge was added to all Technosols for the immobilisation of As, since in soils, it usually appears in anionic forms (HAsO42−, H2AsO4), so it can be fixed to the positive charges that dominate in iron oxyhydroxides [81,82]. The significant increase in AsW concentration in TO and TS compared to PS (Table 2) may be due to the potential competition of arsenates with soil organic matter for Fe oxyhydroxide binding sites [42,83,84]. Arsenic solubility in TV, although higher than in PS, was significantly lower compared to TS and TO, due to the lower OC content in the former decreasing the competitive effect of organic matter for As fixation sites.
A similar behaviour was observed with Pb solubility, where the higher organic matter content in RS, TO, and TS could lead to an increase in Pbw. On the contrary, TV did not show an increase in Pb solubility compared to PS, with the OC content being the lowest among the three Technosols (Table 1 and Table 2). The relationship between Pb solubility and organic matter content is in agreement with the results of several authors [42,76], who observed a slight increase in Pb solubility in reclaimed soils of the Guadiamar Green Corridor compared to soils that remain polluted and have very low OC content. However, several authors have highlighted the affinity of Pb for organic matter [83,85,86], which can interact with it in a nearly stable way, which can condition its solubility. Therefore, the controversy in this respect highlights the need for further research on the interaction between organic matter and Pb in polluted soils.

3.2. Growth of L. sativa

Figure 2 shows that the worst physiological state of L. sativa plants was in PS and TS, with smaller size, fewer leaves, and a more necrotic appearance. Moreover, Technosol TV showed similar phenotypic characteristics to the plants grown on RS. This growth dynamic could be due to the fact that stress factors such as soil acidity; salinity; and finally, exposure to certain PHEs caused a decrease in plant growth [25,34].
Indeed, the highest relative growth rates (RGR) were recorded for L. sativa plants grown on RS and TV, whereas the lowest were on PS and TS (Figure 3). According to these results, the lower growth of L. sativa plants may be due to the higher toxicity resulting from the presence of PHEs (Table 2), as has been observed in several studies. Navarro-León et al. [87] reported that exposure to Cd toxicity caused a 60% decrease in the leaf biomass of Brassica rapa L. subsp. trilocularis (Roxb.). Similarly, Zaier et al. [88] showed that the presence of Pb strongly inhibited the growth of Brassica juncea (L.).

3.3. PHE Accumulation in L. sativa

High concentrations of PHEs present in polluted areas can exert a detrimental effect on plants, which respond at the molecular, cellular, physiological, anatomical, and morphological levels [89]. Thus, plants have evolved, over time, complex mechanisms of hyperaccumulation, tolerance, exclusion, and chelation with organic molecules to overcome this abiotic stress [90]. In this case, translocation processes seem not to be prominent because the accumulation of PHEs in the aerial part of L. sativa plants was much lower than in roots for all treatments and for all PHEs (Table 3). This could be a result of the Casparian strip, which acts like a selective barrier by blocking the entry of a large part of PHEs into the xylem to ensure selective ion transport while retaining ions [91,92,93].
In treatments RS and TV, the highest concentrations of Cd and As were found in the aerial part. However, no accumulation was observed for Pb and Cu in the same treatments (Table 3). This is probably due to the low solubility of both elements in TV and Pb in RS (Table 2), as well as the competition between certain PHEs for transporters and possible antagonistic effects [94]. The latter could be the case of Cd and Zn, which although both were at high concentrations in TV, their combined effect could result in less stress than either of them separately [95]. On the other hand, at high concentrations, a potent synergy between the two elements has also been shown [94]. In this study, TS showed the highest concentrations of PHEs such as Pb, Fe, and Cu in the shoots of L. sativa plants, even higher than those grown in PS (Table 3). However, the higher solubility of pH-dependent elements such as Cd, Cu, and Zn in PS resulted in higher root concentrations than in the other treatments. In contrast, As and Pb, generally less mobile at acidic pH, showed the highest root concentrations in the more organic soils at neutral to slightly alkaline pH (RS, TO, TS, and TV), especially in Technosols with two- to three-fold higher concentrations than in RS (Table 3). Therefore, toxicity may not be directly related to higher PHE concentrations due to their compartmentalisation and chelation by binding to different ligands for accumulation in shoots and roots in a non-toxic way [25], as seems to be occurring in TV, where, despite the lower solubility for Cd, Cu, and Zn, high concentrations of these PHEs were accumulated in the L. sativa roots.

3.4. Photosynthesis and Gas Exchange in L. sativa

A reduction in the process of photosynthesis and gas exchange due to alterations in the photosynthetic apparatus caused by the presence of PHEs impairs the development of the plant, resulting in various damages, such as reduced growth and nutrient uptake [25,27]. In this sense, L. sativa plants grown on PS and TS showed a drastic depletion in photosynthetic and transpiration rates, as well as stomatal conductance compared to RS (Table 4), possibly due to the damage caused by PHEs, as well as other stress conditions such as soil acidity (Table 1) [28,96,97]. Moreover, the low values of intracellular CO2 concentration in plants grown in PS and TS (Table 4) may indicate that not only was the photosynthetic apparatus damaged but also that stomatal conductance limitations could have caused a decrease in rubisco activity and thus the collapse of photosynthesis [98]. The same tendency was observed in plants grown on TO for all parameters except intracellular CO2 concentration, which was similar to RS (Table 4). Therefore, these low photosynthetic rates in Technosols TO and TS, and especially in PS, besides the RGR values (Figure 3), could be due to the high PHE toxicity problem in the soil of these treatments [28]. Moreover, the severe reduction in transpiration, resulting from stomatal closure, led to an increase in water use efficiency (WUE) in both TS and PS. This improvement is likely due to an increase in soil solute potential caused by higher contents of soluble PHEs in the soil solution. The effect may be more pronounced in TS, with increased quantities of Na+ ions (Table 1) that further raises the soil solute potential, intensifying the water-saving response [68]. On the other hand, transpiration drives the transport and translocation of ions to the leaves; therefore, treatments in which plants showed a higher transpiration rate together with a better physiological state may accumulate more PHEs in the aerial part [99], as the data showed in treatments RS and TV (Table 3 and Table 4). Finally, the values for all these growth and photosynthetic parameters for TV were similar to those for RS (Figure 3, Table 4), showing the great effectiveness of this Technosol in the remediation of polluted soils, allowing the establishment of healthy vegetation. As in previous studies [11], it was in this same Technosol where Trifolium campestre Schreb. grew with the highest biomass. Similarly, other Technosols amended with green waste compost were shown to be very effective in urban greening, as compost improves soil nutrient content and meets plant needs, leading to higher photosynthetic efficiency and carbon investment in the herbaceous species Malva sylvestris L. (higher leaf area and lower leaf mass per area) early on and higher leaf water content in the Mediterranean sclerophyll species Phillyrea angustifolia L. and Quercus ilex L. in the long term [100].

3.5. Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Activity in L. sativa

In L. sativa plants grown on PS, the malondialdehyde (MDA) generated was twelve-fold higher than in plants grown on RS, while this increase was only five-fold greater in the other treatments compared to RS (Figure 4a). This higher MDA concentration produced in lipid peroxidation responds to oxidative stress caused by PHE toxicity and other negative conditions such as salinity [29,30]. These results were consistent with other previous reports [30,101], where an increase in the MDA levels of 126% and 30% were reported in L. sativa plants exposed to toxic concentrations of Zn and Fe. Likewise, proline (Pro) levels also increased in PS and TS compared to RS, although the highest values were recorded in TS (Figure 4b). Similar results were observed by Yang et al. [102] when assessing Pb toxicity in Tritium aestivum L., with a 207% increase in Pro concentration under these unfavourable conditions. Thus, the increased synthesis of this amino acid can be interpreted as an adaptive mechanism under the stress conditions of PS and TS, as Pro is involved in reactive oxygen species (ROS) extinction processes by functioning as an antioxidant metabolite and having the capacity to chelate PHEs [29,34]. This stress was more pronounced in PS than in TS, as reflected by the lower MDA concentration recorded (Figure 4a). This could be precisely due to the higher proline synthesis reported in TS, as it also has an osmoprotective behaviour and is a target of the hydroxyl radical, which could mitigate the effects of salinity and oxidative stress, as higher Fe and Cu concentrations in the aerial part of plants grown in TS (Table 3) could be responsible for the formation of the hydroxyl radical through Haber-Weiss and Fenton reactions [34,68]. It probably prevents ROS concentrations in TS by ultimately leading to lipid peroxidation and MDA formation (Figure 4a). In fact, Siripornadulsil et al. [103] correlated a higher Pro content with a mitigation of oxidative damage (lower MDA) in the presence of PHEs.
Regarding ROS production, significant differences of O2 concentration were observed in PS and TS with respect to RS (Figure 5a), as well as H2O2 production, which was also higher in TO (Figure 5b). The increased production of ROS is a very common effect in plants subjected to abiotic stresses such as PHE toxicity, known as oxidative burst [29,34]. Consistent with our results, some studies [30,101] showed that plant exposure to toxic concentrations of Fe and Zn lead to an increased ROS production in Brassica oleracea L. and L. sativa. Also, antioxidant enzymatic activity was measured, and the data showed that superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT) activities were increased in PS, TO, and TS with respect to RS. As in the other assays, the highest values were observed in PS and TS (Figure 5c,d). In this study, the greater ROS production in Technosols TO and TS, and especially in PS, was combined with an increase in antioxidant enzymatic activity that was not observed in either RS or TV (Figure 5c,d). This higher antioxidant enzymatic activity occurred to mitigate plant oxidative stress, such as SOD activity, which transforms O2 into less reactive H2O2, and CAT activity, which removes H2O2 [29,102]. However, O2 and H2O2 remained high in TS and PS, despite high SOD and CAT activities (Figure 5), thus reflecting a higher degree of stress. Furthermore, the H2O2 concentration at TS was decreased not only by CAT activity but also by high Fe and Cu contents in the aerial part (Table 3), which resulted in Haber-Weiss and Fenton reactions to form the much more reactive hydroxyl radical [29]. On the other hand, the high H2O2 concentration in TO could be related to lower CAT activity but high SOD activity, which transformed much of O2 to a concentration similar to RS (Figure 5). Finally, it is worth noting again the similarity between TV and RS, which would reveal a low stress level due to the significant efficacy of this Technosol.

3.6. Ascorbate-Glutathione Metabolism in L. sativa

The ascorbate-glutathione cycle is another important mechanism for plants to limit oxidative stress, maintain cell redox status, and decrease ROS levels. This network involves important antioxidant compounds and enzymes with great antioxidant capacity and a special protection function against oxidative damage caused by exposure to PHEs [29]. In this study, the highest total glutathione (GSH Total) concentrations were recorded in PS, TS, and TV compared to RS, with the highest values in PS and TS. As for oxidised glutathione (GSH Oxid), an increase in this compound was observed in PS compared to RS (Figure 6a). Likewise, a large decrease in GSH Oxid in relation to GSH Total was observed only in TS (Figure 6a), revealing that more reduced glutathione (GSH Red) could be available in TS. On the other hand, compared to RS, plants grown in PS registered the highest concentration of total ascorbate (AsA Total), followed by those grown in TS, and lastly, those grown in the other Technosols with similar values (Figure 6b). However, the reduced ascorbate form (AsA Red) increased significatively in PS (Figure 6b). Glutathione reductase (GR) activity was increased in PS, TS, and TV compared to RS (Figure 6c). Finally, the ascorbate peroxidase (APX) activity was higher for PS and all Technosols, and the highest values were found in PS and TS, followed by TO and TV with intermediate values, and RS with the lowest values (Figure 6d). Our results were similar to other studies that reported an increase in GSH Total concentration, and especially in GSH Red, to mitigate the oxidative stress caused by Pb and Zn toxicity in T. aestivum and B. oleracea plants [30,104]. Moreover, the lower glutathione reductase (GR) activity in PS with respect to TS (Figure 6c) revealed a higher stress condition in PS, as Barrameda-Medina et al. [30] described for L. sativa plants exposed to high Zn concentrations. This fact would explain why our results showed a higher GSH Oxid accumulation and less glutathione recycling in PS than in TS. Furthermore, the availability of GSH not only contributes to the reduction in ROS but also contributes to the chelation of PHEs, either directly through its reduced form or by the formation of phytochelatins [105]. Ascorbate is another antioxidant non-enzymatic metabolite with a function similar to that of glutathione in ROS detoxification. In this sense, the existence of a large difference between AsA Total concentration and AsA Red in TS and especially in PS (Figure 6b) showed that this metabolite was being oxidised to mitigate the abiotic stress by PHEs [30,101], which did not occur in RS and TV, possibly due to the lower stress conditions and lower APX activity with respect to PS and TS (Figure 6d), consistent with Buturi et al. [101]. Moreover, the higher APX activity achieved at TS also accounted for the lower H2O2 concentration compared TO. Finally, the degree of stress generally leads to an increase in the activity of antioxidant enzymes such as SOD, CAT, APX, and GR (Figure 5c,d and Figure 6c,d), aimed at reducing oxidative stress caused by PHEs, as occurred in PS [29,104].

4. Conclusions

The three designed Technosols (TO, TS, TV), composed of polluted soil (PS) with a mixture of organic and inorganic wastes from local industries (mines, urban gardening services, wastewater treatment services, and olive mills), improved the unfavourable conditions of PS (e.g., neutralised acidity and increased OC content) and, consequently, modified the mobility of most PHEs. However, Technosols induced a differential response in each case, mainly influenced by the nature of the organic waste. Thus, the solubility of Cd, Cu, and Zn decreased in all Technosols (except Cu in TO, which increased), while As was re-solubilised in all Technosols and Pb solely in TO and TS. Moreover, the added wastes not only affect to PHEs solubility but may even represent an input of PHEs. This is the case of TS with respect to water-soluble Fe and total Zn, or TO and TS with Na+ ions contributing to the exchange complex causing salt stress.
The presence of PHEs, especially in their soluble form, caused oxidative stress in L. sativa plants grown in TS and especially in PS, triggering a strong antioxidant response as a tolerance mechanism. The detoxification of ROS took place through the production of antioxidant metabolites such as glutathione and ascorbate, as well as increased enzymatic activity (i.e., catalase, superoxide dismutase, ascorbate peroxidase, and glutathione reductase) to mitigate their damage effect. Another effect of PHE exposure was the limitation of photosynthesis and gas exchange processes; in both TS and PS, the photosynthetic rate was reduced, leading to a decrease in L. sativa plant growth due to the stomatal limitations and damage to the photosynthetic machinery caused by PHEs.
Thus, the ecotechnology of Technosols can constitute a potential solution for the remediation of persistent polluted soils, although, in particular, the Technosol composed of pruning and gardening vermicompost (TV) showed an overall performance far superior to that of the other Technosols. In addition to improving soil properties and reducing the mobility of most PHEs, phytotoxicity evaluated in L. sativa plants grown on TV was minimal, with great similarity to the recovered soil in most of the parameters analysed. However, there are some potential risks that need to be further investigated and taken into account, such as the potential increase in solubility of As and Pb in Technosols due to increased OC and the input of potentially toxic substances (i.e., Fe, Zn, and Na ions) from waste materials used as amendments for Technosol construction.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants13223222/s1, Figure S1. (A) Location of the Aznalcóllar mine and tailing pond that was breached. (B) Location of the five sampling locations (1: 37° 29′ 42″ N, 6° 13′ 12″ W; 2: 37° 29′ 40″ N, 6° 13′ 10″ W; 3: 37° 29′ 38″ N, 6° 13′ 16″ W; 4: 37° 29′ 35″ N, 6° 13′ 13″ W; 5: 37° 29′ 32″ N, 6° 13′ 12″ W). (C) Details of the persistent polluted soils (PSs), characterised by the absence of vegetation, and of the surrounding recovered soil (RS) in the vicinity of the old tailings pond of the Aznalcóllar min.; Table S1. Main properties of the amendments used in the production of Technosols TO, TS, and TV (IO, MS, OL, WS, and VC); Table S2. Total concentrations of potentially harmful elements in mg kg−1 in the amendments used in the production of Technosols TO, TS, and TV (IO, MS, OL, WS, and VC); Table S3. Results of the certified reference material of Loamy clay soil CRM 052–050 (RT-Corporation Limited, Salisbury, UK) analysed by ICP-MS in a PerkinElmer NexION 300D spectrometer (PerkinElmer, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) after acid digestion in aqua regia in a Mars XP1500 Plus microwave (CEM Corporation, Matthews, CN, USA); Table S4. Results of the certified reference material Lichen BCR®-482 (EC-JRC-IRMM, Geel, Belgium) analysed by ICP-MS in a PerkinElmer NexION 300D spectrometer (PerkinElmer, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) after acid digestion in aqua regia in a Mars XP1500 Plus microwave (CEM Corporation, Matthews, CN, USA).

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, A.A.-G., M.S.-A. and B.B.; methodology, M.G.-Q., A.A.-G., M.S.-A. and B.B.; validation, M.G.-Q., A.A.-G., M.P.-L. and C.G.-H.; formal analysis, M.G.-Q., M.P.-L. and C.G.-H.; investigation, M.G.-Q. and A.A.-G.; resources, A.A.-G., M.P.-L., C.G.-H., M.S.-A. and B.B.; data curation, M.G.-Q., A.A.-G., M.S.-A. and B.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.G.-Q. and A.A.-G.; writing—review and editing, M.G.-Q., A.A.-G., M.P.-L., C.G.-H., M.S.-A. and B.B.; visualisation, M.G.-Q., A.A.-G., M.P.-L. and C.G.-H.; supervision, M.S.-A. and B.B.; project administration, M.S.-A. and B.B.; funding acquisition, M.S.-A. and B.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the research project RTI 2018-094327-B-I00 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by “ERDF A way of making Europe”, and the PAI programme (Plan Andaluz de Investigación, Grupo AGR282).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available from the corresponding author on request.

Acknowledgments

Antonio Aguilar-Garrido (A.A.-G.) thanks the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities for his predoctoral contract (ref. FPU-18/02901).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Khan, S.; Naushad, M.; Lima, E.C.; Zhang, S.; Shaheen, S.M.; Rinklebe, J. Global Soil Pollution by Toxic Elements: Current Status and Future Perspectives on the Risk Assessment and Remediation Strategies—A Review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 417, 126039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Palansooriya, K.N.; Shaheen, S.M.; Chen, S.S.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Hashimoto, Y.; Hou, D.; Bolan, N.S.; Rinklebe, J.; Ok, Y.S. Soil Amendments for Immobilization of Potentially Toxic Elements in Contaminated Soils: A Critical Review. Environ. Int. 2020, 134, 105046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Khelifi, F.; Melki, A.; Hamed, Y.; Adamo, P.; Caporale, A.G. Environmental and Human Health Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements in Soil, Sediments, and Ore-Processing Wastes from a Mining Area of Southwestern Tunisia. Environ. Geochem. Health 2020, 42, 4125–4139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Santos, E.S.; Arán, D.; Abreu, M.M.; de Varennes, A. Engineered Soils Using Amendments for in Situ Rehabilitation of Mine Lands. In Bio-Geotechnologies for Mine Site Rehabilitation; Prasad, M.N.V., Favas, P.J.d.C., Maiti, S.K., Eds.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 131–146. ISBN 9780128129876. [Google Scholar]
  5. Fabbri, D.; Pizzol, R.; Calza, P.; Malandrino, M.; Gaggero, E.; Padoan, E.; Ajmone-Marsan, F. Constructed Technosols: A Strategy toward a Circular Economy. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Macías, F.; Bao, M.; Macías-García, F.; Camps Arbestain, M. Valorización Biogeoquímica de Residuos Por Medio de La Elaboración de Tecnosoles Con Diferentes Aplicaciones Ambientales. Agua Residuos 2007, 5, 12–25. [Google Scholar]
  7. Santos, E.S.; Abreu, M.M.; Macías, F.; de Varennes, A. Chemical Quality of Leachates and Enzymatic Activities in Technosols with Gossan and Sulfide Wastes from the São Domingos Mine. J. Soils Sediments 2016, 16, 1366–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Asensio, V.; Flórido, F.G.; Ruiz, F.; Perlatti, F.; Otero, X.L.; Oliveira, D.P.; Ferreira, T.O. The Potential of a Technosol and Tropical Native Trees for Reclamation of Copper-Polluted Soils. Chemosphere 2019, 220, 892–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rodríguez-Vila, A.; Asensio, V.; Forján, R.; Covelo, E.F. Assessing the Influence of Technosol and Biochar Amendments Combined with Brassica juncea L. on the Fractionation of Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn in a Polluted Mine Soil. J. Soils Sediments 2016, 16, 339–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jordán, M.M.; García-Sánchez, E.; Almendro-Candel, M.B.; Pardo, F.; Vicente, A.B.; Sanfeliu, T.; Bech, J. Technosols Designed for Rehabilitation of Mining Activities Using Mine Spoils and Biosolids. Ion Mobility and Correlations Using Percolation Columns. Catena 2017, 148, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Aguilar-Garrido, A.; Romero-Freire, A.; Paniagua-López, M.; Martínez-Garzón, F.J.; Martín-Peinado, F.J.; Sierra-Aragón, M. Technosols Derived from Mining, Urban, and Agro-Industrial Waste for the Remediation of Metal(Loid)-Polluted Soils: A Microcosm Assay. Toxics 2023, 11, 854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ruiz, F.; Perlatti, F.; Oliveira, D.P.; Ferreira, T.O. Revealing Tropical Technosols as an Alternative for Mine Reclamation and Waste Management. Minerals 2020, 10, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Queiroz, H.M.; Ferreira, A.D.; Ruiz, F.; Bovi, R.C.; Deng, Y.; de Souza Júnior, V.S.; Otero, X.L.; Bernardino, A.F.; Cooper, M.; Ferreira, T.O. Early Pedogenesis of Anthropogenic Soils Produced by the World’s Largest Mining Disaster, the “Fundão” Dam Collapse, in Southeast Brazil. Catena 2022, 219, 106625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Arán, D.; Santos, E.S.; Abreu, M.M.; Antelo, J.; Macías, F. Use of Combined Tools for Effectiveness Evaluation of Tailings Rehabilitated with Designed Technosol. Environ. Geochem. Health 2022, 44, 1857–1873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Walmsley, A.; Mundodi, L.; Sederkenny, A.; Anderson, N.; Missen, J.; Yellishetty, M. From Spoil to Soil: Utilising Waste Materials to Create Soils for Mine Rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mine Closure, Brisbane, Australia, 4–6 October 2022; Tibbett, M., Fourie, A.B., Boggs, G., Eds.; Australian Centre for Geomechanics: Brisbane, Australia, 2022; Volume 1, pp. 1237–1248. [Google Scholar]
  16. García-Carmona, M.; Romero-Freire, A.; Sierra Aragón, M.; Martínez Garzón, F.J.; Martín Peinado, F.J. Evaluation of Remediation Techniques in Soils Affected by Residual Contamination with Heavy Metals and Arsenic. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 191, 228–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kabata-Pendias, A. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants, 4th ed.; CRC Press (Taylor & Francis Group): Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010; ISBN 9781420093704. [Google Scholar]
  18. Paniagua-López, M.; Vela-Cano, M.; Correa-Galeote, D.; Martín-Peinado, F.; Marínez Garzón, F.J.; Pozo, C.; González-López, J.; Sierra Aragón, M. Soil Remediation Approach and Bacterial Community Structure in a Long-Term Contaminated Soil by a Mining Spill (Aznalcóllar, Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 777, 145128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pastor-Jáuregui, R.; Paniagua-López, M.; Aguilar-Garrido, A.; Martínez-Garzón, F.J.; Romero-Freire, A.; Sierra-Aragón, M. Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment in Soils Contaminated by Pb and As 20 Years after a Mining Spill. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2022, 251, 104100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hamels, F.; Malevé, J.; Sonnet, P.; Kleja, D.B.; Smolders, E. Phytotoxicity of Trace Metals in Spiked and Field-Contaminated Soils: Linking Soil-Extractable Metals with Toxicity. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2014, 33, 2479–2487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Romero-Freire, A.; Sierra-Aragón, M.; Qiu, H.; He, E. Editorial for the Special Issue “Phytotoxicity of Heavy Metals in Contaminated Soils”. Toxics 2023, 11, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Antoniadis, V.; Levizou, E.; Shaheen, S.M.; Ok, Y.S.; Sebastian, A.; Baum, C.; Prasad, M.N.V.; Wenzel, W.W.; Rinklebe, J. Trace Elements in the Soil-Plant Interface: Phytoavailability, Translocation, and Phytoremediation–A Review. Earth Sci. Rev. 2017, 171, 621–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Xiang, M.; Li, Y.; Yang, J.; Lei, K.; Li, Y.; Li, F.; Zheng, D.; Fang, X.; Cao, Y. Heavy Metal Contamination Risk Assessment and Correlation Analysis of Heavy Metal Contents in Soil and Crops. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 278, 116911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Huang, D.; Gui, H. Distribution Features and Internal Relations of Heavy Metals in Soil–Maize System of Mining Area, Anhui Province, Eastern China. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 2019, 25, 863–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shahid, M.; Khalid, S.; Abbas, G.; Shahid, N.; Nadeem, M.; Sabir, M.; Aslam, M.; Dumat, C. Heavy Metal Stress and Crop Productivity. In Crop Production and Global Environmental Issues; Hakeem, K.R., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Basel, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 1–25. ISBN 9783319231624. [Google Scholar]
  26. Rascio, N.; Navari-Izzo, F. Heavy Metal Hyperaccumulating Plants: How and Why Do They Do It? And What Makes Them so Interesting? Plant Sci. 2011, 180, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Yildirim, E.; Ekinci, M.; Turan, M. Mitigation of Heavy Metal Toxicity by Plant Growth–Promoting Rhizobacteria. In Sustainable Horticulture: Microbial Inoculants and Stress Interaction; Seymen, M., Kurtar, E.S., Erdinc, C., Kumar, A., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 97–123. ISBN 9780323918619. [Google Scholar]
  28. Dias, M.C.; Monteiro, C.; Moutinho-Pereira, J.; Correia, C.; Gonçalves, B.; Santos, C. Cadmium Toxicity Affects Photosynthesis and Plant Growth at Different Levels. Acta Physiol. Plant 2013, 35, 1281–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gill, S.S.; Tuteja, N. Reactive Oxygen Species and Antioxidant Machinery in Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Crop Plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2010, 48, 909–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Barrameda-Medina, Y.; Montesinos-Pereira, D.; Romero, L.; Blasco, B.; Ruiz, J.M. Role of GSH Homeostasis under Zn Toxicity in Plants with Different Zn Tolerance. Plant Sci. 2014, 227, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Li, B.B.; Zhang, S.B.; Lv, Y.Y.; Wei, S.; Hu, Y. Sen Reactive Oxygen Species-Induced Protein Carbonylation Promotes Deterioration of Physiological Activity of Wheat Seeds. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0263553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Huang, H.; Ullah, F.; Zhou, D.X.; Yi, M.; Zhao, Y. Mechanisms of ROS Regulation of Plant Development and Stress Responses. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 440478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sharma, P.; Jha, A.B.; Dubey, R.S.; Pessarakli, M. Reactive Oxygen Species, Oxidative Damage, and Antioxidative Defense Mechanism in Plants under Stressful Conditions. J. Bot. 2012, 2012, 217037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kolahi, M.; Mohajel Kazemi, E.; Yazdi, M.; Goldson-Barnaby, A. Oxidative Stress Induced by Cadmium in Lettuce (Lactuca Sativa Linn.): Oxidative Stress Indicators and Prediction of Their Genes. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 146, 71–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Israr, M.; Jewell, A.; Kumar, D.; Sahi, S.V. Interactive Effects of Lead, Copper, Nickel and Zinc on Growth, Metal Uptake and Antioxidative Metabolism of Sesbania Drummondii. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 186, 1520–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bhaduri, A.M.; Fulekar, M.H. Antioxidant Enzyme Responses of Plants to Heavy Metal Stress. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2012, 11, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. OPPTS 850.4200; Seed Germination/Root Elongation Toxicity Test. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines. United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1996.
  38. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). Terrestrial Plant Test: 208: Seedling Emergence and Seedling Growth Test. In Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals; Proposal for Updating Guideline 208; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: Paris, France, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  39. Madejón, P.; Domínguez, M.T.; Madejón, E.; Cabrera, F.; Marañón, T.; Murillo, J.M. Soil-Plant Relationships and Contamination by Trace Elements: A Review of Twenty Years of Experimentation and Monitoring after the Aznalcóllar (SW Spain) Mine Accident. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 625, 50–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Romero-Freire, A.; García Fernández, I.; Simón Torres, M.; Martínez Garzón, F.J.; Martín Peinado, F.J. Long-Term Toxicity Assessment of Soils in a Recovered Area Affected by a Mining Spill. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 208, 553–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Paniagua-López, M.; Aguilar-Garrido, A.; Contero-Hurtado, J.; García-Romera, I.; Sierra-Aragón, M.; Romero-Freire, A. Ecotoxicological Assessment of Polluted Soils One Year after the Application of Different Soil Remediation Techniques. Toxics 2023, 11, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pastor-Jáuregui, R.; Paniagua-López, M.; Aguilar-Garrido, A.; Martín-Peinado, F.J.; Sierra-Aragón, M. Long-term Assessment of Remediation Treatments Applied to an Area Affected by a Mining Spill in Spain. Land Degrad Dev. 2021, 32, 2481–2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Aguilar-Garrido, A.; Paniagua-López, M.; Sierra-Aragón, M.; Martínez Garzón, F.J.; Martín-Peinado, F.J. Remediation Potential of Mining, Agro-Industrial, and Urban Wastes against Acid Mine Drainage. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 12120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. EPA/625/R-92/013; Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge. Environmental Regulations and Technology. United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
  45. Wichuk, K.M.; McCartney, D. A Review of the Effectiveness of Current Time–Temperature Regulations on Pathogen Inactivation during Composting. J. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2015, 6, 573–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tyurin, I. V Analytical Procedure for a Comparative Study of Soil Humus. Tr. Poch. Inst. Dokuchaev. 1951, 33, 5–21. [Google Scholar]
  47. Barahona, E. Determinaciones Analíticas En Suelos: Carbonatos Totales y Caliza Activa. In Proceedings of the I Congreso Nacional de la Ciencia del Suelo, Sociedad Española de la Ciencia del Suelo, Madrid, Spain, 4–8 June 1984. [Google Scholar]
  48. SCS—USDA. Methods and Procedures for Collecting Soil Samples. In Soil Survey Manual; Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sposito, G.; Lund, L.J.; Chang, A.C. Trace Metal Chemistry in Arid-Zone Field Soils Amended with Sewage Sludge: I. Fractionation of Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb in Solid Phases. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1982, 46, 260–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fu, J.; Huang, B. Involvement of Antioxidants and Lipid Peroxidation in the Adaptation of Two Cool-Season Grasses to Localized Drought Stress. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2001, 45, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bieleski, R.L.; Turner, N.A. Separation and Estimation of Amino Acids in Crude Plant Extracts by Thin-Layer Electrophoresis and Chromatography. Anal Biochem. 1966, 17, 278–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Junglee, S.; Urban, L.; Sallanon, H.; Lopez-Lauri, F. Optimized Assay for Hydrogen Peroxide Determination in Plant Tissue Using Potassium Iodide. Am. J. Analyt. Chem. 2014, 5, 730–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kubiś, J. Exogenous Spermidine Differentially Alters Activities of Some Scavenging System Enzymes, H2O2 and Superoxide Radical Levels in Water-Stressed Cucumber Leaves. J. Plant Physiol. 2008, 165, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Giannopolitis, C.N.; Ries, S.K. Superoxide Dismutases: I. Occurrence in Higher Plants. Plant Physiol. 1977, 59, 309–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Beyer, W.F.; Fridovich, I. Assaying for Superoxide Dismutase Activity: Some Large Consequences of Minor Changes in Conditions. Anal. Biochem. 1987, 161, 559–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yu, Q.; Osborne, L.; Rengel, Z. Micronutrient Deficiency Changes Activities of Superoxide Dismutase and Ascorbate Peroxidase in Tobacco Plants. J. Plant Nutr. 1998, 21, 1427–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nakano, Y.; Asada, K. Hydrogen Peroxide Is Scavenged by Ascorbate-Specific Peroxidase in Spinach Chloroplasts. Plant Cell Physiol. 1981, 22, 867–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rao, M.V.; Paliyath, G.; Ormrod, D.P.; Murr, D.P.; Watkins, C.B. Influence of Salicylic Acid on H2O2 Production, Oxidative Stress, and H2O2-Metabolizing Enzymes (Salicylic Acid-Mediated Oxidative Damage Requires H2O2). Plant Physiol. 1997, 115, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bradford, M.M. A Rapid and Sensitive Method for the Quantitation of Microgram Quantities of Protein Utilizing the Principle of Protein-Dye Binding. Anal. Biochem. 1976, 72, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Noctor, G.; Foyer, C.H. Simultaneous Measurement of Foliar Glutathione, γ-Glutamylcysteine, and Amino Acids by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography: Comparison with Two Other Assay Methods for Glutathione. Anal. Biochem. 1998, 264, 98–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Law, M.Y.; Charles, S.A.; Halliwell, B. Glutathione and Ascorbic Acid in Spinach (Spinacia oleracea) Chloroplasts. The Effect of Hydrogen Peroxide and of Paraquat. Biochem. J. 1983, 210, 899–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Rao, M.V.; Paliyath, G.; Ormrod, D.P. Ultraviolet-B- and Ozone-Induced Biochemical Changes in Antioxidant Enzymes of Arabidopsis Thaliana. Plant Physiol. 1996, 110, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Simón, M.; Martín, F.; Ortiz, I.; García, I.; Fernández, J.; Fernández, E.; Dorronsoro, C.; Aguilar, J. Soil Pollution by Oxidation of Tailings from Toxic Spill of a Pyrite Mine. Sci. Total Environ. 2001, 279, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Aguilar, J.; Dorronsoro, C.; Fernández, E.; Fernández, J.; García, I.; Martín, F.; Simón, M. Soil Pollution by a Pyrite Mine Spill in Spain: Evolution in Time. Environ. Pollut. 2004, 132, 395–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Simón, M.; Diez, M.; González, V.; García, I.; Martín, F.; de Haro, S. Use of Liming in the Remediation of Soils Polluted by Sulphide Oxidation: A Leaching-Column Study. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 180, 241–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Martín, F.; García, I.; Dorronsoro, C.; Simón, M.; Aguilar, J.; Ortíz, I.; Fernández, E.; Fernández, J. Thallium Behavior in Soils Polluted by Pyrite Tailings (Aznalcóllar, Spain). Soil Sediment Contam. 2004, 13, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Madejón, E.; de Mora, A.P.; Felipe, E.; Burgos, P.; Cabrera, F. Soil Amendments Reduce Trace Element Solubility in a Contaminated Soil and Allow Regrowth of Natural Vegetation. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 139, 40–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Parida, A.K.; Das, A.B. Salt Tolerance and Salinity Effects on Plants: A Review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2005, 60, 324–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Decreto 18/2015; Por El Que Se Aprueba El Reglamento Que Regula El Régimen Aplicable a Los Suelos Contaminados. Consejería de Medio Ambiente y Ordenación del Territorio: Seville, Spain, 2015; Volume 38, ISBN 2008200920102.
  70. Kraus, U.; Wiegand, J. Long-Term Effects of the Aznalcóllar Mine Spill—Heavy Metal Content and Mobility in Soils and Sediments of the Guadiamar River Valley (SW Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 367, 855–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Martín Peinado, F.J.; Romero-Freire, A.; García Fernández, I.; Sierra Aragón, M.; Ortiz-Bernad, I.; Simón Torres, M. Long-Term Contamination in a Recovered Area Affected by a Mining Spill. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 514, 219–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Quevauviller, P.; Lachica, M.; Barahona, E.; Gomez, A.; Rauret, G.; Ure, A.; Muntau, H. Certified Reference Material for the Quality Control of EDTA- and DTPA-Extractable Trace Metal Contents in Calcareous Soil (CRM 600). Fresenius’ J. Anal. Chem. 1998, 360, 505–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Giannakis, I.; Emmanouil, C.; Mitrakas, M.; Manakou, V.; Kungolos, A. Chemical and Ecotoxicological Assessment of Sludge-Based Biosolids Used for Corn Field Fertilization. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 3797–3809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Chang, Y.-T.; Hseu, Z.-Y.; Zehetner, F. Evaluation of Phytoavailability of Heavy Metals to Chinese Cabbage (Brassica chinensis L.) in Rural Soils. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 309396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Son, J.; Kim, J.G.; Hyun, S.; Cho, K. Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment of Abandoned Metal Mines Using Chemical and Ecotoxicological Lines of Evidence. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 249, 1081–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. García-Carmona, M.; García-Robles, H.; Turpín Torrano, C.; Fernández Ondoño, E.; Lorite Moreno, J.; Sierra Aragón, M.; Martín Peinado, F.J. Residual Pollution and Vegetation Distribution in Amended Soils 20 years after a Pyrite Mine Tailings Spill (Aznalcóllar, Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 650, 933–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Cravotta, C.A.; Trahan, M.K. Limestone Drains to Increase PH and Remove Dissolved Metals from Acidic Mine Drainage. Appl. Geochem. 1999, 14, 581–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bur, T.; Probst, A.; Bianco, A.; Gandois, L.; Crouau, Y. Determining Cadmium Critical Concentrations in Natural Soils by Assessing Collembola Mortality, Reproduction and Growth. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2010, 73, 415–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. McBride, M.; Sauvé, S.; Hendershot, W. Solubility Control of Cu, Zn, Cd and Pb in Contaminated Soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 1997, 48, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. García-Carmona, M.; Romero-Freire, A.; Sierra Aragón, M.; Martín Peinado, F.J. Effectiveness of Ecotoxicological Tests in Relation to Physicochemical Properties of Zn and Cu Polluted Mediterranean Soils. Geoderma 2019, 338, 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Romero-Freire, A.; Sierra-Aragón, M.; Ortiz-Bernad, I.; Martín-Peinado, F.J. Toxicity of Arsenic in Relation to Soil Properties: Implications to Regulatory Purposes. J. Soils Sediments 2014, 14, 968–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Aguilar, J.; Dorronsoro, C.; Fernández, E.; Fernández, J.; García, I.; Martín, F.; Sierra, M.; Simón, M. Remediation of As-Contaminated Soils in the Guadiamar River Basin (SW, Spain). Water Air Soil Pollut. 2007, 180, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Sierra Aragón, M.; Nakamaru, Y.M.; García-Carmona, M.; Martínez Garzón, F.J.; Martín Peinado, F.J. The Role of Organic Amendment in Soils Affected by Residual Pollution of Potentially Harmful Elements. Chemosphere 2019, 237, 124549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Wang, S.; Mulligan, C.N. Occurrence of Arsenic Contamination in Canada: Sources, Behavior and Distribution. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 366, 701–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Romero-Freire, A.; Martin Peinado, F.J.; van Gestel, C.A.M. Effect of Soil Properties on the Toxicity of Pb: Assessment of the Appropriateness of Guideline Values. J. Hazard. Mater. 2015, 289, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Coppola, E.; Capra, G.F.; Odierna, P.; Vacca, S.; Buondonno, A. Lead Distribution as Related to Pedological Features of Soils in the Volturno River Low Basin (Campania, Italy). Geoderma 2010, 159, 342–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Navarro-León, E.; Ruiz, J.M.; Albacete, A.; Blasco, B. Tolerance to Cadmium Toxicity and Phytoremediation Potential of Three Brassica Rapa CAX1a TILLING Mutants. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 189, 109961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Zaier, H.; Ghnaya, T.; Lakhdar, A.; Baioui, R.; Ghabriche, R.; Mnasri, M.; Sghair, S.; Lutts, S.; Abdelly, C. Comparative Study of Pb-Phytoextraction Potential in Sesuvium Portulacastrum and Brassica Juncea: Tolerance and Accumulation. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 183, 609–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Dola, D.B.; Mannan, M.A.; Sarker, U.; Al Mamun, M.A.; Islam, T.; Ercisli, S.; Saleem, M.H.; Ali, B.; Pop, O.L.; Marc, R.A. Nano-Iron Oxide Accelerates Growth, Yield, and Quality of Glycine Max Seed in Water Deficits. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 992535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Angulo-Bejarano, P.I.; Puente-Rivera, J.; Cruz-Ortega, R. Metal and Metalloid Toxicity in Plants: An Overview on Molecular Aspects. Plants 2021, 10, 635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Alassimone, J.; Roppolo, D.; Geldner, N.; Vermeer, J.E.M. The Endodermis-Development and Differentiation of the Plant’s Inner Skin. Protoplasma 2012, 249, 433–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Asare, M.O.; Száková, J.; Tlustoš, P. The Fate of Secondary Metabolites in Plants Growing on Cd-, As-, and Pb-Contaminated Soils—A Comprehensive Review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 30, 11378–11398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Doblas, V.G.; Geldner, N.; Barberon, M. The Endodermis, a Tightly Controlled Barrier for Nutrients. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2017, 39, 136–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Adamczyk-Szabela, D.; Lisowska, K.; Romanowska-Duda, Z.; Wolf, W.M. Combined Cadmium-Zinc Interactions Alter Manganese, Lead, Copper Uptake by Melissa Officinalis. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Gao, F.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, J.; Li, J.; Niu, T.; Tang, C.; Wang, C.; Xie, J. Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles Improve Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) Plant Tolerance to Cadmium by Stimulating Antioxidant Defense, Enhancing Lignin Content and Reducing the Metal Accumulation and Translocation. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 1015745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Clemente, R.; Walker, D.J.; Bernal, M.P. Uptake of Heavy Metals and As by Brassica Juncea Grown in a Contaminated Soil in Aznalcóllar (Spain): The Effect of Soil Amendments. Environ. Pollut. 2005, 138, 46–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bazihizina, N.; Colzi, I.; Giorni, E.; Mancuso, S.; Gonnelli, C. Photosynthesizing on Metal Excess: Copper Differently Induced Changes in Various Photosynthetic Parameters in Copper Tolerant and Sensitive Silene paradoxa L. Populations. Plant Sci. 2015, 232, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Adamczyk-Szabela, D.; Chrześcijańska, E.; Zielenkiewicz, P.; Wolf, W.M. Antioxidant Activity and Photosynthesis Efficiency in Melissa Officinalis Subjected to Heavy Metals Stress. Molecules 2023, 28, 2642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Liu, X.; Peng, K.; Wang, A.; Lian, C.; Shen, Z. Cadmium Accumulation and Distribution in Populations of Phytolacca americana L. and the Role of Transpiration. Chemosphere 2010, 78, 1136–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Vitale, E.; Napoletano, P.; Colombo, C.; Arena, C.; De Marco, A. Use of Compost to Improve Technosol Properties and Spontaneous Plant-Soil Relationships of Mediterranean Species Potentially Suitable for Urban Greening. Urban Ecosyst. 2024, 27, 1847–1861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Buturi, C.V.; Sabatino, L.; Mauro, R.P.; Navarro-León, E.; Blasco, B.; Leonardi, C.; Giuffrida, F. Iron Biofortification of Greenhouse Soilless Lettuce: An Effective Agronomic Tool to Improve the Dietary Mineral Intake. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Yang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wei, X.; You, J.; Wang, W.; Lu, J.; Shi, R. Comparative Antioxidative Responses and Proline Metabolism in Two Wheat Cultivars under Short Term Lead Stress. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2011, 74, 733–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Siripornadulsil, S.; Traina, S.; Verma, D.P.S.; Sayre, R.T. Molecular Mechanisms of Proline-Mediated Tolerance to Toxic Heavy Metals in Transgenic Microalgae. Plant Cell 2002, 14, 2837–2847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Kaya, C.; Ugurlar, F.; Farooq, S.; Ashraf, M.; Alyemeni, M.N.; Ahmad, P. Combined Application of Asparagine and Thiourea Improves Tolerance to Lead Stress in Wheat by Modulating AsA-GSH Cycle, Lead Detoxification and Nitrogen Metabolism. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2022, 190, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Yadav, S.K. Heavy Metals Toxicity in Plants: An Overview on the Role of Glutathione and Phytochelatins in Heavy Metal Stress Tolerance of Plants. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2010, 76, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Scheme of the treatments: control soils (polluted soil [PS] and recovered soil [RS]) and constructed Technosols (TO, TS, and TV), including their compositions (TO: 60% PS + 2% IO + 20% MS + 18% OL; TS: 60% PS + 2% IO + 20% MS + 18% WS; and TV: 60% PS + 2% IO + 20% MS + 18% VC).
Figure 1. Scheme of the treatments: control soils (polluted soil [PS] and recovered soil [RS]) and constructed Technosols (TO, TS, and TV), including their compositions (TO: 60% PS + 2% IO + 20% MS + 18% OL; TS: 60% PS + 2% IO + 20% MS + 18% WS; and TV: 60% PS + 2% IO + 20% MS + 18% VC).
Plants 13 03222 g001
Figure 2. Physiological state of L. sativa plants grown in recovered soil (RS), polluted soil (PS), and Technosols (TO, TS, and TV) after 17 days. View from top (A) and side (B).
Figure 2. Physiological state of L. sativa plants grown in recovered soil (RS), polluted soil (PS), and Technosols (TO, TS, and TV) after 17 days. View from top (A) and side (B).
Plants 13 03222 g002
Figure 3. Relative growth rate (RGR) of the aerial part of L. sativa plants grown in recovered soil (RS), polluted soil (PS), and Technosols (TO, TS, and TV) (n = 9). Letters indicate statistically significant differences between treatments (LSD test, p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Relative growth rate (RGR) of the aerial part of L. sativa plants grown in recovered soil (RS), polluted soil (PS), and Technosols (TO, TS, and TV) (n = 9). Letters indicate statistically significant differences between treatments (LSD test, p < 0.05).
Plants 13 03222 g003
Figure 4. Malondialdehyde (MDA) (a) and proline (Pro) (b) concentrations in L. sativa plants grown in recovered soil (RS), polluted soil (PS), and Technosols (TO, TS, and TV) (n = 9). Letters indicate statistically significant differences between treatments (LSD test, p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Malondialdehyde (MDA) (a) and proline (Pro) (b) concentrations in L. sativa plants grown in recovered soil (RS), polluted soil (PS), and Technosols (TO, TS, and TV) (n = 9). Letters indicate statistically significant differences between treatments (LSD test, p < 0.05).
Plants 13 03222 g004
Figure 5. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) [(a): superoxide ion (O2), (b): hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)] and associated enzymatic activities [(c): superoxide dismutase (SOD), (d): catalase (CAT)] in L. sativa plants grown in recovered soil (RS), polluted soil (PS), and Technosols (TO, TS, and TV) (n = 9). Letters indicate statistically significant differences between treatments (LSD test, p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) [(a): superoxide ion (O2), (b): hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)] and associated enzymatic activities [(c): superoxide dismutase (SOD), (d): catalase (CAT)] in L. sativa plants grown in recovered soil (RS), polluted soil (PS), and Technosols (TO, TS, and TV) (n = 9). Letters indicate statistically significant differences between treatments (LSD test, p < 0.05).
Plants 13 03222 g005
Figure 6. Antioxidant metabolites [(a): total glutathione (GSH Total) and oxidised glutathione (GSH Oxid), (b): total ascorbate (AsA Total) and reduced ascorbate (AsA Red)], and associated enzymatic activities [(c): glutathione reductase (GR), (d): ascorbate peroxidase (APX)] in L. sativa plants grown in recovered soil (RS), polluted soil (PS), and Technosols (TO, TS, and TV) (n = 9). Letters indicate statistically significant differences between treatments (LSD test, p < 0.05).
Figure 6. Antioxidant metabolites [(a): total glutathione (GSH Total) and oxidised glutathione (GSH Oxid), (b): total ascorbate (AsA Total) and reduced ascorbate (AsA Red)], and associated enzymatic activities [(c): glutathione reductase (GR), (d): ascorbate peroxidase (APX)] in L. sativa plants grown in recovered soil (RS), polluted soil (PS), and Technosols (TO, TS, and TV) (n = 9). Letters indicate statistically significant differences between treatments (LSD test, p < 0.05).
Plants 13 03222 g006
Table 1. Main properties of recovered soil (RS), polluted soil (PS), and Technosols (TO, TS, and TV).
Table 1. Main properties of recovered soil (RS), polluted soil (PS), and Technosols (TO, TS, and TV).
SoilspH (H2O) 1:2.5EC 1:5 (dS m−1)OC (%) CaCO3 (%)CEC (cmol+ kg−1)Na+ (cmol+ kg−1)
RS7.38 ± 0.12 c0.96 ± 0.11 a5.89 ± 0.24 e0.80 ± 0.09 a35.28 ± 3.41 d0.60 ± 0.02 a
PS4.16 ± 0.09 a2.99 ± 0.18 b0.87 ± 0.09 a0.56 ± 0.06 a11.25 ± 1.76 a0.53 ± 0.03 a
TO7.72 ± 0.15 e4.96 ±0.21 d4.08 ± 0.14 c23.06 ± 1.25 b28.50 ± 2.64 c2.45 ± 0.13 b
TS7.30 ± 0.08 b4.34 ± 0.17 c5.59 ± 0.17 d23.17 ± 1.21 b24.34 ± 1.74 c2.46 ± 0.16 b
TV7.62 ± 0.13 d2.96 ± 0.15 b2.09 ± 0.11 b22.83 ± 1.51 b16.51 ± 1.66 b0.70 ± 0.02 a
p-value******************
LSD0.050.020.080.140.774.150.27
EC—electrical conductivity, OC—organic carbon, CaCO3—calcium carbonate, CEC—cation exchange capacity, Na+—extractable sodium. Values are means ± standard error (n = 9), and letters indicate statistically significant differences between treatment means identified by Fisher’s least-significance difference test (LSD0.05). The levels of significance were represented by p > 0.05: p < 0.001 (***).
Table 2. Total and water-soluble concentrations of potentially harmful elements (PHEs) in mg kg−1 in recovered soil (RS), polluted soil (PS), and Technosols (TO, TS, and TV).
Table 2. Total and water-soluble concentrations of potentially harmful elements (PHEs) in mg kg−1 in recovered soil (RS), polluted soil (PS), and Technosols (TO, TS, and TV).
Total (T)Water-Soluble (W)
SoilsAsTCdTCuTFeT *PbTZnTAsWCdWCuWFeWPbWZnW
RS51.44 ± 0.63 a1.98 ± 0.05 a112.03 ± 5.12 b29.88 ± 0.25 a117.36 ± 1.01 a420.35 ± 4.37 d0.269 ± 0.015 c0.010 ± 0.001 a0.405 ± 0.015 b9.943 ± 0.706 c0.078 ± 0.010 b0.606 ± 0.034 b
PS345.79 ± 5.64 d7.85 ± 0.13 d241.34 ± 5.60 d52.98 ± 0.79 c545.86 ± 9.05 d189.14 ± 2.40 b0.135 ± 0.009 a0.101 ± 0.010 b2.617 ± 0.038 d3.209 ± 0.125 abdl a7.061 ± 0.098 e
TO207.84 ± 1.85 c4.21 ± 0.27 b99.65 ± 1.19 ab38.25 ± 0.64 b329.30 ± 5.85 c163.07 ± 1.73 a0.377 ± 0.013 d0.015 ± 0.001 a3.301 ± 0.053 e7.718 ± 0.409 b0.089 ± 0.007 b1.585 ± 0.043 d
TS178.71 ± 3.75 b5.86 ± 0.13 c137.63 ± 3.06 c38.29 ± 0.39 b281.54 ± 4.90 b315.76 ± 5.71 c0.457 ± 0.014 e0.014 ± 0.001 a0.696 ± 0.015 c19.971 ± 1.010 d0.046 ± 0.006 a0.913 ± 0.019 c
TV212.20 ± 1.76 c5.88 ± 0.09 c93.70 ± 1.95 a39.91 ± 0.54 b333.45 ± 3.44 c181.46 ± 2.41 b0.199 ± 0.012 b0.006 ± 0.001 a0.130 ± 0.007 a3.251 ± 0.194 abdl a0.321 ± 0.018 a
p-value***********************************
LSD0.059.290.4412.861.5815.8210.410.040.010.091.690.020.15
Values are means ± standard error (n = 9), and letters indicate statistically significant differences between treatments means identified by Fisher’s least-significance difference test (LSD0.05). The levels of significance are represented by p > 0.05: p < 0.01 (**), and p < 0.001 (***). * in g kg−1. bdl: below the detection limit.
Table 3. Concentrations of potentially harmful elements (PHEs) in mg kg−1 in aerial part and roots of L. sativa plants grown in recovered soil (RS), polluted soil (PS), and Technosols (TO, TS, and TV).
Table 3. Concentrations of potentially harmful elements (PHEs) in mg kg−1 in aerial part and roots of L. sativa plants grown in recovered soil (RS), polluted soil (PS), and Technosols (TO, TS, and TV).
Aerial PartRoots
SoilsAsCdCuFePbZnAsCdCuFePbZn
RS2.21 ± 0.22 b0.88 ± 0.03 c57.14 ± 0.79 a85.80 ± 7.14 abdl a55.37 ± 0.46 b5.10 ± 0.86 b0.97 ± 0.04 a101.40 ± 2.81 ab5587 ± 132 a6.51 ± 0.48 b81.89 ± 6.08 a
PS0.65 ± 0.35 a0.55 ± 0.02 b152.59 ± 1.08 b70.32 ± 13.79 a0.78 ± 0.26 ab129.31 ± 3.21 d0.78 ± 0.68 a4.51 ± 0.72 b225.53 ± 6.00 c6074 ± 139 a2.40 ± 0.30 a893.85 ± 23.45 b
TO1.79 ± 0.14 ab0.27 ± 0.01 a185.56 ± 3.12 c73.98 ± 7.04 a0.38 ± 0.14 a49.53 ± 0.28 ab18.23 ± 0.72 d0.95 ± 0.81 a87.58 ± 9.39 a7322 ± 313 b11.28 ± 0.42 c65.27 ± 3.36 a
TS1.55 ± 0.18 ab0.23 ± 0.04 a363.08 ± 7.08 d164.51 ± 12.10 b1.32 ± 0.41 b44.06 ± 1.03 a17.15 ± 0.68 cd0.83 ± 0.68 a101.62 ± 7.07 ab8003 ± 628 b13.12 ± 0.49 d63.53 ± 5.03 a
TV2.56 ± 0.17 b1.57 ± 0.02 d68.86 ± 1.53 a67.01 ± 6.71 abdl a92.97 ± 1.76 c14.90 ± 0.81 c1.40 ± 0.81 a112.82 ± 2.07 b7741 ± 113 b19.88 ± 0.34 e83.87 ± 1.12 a
p-value*********************************
LSD0.051.120.0811.8228.100.625.422.182.2417.10883.711.1131.84
Values are means ± standard error (n = 9), and letters indicate statistically significant differences between treatments means identified by Fisher’s least-significance difference test (LSD0.05). The levels of significance were represented by p > 0.05: p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**), and p < 0.001 (***). bdl: below the detection limit.
Table 4. Photosynthetic and gas exchange parameters of L. sativa plants grown in recovered soil (RS), polluted soil (PS), and Technosols (TO, TS, and TV).
Table 4. Photosynthetic and gas exchange parameters of L. sativa plants grown in recovered soil (RS), polluted soil (PS), and Technosols (TO, TS, and TV).
SoilsACO2 (µmol CO2 m−2 s−1)E (mol H2O m−2 s−1)gs (mmol CO2 m−2 s−1)Ci (µmol CO2 mol air−1)WUE (µmol CO2 mol H2O−1)
RS4.34 ± 0.15 c1.21 ± 0.05 d93.40 ± 3.62 d311.63 ± 0.77 c3589.78 ± 30.19 a
PS0.98 ± 0.09 a0.16 ± 0.01 a11.50 ± 0.63 a257.85 ± 7.80 b5827.05 ± 338.38 b
TO2.52 ± 0.19 b0.80 ± 0.07 c59.40 ± 5.22 c313.34 ± 5.82 c3436.03 ± 256.61 a
TS2.89 ± 0.09 b0.37 ± 0.01 b26.80 ± 0.89 b215.43 ± 4.18 a7836.31 ± 196.14 c
TV4.38 ± 0.14 c1.26 ± 0.03 d95.00 ± 3.36 d311.94 ± 0.08 c3491.64 ± 42.17 a
p-value***************
LSD0.050.360.118.6012.82563.33
Net photosynthetic rate (ACO2), transpiration rate (E), stomatal conductance (gs), intracellular CO2 concentration (Ci), and water use efficiency (WUE). Values are means ± standard error (n = 9), and letters indicate statistically significant differences between treatment means identified by Fisher’s least-significance difference test (LSD0.05). The levels of significance were represented by p > 0.05: p < 0.001 (***).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

González-Quero, M.; Aguilar-Garrido, A.; Paniagua-López, M.; García-Huertas, C.; Sierra-Aragón, M.; Blasco, B. Physiological Response of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) Grown on Technosols Designed for Soil Remediation. Plants 2024, 13, 3222. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13223222

AMA Style

González-Quero M, Aguilar-Garrido A, Paniagua-López M, García-Huertas C, Sierra-Aragón M, Blasco B. Physiological Response of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) Grown on Technosols Designed for Soil Remediation. Plants. 2024; 13(22):3222. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13223222

Chicago/Turabian Style

González-Quero, Mateo, Antonio Aguilar-Garrido, Mario Paniagua-López, Carmen García-Huertas, Manuel Sierra-Aragón, and Begoña Blasco. 2024. "Physiological Response of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) Grown on Technosols Designed for Soil Remediation" Plants 13, no. 22: 3222. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13223222

APA Style

González-Quero, M., Aguilar-Garrido, A., Paniagua-López, M., García-Huertas, C., Sierra-Aragón, M., & Blasco, B. (2024). Physiological Response of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) Grown on Technosols Designed for Soil Remediation. Plants, 13(22), 3222. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13223222

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop