Next Article in Journal
Exploring Genetic Variation and Trait Correlations in ‘Shiqian Taicha’ Tea Based on Comprehensive Analyses of Morphological and Biochemical Diversity
Next Article in Special Issue
From Waste to Resource: Use of Lemna minor L. as Unconventional Fertilizer for Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.)
Previous Article in Journal
Nutrient Composition of Arugula Leafy Greens Following Application of Ascorbic Acid Foliar Sprays
Previous Article in Special Issue
Strategies for Achieving High and Sustainable Plant Productivity in Saline Soil Conditions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 10
Issue 11
10.3390/horticulturae10111127
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Arsenic Uptake and Distribution in Green Pea Plants Under Arsenite and Arsenate Treatments

by
Szilvia Várallyay
1,
Éva Bódi
1,
Andrea Balla Kovács
2,
Áron Soós
1,
Shaikh Ayaz Mukarram
1,3,4 and
Béla Kovács
1,3,*
1
Faculty of Agriculture, Food Science & Environmental Management, Institute of Food Science, University of Debrecen, Böszörményi út 138, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary
2
Institute of Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science, University of Debrecen, Böszörményi Str. 138, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary
3
Doctoral School of Nutrition and Food Sciences, University of Debrecen, Böszörményi út 138, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary
4
World Food Forum, I-00100 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2024, 10(11), 1127; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10111127
Submission received: 13 August 2024 / Revised: 29 September 2024 / Accepted: 22 October 2024 / Published: 23 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategies to Increase Horticultural Crop Production for a Sustainable Future World)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Soil arsenic (As) contamination is a global issue affecting regions worldwide. As in the soil is primarily present in inorganic forms, such as arsenite [As(III)] and arsenate [As(V)]. As is a microelement that is toxic to plants grown in As-contaminated soil. The aim of our study was to investigate the effects of increasing concentrations (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) of As(III) and As(V) on the As content in green pea (Pisum sativum L.) and the distribution of As among different plant parts at four phenophases (the four-node stage, beginning of flowering, green ripening, and mature stage). Another aim was to determine the percentage of total soil As available to plants under different treatments. The results indicate that the developmental stage of the pea and treatment concentration significantly influence the distribution of As among plant organs. However, the differences between the effect of inorganic As forms were less pronounced. The amount of As absorbed by the whole test plant increased with higher treatment concentrations. In the case of As(III)-treatment, As amount in the whole plant increased from 0.170 µg to 7.31 µg (I. Phenophase); from 0.294 µg to 10.1 µg (II. Phenophase); from 0.435 µg to 31.6 µg (III. Phenophase); and from 0.697 µg to 36.1 µg (IV. Phenophase). As a result of As(V)-treatment, the whole plant’s As content increased from 0.170 µg to 8.94 µg (I. Phenophase); from 0.294 µg to 17.4 µg (II. Phenophase); from 0.435 µg to 29.7 µg (III. Phenophase); and from 0.697 µg to 58.5 µg (IV. Phenophase). The concentration of As accumulated by the plant also increased over time. The proportion of As absorbed by generative parts was much smaller than that absorbed by vegetative organs. The pea seeds generally accumulated less As (maximum 7%) than the pea pods (in some cases, this reached the 10%). As the total amount of As taken up by the plant increased, the proportion of As reaching the seeds generally decreased (from 5% to 0.3% in the case of As[III]-treatment, and from 5% to 0.1% in the case of As[V]-treatment). At treatment levels where the ability of the stem to retain As increased, a maximum of 1% of the total As absorbed by the plant was found in the seeds. Depending on the treatment, 3.82–5.69% [As(V)-treatments] and 3.9–6.07% [As(III)-treatments] of the total soil As were available to the plants. The difference in the ratio of the total As content to the soluble As content was more evident at higher treatment levels (≥30 mg kg−1). This value was typically lower for the As(V)-treatments.

1. Introduction

Soil and groundwater contamination are severe environmental issues. As (As) is a contaminating element that causes global problems [1,2]. Soil and groundwater As contamination exist in several regions, including the USA, Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Chile, China, India, and parts of Hungary [2,3,4,5].
As contamination sources in soil and groundwater can be both natural and anthropogenic [2]. A significant portion of environmental As contamination is from human activities, with natural origin contributing a smaller proportion [6].
The As content in arable soil primarily depends on the parent rock [7], resulting in significant regional differences in the natural As content [6]. Uncontaminated soil typically contains 1–40 mg kg−1 of As [8]. Lower concentrations are typical for sandy and granitic soil, whereas higher values are found in alluvial and high organic matter soil [6].
In soil [9,10,11,12] and groundwater, As is mainly present in inorganic forms, which are much more toxic than organic forms [2]. In well-aerated soil under oxidative conditions, arsenate [As(V)] is common, whereas in anaerobic, waterlogged, and compacted soil, arsenite [As(III)] is the prevalent inorganic As form [2]. In terms of toxicity, As(III) is more toxic than As(V) [13].
Soluble As content in soil better characterizes the biologically utilizable and mobilizable As contents than the total As content [14]. The amount of As available to plants in soil is determined by several environmental factors (pH, Eh, organic matter content, presence of other ions, etc.) [15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Only a small portion of the total soil As is available to plants and is strongly bound to soil constituents [22]. Field studies showed that, with increasing soil As concentration, the As concentration in the sunflower test plant also increased. As content in rice and other plant parts presented the following order based on the As content in different plant parts: root > stem > leaf > grain > husk [23]. The amount of As in reproductive tissues does not increase significantly, even when the phytotoxic effect of As reduces plant growth by 50%. The amount of As absorbed by plants depends also on the Fe and Mn content in soil [21]. The amount of As absorbed by plants depends not only on the total soil As content, but also on the form in which As is present in the growing medium [24]. They found the following order of As uptake based on the different As forms: organic As > As(V) > As (III).
As is a non-essential and toxic microelement in plants [25,26,27]. Once inside a plant, it can inhibit various metabolic processes [28]. However, plants can survive abiotic stresses because of their defense mechanisms up to certain concentration levels. The As content in plants varies between 0.01 and 5 µg g−1 dry weight, depending on the environmental As content [29]. For plants grown in uncontaminated soil, this value ranges between 0.5 and 80 µg kg−1 [30]. A higher As content is primarily observed in vegetables and As-tolerant plants. Different plant species exhibit varying As tolerance levels. Potatoes, cabbage, tomatoes, carrots, tobacco, rye, Sudan grass, and grapes can tolerate high As concentrations, whereas maize, beetroot, and strawberries are moderately tolerant. Low tolerance is a characteristic of onions, cucumbers, and legumes [31,32,33].
The accumulation of contaminant elements in soil due to natural processes and anthropogenic activities generally remains stable, indicating that such contamination is not only a current issue, but also a future concern [34,35].
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of As(III) and As(V) in a greenhouse experiment. Green peas (Pisum sativum L.) were chosen as the test plant. Pea is the second most widely cultivated legume in the world. Furthermore, many pea-producing countries are affected by soil As contamination [36]. Our study presents the effects of As(III) and As(V) treatments on the As content of green peas (Pisum sativum L.) and the distribution of As among different plant parts (the root, stem, leaf, pod, and seed) during four phenophases (the four-node stage, beginning of flowering, green ripening, and mature stage).
In the soil tests, our aim was to determine what percentage of the total As content in the soil is available to plants (soluble As content) in the cases of As (III) and As(V) treatments.

2. Materials and Methods

Greenhouse Experiment

The experiment was conducted in calcareous chernozem soil from the Látókép Experimental Station of the Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences and Environmental Management at the University of Debrecen. The soil characteristics used in the experiment are described in Table 1 [37].
Fertilization was provided as follows: nitrogen as NH4NO3 (0.568 g pot−1), phosphorus as KH2PO4 (0.229 g pot−1), potassium as KH2PO4 (0.079 g pot−1), and K2SO4 (0.148 g pot−1) were added to 100 cm3 of distilled water solution per pot. (All the materials were purchased by different suppliers from different part of the world including Schar lab, Barcelona, Spain, Biolab and VWR international Ltd., Radnor, PA, USA).
As was added to the soil in the form of potassium dihydrogen arsenate (KH2AsO4) and sodium arsenite (NaAsO2), dissolved in ion-exchanged water (100 cm3 pot−1). Treatments of 0 (control), 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1 were applied to each As form in 3 replicates. As was added to the soil 1 week before peas planting.
We planted 25 pea seeds per pot, and this was thinned to 16 plants per pot after germination. The experiment was arranged in a randomized block design. Soil moisture was maintained at 60% of the maximum field capacity. Water loss due to evaporation and transpiration was compensated daily based on weight replenishment.
The greenhouse experiment was terminated at four Phenophase (four-node stage, beginning of flowering, green ripening, and mature stage) (Figure 1).
The differences in the toxicity of trivalent and pentavalent arsenic were pronounced in the dry mass, as shown in Figure 1. The result of the dry mass has been published previously [38].
The key operations’ dates are listed in Table 2.
During each Phenophase, four plants per pot were carefully removed to keep the roots intact. Soil particles were washed off from the roots with tap water and distilled water. The plants were separated into roots, stems, leaves, and pods (III. and IV. Phenophases), and the seeds (IV. Phenophase), and then dried in a Memmert UF 75 drying oven at 65 °C to a constant weight.

3. Preparation of Soil and Plant Samples

3.1. Preparation of Soil Samples

Soil sampling was performed on the same day as pea sowing, one week after soil mixing. Three sub-samples were collected from each pot.

3.2. Soluble As Content in Soil

After thoroughly homogenizing and drying the soil samples, we determined the soil soluble As content using the method developed by Lakanen–Erviö [39]. From the soil sample, 15 g was measured into a scintillation vial, and 15 cm3 of diluted extractant (0.5 M ammonium acetate + 0.5 M acetic acid + 0.02 M H4EDTA, pH = 4.65) was added. The vials were shaken for 60 min. The samples were filtered using Munktell Ahlstrom filter paper.

3.3. Total As Content in Soil

To determine the total As content, 1 g of the prepared (dried, homogenized) soil sample was measured in heat-resistant digestion tubes, and 5 cm3 concentrated HNO3 was added. The next day, the tubes were placed in an electric block digester (LABOR MIM OE-718/A). The samples were maintained at 60 °C for 30 min, 5 cm3 30% H2O2 was added, and the main digestion was carried out at 120 °C for 270 min. After cooling to room temperature, the digests were diluted to 50 cm3 with twice-distilled water and filtered through Filtrak 388 filter paper [40].

3.4. Preparation of Plant Samples

Plant samples were homogenized using a mortar and pestle after drying to a constant weight. The wet digestion method with HNO3-H2O2 developed by Kovács et al. (1996) [41] was used. A total of 0.1 g (±0.001 g) of the prepared samples was measured in heat-resistant test tubes. A total of 1 cm3 HNO3 was added, and the mixture was left overnight. The next day, the test tubes were placed in an electric block digester (LABOR MIM OE-718/A) at 60 °C for 30 min. Then, 0.3 cm3 30% H2O2 was added, and the main digestion was carried out at 120 °C for 90 min. After cooling to room temperature, the digests were diluted to 10 cm3 with ion-exchanged water (conductivity: 18.2 MΩ cm) and filtered through Filtrak 388 filter paper.

3.5. Elemental Analysis

To determine the As content of the soil and plant samples, we used a Thermo Scientific X-Series 2 quadrupole ICP-MS and an iCAP 6300 Dual ICP-OES (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). The ICP-OES and ICP-MS were controlled by iTEVA 2.8.0.97 and Thermo Plasma Lab 2.5.10.319 software. The measurement and setup parameters were the same as those used by Soós et al. [42]. ICP-OES parameters were the following: forward power of 1350 W, plasma gas flow rate of 12.0 L min−1, nebulizer gas flow rate of 1.0 L min−1, auxiliary gas flow rate of 1.0 L min−1, sample uptake speed of 50 rpm, and plasma view axial.
ICP-MS parameters were as follows: forward power of 1400 W, plasma gas flow rate of 14.0 L min−1, nebulizer gas flow rate of 0.86 L min−1, auxiliary gas flow rate of 0.88 L min−1, sample uptake speed of 20 rpm, dwell time of 100 ms, sweep of 9, and main run of 3. Collision cell gas (H2-He in 7:93%) was applied (6.0 mL min−1 flow rate). For the quantification of the As content, digested samples were diluted five times to decrease the acid content of the solution. Rh (40 μg L−1) was used as an internal standard. The experiment included the digestion and analysis of the reference soil (Wepal ISE 2010-3-1 calcareous clay soil, reference median value: 18.91 mg kg−1) and plant (Wepal IPE 2007-1-2 green peas sample, reference median value: 15.2 µg kg−1) samples. The measured values (18.85 mg kg−1 in the case of the soil, 15.0 µg kg−1 in the case of the plant) were within the margin of error in both cases.

3.6. Statistical Methods

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0. One-way ANOVA and Duncan’s tests were used to examine the relationships between parameters and factors. Differences were considered significant at p ≤ 0.5.

4. Results

4.1. Soil Examination Results

The amount of As available to plants is primarily determined by the soluble As content rather than the total As content. The results are summarized in Table 3.
The control soil contained As (2.07 ± 0.04 mg kg−1). The As(III) and As(V) treatments increased both the “total” and “soluble” As content in the soil. In the control soil, 38.6% of the As content was available to the plants. In the As(III) treatments, this value was in the range of 39–60.7%, and in the As(V) treatments, it was in the range of 38.2–56.9%. For the 30–270 mg kg−1 As(III) doses and the 270 mg kg−1 As(V) dose, more than half of the “total” As content in the soil was available to plants.

4.2. Effects of As(III) and As(V) Treatments on the As Content of Green Peas Grown in Pots

The results in Table 4 and Table 5 indicate that, in the I-II Phenophases, the total amount of As absorbed by the plants increases with the concentration of treatments.
The data in Table 4 and Table 5 also indicate that the amount of As absorbed by plants is greatly influenced by the amount of As in the soil and the developmental stage of the plant.
In I. Phenophase, approximately half of the As absorbed by the control plant was present in the leaf, with the rest evenly distributed between the stem and root. In contrast, for plants grown in As(III)- and As(V)-treated soil, the largest amount of As was found in the roots. Comparing the amount of As absorbed by the leaf and stem, we observed that for the 3–90 mg kg−1 As(III) and As(V) treatments, the amount of As in the leaf greatly exceeded that in the stem. For the 270 mg kg−1 As(V) dose, however, the amounts of As in the leaves and stems were approximately equal, whereas for the As(III) treatment, the stem contained more As than the leaf.
In II. Phenophase, the control plant showed similar results to I. Phenophase, with approximately half of the As absorbed accumulating in the leaf, and the rest evenly distributed between the stem and root. The data from Table 4 and Table 5 also highlight that most of the As absorbed from the soil is present in the roots, and the proportions of As in the stems and leaves are approximately equal for both treatment forms. The 10 mg kg−1 treatment was an exception, where the amount of As absorbed by the pea plant was approximately equally distributed among the vegetative parts.
In the green-ripening Phenophase (III Phenophase), the amount of As absorbed by the pea plants based on treatments is summarized in Table 6 and Table 7.
In the green-ripening Phenophase (III. Phenophase), the pod As content relative to the total amount of As absorbed by the plant was very low for both treatment forms. The pod contained a maximum of 1% of the total As absorbed by the plant for the As(V) treatments, but this value was not reached in the As (III) treatments.
When examining the As concentration in the vegetative parts, we found that the proportion of As retained by the root increased with As(V) doses above 3 mg kg−1. At the highest (270 mg kg−1) As(V) dose (270 mg kg−1), 94% of the total As absorbed by the test plant was present in the root. However, it is important to note that for the 0–10 mg kg−1 As(V) treatments, the highest proportion of As was not in the root, but in the leaf. We also observed that the proportion of As in the leaf exceeded that in the stem for the 0–90 mg kg−1 As(V) treatments, but in the highest treatment, the As content in the leaf and stem was equalized.
For the As (III) treatments, the ability of the root to retain As increased with the treatments, and we observed that, in most cases, the highest proportion of absorbed As was in the root, with the proportion in the leaf exceeding that in the stem, only for the 0–10 mg kg−1 treatments.
The results also indicate that increasing the soil As content significantly increases the total amount of As absorbed by the plant for both treatment forms, as well as in the full ripeness Phenophase (IV. Phenophase) (Table 8 and Table 9).
The data from Table 8 and Table 9 indicate that, for both treatment types, the smallest amount of As is present in the generative parts. Additionally, the amount of As accumulated in the generative parts relative to the total As absorbed by the plant decreased with increasing treatment concentrations in most cases. It is also important to highlight that the proportion of As absorbed by the pods exceeded that in the seeds for both treatment forms in almost every case.
When examining the amount of As absorbed by vegetative plant parts, we found that the proportion of As retained by the roots increased with As (III) doses above 3 mg kg−1. In most cases, the majority of the absorbed As accumulated in the root, with the proportion of As in the leaf exceeding that in the root only for the 3 mg kg−1 As (III) and 3–10 mg kg−1 As(V) doses.
The data also indicate that, for the lower-concentration As (III) treatments (0–10 mg kg−1), the proportion of As absorbed by the leaf exceeds that in the stem. However, for the 30–270 mg kg−1 treatments, the opposite was observed, with the roots and stems retaining more As. For the As (V)-treatments, this was only observed for the 90–270 mg kg−1 doses.

5. Discussions

5.1. Soil Examination Results

The results indicate that only a portion of the total As content in the soil is available to the plants. This is likely due to the good humus content of the soil used in the experiment (Table 1), which can bind some of the As in the soil, thus inhibiting the mobility of As in the soil–plant system [43,44]. Additionally, As can bind to the surfaces of iron, magnesium, aluminum, manganese oxides, and hydroxides present in soil, further inhibiting its mobility. This type of binding can occur for both arsenite and arsenate, although arsenates are typically adsorbed in large amounts [21]. This likely contributed to the lower ratio of soluble As content to total As content observed for the As(V) treatments, especially at higher (≥30 mg kg−1) treatment levels.
The pH of the calcareous chernozem soil used in the experiment was near neutral (6.58) (Table 1). Under nearly neutral conditions, metals are less likely to dissolve, and their compounds are stable [45], which may have also contributed to the lower soluble As concentration compared to the total As content.
These findings are similar to those of [22,46,47,48], who concluded that only a small portion of the total As content in the soil is available to plants. These results also support the assertion that As mobility is proportional to the amount of As introduced into the soil [49].

5.2. Plant Examination Results

In the greenhouse experiment, we found that the developmental stage of the plants and the treatment concentration significantly influenced the distribution of As among plant organs. However, the differences between the effects of inorganic As forms were less pronounced.
For both treatment forms, we found that the increasing concentration treatments increased As accumulation in the test plant, and the amount of As absorbed by each plant part increased continuously during the development of the peas, as did the total As concentration absorbed by the plant. This is consistent with the findings of other studies that higher As treatment concentrations increase the As content in various plant parts [50,51,52,53,54].
Generally, the As concentration that accumulated in the roots increased with higher treatment concentrations for most phenophases. However, it is important to note that, for lower treatment concentrations (≤10 mg kg−1), the highest proportion of absorbed As was often present in the leaves rather than the roots. This is like the findings of [24], who observed that, for soil with a low As content, the As concentration in the leaves of radishes exceeded that in the roots. The translocation of arsenic is not very efficient in most plant species, with the exception of hyperaccumulator plants. Most of the arsenic accumulates in the root [28]. One possible explanation for this is that As forms a complex with phytochelatin and accumulates in the vacuole, resulting in a decrease in its transport toward the xylem [26,28]. The synthesis of phytochelatins, polypeptides involved in the exclusion, sequestration, and binding of toxic metal ions, starts first in the root, as this is the part of the plant where arsenic first appears during plant uptake and where, according to the experimental results, it predominantly accumulates. In the case of arsenic treatment-induced stress processes, it can be interpreted as part of the plant’s detoxification mechanism that arsenic accumulates predominantly in the root. This defense mechanism allows them to survive this kind of abiotic stress [28]. Raab et al. [55] also suggest that plants are protected from poisoning by storage in the vacuoles.
In the early stages of plant development (I. phenophase), the proportion of As in the leaves exceeded that in the stems, in most cases. As time progressed, the As content in the leaf and stem became approximately equal, and the As-retention capability of the stem increased. This can also be interpreted as part of the plant’s detoxification mechanism.
The results indicate that generative organs receive less As than vegetative organs. Additionally, the proportion of As in the pod generally exceeded that in the seed. The results also show that, at treatment levels where the ability of the stem to retain As increases relative to the leaf, a maximum of 1% of the total As absorbed by the plant reaches the pea seed, which is an important finding, from a human nutrition perspective. This supports the assertion that As is difficult to move within the plant, and only a small portion reaches the generative organs [23,50,56,57,58].

6. Conclusions

Arsenic is a toxic element for plants. In this study, we also investigated the effect of As(III) and As(V) treatments on the arsenic content of green peas. The critical arsenic concentration to the arsenic content of the crop is highly dependent on the soil type. Our results are valid for calcareous chernozem soil. The concentrations used range from uncontaminated to heavily contaminated soil (270 mg kg−1 provocative concentration). The study demonstrated that the distribution of As among plant organs was primarily determined by the treatment concentration and the developmental stage of the plant, with less pronounced differences between the effects of the As forms. Increasing the soil As content increased the total amount of As absorbed by the test plant for both treatment forms.
Overall, a much smaller proportion of As reached the generative parts of the pea compared to the vegetative parts.
The total and soluble As contents of the soil were also investigated. The results of the experiment show that only a small portion of the total As content in the soil is available to the plants. The amount of available As (“soluble” As content) generally increased with the total As content in the soil. Differences in the ratio of the total As content to the soluble As content were more evident at higher treatment levels (≥30 mg kg−1). For the As(V) treatments, this ratio was typically lower.
To avoid excessive As in peas, it is advisable to carry out preventive soil tests before planting. On the basis of the soil test results, it can be concluded that the excessive amount of As in peas can be avoided.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: A.B.K. and B.K.; methodology, A.B.K., S.V., S.A.M. and B.K.; software, S.A.M.; validation, Á.S.; formal analysis, S.V. and S.A.M.; investigation, S.V., Á.S. and É.B.; resources, B.K; data curation, S.V., Á.S. and B.K.; writing—original draft preparation, S.V.; writing—review and editing, S.A.M., Á.S. and B.K.; visualization, S.A.M. and S.V.; supervision, B.K.; project administration, B.K.; funding acquisition, B.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Project No. TKP2021-NKTA-32 was implemented with support from the National Research, Development, and Innovation Fund of Hungary, financed under the TKP2021-NKTA funding scheme, and supported by the University of Debrecen Program for Scientific Publication.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. (The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions given by the university.)

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to all authors for their contribution and the University of Debrecen for providing the wonderful opportunity to conduct our research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

References

  1. Liao, X.Y.; Chen, T.B.; Lei, M.; Huang, Z.C.; Xiao, X.Y.; An, Z.Z. Root distributions and elemental accumulations of Chinese brake (Pteris vittata L.) from As-contaminated soils. Plant Soil 2004, 261, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mandal, K.B.; Suzuki, T.K. Arsenic around the world: A review. Talanta 2002, 58, 201–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Mukherjee, A.B.; Bhattacharya, P. Arsenic in the groundwater in the Bengal Delta Plain: Slow poisoning in Bangladesh. Environ. Res. 2001, 9, 189–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Smedley, P.L.; Kinniburgh, D.G. A review of the source, behaviour and distribution of arsenic in natural waters. Appl. Geochem. 2002, 17, 517–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rowland, H.A.L.; Omoregie, E.O.; Millot, R.; Jimenez, C.; Mertens, J.; Baciu, C.; Hug, S.J.; Berg, M. Geochemistry and arsenic behaviour in groundwater resources of the Pannonian Basin (Hungary and Romania). Appl. Geochem. 2011, 26, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nriagu, J.O.P.; Bhattacharya, P.; Mukherjee, A.B.; Bundschuh, J.; Zevenhoven, R.; Loeppert, R.H. Arsenic in soil and groundwater: An overview. Trace Met. Other Contam. Environ. 2007, 9, 3–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ramos-Miras, J.J.; Díaz-Férnandez, P.; SanJosé-Wery, A.; Rodríguez-Martin, J.A.; Roca, N.; Bech, J.; Roca-Perez, L.; Boluda, R.; Gil, C. Influence of parent material and soil use on arsenic forms in soils: A case study in the Amblés Valley (Castilla-León, Spain). J. Geochem. Explor. 2014, 147, 260–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yang, X.; Liu, L.; Qiu, W.G. Remediation of As-contaminated soils using citrate extraction coupled with electrochemical removal. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 817, 153042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Takamatsu, T.; Aoki, H.; Yoshida, T. Determination of arsenate, arsenite, monomethylarsonate, dimethylarsinate in soil polluted with arsenic. Soil Sci. 1982, 133, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Koch, I.; Wang, L.; Ollson, C.A.; Cullen, W.R.; Reimer, K.J. The predominance of inorganic arsenic species in plants from Yellowknife, Northwest territories, Canada. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mattusch, J.; Wennrich, R.; Schmidt, A.C.; Reisser, W. Determination of arsenic species in water, soils and plants. Fresenius J. Anal. Chem. 2000, 366, 200–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Mestrot, A.; Feldmann, J.; Krupp, E.M.; Hossain, M.S.; Roman-Ross, G.; Meharg, A.A. Field fluxes and speciation of arsines emanating from soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 1798–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ullrich-Eberius, C.I.; Sanz, A.; Novacky, A.J. Evaluation of arsenate- and vanadate-associated changes of electrical membrane potential and phosphate transport in Lemna gibba G1. J. Exp. Bot. 1989, 40, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Farnese, F.S.; Oliveira, J.A.; Farnese, M.S.; Gusman, G.S.; Silveira, M.N.; Siman, L.I. Uptake arsenic by plants: Effects on mineral nutrition, growth and antioxidant capacity. Idesia 2014, 32, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Huang, P.M. Retention of arsenic by hydroxy-aluminum on surface of micaceous mineral colloids. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 1975, 39, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dudas, M.J. Accumulation of native arsenic in acid sulphate soils in Alberta. Can. J. Soil Sci. 1987, 67, 317–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chiu, V.Q.; Hering, J.G. Arsenic adsorption and oxidation at manganite surfaces. 1. Method for simultaneous determination of adsorbed and dissolved arsenic species. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 2029–2034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jones, C.A.; Langner, H.W.; Anderson, K.; McDermott, T.R.; Inskeep, W.P. Rates of microbially mediated arsenate reduction and solubilization. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 2000, 64, 600–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bissen, M.; Frimmel, F.H. Arsenic—A review: Part, I. Occurrences, toxicity, speciation, and mobility. Acta Hydrochim. Hydrobiol. 2003, 31, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ghosh, A.K.; Bhattacharya, P. Arsenate sorption by reduced and reoxidised rice soils under the infl uence of organic matter amelioration. Environ. Geol. 2004, 45, 1010–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Moreno-Jiménez, E.; Esteban, E.; Peñalosa, J.M. The Fate of Arsenic in Soil-Plant Systems. In Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology; Whitacre, D.M., Ed.; Springer Science+Business Media LLC: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Muller, S.; Daus, B.; Morgenstern, P.; Wennrich, R. Mobilization of antimony and arsenic in soil sediment samples; Evaluation of different leaching procedure. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2007, 183, 427–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Huq, S.M.I.; Naidu, R. Arsenic in groundwater and contamination of the food chain: Bangladesh scenario. In Natural Arsenic in Groundwater: Occurrence, Remediation and Management; Bundschuh, J., Ed.; Taylor and Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tlustos, P.; Balik, J.; Szakova, J.; Pavlikova, D. The accumulation of arsenic in radish biomass when different forms of As were applied in the soil. Rostl. Vyrob. 1998, 44, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  25. Quaghebeur, M.; Rengel, Z. The distribution of arsenate and arsenite in shoots and roots of Holcus lanatus in influenced by arsenic tolerance and arsenate and phosphate supply. Plant. Physiol. 2003, 132, 1600–1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Raab, A.; Ferreira, K.; Meharg, A.A.; Feldmann, J. Can arsenic-phytochelatin complex formation be used as an indicator for toxicity in Helianthus annuus? J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 58, 1333–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Szabó, A.; Pokovai, K.; Ragályi, P.; Rékási, M.; Sándor, R.; Bernhardt, B.; Koncz, J.; Kremper, R.; Csathó, P. Nehézfém- és egyéb toxikus mikroelem-terhelés tartamhatása a főtermés mennyiségére szabadföldi kísérletben. Agrokémia Talajt. 2019, 68, 259–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhao, F.J.; Ma, J.F.; Meharg, A.A.; McGrath, S.P. Arsenic uptake and metabolism in plants. New Phytol. 2009, 181, 777–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kádár, I. The Examination of Heavy Metal Content in Soils and Plants; Environmental and Nature Conservation Research; Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development; Hungarian Academy of Sciences Institute of Soil Science and Agrochemistry: Budapest, Hungary, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kabata-Pendias, A. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants, 4th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  31. Liebig, G.F. Arsenic. In Diagnostic Criteria for Plants and Soils; Chapman, H.D., Ed.; University of California: Riverside, CA, USA, 1966; pp. 22–45. [Google Scholar]
  32. Jacobs, L.W.; Syers, J.K.; Keeney, D.R. Arsenic sorption by soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 1970, 34, 750–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Woolson, E.A.; Axley, J.H.; Kearney, P.C. The chemistry and phytotoxicity of arsenic in soils: 11. Effects of time and phosphorus. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 1973, 37, 254–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kádár, I. The Contamination of the Soil-Plant-Animal-Human Food Chain with Chemical Elements in Hungary; KTM; MTA TAKI: Budapest, Hungary, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kádár, I. The Environmental Impact of Major Polluting Micronutrients; MTA ATK Institute of Soil Science and Agrochemistry: Budapest, Hungary, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ambrose, M.; Smýkal, P.; Singh, N.; Shehadeh, A.; Marcos, T.; Nóbrega, H.; Giovannini, P. Global Strategy for the Conservation and Use of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Genetic Resources; Global Crop Diversity Trust: Bonn, Germany, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kovács, B.; Puskás-Preszner, A.; Huzsvai, L.; Lévai, L.; Bódi, É. Effect of molybdenum treatment on molybdenum concentration and nitrate reduction in maize seedlings. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2015, 96, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Várallyay, S.; Kovács, A.B.; Soós, Á.; Kovács, B. Effect of different arsenic-treatments on the dry weight of vegetative plant parts green pea in the different phenophase of the plant development. Ann. Acad. Rom. Sci. Ser. Agric. Silvic. Vet. Med. Sci. 2017, 6, 144–151. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lakanen, E.; Erviö, R. A comparison of eight extractants for determination of plant available micronutrients in soil. Acta Agron. Fenn. 1971, 123, 23–232. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kovács, B.; Győri, Z.; Prokisch, J.; Loch, J.; Dániel, P. Studies on soil sample preparation for inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry analys. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2000, 31, 1949–1963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kovács, B.; Gyôri, Z.; Prokisch, J.; Loch, J.; Dániel, P. A study of plant sample preparation and inductively coupled plasma emission spectrometry parameters. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1996, 27, 1177–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Soós, Á.; Bódi, É.; Várallyay, S.; Molnár, S.; Kovács, B. Mineral content of propolis tinctures in relation to the extraction time and the ethanol content of the extraction solvent. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 111, 719–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jacobs, L.W.; Keeney, D.R. Arsenic-phosphorus interactions on corn. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1970, 1, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Woolson, E.A. Arsenic phytotoxicity and uptake in six vegetable crops. Weed Sci. 1973, 21, 524–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Filep, G.Y. Talajszennyeződés, talajtisztítás. In Talajtan; Stefanovits, P., Filep, G.Y., Füleki, G.Y., Eds.; Mezőgazda Kiadó: Budapest, Hungary, 1999; pp. 363–381. [Google Scholar]
  46. Szegedi, L.; Bélteki, I.; Fodorné Fehér, E. A talaj és növények arzén tartalmának összefüggés vizsgálata nehézfém terheléses tartamkísérletben. Acta Carolicus Roberticus 2013, 3, 135–144. [Google Scholar]
  47. Szabó, A.; Pokovai, K.; Ragályi, P.; Rékási, M.; Sándor, R.; Bernhardt, B.; Koncz, J.; Kremper, R.; Csathó, P. Nehézfém- és egyéb toxikus mikroelem-terhelés tartamhatása a talajból mért visszanyerési százalékuk alakulására szabadföldi kísérletekben. Agrokémia Talajt. 2019, 68, 293–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Szabó, A.; Pokovai, K.; Ragályi, P.; Rékási, M.; Sándor, R.; Bernhardt, B.; Koncz, J.; Haszon, B.; Kremper, R.; Csathó, P. Nehézfém- és egyéb toxikus mikroelem-terhelés tartamhatása a talaj károselem alakulására, szabadföldi kísérletben. Acta Agron. Óváriensis 2019, 60, 52–89. [Google Scholar]
  49. Violante, A.; Del Gaudio, S.; Pigna, M.; Pucci, M.; Amalfinato, C. Sorption and desorption of arsenic by soil minerals and soils in the presence of nutrients and organics. In Interactions of Soil Minerals, Organic Matter and Microorganism in Soils; Huang, Q., Violante, A., Huang, P.M., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 39–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. MacPheel, A.W.; Chisholm, D.; MacEachern, C.R. The persistence of certain pesticides in the soil and their effect on crop yields. Can. J. Soil Sci. 1960, 40, 59–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Porter, E.K.; Peterson, P.J. Arsenic accumulation by plants on mine waste, United Kingdom. Sci. Total Environ. 1975, 4, 365–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lyubun, Y.V.; Kosterin, P.V.; Zakharova, E.A.; Shcherbakov, A.A.; Fedorov, E.E. Arsenic-contaminated soils phytotoxicity studies with sunflower and sorghum. J. Soils Sediments 2002, 2, 143–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Melo, E.E.C.; Costa, E.T.S.; Guilherme, L.R.G.; Faquin, V.; Nascimento, C.W.A. Accumulation of arsenic and nutrients by castor bean plants grown on an As-enriched nutrient solution. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 168, 479–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Kumar, D.; Singh, V.P.; Tripathi, D.K.; Prasad, S.M.; Chauhan, D.K. Effect of arsenic on growth, arsenic uptake, distribution of nutrient elements and thiols in seedlings of Wrightia arborea (Dennst.) Mabb. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2015, 23, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Raab, A.; Feldmann, J.; Meharg, A.A. The nature of arsenic-phytochelatin complexes in Holcus lanatus and Pteris cretica. Plant Physiol. 2004, 134, 1113–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wells, B.R.; Gilmor, J.T. Sterility in rice cultivars as influenced by MSMA rate and water management. Agron. J. 1977, 69, 451–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Liu, Q.; Hu, C.; Tan, Q.; Sun, X.; Su, J.; Liang, Y. Effects of As on As uptake, speciation, and nutrient uptake by winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under hydroponic conditions. J. Environ. Sci. 2008, 20, 326–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Smith, S.E.; Christophersen, H.M.; Pope, S.; Smith, F.A. Arsenic uptake and toxicity in plants: Integrating mycorrhizal influences. Plant Soil 2010, 327, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Horticulturae 10 01127 g001
Figure 1. (A,B) effects of increasing concentrations (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) of As(III) and As(V) treatments on pea plant development at full ripeness. (A) Effects of increasing concentrations (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) of As(III) treatments on pea plant development at the mature stage. (B) Effects of increasing concentrations (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) of As(V) treatments on pea plant development at the mature stage. The captions in the pictures show the treatment concentrations. As(III) means arsenite treatment; As(V) means arsenate treatment.
Figure 1. (A,B) effects of increasing concentrations (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) of As(III) and As(V) treatments on pea plant development at full ripeness. (A) Effects of increasing concentrations (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) of As(III) treatments on pea plant development at the mature stage. (B) Effects of increasing concentrations (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) of As(V) treatments on pea plant development at the mature stage. The captions in the pictures show the treatment concentrations. As(III) means arsenite treatment; As(V) means arsenate treatment.
Horticulturae 10 01127 g001
Table 1. Characteristics of the calcareous chernozem soil used in the experiment.
Table 1. Characteristics of the calcareous chernozem soil used in the experiment.
No.ExperimentValues
1.Depth0–0.3 m
2.pH (KCl)5.71
3.pH (H2O)6.58
4.Soil texture categoryLoamy clay
5.Total water-soluble salt0.015%
6.CaCO30.202%
7.Humus3.54%
8.KCl-soluble NO3-N+NO2-N8.04
9.AL-soluble P2O5199 mg kg−1
10.AL-soluble K2O451 mg kg−1
11.AL-soluble Na332 mg kg−1
12.KCl-soluble Mg176 mg kg−1
13.KCl-soluble SO42−-S6.04 mg kg−1
14.KCl-EDTA-soluble Cu5.79 mg kg−1
15.KCl-EDTA-soluble Zn7.9 mg kg−1
16.KCl-EDTA-soluble Mn262 mg kg−1
Air-dried (11 kg) sieved soil (1 × 1 cm mesh) was measured into each pot.
Table 2. Dates of major operations in the greenhouse experiment.
Table 2. Dates of major operations in the greenhouse experiment.
No.Process TimelineDates of Experiments
1.Soil mixing5 April
2.Soil sampling12 April
3.Pea sowing12 April
4.I. Phenophase (four-node stage)11 May
5.II. Phenophase (beginning of flowering)24 May
6.III. Phenophase (green ripening)6 June
7.IV. Phenophase (mature stage)13 June
Table 3. Total and soluble As content in the calcareous chernozem soil used in the experiment (mg kg−1) and their ratios based on the applied treatments (0, 1, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1 As) (mean ± standard deviation).
Table 3. Total and soluble As content in the calcareous chernozem soil used in the experiment (mg kg−1) and their ratios based on the applied treatments (0, 1, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1 As) (mean ± standard deviation).
As Treatment (mg kg−1)“Total”
As Content
(mg kg−1)
(A)		“Soluble”
As Content
(mg kg−1)
(B)		B/A
As(III)02.07 ± 0.04 a0.799 ± 0.064 a0.386
13.23 ± 0.17 a1.61 ± 0.12 ab0.497
35.20 ± 0.28 a2.54 ± 0.78 ab0.488
1012.4 ± 1.7 b4.84 ± 0.12 b0.390
3031.9 ± 1.8 c19.3 ± 1.6 c0.607
9093.4 ± 1.2 d53.3 ± 3.2 d0.570
270273 ± 6 e162 ± 10 e0.593
As(V)02.07 ± 0.04 a0.799 ± 0.064 a0.386
13.20 ± 0.60 a1.57 ± 0.20 ab0.490
35.26 ± 0.25 a2.53 ± 0.37 ab0.481
1011.6 ± 0.1 b4.42 ± 0.18 ab0.382
3032.1 ± 0.5 c15.7 ± 1.1 b0.488
9092.0 ± 4.3 d39.1 ± 2.6 c0.425
270269 ± 4 e153 ± 17 d0.569
In the case of each As form, there was a significant difference between treatments marked with a, b, c, d, and e at the 0.5 significance level.
Table 4. Amount of As absorbed by green pead grown in pots at increasing concentrations of As(III) treatments (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) (mean ± standard deviation).
Table 4. Amount of As absorbed by green pead grown in pots at increasing concentrations of As(III) treatments (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) (mean ± standard deviation).
As(III)
Treatment
(mg kg−1)		Amount of As Absorbed by Green Pea Vegetative Organs (µg)
I. Phenophase (Four-Node Stage)II. Phenophase (Beginning of Flowering)
LeafStemRootWholeLeafStemRootWhole
PlantPlant
00.0854 ± 0.001 a0.0391 ± 0.0007 a0.0459 ± 0.0009 a 0.1700.126 ± 0.002 a 0.0867 ± 0.0005 a 0.0809 ± 0.0022 a 0.294
30.0791 ± 0.0004 a0.0422 ± 0.0002 a 0.119 ± 0.003 a 0.2400.116 ± 0.001 a 0.1046 ± 0.0005 ab 0.279 ± 0.004 b 0.500
100.130 ± 0.001 b0.057 ± 0.001 a 0.205 ± 0.005 a 0.3920.286 ± 0.015 a 0.245 ± 0.005 b 0.319 ± 0.012 b 0.850
300.542 ± 0.005 b0.228 ± 0.001 b1.28 ± 0.03 b 2.050.859 ± 0.006 b0.637 ± 0.003 b 2.90 ± 0.33 c 4.40
900.874 ± 0.008 b0.330 ± 0.000 b 4.01 ± 0.03 b 5.210.989 ± 0.016 b 1.588 ± 0.048 c 6.12 ± 0.11 c 8.70
2700.269 ± 0.013 b0.882 ± 0.015 b 6.16 ± 0.12 b 7.31 0.623 ± 0.046 b 1.49 ± 0.02 c 8.00 ± 0.20 c 10.1
In the case of the same plant part, there is a significant difference between treatments marked with a, b, and c at the 0.5 significance level. Values represent the percentage of total As absorbed by a specific plant part.
Table 5. Amount of As absorbed by green peas grown in pots at increasing concentrations of As(V) treatments (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) (mean ± standard deviation).
Table 5. Amount of As absorbed by green peas grown in pots at increasing concentrations of As(V) treatments (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) (mean ± standard deviation).
As(V)
Treatment
(mg kg−1) 		Amount of As Absorbed by Green Pea Vegetative Organs (µg)
I. Phenophase (Four-Node Stage)II. Phenophase (Beginning of Flowering)
LeafStemRootWholeLeafStemRootWhole
PlantPlant
00.0854 ± 0.001 a 0.0391 ± 0.0007 a 0.0459 ± 0.0009 a 0.1700.126 ± 0.002 a 0.0867 ± 0.0005 a 0.0809 ± 0.0022 a 0.294
30.129 ± 0.001 ab0.0840 ± 0.0030 a0.285 ± 0.006 b 0.4980.165 ± 0.027 a 0.168 ± 0.007 b 0.322 ± 0.01 b* 0.655
100.392 ± 0.005 b0.161 ± 0.001 b0.464 ± 0.016 b1.020.880 ± 0.006 a0.752 ± 0.027 b0.761 ± 0.014 b2.39
300.363 ± 0.004 b0.208 ± 0.007 b 1.30 ± 0.09 c 1.870.920 ± 0.020 a 0.883 ± 0.006 bc2.80 ± 0.02 c 4.61
901.08 ± 0.02 c 0.540 ± 0.001 b7.72 ± 0.07 d9.341.22 ± 0.07 b1.07 ± 0.02 c9.86 ± 0.03 d12.2
2700.234 ± 0.003 b 0.402 ± 0.005 b8.30 ± 0.20 d8.940.409 ± 0.001 a0.617 ± 0.165 b16.3 ± 0.1 e17.4
In the case of the same plant part, there is a significant difference between treatments marked with a, b, c, d, and e at the 0.5 significance level. Values represent the percentage of total As absorbed by a specific plant part. As treatment: * p < 0.05.
Table 6. Amount of As absorbed by green pea plants in the green-ripening Phenophase at increasing concentrations of As(III) treatments (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) (mean ± standard deviation).
Table 6. Amount of As absorbed by green pea plants in the green-ripening Phenophase at increasing concentrations of As(III) treatments (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) (mean ± standard deviation).
As(III) Treatment
(mg kg−1)		Amount of As Absorbed by Green Pea (µg)
PodLeafStemRootWhole Plant
0<LOD a 0.160 ± 0.001 a 0.134 ± 0.004 a 0.141 ± 0.001 a 0.435
3<LOD a 0.236 ± 0.003 a 0.128 ± 0.003 a 0.562 ± 0.033 a 0.926
10<LOD a 0.513 ± 0.009 a 0.315 ± 0.024 a 1.74 ± 0.02 b 2.58
300.0124 ± 0.0012 b 1.15 ± 0.06 b 1.46 ± 0.03 b 6.24 ± 0.08 c 8.89
900.0200 ± 0.0001 b 1.61 ± 0.02 b 3.00 ± 0.10 b 14.2 ± 0.8 d 19.0
2700.0900 ± 0.0010 b 0.902 ± 0.038 b 1.80 ± 0.01 b 28.5 ± 0.3 e 31.6
In the case of the same plant part, there is a significant difference between treatments marked with a, b, c, d, and e at the 0.5 significance level. Values represent the percentage of total As absorbed by a specific plant part. LOD means below the limit of detection (1.9 µg kg−1).
Table 7. Amount of As absorbed by green pea plants in the green-ripening Phenophase at increasing concentrations of As(V) treatments (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) (mean ± standard deviation).
Table 7. Amount of As absorbed by green pea plants in the green-ripening Phenophase at increasing concentrations of As(V) treatments (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) (mean ± standard deviation).
As(V) Treatment (mg kg−1)
Increasing Concentrations		Amount of As Absorbed by Green Pea (µg)
PodLeafStemRootWhole Plant
0<LOD a 0.160 ± 0.001 a0.134 ± 0.004 a 0.141 ± 0.001 a 0.435
3<LOD a 0.677 ± 0.005 a0.609 ± 0.014 a 0.461 ± 0.003 a 1.75
10<LOD a 1.61 ± 0.02 b 0.946 ± 0.011 ab 1.27 ± 0.01 b 3.83
300.0629 ± 0.0073 b 1.61 ± 0.06 b 1.06 ± 0.01 b 5.06 ± 0.23 b 7.79
900.0364 ± 0.0012 b 1.55 ± 0.02 b 1.25 ± 0.02 b 22.9 ± 0.2 d 25.7
2700.17 ± 0.004 c 0.751 ± 0.063 a 0.762 ± 0.012 a 28.0 ± 0.2 d 29.7
In the case of the same plant part, there is a significant difference between treatments marked with a, b, c, and d at the 0.5 significance level. Values represent the percentage of total As absorbed by a specific plant part. <LOD means that it is under the limit of detection (1.9 µg kg−1).
Table 8. Amount of As absorbed by green pea plants in the mature stage Phenophase at increasing concentrations of As(III) treatments (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) (mean ± standard deviation).
Table 8. Amount of As absorbed by green pea plants in the mature stage Phenophase at increasing concentrations of As(III) treatments (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) (mean ± standard deviation).
As(III) Treatment
(mg kg−1)		Amount of As Absorbed by Green Pea (µg)
SeedPodLeafStemRootWhole Plant
00.0365 ± 0.0019 a 0.0665 ± 0.0013 a 0.180 ± 0.003 a 0.153 ± 0.003 a 0.261 ± 0.001 a 0.697
30.0873 ± 0.0026 a 0.203 ± 0.011 b 1.02 ± 0.02 b 0.608 ± 0.058 ab 0.702 ± 0.002 a 2.62
100.0923 ± 0.0007 a 0.192 ± 0.003 b 1.65 ± 0.02 b 0.912 ± 0.011 b 3.02 ± 0.06 b 5.87
300.0733 ± 0.0008 a 0.164 ± 0.008 b 1.74 ± 0.01 b 2.11 ± 0.01 c 10.1 ± 0.2 c 14.1
900.0805 ± 0.0022 a 0.123 ± 0.001 b 3.68 ± 0.15 c 4.57 ± 0.25 d 20.6 ± 0.5 d 29.1
2700.1306 ± 0.0032 b 0.437 ± 0.007 c 1.71 ± 0.04 b 4.42 ± 0.04 d 29.4 ± 0.12 d 36.1
In the case of the same plant part, there is a significant difference between treatments marked with a, b, c and d at the 0.5 significance level. Values represent the percentage of total As absorbed by a specific plant part.
Table 9. Amount of As absorbed by green pea plants in the full ripeness Phenophase at increasing concentrations of As(V) treatments (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) (n = 3 ± s.e.).
Table 9. Amount of As absorbed by green pea plants in the full ripeness Phenophase at increasing concentrations of As(V) treatments (0, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 270 mg kg−1) (n = 3 ± s.e.).
As(V) Treatment (mg kg−1)Amount of As Absorbed by Green Pea (µg)
SeedPodLeafStemRootWhole Plant
00.036 ± 0.002 a 0.0664 ± 0.0013 a 0.180 ± 0.003 a 0.153 ± 0.003 a 0.261 ± 0.001 a 0.696
30.170 ± 0.001 b 0.162 ± 0.002 b0.845 ± 0.002 b0.786 ± 0.011 a 0.623 ± 0.011 a 2.59
100.182 ± 0.008 b 0.259 ± 0.003 b 2.64 ± 0.01 c 1.53 ± 0.01 b 1.41 ± 0.01 b 6.02
300.140 ± 0.01 b 0.198 ± 0.001 b 2.36 ± 0.01 c 1.98 ± 0.01 b 7.82 ± 0.07 c12.5
900.180 ± 0.001 b 0.408 ± 0.007 b 2.90 ± 0.01 c 5.19 ± 0.04 c 30.42 ± 0.09 d 39.1
2700.070 ± 0.001 b 0.79 ± 0.017 c5.63 ± 0.17 d10.8 ± 0.2 d41.23 ± 0.21 e 58.5
In the case of the same plant part, there is no significant difference between treatments marked with the same letter (p ≤ 0.5). Values represent the percentage of total As absorbed by a specific plant part.
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

Várallyay, S.; Bódi, É.; Balla Kovács, A.; Soós, Á.; Mukarram, S.A.; Kovács, B. Arsenic Uptake and Distribution in Green Pea Plants Under Arsenite and Arsenate Treatments. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 1127. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10111127

AMA Style

Várallyay S, Bódi É, Balla Kovács A, Soós Á, Mukarram SA, Kovács B. Arsenic Uptake and Distribution in Green Pea Plants Under Arsenite and Arsenate Treatments. Horticulturae. 2024; 10(11):1127. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10111127

Chicago/Turabian Style

Várallyay, Szilvia, Éva Bódi, Andrea Balla Kovács, Áron Soós, Shaikh Ayaz Mukarram, and Béla Kovács. 2024. "Arsenic Uptake and Distribution in Green Pea Plants Under Arsenite and Arsenate Treatments" Horticulturae 10, no. 11: 1127. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10111127

APA Style

Várallyay, S., Bódi, É., Balla Kovács, A., Soós, Á., Mukarram, S. A., & Kovács, B. (2024). Arsenic Uptake and Distribution in Green Pea Plants Under Arsenite and Arsenate Treatments. Horticulturae, 10(11), 1127. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10111127

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