Next Article in Journal
Teeth Arrangement and Pole–Slot Combination Design for PMLSM Detent Force Reduction
Next Article in Special Issue
Microwave Soil Heating with Evanescent Fields from Slow-Wave Comb and Ceramic Applicators
Previous Article in Journal
Organizational Culture as a Prerequisite for Knowledge Transfer among IT Professionals: The Case of Energy Companies
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 14
Issue 23
10.3390/en14238140
energies-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Microwave Soil Treatment along with Biochar Application Alleviates Arsenic Phytotoxicity and Reduces Rice Grain Arsenic Concentration

by
Mohammad Humayun Kabir
1,2,
Graham Brodie
1,*,
Dorin Gupta
1 and
Alexis Pang
1
1
Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Dookie 3647, Australia
2
Department of Soil Science, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Gazipur 1706, Bangladesh
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2021, 14(23), 8140; https://doi.org/10.3390/en14238140
Submission received: 3 November 2021 / Revised: 30 November 2021 / Accepted: 30 November 2021 / Published: 4 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Applications of Microwave Technologies in Agricultural, Resource Management and Energy Industries)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Rice grain arsenic (As) is a major pathway of human dietary As exposure. This study was conducted to reduce rice grain As concentration through microwave (MW) and biochar soil treatment. Collected soils were spiked to five levels of As concentration (As-0, As-20, As-40, As-60, and As-80 mg kg−1) prior to applying three levels of biochar (BC-0, BC-10, and BC-20 t ha−1) and three levels of MW treatment (MW-0, MW-3, and MW-6 min). The results revealed that MW soil treatment alleviates As phytotoxicity as rice plant growth and grain yield increase significantly and facilitate less grain As concentration compared with the control. For instance, the highest grain As concentration (912.90 µg kg−1) was recorded in the control while it was significantly lower (442.40 µg kg−1) in the MW-6 treatment at As-80. Although the BC-10 treatment had some positive effects, unexpectedly, BC-20 had a negative effect on plant growth, grain yield, and grain As concentration. The combination of BC-10 and MW-6 treatment was found to reduce grain As concentration (498.00 µg kg−1) compared with the control (913.7 µg kg−1). Thus, either MW-6 soil treatment alone or in combination with the BC-10 treatment can be used to reduce dietary As exposure through rice consumption. Nevertheless, further study is needed to explore the effectiveness and economic feasibility of this novel technique in field conditions.

1. Introduction

Arsenic (As) is a toxic metalloid, which is ubiquitously present in the environment. It has raised serious global concern because of its adverse effect on human health and the ecosystem [1]. The sources of As in soils are mostly geogenic. Weathering of different As containing minerals is considered a major geogenic process to release As in the environment [2]. Anthropogenic sources such as mining, some industrial manufacturing processes, energy and fuel production, preservation of timber, application of different As containing pesticides, fertilizers, and municipal waste to the land are responsible for soil and water As contamination [3]. Although As contaminated groundwater, which is used for drinking purposes, is probably the major pathway of human exposure [4], the use of this As polluted groundwater for crop irrigation gives rise to high deposition of As in the topsoil and ultimately results in the As uptake by crops [5], which augments As exposure through the food chain and threatens human health. Excessively high As pollution in water, soil, and crops has already been identified in many countries [6,7,8].
It has been demonstrated that rice can accumulate 10 times more As than other cereal crops (e.g., wheat and barley) [9]. As a consequence, a considerable amount of As has already been reported in rice grains throughout the world, such as <0.01–2.05 µg g−1 for Bangladesh, 0.31–0.70 µg g−1 for China, 0.03–0.044 µg g−1 for India, and 0.11–0.66 µg g−1 for US [10]. Since an irrigated rice crop requires a higher amount of water, compared with other irrigated and non-irrigated crops, the use of As contaminated irrigation water for rice cultivation is becoming a serious problem in several parts of the world, especially in the Bengal basin, which is not only leading to accumulation of As in rice grain, but also adding to long-term soil As contamination [11]. Thus, besides the drinking water, rice, among other crops, has become a major contributor to As intake and accumulation in the human body because it is the dietary staple of half of the world’s population [12]. China, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Pakistan are not only the topmost rice-producing countries, but a substantial number of rice consumers are living in these countries where a vast area is contaminated with As. The situation becomes an even greater concern for these regions because of the high rice consumption rate, ranging from 250 to 650 g of rice per day per person [13].
There are several techniques such as precipitation, adsorption and ion exchange, coagulation-filtration, membrane filtration, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, etc., which have been used to remove As from drinking water [14]. Soil flushing, solidification, stabilization, vitrification, washing/acid extraction, electrokinetic treatment, etc., are some of the techniques for soil As remediation [15,16]. Hitherto, these methods have been commonly determined to be ineffective, costly, or too lengthy, with usage restricted to smaller-scale operations with lower efficiency [17]. Phytoremediation by using hyper accumulative plants [18] is another technique, which is probably the most environmentally friendly and cheapest method, but the selectivity of plants to metals, depth of remediation, time taken to do an adequate job, and disposal of the contaminated biomass after remediation have been noted as major drawbacks of this method [17]. Thus, alternative options or combinations of several technologies for alleviating soil As are required.
Pre-sowing microwave (MW) soil heating has been revealed as a unique technique, which can significantly enhance crop growth in addition to being a means of non-chemical weed control [19,20]. Microwave energy is a form of electromagnetic radiation, with frequencies between 300 MHz to 300 GHz and wavelengths ranging from 1m to 1mm. The mechanism of MW heating comprises the agitation of the dipoles of the polar molecules (e.g., water) in the materials, due to the oscillating electromagnetic field, which results in the generation of heat by intermolecular friction [21]. Some major advantages like short start-up, selective heating, precise control, no direct contact with heated materials, and volumetric heating, compared with other heating processes [22,23], makes MW heating a preferred choice and has been used in diversified fields including the removal of organic contaminants [24] and immobilization of some toxic metals such as Chromium (Cr), Nickel (Ni), Cadmium (Cd), Zinc (Zn), Copper (Cu), and Lead (Pb) in soil [25] and solid sediments [26,27]. However, so far to the best of our knowledge, no published study has investigated soil As remediation using MW heating, which could be a novel method to lessen the As phytotoxicity and grain As accumulation.
Furthermore, to immobilize soil organic and inorganic pollutants and heavy metals, biochar has been gaining more attention because of its high carbon content, micropores, and large surface area. Biochar is a carbonaceous solid material obtained from thermochemical decomposition of residual biomass at relatively high temperature (500–1500 °C) through a process called pyrolysis (in oxygen-depleted conditions), which results in biochar. It is porous and rich in stable and resistant carbon, with different surface functional groups [28]. These unique physicochemical properties of biochar make it an effective sorbent, which can immobilize different heavy metals including Cr, Cobalt (Co), Ni, Cd, Zn, Cu, and Pb [29,30,31]. Arsenic can be immobilized by precipitation and reduction, surface complexation with different functional groups, ion exchange, electrostatic interactions, and physical adsorption on the biochar surface [32]. For instance, biochar, prepared from hardwood and Sewage sludge, was found to be an adsorber of As and can immobilize soil As [33,34]. However, increased mobility and bioavailability of As is also reported after the application of some biochar [33,35]. Hence, this advocates that all types of biochar are not suitable for the remediation of As contaminated soils [36].
Although several studies have been conducted to investigate As immobilization efficiency of different biochars, biochar produced by MW-assisted pyrolysis has not been well studied. Microwave-assisted pyrolysis has been substantiated as a viable alternative to conventional pyrolysis because of its higher heating rate, and lower requirement for pre-processing of the feedstock, which enhances the yield and quality of the char [37,38,39]. Furthermore, no published study has so far reported a combination of MW soil heating and biochar treatment for soil As remediation. Hence, in As contaminated soil the MW and biochar treatment could be a novel technique to reduce the As uptake by plants and ultimately reduce As accumulation in rice grain, which will decrease the human health risk through dietary exposure. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the potential impacts of MW soil heating and MW pyrolyzed biochar on the alleviation of As phytotoxicity and accumulation of As in rice grain.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Soil Collection and Preparation

Soils were collected from a crop production paddock of the Dookie campus of the University of Melbourne (Paddock H12, 36°23′51′′ S; 145°43′17′′ E) at a depth of 0–15 cm. The soil was a grey to grey-brown clay and was classified as a Congupna clay [40] or a Grey Vertosol [41]. The soil collection site was selected based on its availability on campus and its suitable soil texture since rice cultivation needs clay types of soil. The soil was collected in December 2017 (summer season). Some important soil properties are given in Table 1. The collected soil was dried and sieved through a 4 mm mesh to minimize the undesired effects of stones, sticks, and clods. This operation did not reflect the true field situation where the distribution of coarse material is highly irregular. However, this was essential to ensure a uniform experimental condition for MW soil heating. After sieving, a soil lot of 8.5 kg soil (with 15% moisture) was thoroughly mixed and shifted into unperforated pots (diameter 27 cm and height 30 cm), to prevent the loss of water-soluble As from the pots [42].

2.2. Physicochemical Properties of Experimental Soil

The physicochemical properties of the soil were analyzed to ascertain the levels of nutrients as well as other elements present, following the standard method of analysis. For analysis of the soil properties, a composite soil sample was sent to the Nutrient advantage Laboratory, a NATA accredited laboratory in Australia (Lab number: 11958, ISO/IEC 17025). The physicochemical properties of the pre and post-microwave treated soil are presented in Table 1.

2.3. Arsenic Application

The soils were spiked at five different levels of As concentration (0, 20, 40, 60 and 80 mg kg−1 dry soil) using sodium arsenate heptahydrate (Na2HAsO4.7H2O) [43]. Respective amounts of sodium arsenate were mixed with deionized water to prepare the As solutions. The As solution was mixed with the soil by spraying and homogenizing thoroughly by hand mixing. Since the initial As concentration of the soils, prior to treatment, was <0.01 mg kg−1 (Table 1), there was no chance of further As being available from the soil. To establish an equilibrium condition between soil and applied As, soil moisture was maintained at field capacity for two weeks as a waiting period before applying biochar and MW treatment.

2.4. Biochar Preparation, Characterization and Application

Three different levels of sawdust derived biochar (0, 10, and 20 t ha−1) were applied in previously As spiked soils. Since several studies have been conducted on As immobilization using biochar, there are several rates of biochar application, based on the soil contamination and biochar types. In this study, the most common rate of biochar, which was used, was proposed by other researchers [44,45]. Biochar was prepared from pine sawdust by an MW assist pyrolysis technique at around 650–700 °C temperature [46]. A MW chamber, consisting of six magnetrons (1 kW each), operating at a frequency of 2.45 GHz, was used to prepare the biochar (Figure 1a; Custom designed and built microwave system). A high temperature (1450 °C) tolerant quartz crucible (Height 30 cm, diameter 10 cm) with a lid was used to prepare the biochar. The lid was placed on the full crucible to limit oxygen availability during the pyrolysis process in the MW chamber. An infrared camera (FLIR T1050SC model; FLIR Systems Inc., Orlando, FL, USA) was used to measure the pyrolysis temperature by capturing thermal images immediately after the MW heating (Figure 1b). The yield, total ash content, and volatile matter, of biochar, were calculated based on the following Equations (1) [47], (2) [48], and (3) [47], respectively.
Biochar   yield   ( % ) = (   W 2 W 1   )   ×   100
where, W1 is the dry weight of the sawdust sample before pyrolysis, and W2 is the final biochar weight.
Total   ash   ( % ) = (   W 2 − W c W 1 − W c   )   ×   100
where, Wc is the weight of the crucible, W1 is the weight of the sawdust sample and crucible and W2 is the weight of the ash and the crucible
Volatile   matter   ( % ) = ( A − C A − B )   ×   100
where, A is the weight of dried sample and crucible, B is the weight of crucible, and C is the weight of residue and crucible after ignition.
The specific surface area (BET), pore size, and total volume of pores were measured using a Autosorb iQ3 gas adsorption analyzer (Quantachrome, Beach, FL, USA). Before gas sorption analyses, samples were degassed overnight at room temperature and then incubated for 1 h at 250 °C. The properties of sawdust biochar are given in Table 2 and the scanning electron microscopic (SEM) structure of sawdust biochar is given in the Supplementary Figure (Figure S1).

2.5. Microwave Soil Heating

One week after the biochar application, three levels of MW energy (0, 127.06, and 254.12 kJ kg−1 soil) were applied for 0, 3 and 6 min to treat the soil to attain soil temperatures around room temperature, 60 and 90 °C, respectively (Figure 1c,d). The duration of MW irradiation to heat the soil to the desired temperature was determined by following the method of previous research work [53]. A MW chamber, consisting of six magnetrons (1 kW each), operating at a frequency of 2.45 GHz, was used for soil treatment (Figure 1a). The soil temperature was measured for each MW treatment at a depth of 10–15 cm, immediately after MW energy exposure, by using liquid-in glass thermometers [54]. An infrared camera (FLIR T1050SC model) was also used for taking thermal images to show the energy dissipated and temperature distribution across the MW treated soil. Due to the very high dependence of the dielectric properties on moisture content [55], the moisture content in the soil will greatly affect the heating effect of MW energy dissipated in the soil. In this experiment, the moisture content was maintained at around 15% (w/w) at the time of MW soil treatment.

2.6. Experiment Setup

After the application of As, biochar and MW treatments, along with the control treatments and each with four replicates (total of 180 pots) the pots were placed in the glasshouse, following a completely randomized design (CRD). To describe the treatment combination more conveniently, abbreviated forms were used for As treatments (As-0, As-20, As-40, As-60 and As-80), biochar treatments (BC-0, BC-10 and BC-20) and MW treatments (MW-0, MW-3 and MW-6). To supply adequate nutrients for proper plant growth, diammonium phosphate (DAP) for N and P and Potassium Sulphate (K2SO4) for K and S were applied to each pot as a basal dose, as per standard practices for Australian rice cultivation [56], prior to seed sowing. The rest of the calculated N was supplied as urea in two split doses, one at the tillering stage and another one at the panicle initiation stage of plant growth. The application rate of N, P, K and S was 200, 30, 18, and 23 kg ha−1, respectively. Twenty seeds of the YRM_70 variety (Oryza sativa L.) were sown per pot on the 15th of January 2018. At the three-leaf stage, extra seedlings were removed, leaving 12 seedlings per pot. Insects and diseases were controlled as per standard methods of rice cultivation [56], and weeds were removed by hand when needed. Tap water was used for irrigation purposes. This water source contained As below the detection limit (<0.01 μg L−1); therefore, there were no possibilities of As addition from the tap water to the potting soil. After seed sowing, soil moisture was maintained at field capacity up to the three-leaf stage of plant growth. Flooding irrigation was started at the three-leaf stage and maintained at a predetermined level (10cm) in the pot throughout the growing period and stopped 10 days before harvesting the plants [56,57]. After 150 days of the growing period, at the physiological maturity stage, the crop was harvested on the 14th of June 2018.

2.7. Recording of Agronomic Data

Leaf chlorophyll content was measured at the tillering stage as a SPAD value using the Chlorophyll Meter-SPAD-502Plus (Soil-Plant Analysis Development) [58]. At the tillering stage, the total number of tillers per pot was counted prior to collecting plant samples (3 hills per pot) for shoot biomass measurement. At the physiological maturity stage, rice grains were collected from the panicle by hand threshing and yield (g pot−1) was calculated as described previously [59]. Total filled grain and sterile spikelets were counted to calculate the spikelet sterility percentage. The fresh weight of all plant samples was recorded prior to drying at 60 °C in a dehydrating oven (Thermoline Scientific, TD-500F) for 48 h to determine the dry weight.

2.8. Grain Total Arsenic Analysis

Grain total As analysis was performed as per the method described in the user manual of atomic fluorescence spectrometry (AFS; PSA 10.055 Millennium Excalibur, 2009, USA) [60]. Since the method is generalized for solid materials, some modifications were made for the wheat grain As analysis. The modifications were (i) a 0.5 g sample used for analysis instead of 0.25 g because generally rice grain As concentration is lower than in soil; (ii) heating time was extended up to 90–100 min until a clear solution appeared (as an indication of good digestion), whereas 40 min was suggested in the original method; and (iii) digested liquid was filtered with Whatman 42 (ashless, 2.7 µm) filter paper, as it is better than the 541 (ashless, 20–25 µm) and is usually used in heavy metal analyses.

2.9. Statistical Analysis

For the statistical analysis of data, R software (version: 3.6.2, R core team, Vienna, Austria) [61] was used. Normality and homogeneity of variance of the data were tested. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was performed to determine the significance of tested treatments on variables. The Least Significant Difference (LSD) test was used to compare the treatment means at the 5% level of significance. Pearson correlation test was performed to determine the correlation coefficient among the variables. Thermal images were captured with an infrared camera (FLIR T1050SC, FLIR Systems Inc., Orlando, FL, USA) and post-processed in MATLAB software (version: R2015b, MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA) [62].

3. Results

This section is divided according to the various parameters that were assessed during the experiment.

3.1. Plant Growth and Grain Yield

The results revealed that plant growth and grain yield decreased significantly with increasing soil As concentration, while it increased significantly in the MW-3 and MW-6 treatments, compared with MW-0 treatment across all the soil As concentration. Biochar had both positive and negative effects, based on the application rate and soil As concentration. In terms of the combination of MW and biochar treatments, the highest plant growth and grain yield were observed in MW-6 with BC-10 treatment combination. To describe the plant growth, leaf chlorophyll content, tiller number and shoot biomass were recorded. The detailed results are given below.

3.1.1. Leaf Chlorophyll Content (as SPAD Value)

Leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD value) decreased significantly (p = 0.029) with increasing soil As concentration while, it increased significantly (p < 0.001) with MW treatments (MW-3 and MW-6) compare with MW-0. The lowest chlorophyll content was observed at the highest As treatment (As-80) in MW-0, whereas the value at MW-6 was significantly higher. Unexpectedly, the biochar had a significant (p < 0.001) negative effect on chlorophyll content, especially at BC-20 (Table 3). The combined effect of MW and biochar was non-significant (Table S1).

3.1.2. Tiller Number

Tiller number reduced significantly (p < 0.001) with increasing soil As concentration. However, a significantly (p < 0.001) higher number of tillers was found in the MW treated pots. The MW-6 had higher tiller numbers than the MW-0 and the MW-3 treatments (Figure 2a). Significantly (p = 0.039) higher tiller numbers were also observed in the biochar treatments (BC-10 and BC-20) compared with BC-0 (Figure 2b). The combined effect of MW and biochar was non-significant (Figure S2).

3.1.3. Shoot Biomass

Shoot biomass was collected at two different growth stages, at the tillering stage and at physiological crop maturity. At the tillering stage, shoot biomass reduced significantly (p < 0.001) with increasing soil As concentration, while in the MW treated pots, significantly (p < 0.001) higher biomass was recorded.
In view of the MW treatments, higher biomass was harvested from the MW-6 treatment compared with the MW-3 and MW-0 treatments. The highest biomass was observed in MW-6 at As-0 and lowest in the MW-0 at As-80 (Figure 3a). The effect of biochar and the combined effect of MW and biochar were non-significant. At physiological maturity, shoot biomass reduced significantly (p < 0.001) in response of soil As concentration, although significantly (p < 0.001) higher biomass was recorded in the MW treatments (MW-3 and MW-6) irrespective of soil As concentration compared with MW-0. Especially higher biomass was harvested in the MW-6 treatment compared with the MW-0 and MW-3 treatments (Figure 3b). The effect of biochar application showed strong decreasing trends (p = 0.089) with increasing biochar rates. However, a combination of biochar and MW treatment (MW-6 and BC-10 treatment) had the highest shoot biomass at As-0.

3.1.4. Spikelet Sterility (%)

Rice spikelet sterility increased significantly (p < 0.001) with increasing soil As concentration while MW soil treatment significantly (p < 0.001) reduced the spikelet sterility across all the soil As concentrations. For example, the highest spikelet sterility was observed at As-80 in MW-0 while, the lowest value was recorded at As-0 in MW-6 (Figure 4a). In response to biochar application, spikelet sterility reduced significantly (p < 0.001) in biochar treatments compared with BC-0 (Figure 4b). The highest sterility was observed at As-80 with BC-0 while, the lowest sterility was observed at As-0 in BC-20. The combined effect of MW and biochar was found to be non-significant.

3.1.5. Grain Yield

Rice grain yield per pot reduced significantly (p < 0.001) in response of soil As concentration increases, while significantly (p < 0.001) higher grain yield was recorded in MW treatments compared with MW-0 irrespective of soil As concentration. Significantly higher grain yield was harvested in the MW-6 treatment compared with the MW-0 and MW-3. The lowest yield was recorded at As-80 in MW-0 and the highest yield was recorded at As-0 in MW-6 (Figure 5a). The highest yield reduction (82.36%) was recorded at As-80 in comparison to the control treatment. However, less reduction was observed under MW treatment. For example, only 32.86% reduction was found when MW-6 treatment was applied at the same As-80 treatment. The MW-6 treatment increased yield by 92.59% at As-0, compared with the control. Microwave treatment increased rice grain yield up to As-60 (2.78%) while, a yield decline was observed at As-20 with no MW treatments (Figure 6). The grain yield increased significantly (p = 0.014) in the biochar treatments compared with the BC-0 (Figure 5b). The combined effect of MW and biochar was non-significant (Figure S3).

3.2. Grain Total Arsenic Concentration

Grain As concentration increased significantly (p < 0.001) with increasing soil As concentrations, whereas it was significantly (p < 0.001) lower in the MW treatments, compared with the MW-0 across all the soil As concentration. Grain As concentration was highest (912.9 µg kg−1) at As-80 without MW treatment while it was significantly lower (442.4 µg kg−1) in MW-6 at the same As treatment (As-80). The lowest grain As concentration was observed at As-20 with MW-6 treatment (Figure 7a). Thus, the reduction of As concentration was significantly higher in MW treated pots compared with the MW-0 treatment throughout the soil As concentration (Figure 8a). Furthermore, biochar application also had a significant (p < 0.001) effect on grain As concentrations (Figure 7b). The BC-10 treatment recorded less grain As concentration at As-20 and As-40 treatments whereas, biochar could not reduce grain As concentration at higher soil As treatment (As-60 and As-80) (Figure 8b). On the other hand, grain As concentration was higher in the BC-20 treatment compared with BC-0 and BC-10 at all soil As concentration (Figure 7b). The combined effect of biochar and MW was non-significant (Figure S4).

3.3. Correlation of Plant Growth and Yield Parameter with Grain Total Arsenic Concentration

Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r value) showed that all the plant growth parameters were positively correlated with the yield parameters and all the growth and yield parameters were negatively correlated with grain As concentration. Two-sided tests of correlation difference showed that all the correlation coefficients (r value) were statistically significant except the correlation (r = −0.1048ns) between leaf chlorophyll content and grain sterility (Table 4).

4. Discussion

4.1. Effect of Soil Arsenic on Plant Growth, Grain Yield and Grain Arsenic Concentration

It is evident from this study that rice plant growth and grain yield is reduced significantly with increasing soil As concentration from 20 to 80 mg kg−1 soil. A higher concentration of As is toxic to most plants, which can interfere with the plants’ metabolic processes and inhibit plant growth and development through As induced phytotoxicity. Previous research revealed that As can significantly decrease the rice plant growth and grain yield along with reducing the seed germination rate, plant height, panicle number, filled grain and total grain weight when grown in As contaminated soil [63,64,65]. Furthermore, reduced leaf number, length, and area were also reported due to As phytotoxicity [66]. Even, higher soil As concentrations led to plant death [59]. These findings undoubtedly show that the reduction of plant growth was ultimately the result of As phytotoxicity, which agrees with the results of this experiment. Straighthead is the most common disease in rice, which is due to fewer filled grains, and the panicle remains upright when plants are exposed to a high concentrations of soil As [67]. Straighthead disease was observed (data not provided) in this experiment at the higher concentrations of soil As treatments. Therefore, higher spikelet sterility was recorded at higher soil As concentration (Figure 4), which results in fewer filled grains and ultimately low grain yield in As treated pots.
In addition, higher soil As concentration can lead to a lower photosynthesis rate by decreasing the chlorophyll content, which reduces plant growth and grain yield [59]. Reductions in protein and chlorophyll content [68], and reductions in photosynthetic rate [59] of rice plants grown in As contaminated soil were reported. The results of the present experiment reveal that leaf chlorophyll content decreased with increasing soil As concentration (Table 3), which agrees with the above statement. From Pearson’s correlation analysis, it is also evident that the correlation between chlorophyll content and growth parameters was significantly positive (Table 4), which also supports the above discussion.
From Figure 7 it was evident that rice grain As concentration increased significantly with increasing soil As concentration. The uptake of As by plants is dependent on several factors such as plant species or variety, soil As concentration, soil pH, soil redox potential (e.g., oxidized or reduced condition in the soil), soil texture, other ions in the soil solution, and the chemical form of As (i.e., As speciation) [69,70]. Among all these factors, soil As concentration is an important factor. Several studies assuredly concluded that rice grain As concentration increased when plants were exposed to higher soil As [57,71]. Thus, rice grains can accumulate more As when grown in highly As contaminated soil, which agrees with the current findings from this experiment.

4.2. Effect of Microwave Soil Treatment on Plant Growth, Grain Yield and Grain Arsenic Concentration

Although the rice plant growth and grain yield were reduced significantly with increasing soil As concentration, MW soil treatment showed a significantly beneficial effect on rice plants’ growth and grain yield across all the soil As concentrations. Particularly in the MW-6 treatment, plant growth and grain yield were significantly higher compared with the MW-3 and MW-0 treatment. Recent studies on MW soil treatment showed a significant increase in rice plant fresh biomass (50.90%) and dry biomass (42.40%), higher tiller numbers (387 m−2) compared with the control plot (268 m−2), and higher grain yield (7.80 t ha−1) than the control plots (5.60 t ha−1) [72]. A field study reported 1.20–1.50 t ha−1 extra rice grain yield in MW treated plots where a 2 kW MW generator, operating at 2.45 GHz, was used for 60s to treat the field soil. This achieved a soil temperature of about 70–75 °C in top soil layer (0–5 cm) [73]. These findings agree with the results of this current experiment.
The possible reasons for increased crop growth and grain yield of rice in MW-treated soil can be explained by a couple of changes in soil after MW heating and its impact on other related circumstances. One of the possible reasons could be the increased soil nutrient (e.g., N, P, and S) availability in MW treated soil (Table 1), which could enhance the plant growth and grain yields. Similar findings were reported in the previous research where, MW treatment increased the availability of some soil nutrient (e.g., N, S, and P) [19,73,74]. To investigate the MW heating effect on soil N availability Khan et al. [53] designed an experiment, using wheat as their test species, where they imply that MW soil treatment mineralized soil indigenous N, which resulted in a significant increase in crop biomass by 175% and grain yield by 92% compared with the control. A recent study revealed increased inorganic P (+1.2-fold compared with the control), and nitrate-N content in soil [75].
A study reported that MW irradiation induced disintegration of microbial cells, which can release the intracellular and extracellular macromolecules, may increase the soluble OM and organic-N (org-N) mineralization in the soil [76]. Previous research reported three pathways of org-N transformation: (1) microorganisms based org-N mineralization to ammonium, (2) release of org-N due to cell lysis, and (3) ammonium excreted from the bacterial grazing on soil fauna [77]. Research also showed that the org-N mineralization following MW irradiation of soil is of microbial origin [78]. However, MW heating impacts on soil microbes need to be further investigated for a better understanding of its role in crop growth and yield.
In terms of grain As concentration of the current study, MW soil treatment significantly reduced the As concentration in rice grains across all the soil As concentrations (Figure 7). Several factors could contribute to reducing the As concentration in the rice grain in MW treatments. One factor could be the dilution effect in which plants could uptake the same amount of As from the soil, but this could be diluted after translocating into the grain because of the higher grain yield in the MW treatment. Besides the enhancement of crop growth and grain yield, the increased soil P and Si concentration after MW soil heating in this current study (Table 1) could explain the reduced grain As concentration. PO43− and Si are known to be analogous to As(V) and As(III), respectively [79]. Therefore, increased PO43− and Si availability in the soil results in enhanced competition for adsorption sites on soil particle surfaces and for plant uptake because of the similar uptake mechanism of PO43− and As(V) through PO43− transporter and Si and As(III) through aquaporin channels present in the plant root [80,81]. Thus, the increased soil P and Si concentration after MW soil heating could compete with As(V) and As(III) for plant uptake and reduce the accumulation in the grain. However, some different results are also reported after MW soil heating, like a decline in P concentration [78], and no significant effect on total N, P, K and S concentrations [54]. Thus, a further detailed investigation is needed, in controlled conditions, to understand the MW heating effect on soil physicochemical properties at different temperature levels, because the soil temperature of around 75–85 °C neither strongly modifies the soil properties [82] nor totally disinfects the soil [83].
Another important change in the soil after MW heating is the alteration of the physical and chemical properties of SOM, particularly the molecular composition (C, H, O and N), chemical structure, and enhanced humification of SOM [84,85]. The formation of humic and fulvic acids, the more easily degradable forms of recalcitrant humic substances due to the thermal degradation induced by MW soil irradiation, are the possible mechanism of SOM humification. This would have enhanced the amount of carbon and free amino acids for turnover in the carbon and NH4+ pool, which may favor soil health [82,84]. However, the mechanism behind this assumption is still in question. It has also been reported that MW soil heating can increase soil organic carbon [86], macromolecular organic substances that possess a higher number of functional groups [84], and synthesis of organometallic and coordination compounds [87]. These organic substances can retain, decrease mobility, reduce the bioavailability and adsorb soil heavy metals [88]. Hur et al. reported that MW soil heating can enhance the binding efficiency of hydrophobic organic containments with the more humified SOM [85]. Therefore, there were possibilities of As adsorption and less accumulation into the grain. Thus, the above changes in SOM could enhance the adsorption of As and reduce plant uptake. Further detailed investigations are needed to understand As behavior in the soil after MW treatment.

4.3. Effect of Biochar on Plant Growth, Grain Yield and Grain Arsenic Concentration

The addition of sawdust biochar at 10 t ha−1 soil significantly increased plant growth and grain yield compared with the control treatment, while it decreased again at 20 t ha−1 of biochar application irrespective of As and MW treatment. Several studies showed that biochar application in soil has the potential to increase rice crop growth and grain yield. For example, Khan et al. conducted a pot experiment with sewage sludge derived biochar and reported a significant increase in rice shoot biomass, grain yield, and total number of tillers [34]. They used 5 and 10% (w/w) biochar and found a 71.3 and 92.2% increase in shoot biomass compared with the control soil, respectively. Another experiment also revealed enhanced rice crop growth and grain yield using wheat straw biochar in a field experiment [89]. The results of the current experiment support these findings. Furthermore, in the view of grain As concentration, biochar application showed both negative and positive effects based on the application rate. At BC-10, lower grain As was observed in As-20 and As-40 soil As concentration compared with the BC-0 (Figure 8b). On the other hand, grain As concentration increased in the BC-20 treatment compared with the BC-0 across all the soil As concentrations.
Numerous researchers confirmed the use of biochar as an effective material for As remediation, due to its tremendous ability to adsorb As with subsequent alleviation of As phytotoxicity [90,91]. For example, a significant reduction in the concentrations of As(III), As(V), and DMA by 72, 62, and 74%, respectively, in rice were reported using sewage sludge biochar (2%, 5% and 10% on a dry weight basis) [92]. However, both mobilization and immobilization of As by biochar application in soil have been reported. For example, biochar can decrease the As content in plant tissues by retaining As on its surface [33,90]. Even though surface adsorption and complexation are identified to play significant roles in the interaction among biochar and As [35,93], the mechanisms of As immobilization by biochar are usually complex and differ from soil properties and types of biochar [94,95]. The enhanced bioavailability of soil P for plant uptake after the addition of biochar has been reported [96,97]. Being a PO43− analog, increased P can reduce As(V) uptake and accumulation in rice grain. In addition, the application of biochar was found to increase the soil S content and its availability (13–16 fold), which could have interacted with As and reduced its uptake by the rice plants [98]. Furthermore, increased Si concentration in the soil solution, after biochar application, has also been reported, which may participate in As immobilization via the formation of silicate precipitates and may reduce As uptake by competing with As(III) for the same uptake transporter [99]. On the other hand, biochar application can result in As mobilization in rice soils under anaerobic conditions [100]. Zheng et al. [91] also reported an increase (327%) in As accumulation in rice grain due to biochar application prepared from rice residues. Some other studies also reported the increased availability of As after biochar application [36,45] resulting in the high As toxicity to rice plants [101]. Arsenic can mobilize due to reactions with ionizable functional groups of biochar and interaction with DOC release due to biochar application. As(V) can reduce to As(III) by interacting with DOC could be serving as electron donors [100,102], which enhances As mobility [103,104]. It was reported that biochar was sometimes unable to adsorb As(III) [105] and is more challenging to immobilize than As(V) because of its high mobility [106].
Moreover, it is widely reported that the addition of biochar to soils has resulted in pH increases [107,108]. During the pyrolysis process, at high temperature, cations are transformed into oxides, hydroxides or carbonates in the biochar and [109] dissolution of these alkaline substances increase the soil pH [110]. In the soil solution, As is mainly present as hydro anion, and increased soil pH after biochar application can reduce As sorption capacity by decreasing the positively charged sites on soil minerals, which increases As mobilization and release from the soil [111]. Khan et al. [34] reported the mobilization of As after application of sewage sludge biochar into soil due to a rise in soil pH. Hartley et al. [112] also reported the mobility of As with biochar results from the rise in soil pH. The pH of the current experimental soil also increased after the sawdust biochar application (Figure S5). At BC-10 and BC-20 treatment the average soil pH was 8.15 and 9.00, respectively, while 7.73 was observed in the BC-0 treatment. Therefore, based on the above discussion, higher soil pH at BC-20 could enhance the availability of As in the soil solution and ultimately higher rice grain As accumulation was observed. Thus, reduction or increase of As mobility, bioavailability, and plant uptake depends on the application rate of biochar. Therefore, it requires precise studies in terms of As binding, transformation, and release into the soil after adding of sawdust biochar.

5. Conclusions

Microwave soil treatment had the potential to alleviate As phytotoxicity and reduce the grain As concentration. Especially, the MW-6 treatment was found to be more effective than the MW-3 compared with MW-0. Thus, MW soil treatment could be used as a novel technique for As remediation. Application of sawdust biochar at the rate of 10 t ha−1 in low to moderate As contaminated soils (20–40 mg kg−1) could alleviate As phytotoxicity in rice but the higher application rate (BC-20) could increase As phytotoxicity and grain As concentration. The combine treatment of MW-6 with BC-10 could be an option for As remediation. However, for a better understanding of the enhanced plant growth in MW treated soil, in combination with biochar, further validation experiments are needed, especially in the field condition.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/en14238140/s1, Figure S1. Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) study showing the porous structure of sawdust biochar; (a) magnification at 200 µm and (b) magnification at 20 µm, Table S1. Leaf chlorophyll content at different soil arsenic level in microwave and biochar treatments, Figure S2. Mean tiller number per pot at different arsenic, microwave (MW) and biochar (BC) treatments. Replicated mean value are shown in bars with standard error, Figure S3. Effect of microwave (MW) soil treatment and biochar (BC) application on grain yield at different soil arsenic concentration level. The mean grain yield values are shown in bar along with standard error, Figure S4. Total arsenic concentration (µg kg-1) in rice grain in response to microwave (MW) and biochar (BC) treatments at different level of soil arsenic (As) treatments. Replicated mean value are shown in bars with standard error, Figure S5. Influence of sawdust biochar application on soil pH during incubation time (days after biochar application). The mean values are shown in bars along with standard error. BC-0, BC-10, and BC-20 indicates the biochar application rate of 0, 10, and 20 t ha−1 soil.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

We thank Ravneet Kaur Jhajj, laboratory manager for her assistance with chemical analysis in the laboratory, and Elsa Santos, James Cook University, Queensland for her assistance with SEM analysis of biochar.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Naidu, R.; Smith, E.; Owens, G.; Bhattacharya, P. Managing Arsenic in the Environment: From Soil to Human Health; CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, VIC, Australia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  2. 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] [Green Version]
  3. Jang, Y.; Somanna, Y.; Kim, H. Source, distribution, toxicity and remediation of arsenic in the environment—A review. Int. J. Appl. Environ. Sci. 2016, 11, 559–581. [Google Scholar]
  4. Gupta, D.K.; Tiwari, S.; Razafindrabe, B.; Chatterjee, S. Arsenic contamination from historical aspects to the present. In Arsenic Contamination in the Environment; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  5. Williams, P.N.; Islam, M.; Adomako, E.; Raab, A.; Hossain, S.; Zhu, Y.; Feldmann, J.; Meharg, A.A. Increase in rice grain arsenic for regions of Bangladesh irrigating paddies with elevated arsenic in groundwaters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 4903–4908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Upadhyay, M.K.; Shukla, A.; Yadav, P.; Srivastava, S. A review of arsenic in crops, vegetables, animals and food products. Food Chem. 2019, 276, 608–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Shankar, S.; Shanker, U. Arsenic contamination of groundwater: A review of sources, prevalence, health risks, and strategies for mitigation. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 304524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Kabir, M.; Rahman, G.; Ahmed, Z.; Rahman, M. Spatial Variability of Rice Grain Arsenic in Confined and Unconfined Basins of Ganges River Floodplain Soils of Bangladesh. J. Environ. Sci. Nat. Resour. 2015, 8, 51–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Williams, P.N.; Villada, A.; Deacon, C.; Raab, A.; Figuerola, J.; Green, A.J.; Feldmann, J.; Meharg, A.A. Greatly Enhanced Arsenic Shoot Assimilation in Rice Leads to Elevated Grain Levels Compared to Wheat and Barley. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 6854–6859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zavala, Y.J.; Duxbury, J.M. Arsenic in rice: I. Estimating normal levels of total arsenic in rice grain. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 3856–3860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Heikens, A.; Panaullah, G.M.; Meharg, A.A. Arsenic behaviour from groundwater and soil to crops: Impacts on agriculture and food safety. In Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 43–87. [Google Scholar]
  12. Banerjee, M.; Banerjee, N.; Bhattacharjee, P.; Mondal, D.; Lythgoe, P.R.; Martínez, M.; Pan, J.; Polya, D.A.; Giri, A.K. High arsenic in rice is associated with elevated genotoxic effects in humans. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, 2195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Arslan, B.; Djamgoz, M.B.; Akün, E. Arsenic: A review on exposure pathways, accumulation, mobility and transmission into the human food chain. In Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Volume 243; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 27–51. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ghosh, S.; Debsarkar, A.; Dutta, A. Technology alternatives for decontamination of arsenic-rich groundwater—A critical review. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2019, 13, 277–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yang, L.; Donahoe, R.J.; Redwine, J.C. In situ chemical fixation of arsenic-contaminated soils: An experimental study. Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 387, 28–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Ellis, D.; Frey, H.; Markey, R.M.; Redwine, J.C.; Navratil, J.D.; Robbins, R.G.; Schreier, C.; Smythe, D.; Sullivan, E.J.; Wickramanayake, G. Arsenic Treatment Technologies for Soil, Waste, and Water; Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
  17. Lim, K.T.; Shukor, M.Y.; Wasoh, H. Physical, chemical, and biological methods for the removal of arsenic compounds. BioMed Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 503784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Wang, J.; Zhao, F.-J.; Meharg, A.A.; Raab, A.; Feldmann, J.; McGrath, S.P. Mechanisms of arsenic hyperaccumulation in Pteris vittata. Uptake kinetics, interactions with phosphate, and arsenic speciation. Plant Physiol. 2002, 130, 1552–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Brodie, G.; Khan, M.J.; Gupta, D.; Foletta, S.; Bootes, N. Microwave weed and soil treatment in agricultural systems. AMPERE Newsl. 2017, 9–17. Available online: https://www.eng.tau.ac.il/~jerby/AMPERE-Newsletter_website/Papers_PDFs/AMPERE-NL-93_09-17.pdf (accessed on 19 November 2021). [CrossRef]
  20. Jamal, M.; Brodie, G.; Gupta, D. The effect of microwave soil treatment on rice production under field conditions. Trans. ASABE 2017, 60, 517–525. [Google Scholar]
  21. Falciglia, P.P.; Bonifacio, A.; Vagliasindi, F.G.A. An Overview on Microwave Heating Application for Hydrocarbon-contaminated Soil and Groundwater Remediation. Oil Gas Res. 2016, 2, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  22. Menéndez, J.A.; Arenillas, A.; Fidalgo, B.; Fernández, Y.; Zubizarreta, L.; Calvo, E.G.; Bermúdez, J.M. Microwave heating processes involving carbon materials. Fuel Process. Technol. 2010, 91, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Ayappa, K.G.; Davis, H.T.; Crapiste, G.; Davis, E.A.; Gordon, J. Microwave heating: An evaluation of power formulations. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1991, 46, 1005–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Falciglia, P.; Vagliasindi, F. Remediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils by ex situ microwave treatment: Technical, energy and economic considerations. Environ. Technol. 2014, 35, 2280–2288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Abramovitch, R.A.; ChangQing, L.; Hicks, E.; Sinard, J.J.C. In situ remediation of soils contaminated with toxic metal ions using microwave energy. Chemosphere 2003, 53, 1077–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chen, C.-L.; Lo, S.-L.; Kuan, W.-H.; Hsieh, C.-H. Stabilization of Cu in acid-extracted industrial sludge using a microwave process. J. Hazard. Mater. 2005, 123, 256–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Hsieh, C.-H.; Lo, S.-L.; Chiueh, P.-T.; Kuan, W.-H.; Chen, C.-L. Microwave enhanced stabilization of heavy metal sludge. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007, 139, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Rajapaksha, A.U.; Chen, S.S.; Tsang, D.C.; Zhang, M.; Vithanage, M.; Mandal, S.; Gao, B.; Bolan, N.S.; Ok, Y.S. Engineered/designer biochar for contaminant removal/immobilization from soil and water: Potential and implication of biochar modification. Chemosphere 2016, 148, 276–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Tan, X.; Liu, Y.; Zeng, G.; Wang, X.; Hu, X.; Gu, Y.; Yang, Z. Application of biochar for the removal of pollutants from aqueous solutions. Chemosphere 2015, 125, 70–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Xu, X.; Cao, X.; Zhao, L.; Wang, H.; Yu, H.; Gao, B. Removal of Cu, Zn, and Cd from aqueous solutions by the dairy manure-derived biochar. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013, 20, 358–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Petrounias, P.; Rogkala, A.; Giannakopoulou, P.P.; Tsikouras, B.; Lampropoulou, P.; Kalaitzidis, S.; Hatzipanagiotou, K.; Lambrakis, N.; Christopoulou, M.A. An Experimental Study for the Remediation of Industrial Waste Water Using a Combination of Low Cost Mineral Raw Materials. Minerals 2019, 9, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Vithanage, M.; Herath, I.; Joseph, S.; Bundschuh, J.; Bolan, N.; Ok, Y.S.; Kirkham, M.; Rinklebe, J. Interaction of arsenic with biochar in soil and water: A critical review. Carbon 2017, 113, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Namgay, T.; Singh, B.; Singh, B.P. Influence of biochar application to soil on the availability of As, Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn to maize (Zea mays L.). Soil Res. 2010, 48, 638–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Khan, S.; Chao, C.; Waqas, M.; Arp, H.P.H.; Zhu, Y.-G. Sewage sludge biochar influence upon rice (Oryza sativa L) yield, metal bioaccumulation and greenhouse gas emissions from acidic paddy soil. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 8624–8632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Beesley, L.; Inneh, O.S.; Norton, G.J.; Moreno-Jimenez, E.; Pardo, T.; Clemente, R.; Dawson, J.J. Assessing the influence of compost and biochar amendments on the mobility and toxicity of metals and arsenic in a naturally contaminated mine soil. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 186, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Beesley, L.; Marmiroli, M.; Pagano, L.; Pigoni, V.; Fellet, G.; Fresno, T.; Vamerali, T.; Bandiera, M.; Marmiroli, N. Biochar addition to an arsenic contaminated soil increases arsenic concentrations in the pore water but reduces uptake to tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 454, 598–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, X.-H.; Chen, H.-P.; Ding, X.-J.; Yang, H.-P.; Zhang, S.-H.; Shen, Y.-Q. Properties of gas and char from microwave pyrolysis of pine sawdust. BioResources 2009, 4, 946–959. [Google Scholar]
  38. Domínguez, A.; Menéndez, J.; Inguanzo, M.; Pis, J. Production of bio-fuels by high temperature pyrolysis of sewage sludge using conventional and microwave heating. Bioresour. Technol. 2006, 97, 1185–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, J.; Dai, J.; Liu, G.; Zhang, H.; Gao, Z.; Fu, J.; He, Y.; Huang, Y. Biochar from microwave pyrolysis of biomass: A review. Biomass Bioenergy 2016, 94, 228–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Downes, R. Soil, land-use, and erosion survey around Dookie, Victoria. CSIRO Aust. Bull. 1949, 243. Available online: http://vro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/gbbregn.nsf/pages/soil_survey_dookie (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  41. Isbell, R. The Australian Soil Classification; CSIRO Publishing: Clayton, Australia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  42. Rahman, M.A.; Hasegawa, H.; Rahman, M.M.; Rahman, M.A.; Miah, M. Accumulation of arsenic in tissues of rice plant (Oryza sativa L.) and its distribution in fractions of rice grain. Chemosphere 2007, 69, 942–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Bhattacharya, P.; Samal, A.C.; Santra, S.C. A Greenhouse Pot Experiment to Study Arsenic Accumulation in Rice Varieties Selected from Gangetic Bengal, India. In Safe and Sustainable Use of Arsenic-Contaminated Aquifers in the Gangetic Plain; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 265–274. [Google Scholar]
  44. Qiao, J.-T.; Liu, T.-X.; Wang, X.-Q.; Li, F.-B.; Lv, Y.-H.; Cui, J.-H.; Zeng, X.-D.; Yuan, Y.-Z.; Liu, C.-P. Simultaneous alleviation of cadmium and arsenic accumulation in rice by applying zero-valent iron and biochar to contaminated paddy soils. Chemosphere 2018, 195, 260–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Zheng, R.; Chen, Z.; Cai, C.; Tie, B.; Liu, X.; Reid, B.J.; Huang, Q.; Lei, M.; Sun, G.; Baltrėnaitė, E. Mitigating heavy metal accumulation into rice (Oryza sativa L.) using biochar amendment—A field experiment in Hunan, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 11097–11108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mamaeva, A.; Tahmasebi, A.; Tian, L.; Yu, J. Microwave-assisted catalytic pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass for production of phenolic-rich bio-oil. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 211, 382–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Agrafioti, E.; Bouras, G.; Kalderis, D.; Diamadopoulos, E. Biochar production by sewage sludge pyrolysis. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2013, 101, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. ASTM. E1534-93. Standard Test Method for Determination of Ash Content of Particulate Wood Fuels; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  49. ASTM. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass; ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  50. Singh, B.; Singh, B.P.; Cowie, A.L. Characterisation and evaluation of biochars for their application as a soil amendment. Soil Res. 2010, 48, 516–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sigmund, G.; Hüffer, T.; Hofmann, T.; Kah, M. Biochar total surface area and total pore volume determined by N2 and CO2 physisorption are strongly influenced by degassing temperature. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 580, 770–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Zhao, B.; O’Connor, D.; Zhang, J.; Peng, T.; Shen, Z.; Tsang, D.C.; Hou, D. Effect of pyrolysis temperature, heating rate, and residence time on rapeseed stem derived biochar. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 977–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Khan, M.J.; Brodie, G.; Gupta, D. Effect of Microwave (2.45 GHz) Treatment of Soil on Yield Components of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Microw. Power Electromagn. Energy 2016, 50, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Cooper, A.; Brodie, G. The Effect of Microwave Radiation and Soil Depth on Soil pH, N, P, K, SO {4} and Bacterial Colonies. Plant Prot. Q. 2009, 24, 67. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kabir, H.; Khan, M.J.; Brodie, G.; Gupta, D.; Pang, A.; Jacob, M.V.; Antunes, E. Measurement and modelling of soil dielectric properties as a function of soil class and moisture content. J. Microw. Power Electromagn. Energy 2020, 54, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Dunn, B.; Fowler, J.; Garnett, L.; Groat, M.; Mauger, T.; North, S.; Oli, P.; Plunkett, G.; Smith, A.; Stevens, M.; et al. Rice Growing Guide; Department of Primary Industries (DPI): Yanco, NSW, Australia, 2018.
  57. Azad, M.A.K.; Islam, M.N.; Alam, A.; Mahmud, H.; Islam, M.; Karim, M.R.; Rahman, M. Arsenic uptake and phytotoxicity of T-aman rice (Oryza sativa L.) grown in the As-amended soil of Bangladesh. Environmentalist 2009, 29, 436–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Yuan, Z.; Cao, Q.; Zhang, K.; Ata-Ul-Karim, S.T.; Tian, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Cao, W.; Liu, X. Optimal Leaf Positions for SPAD Meter Measurement in Rice. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Rahman, M.A.; Hasegawa, H.; Rahman, M.M.; Islam, M.N.; Miah, M.M.; Tasmen, A. Effect of arsenic on photosynthesis, growth and yield of five widely cultivated rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties in Bangladesh. Chemosphere 2007, 67, 1072–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. P S Analytical. PSA 10.055 Millennium Excalibur Users Manual and PSA Customer Technical Information File; Version 9.4; P S Analytical Ltd.: Orpington, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  61. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  62. The MathWorks Inc. MATLAB; Version R2015b; The MathWorks Inc.: Natick, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  63. Asaduzzman, M.; Hossain, M.; Masum, S.M. Effect of Arsenic in Three Wheat Varieties of Bangladesh. Int. J. Bio-Resour. Stress Manag. 2010, 1, 115–120. [Google Scholar]
  64. Vromman, D.; Lutts, S.; Lefèvre, I.; Somer, L.; De Vreese, O.; Šlejkovec, Z.; Quinet, M. Effects of simultaneous arsenic and iron toxicities on rice (Oryza sativa L.) development, yield-related parameters and As and Fe accumulation in relation to As speciation in the grains. Plant Soil 2013, 371, 199–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Upadhyay, A.; Singh, N.; Singh, R.; Rai, U. Amelioration of arsenic toxicity in rice: Comparative effect of inoculation of Chlorella vulgaris and Nannochloropsis sp. on growth, biochemical changes and arsenic uptake. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2016, 124, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Nath, S.; Panda, P.; Mishra, S.; Dey, M.; Choudhury, S.; Sahoo, L.; Panda, S.K. Arsenic stress in rice: Redox consequences and regulation by iron. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2014, 80, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Li, X.; Yan, W.; Agrama, H.; Jackson, A.; Jia, M.; Jia, L.; Moldenhauer, K.; Correa, F.; Wu, D. Genetic analysis of genetic basis of a physiological disorder “straighthead” in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Genes Genom. 2016, 38, 453–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ahmad, M.A.; Gaur, R.; Gupta, M. Comparative biochemical and RAPD analysis in two varieties of rice (Oryza sativa) under arsenic stress by using various biomarkers. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 217, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Khalid, S.; Shahid, M.; Niazi, N.K.; Rafiq, M.; Bakhat, H.F.; Imran, M.; Abbas, T.; Bibi, I.; Dumat, C. Arsenic behaviour in soil-plant system: Biogeochemical reactions and chemical speciation influences. In Enhancing Cleanup of Environmental Pollutants; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 97–140. [Google Scholar]
  70. Abbas, G.; Murtaza, B.; Bibi, I.; Shahid, M.; Niazi, N.K.; Khan, M.I.; Amjad, M.; Hussain, M. Arsenic uptake, toxicity, detoxification, and speciation in plants: Physiological, biochemical, and molecular aspects. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Bhattacharya, P.; Samal, A.C.; Majumdar, J.; Banerjee, S.; Santra, S.C. In vitro assessment on the impact of soil arsenic in the eight rice varieties of West Bengal, India. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 262, 1091–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Khan, M.J.; Brodie, G.I.; Gupta, D.; Foletta, S. Microwave soil treatment improves weed management in Australian dryland wheat. Trans. ASABE 2018, 61, 671–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Khan, M.J.; Brodie, G. Microwave weed and soil treatment in rice production. Rice Crop. Curr. Dev. 2018, 99–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Gibson, F.; Fox, F.M.; Deacon, J. Effects of microwave treatment of soil on growth of birch (Betula pendula) seedlings and infection of them by ectomycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol. 1988, 108, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Maynaud, G.; Baudoin, E.; Bourillon, J.; Duponnois, R.; Cleyet-Marel, J.C.; Brunel, B. Short-term effect of 915-MHz microwave treatments on soil physicochemical and biological properties. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2019, 70, 443–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zhou, B.W.; Shin, S.G.; Hwang, K.; Ahn, J.-H.; Hwang, S. Effect of microwave irradiation on cellular disintegration of Gram positive and negative cells. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 87, 765–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Schimel, J.P.; Bennett, J. Nitrogen mineralization: Challenges of a changing paradigm. Ecology 2004, 85, 591–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Speir, T.; Cowling, J.; Sparling, G.; West, A.; Corderoy, D. Effects of microwave radiation on the microbial biomass, phosphatase activity and levels of extractable N and P in a low fertility soil under pasture. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1986, 18, 377–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Anawar, H.M.; Rengel, Z.; Damon, P.; Tibbett, M.J.E.P. Arsenic-phosphorus interactions in the soil-plant-microbe system: Dynamics of uptake, suppression and toxicity to plants. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 233, 1003–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhao, F.-J.; McGrath, S.P.; Meharg, A.A. Arsenic as a food chain contaminant: Mechanisms of plant uptake and metabolism and mitigation strategies. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2010, 61, 535–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Mosa, K.A.; Kumar, K.; Chhikara, S.; Mcdermott, J.; Liu, Z.; Musante, C.; White, J.C.; Dhankher, O.P. Members of rice plasma membrane intrinsic proteins subfamily are involved in arsenite permeability and tolerance in plants. Transgenic Res. 2012, 21, 1265–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. O’Brien, P.L.; DeSutter, T.M.; Casey, F.X.; Khan, E.; Wick, A.F. Thermal remediation alters soil properties—A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 206, 826–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Voort, V.D.M.; Kempenaar, M.; van Driel, M.; Raaijmakers, J.M.; Mendes, R. Impact of soil heat on reassembly of bacterial communities in the rhizosphere microbiome and plant disease suppression. Ecol. Lett. 2016, 19, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Kim, M.C.; Kim, H.S. Artificial and enhanced humification of soil organic matter using microwave irradiation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013, 20, 2362–2371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Hur, J.; Park, S.-W.; Kim, M.C.; Kim, H.S. Enhanced binding of hydrophobic organic contaminants by microwave-assisted humification of soil organic matter. Chemosphere 2013, 93, 2704–2710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Zagal, E. Effects of microwave radiation on carbon and nitrogen mineralization in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1989, 21, 603–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Taylor, M.; Shuwan, S.A.; Sonal, M.; Priyal, B. Developments in Microwave Chemistry; Evalueserve: Zug, Switzerland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  88. Yin, Y.; Impellitteri, C.A.; You, S.-J.; Allen, H.E. The importance of organic matter distribution and extract soil: Solution ratio on the desorption of heavy metals from soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2002, 287, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zhang, A.; Bian, R.; Pan, G.; Cui, L.; Hussain, Q.; Li, L.; Zheng, J.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, X.; Han, X. Effects of biochar amendment on soil quality, crop yield and greenhouse gas emission in a Chinese rice paddy: A field study of 2 consecutive rice growing cycles. Field Crops Res. 2012, 127, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Beesley, L.; Marmiroli, M. The immobilisation and retention of soluble arsenic, cadmium and zinc by biochar. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 474–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Zheng, R.-L.; Cai, C.; Liang, J.-H.; Huang, Q.; Chen, Z.; Huang, Y.-Z.; Arp, H.P.H.; Sun, G.-X. The effects of biochars from rice residue on the formation of iron plaque and the accumulation of Cd, Zn, Pb, As in rice (Oryza sativa L.) seedlings. Chemosphere 2012, 89, 856–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Waqas, M.; Khan, S.; Qing, H.; Reid, B.J.; Chao, C. The effects of sewage sludge and sewage sludge biochar on PAHs and potentially toxic element bioaccumulation in Cucumis sativa L. Chemosphere 2014, 105, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Ahmad, M.; Rajapaksha, A.U.; Lim, J.E.; Zhang, M.; Bolan, N.; Mohan, D.; Vithanage, M.; Lee, S.S.; Ok, Y.S. Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water: A review. Chemosphere 2014, 99, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hale, S.E.; Lehmann, J.; Rutherford, D.; Zimmerman, A.R.; Bachmann, R.T.; Shitumbanuma, V.; O’Toole, A.; Sundqvist, K.L.; Arp, H.P.H.; Cornelissen, G. Quantifying the total and bioavailable polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and dioxins in biochars. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 2830–2838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Khan, S.; Waqas, M.; Ding, F.; Shamshad, I.; Arp, H.P.H.; Li, G. The influence of various biochars on the bioaccessibility and bioaccumulation of PAHs and potentially toxic elements to turnips (Brassica rapa L.). J. Hazard. Mater. 2015, 300, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wang, T.; Camps-Arbestain, M.; Hedley, M.; Bishop, P. Predicting phosphorus bioavailability from high-ash biochars. Plant Soil 2012, 357, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Sohi, S.P.; Krull, E.; Lopez-Capel, E.; Bol, R. A review of biochar and its use and function in soil. In Advances in Agronomy; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; Volume 105, pp. 47–82. [Google Scholar]
  98. Zhang, A.; Cui, L.; Pan, G.; Li, L.; Hussain, Q.; Zhang, X.; Zheng, J.; Crowley, D. Effect of biochar amendment on yield and methane and nitrous oxide emissions from a rice paddy from Tai Lake plain, China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 139, 469–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Houben, D.; Sonnet, P.; Cornelis, J.-T. Biochar from Miscanthus: A potential silicon fertilizer. Plant Soil 2014, 374, 871–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Choppala, G.; Bolan, N.; Kunhikrishnan, A.; Bush, R. Differential effect of biochar upon reduction-induced mobility and bioavailability of arsenate and chromate. Chemosphere 2016, 144, 374–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Chen, Z.; Wang, Y.; Xia, D.; Jiang, X.; Fu, D.; Shen, L.; Wang, H.; Li, Q.B. Enhanced bioreduction of iron and arsenic in sediment by biochar amendment influencing microbial community composition and dissolved organic matter content and composition. J. Hazard. Mater. 2016, 311, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Yang, F.; Zhao, L.; Gao, B.; Xu, X.; Cao, X. The interfacial behavior between biochar and soil minerals and its effect on biochar stability. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 2264–2271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Park, J.H.; Lamb, D.; Paneerselvam, P.; Choppala, G.; Bolan, N.; Chung, J.-W. Role of organic amendments on enhanced bioremediation of heavy metal (loid) contaminated soils. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 185, 549–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Zhang, X.; Wang, H.; He, L.; Lu, K.; Sarmah, A.; Li, J.; Bolan, N.S.; Pei, J.; Huang, H. Using biochar for remediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals and organic pollutants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013, 20, 8472–8483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Zhu, N.; Yan, T.; Qiao, J.; Cao, H. Adsorption of arsenic, phosphorus and chromium by bismuth impregnated biochar: Adsorption mechanism and depleted adsorbent utilization. Chemosphere 2016, 164, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Zhu, N.; Qiao, J.; Ye, Y.; Yan, T. Synthesis of mesoporous bismuth-impregnated aluminum oxide for arsenic removal: Adsorption mechanism study and application to a lab-scale column. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 211, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Kim, H.-B.; Kim, S.-H.; Jeon, E.-K.; Kim, D.-H.; Tsang, D.C.; Alessi, D.S.; Kwon, E.E.; Baek, K. Effect of dissolved organic carbon from sludge, Rice straw and spent coffee ground biochar on the mobility of arsenic in soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 636, 1241–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Jones, D.; Rousk, J.; Edwards-Jones, G.; DeLuca, T.; Murphy, D. Biochar-mediated changes in soil quality and plant growth in a three year field trial. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2012, 45, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Yuan, J.-H.; Xu, R.-K.; Zhang, H. The forms of alkalis in the biochar produced from crop residues at different temperatures. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 3488–3497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Houben, D.; Evrard, L.; Sonnet, P. Mobility, bioavailability and pH-dependent leaching of cadmium, zinc and lead in a contaminated soil amended with biochar. Chemosphere 2013, 92, 1450–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Wilson, S.C.; Lockwood, P.V.; Ashley, P.M.; Tighe, M. The chemistry and behaviour of antimony in the soil environment with comparisons to arsenic: A critical review. Environ. Pollut. 2010, 158, 1169–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Hartley, W.; Dickinson, N.M.; Riby, P.; Lepp, N.W. Arsenic mobility in brownfield soils amended with green waste compost or biochar and planted with Miscanthus. Environ. Pollut. 2009, 157, 2654–2662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 14 08140 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) Schematic diagram of a 6 kW microwave (MW) chamber used for soil treatment and biochar preparation, (b) a thermal image of sawdust biochar in a quartz crucible showing the pyrolysis temperature, (c) top view thermal images of soil heating after MW irradiation showing the temperature increase of 55 °C ± 5 °C, and (d) side view thermal images of soil heating after MW irradiation showing the temperature increase of 85 °C ± 5 °C.
Figure 1. (a) Schematic diagram of a 6 kW microwave (MW) chamber used for soil treatment and biochar preparation, (b) a thermal image of sawdust biochar in a quartz crucible showing the pyrolysis temperature, (c) top view thermal images of soil heating after MW irradiation showing the temperature increase of 55 °C ± 5 °C, and (d) side view thermal images of soil heating after MW irradiation showing the temperature increase of 85 °C ± 5 °C.
Energies 14 08140 g001
Energies 14 08140 g002 550
Figure 2. Effect of soil arsenic (As) concentration on tiller number in (a) microwave (MW and (b)) biochar treated pot. The Least Significant Difference Test (LSD) was performed at 5% level of significance. In boxplot, values having different superscript letters indicate significant differences among the treatments.
Figure 2. Effect of soil arsenic (As) concentration on tiller number in (a) microwave (MW and (b)) biochar treated pot. The Least Significant Difference Test (LSD) was performed at 5% level of significance. In boxplot, values having different superscript letters indicate significant differences among the treatments.
Energies 14 08140 g002
Energies 14 08140 g003 550
Figure 3. Mean shoot biomass yield at (a) tillering stage and (b) physiological maturity stage in response to arsenic (As) and microwave (MW) soil treatments. In boxplot, values having different letter indicates the significant difference (LSD test at 5% level of significance) among the treatments.
Figure 3. Mean shoot biomass yield at (a) tillering stage and (b) physiological maturity stage in response to arsenic (As) and microwave (MW) soil treatments. In boxplot, values having different letter indicates the significant difference (LSD test at 5% level of significance) among the treatments.
Energies 14 08140 g003
Energies 14 08140 g004 550
Figure 4. Effect of soil arsenic (As) on spikelet sterility in response to (a) microwave (MW) and (b) biochar treatments. Replicated mean values are shown in the boxplot. The different letter indicates the significant difference (LSD test at 5% level of significance) among the treatments.
Figure 4. Effect of soil arsenic (As) on spikelet sterility in response to (a) microwave (MW) and (b) biochar treatments. Replicated mean values are shown in the boxplot. The different letter indicates the significant difference (LSD test at 5% level of significance) among the treatments.
Energies 14 08140 g004
Energies 14 08140 g005 550
Figure 5. Effect of (a) microwave (MW) and (b) biochar (BC) treatments on rice grain yield at different soil arsenic (As) concentration. Replicated mean values are shown in bars with standard error. The different letter indicates the significant difference (LSD test at 5% level of significance) among the treatments.
Figure 5. Effect of (a) microwave (MW) and (b) biochar (BC) treatments on rice grain yield at different soil arsenic (As) concentration. Replicated mean values are shown in bars with standard error. The different letter indicates the significant difference (LSD test at 5% level of significance) among the treatments.
Energies 14 08140 g005
Energies 14 08140 g006 550
Figure 6. Grain yield difference at different soil arsenic (As) concentration in the microwave (MW) treated soil. The mean values are shown in the bar along with standard error and value of difference. A positive value indicates the increase in yield and a negative value shows a reduction in grain yield.
Figure 6. Grain yield difference at different soil arsenic (As) concentration in the microwave (MW) treated soil. The mean values are shown in the bar along with standard error and value of difference. A positive value indicates the increase in yield and a negative value shows a reduction in grain yield.
Energies 14 08140 g006
Energies 14 08140 g007 550
Figure 7. Effect of soil arsenic (As) on grain As concentration in response to (a) microwave (MW) and (b) biochar (BC) treatments. Replicated mean values are shown in the bars with standard error. The different letter indicates the significant difference (LSD test at 5% level of significance) among the treatments.
Figure 7. Effect of soil arsenic (As) on grain As concentration in response to (a) microwave (MW) and (b) biochar (BC) treatments. Replicated mean values are shown in the bars with standard error. The different letter indicates the significant difference (LSD test at 5% level of significance) among the treatments.
Energies 14 08140 g007
Energies 14 08140 g008 550
Figure 8. Grain arsenic (As) concentration reduction in response to (a) microwave (MW) and (b) biochar (BC) treatments at different soil As concentrations. The mean values are shown in the bar along with standard error and value of difference. A positive value indicates the reduction of grain As accumulation while, zero and negative values show no reduction and increase in concentration, respectively.
Figure 8. Grain arsenic (As) concentration reduction in response to (a) microwave (MW) and (b) biochar (BC) treatments at different soil As concentrations. The mean values are shown in the bar along with standard error and value of difference. A positive value indicates the reduction of grain As accumulation while, zero and negative values show no reduction and increase in concentration, respectively.
Energies 14 08140 g008
Table
Table 1. Physicochemical properties of pre and post microwave (MW) treated soils before sowing.
Table 1. Physicochemical properties of pre and post microwave (MW) treated soils before sowing.
Soil PropertiesAnalytical MethodUnitsMicrowave Treatments
Pre-TreatmentMW-3MW-6
Organic carbon (OC)Walkley & Black%1.571.361.38
Organic matter (OM)Walkley & Black%2.702.342.37
Electrical conductivity (EC)Saturated extractdS/m0.800.901.60
pH1:5 CaCl2N/A6.506.706.60
Cation exchange capacity (CEC)BaCl2 exchangecmol(+)/kg9.9510.1010.40
Nitrate nitrogen (NO−3-N)Kjeldahlmg kg−139.0033.0036.00
Ammonium nitrogen (NH+4-N)Kjeldahlmg kg−17.5044.00160.00
Available Potassium (K)Atomic emissionmg kg−1290.00290.00310.00
Sulphur (S)0.25M KCl at 40 °Cmg kg−17.0014.0038.00
Phosphorus (P)Colwellmg kg−145.0098.00260.00
Calcium (Ca)Ammonium acetatecmol(+)/kg3.703.703.80
Magnesium (Mg)Ammonium acetatecmol(+)/kg4.604.705.00
Potassium (K)Ammonium acetatecmol(+)/kg0.750.750.80
Sodium (Na)Ammonium acetatecmol(+)/kg0.620.640.67
Aluminium (Al)Ammonium acetatecmol(+)/kg0.260.260.15
Copper (Cu)DTPAmg kg−11.601.601.70
Zinc (Zn)DTPAmg kg−11.001.101.30
Manganese (Mn)DTPAmg kg−166.0068.0082.00
Iron (Fe)DTPAmg kg−192.0094.0097.00
Boron (B)DTPAmg kg−10.900.890.93
Silicon (Si)CaCl2 Solublemg kg−175.0081.00100.00
Arsenic (As)HG-AFSµg kg−1<0.01<0.01<0.01
Table
Table 2. Properties of sawdust biochar produced from microwave assist pyrolysis.
Table 2. Properties of sawdust biochar produced from microwave assist pyrolysis.
Properties of BiocharUnitValueMethod of Determination
Pyrolysis temperature°C650–700FLIR thermal camera
Residence timemin20.00–
Yieldwt. %39.33[47]
Ash contentwt. %1.34Muffle furnace at 600 °C [48]
Volatile matterwt. %70.32Muffle furnace at 500 ± 50 °C [47]
Dry matterwt. %97.84Oven-drying at 110 °C [49]
Moisturewt. %2.16Oven-drying 110 °C [49]
pHN/A8.471:5 water, pH meter [50]
ECdS m−10.171:5 water, EC meter [50]
Specific surface aream2 g−10.05BET analysis [51]
Pore volumemm3 g−11.00BJH adsorption–desorption [51]
Pore sizenm17.39BJH adsorption–desorption [52]
Table
Table 3. Leaf chlorophyll content (as SPAD value) at different soil arsenic (As) concentrations in the microwave (MW) and biochar treatments.
Table 3. Leaf chlorophyll content (as SPAD value) at different soil arsenic (As) concentrations in the microwave (MW) and biochar treatments.
Soil As (mg kg−1)Leaf Chlorophyll Content (SPAD Value)
MW Treatments (Minutes)
036
035.11 b,c36.63 ab36.78 a
2034.33 c,d35.78 abc36.42 a,b
4034.21 c,d35.69 abc35.66 a–c
6032.92 d34.58 c36.49 a,b
8034.38 c,d34.39 cd36.44 a,b
LSD0.05 1.64
Soil As (mg kg−1)Biochar treatments (t ha−1)
01020
036.98 a36.54 a,b34.99 b−e
2036.38 a,b35.6 a–d34.55 c–e
4035.54 a–d35.28 b–d34.73 c–e
6034.12 d,e35.86 a–c34.00 d,e
8035.52 a–d36.11 a–c33.59 e
LSD0.05 1.64
Values having different superscript letters indicate significant differences among the treatments. Least significant difference (LSD) test was performed at 5% level of significance to determine the difference between the treatments.
Table
Table 4. Pearson’s correlation matrix of different plant growth and yield parameter with grain arsenic (As) concentration.
Table 4. Pearson’s correlation matrix of different plant growth and yield parameter with grain arsenic (As) concentration.
Variablesr-Value
Grain AsGrain YieldShootShootTiller NumberSpikelet SterilityLeaf
ConcentrationBiomass at TBiomass at PMChlorophyll Content
Grain As concentration1
Grain yield−0.6176 ***1
Shoot biomass at T−0.4572 ***0.7184 ***1
Shoot biomass at PM−0.5916 ***0.8372 ***0.6902 ***1
Tiller number−0.4748 ***0.7564 ***0.6568 ***0.8065 ***1
Spikelet sterility0.4463 ***−0.6523 ***−0.4182 ***−0.3826 ***−0.4412 ***1
Leaf chlorophyll content−0.2325 **0.3406 ***0.1939 **0.4013 ***0.2383 **−0.1048 ns1
** and *** indicate significance at p < 0.01 and <0.001, respectively and ns indicate non-significant. T = tillering, PM = physiological maturity.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kabir, M.H.; Brodie, G.; Gupta, D.; Pang, A. Microwave Soil Treatment along with Biochar Application Alleviates Arsenic Phytotoxicity and Reduces Rice Grain Arsenic Concentration. Energies 2021, 14, 8140. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14238140

AMA Style

Kabir MH, Brodie G, Gupta D, Pang A. Microwave Soil Treatment along with Biochar Application Alleviates Arsenic Phytotoxicity and Reduces Rice Grain Arsenic Concentration. Energies. 2021; 14(23):8140. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14238140

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kabir, Mohammad Humayun, Graham Brodie, Dorin Gupta, and Alexis Pang. 2021. "Microwave Soil Treatment along with Biochar Application Alleviates Arsenic Phytotoxicity and Reduces Rice Grain Arsenic Concentration" Energies 14, no. 23: 8140. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14238140

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