Next Article in Journal
A Systematic Review of the Hydrological, Environmental and Durability Performance of Permeable Pavement Systems
Next Article in Special Issue
Forage Species Identity Shapes Soil Biota in a Temperate Agroecosystem
Previous Article in Journal
International Student Engagement for Sustainability of Leisure Participation: An Integrated Approach of Means-End Chain and Acculturation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Corn Stover Removal Responses on Soil Test P and K Levels in Coastal Plain Ultisols
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/su13084508
sustainability-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

Analysis of Heavy Metal Content in Soil and Plants in the Dumping Ground of Magnesite Mining Factory Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia)

by
Lenka Štofejová
*,
Juraj Fazekaš
and
Danica Fazekašová
Department of Environmental Management, Faculty of Management, University of Prešov, Konštantínova 16, 080 01 Prešov, Slovakia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(8), 4508; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084508
Submission received: 13 March 2021 / Revised: 13 April 2021 / Accepted: 16 April 2021 / Published: 18 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Soil Health Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A high content of heavy metals in the soil and plants of a magnesite mining area might cause serious damage to the environment and can be a threat to the health of the surrounding population. This paper presents the results of research that focused on analyzing the heavy metal content in soil and plants in the dumping grounds of the magnesite mining factory Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia). The analysis focused on the content of heavy metals in soil (X-ray fluorescence spectrometry, atomic absorption spectrometry), in plants (inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry), and pH (1M KCl solution). The results showed that the soil in the study area was slightly acidic to strongly alkaline and the content of Cr, As, Mn, and Mg exceeded by several times the limit values for the Slovak Republic. The results of the hierarchical cluster analysis and the correlation analysis show that the grouped metals come from the same sources of pollution. The content of heavy metals in plants was high and the highest concentration was found in the roots of Elytrigia repens > Agrostis stolonifera > Phragmites australis and flowers of Phragmites australis. The findings confirmed the suitability of the used plants in the process of phytoextraction and phytostabilization. The acquired knowledge can help in planning and realization remediation measures and improve the state of the environment in areas exposed to magnesite mining.

1. Introduction

The contamination of soil with heavy metals is a serious environmental threat and one of the most pressing environmental problems in the world [1,2,3,4]. It is largely due to anthropogenic activities such as mining and processing of metal ores, burning of fossil fuels, the use of fertilizers including sewage sludge and pesticides, transport, and many other industrial processes [5]. Heavy metal content can be affected by the interaction of soil physicochemical properties such as soil pH, soil granularity [6,7], organic matter content, and heavy metal storage capacity, which play an important role in the retention, mobilization, and migration of heavy metals in soil [8]. Environmental pollution from mining activities causes environmental and social problems. There is growing evidence that heavy metal pollution in mining areas has caused damage to the health of the local people [9,10,11,12] as well as damage to soil health [13,14]. The condition of the soil has a clear impact on the quality of the environment [15,16]. In recent years, the impact of heavy metals on soil ecosystems and human health has received increasing attention [17].
Slovak magnesite deposits are the largest and most important in Europe. A major part of the production is done by the Slovak magnesite factory, Jelšava, followed by Slovmag, Lubeník. Proven reserves at the current rate of mining ensure the production in Jelšava would last for over 100 years and in Lubeník for 10–15 years [18]. Extensive mining of magnesite in the mentioned locality also has negative consequences. It is mainly the chemical degradation of the soil [19]. Raman et al. [20], Machin and Navas [21], Kautz et al. [22], and Wang et al. [23] report that dust emissions containing large amounts of magnesium cause severe soil degradation. Owing to their specific composition, solid particles from magnesite processing significantly affect the composition of the dust fallout, especially near the production factories. After sedimentation, the dust fallout interacts with the soil and other components of the environment, and can directly affect their quality. In the case of long-term operations, it strongly affects the environment [24]. Fazekaš et al. [25] point out that the Jelšava-Lubeník area is one of the most devastated regions of Slovakia, with an alarming degree of environmental damage. The main component of environmental pollution in Jelšava-Lubeník is magnesite powder originating from aerosol particles. After being released into the environment, heavy metals can persist for centuries or even millennia, spread to distant areas, and accumulate in the biotic and abiotic components of ecosystems [26,27]. Therefore, they may adversely affect human health and ecosystems long after their release and far from their source [28,29,30].
It is very difficult to restore the soil environment if the soil is contaminated with heavy metals. Heavy metals in the soil also affect plant growth. Metals such as chromium (Cr), mercury (Hg), arsenic (As), lead (Pb), and cadmium (Cd) are toxic to most plants and other organisms at higher concentrations [31]. Cadmium is a highly toxic element that affects plant growth, metabolism, and condition [32]. Lead is not an essential element for plants; it tends to accumulate in plant roots and cause toxicity [33]. Zinc is an essential component for plants, but, in excessive amounts, it can cause toxicity [34]. Chromium is a toxic element for plants at concentrations higher than 0.50 mg/kg [35]. The distribution of contaminants in a plant is determined by the physiological character of the plant. Some plants tend to accumulate contaminants in certain organs. The distribution depends on the mobility of the contaminant in the plant tissues, on the type of plant, and the conditions of its growth [36]. Most plant species cannot adapt to a high level of heavy metal content, but some plants survive, grow, and reproduce in soils contaminated with heavy metals. A vast majority of these species tolerate heavy metal concentrations and retain most of the heavy metals in the roots with minimal translocation to the leaves. Hyperaccumulators show the opposite behavior concerning the absorption and the distribution of heavy metals in the plant [37]. Their activity consists of an active uptake of large amounts of heavy metals from the soil. Heavy metals are not retained in the roots, but translocated to other parts of the plant. Despite high concentrations of heavy metals, they do not show phytotoxicity [38]. Hyperaccumulators can accumulate metals at levels 100 times higher than those usually measured in non-accumulator plant shoots. The hyperaccumulator can concentrate more than 10 mg/kg of Hg; 100 mg/kg of Cd; 1000 mg/kg of Co, Cr, Cu, and Pb; and 10,000 mg/kg of Zn and Ni [39,40]. Some important hyperaccumulators according to Ma et al. [41], Schmidt [42], and Scragg [43] are Thlaspi caerulescens, Alyysum murale, Brasica junicea, Betula pendula, Salix viminalis, Zea mays, Helianthus annuus, Agrostis capillaris, Agrostis stolonifera, and Pteris vittata. Plants that are highly resistant to heavy metals include Elytrigia repens and Taraxacum officinale [44]. Several studies have confirmed that Phragmites australis is an important plant that can absorb heavy metals from the contaminated soil [25,45,46,47,48]. Phragmites australis can withstand extreme environmental conditions, including the presence of toxic contaminants such as heavy metals [45,46]. It can accumulate heavy metals in the individual parts of the plant in the order of manganese, zinc, lead, and copper. Concentrations in different parts of the plant vary. The highest content of these elements is concentrated in the roots, which indicates low mobility towards the aerial parts of the plant [47]. Although Phragmites australis is not a hyperaccumulator, several authors agree that it is appropriate to use it as an identifier for heavy metals and to detoxify contaminated environments [25,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56]. Elytrigia repens and Phragmites australis have the potential to phytoextract and phytostabilize heavy metals Cr, Pb, Zn, Mn, Ni, and Cu present contaminated soils [57,58,59,60]. Agrostis stolonifera can accumulate heavy metals in the roots and is, therefore, recommended for phytostabilization [61,62,63]. Pérez-de-mora et al. [64] found that Agrostis stolonifera can effectively reduce the concentration of soluble heavy metals and improve the diversity and structure of the microbial community in the soil. Numerous studies have suggested that Elytrigia repens, Phragmites australis, and Agrostis stolonifera are often used to remove extreme amounts of heavy metals from contaminated soil [65,66,67,68].
The main objective of the study is to quantify the content of heavy metals (Hg, Cd, Pb, Ni, Cr, Zn, Cu, As, Mn, Mg) in soils and underground and aerial parts of the dominant plant species (Phragmites australis, Elytrigia repens, Agrostis stolonifera) in the dumping ground of the magnesite factory Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovak magnesite factory Jelšava; Slovmag Lubeník; Slovakia).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The research was conducted in the magnesium and other alkaline metals-rich areas, Jelšava (N48°38′39.1″ E20°13′02.7″) and Lubeník (N48°39′18.3″ E20°11′48.9″). The investigated areas are located in the Revuca Highlands in the south-western part of the Slovak Ore Mountains [69]. The environmental regionalization of the Slovak Republic classifies the territory of Jelšava and Lubeník in the Revuca region of the 2nd environmental quality with a slightly disturbed environment. In this area, soils such as Rendzinas, Cambisols, and Luvisols predominate [70]. The climate in Jelšava-Lubeník is warm and slightly humid, with cold winters. The average temperature in winter is −3 to −5 °C, and in summer it ranges from 14.5 to 16.5 °C. The annual total precipitation is, on average, in the range of 700–800 mm [71].

2.2. Sampling Procedure

In the studied area, 12 regularly monitored sampling points, situated in the dumping ground of the magnesite factory, were located and recorded by GPS (Figure 1). The sampling points are used mainly as permanent grasslands. Soil samples were taken in September 2019 and 2020. Sampling was performed from soil horizon A, from a depth of 0.05 to 0.15 m, to quantify the heavy metal content and the pH. One homogeneous sample consisted of approximately 1 kg of soil from 5 different samples taken from points at regular distances in one sampling site. The soil samples were placed in labelled polyethylene bags, transported to the laboratory, and cleaned of plants and other materials. The individual samples were dried at room temperature, crushed, and sieved through a 2 mm stainless steel sieve. The underground and aerial parts of the dominant plant species Phragmites australis, Agrostis stolonifera, and Elytrigia repens, located in the mining dumping ground and forming monocultures, were investigated (Figure 2). The plant samples were taken in September 2020, placed in labelled polyethylene bags, transported to the laboratory, cleaned of residual materials, dried, and divided into individual parts (root, stem, flower) for further analysis. The sampling and processing procedures were in accordance with the Slovak standards STN ISO 10381 [72], and Decree No.338/2005 [73].

2.3. Analytical Methods

The total content of heavy metals in the soil was determined in cooperation with the State Geological Institute of Dionýz Štúr Spišská Nová Ves in an accredited geoanalytic laboratory (certificate no. 042/S-004) by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (Cd, Pb, Cr, Zn, Cu, As, Ni, Mn, Mg) by SPECTRO XEPOS HE X-ray Spectrometer (SPECTRO ANALYTICAL INSTRUMENTS GmbH Germany) and X-ray tube VARIAN VF-60-W-S (W—Anode), and atomic absorption spectrometry (Hg) by AMA-254 Mercury Analyzer (ALTEC Prague). The content of heavy metals in plants was determined by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (Cd, Pb) by AURORA M90 Spectrometer (BRUKER CAM Germany) and ICP MS 7900 (AGILENT USA) and inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (Cr, Zn, Mn, Mg) by ICP OES 5100 and ICP OES 5110 Analyzers (AGILENT USA). The measured values were compared with the limit values set by the Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No. 220/2004 Coll. [74]. The pH was determined in a 1M KCl solution (20 g of soil mixed with 50 mL of 1M KCl) using the pH meter, Mettler Toledo [75]. The correlations between pH and heavy metal content were analyzed using the Spearman correlation coefficient, Rho, with the help of IBM SPSS Statistics 26. Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed using PAST 4.

3. Results and Discussion

The pH is an important parameter in assessing the mobility and retention of heavy metals in soils [76]. The average pH value in the research area Jelšava-Lubeník reached the value of 8.05 in 2019 and 8.14 in 2020 (Table 1). The range of pH values was from 6.58 to 9.32, indicating that the soils in the study area are slightly acidic to strongly alkaline. The results of our research are consistent with the research of Yang et al. [77], who found that pH values in soils around magnesite mines were alkaline, ranging from 7.1 to 10.3. The strong alkalization of the soil in magnesite mining fields was also confirmed by a previous study by Hronec and Adamišin [78] and Fazekaš et al. [25]. Fluctuations of pH seem to be one of the most important factors influencing the mobility of the metals in the soil. Soil acidity increases the absorption of heavy metals, while alkalinity of the soil may reduce the retention of heavy metals in soils [79].
The main cause of soil contamination in the Jelšava-Lubeník area is the mining and processing of magnesite. Table 1 shows the measured content of heavy metals in the soil and the pH in 2019 and 2020 expressed by descriptive statistics. The chromium content in the Jelšava-Lubeník area was in the range of 168.58 ± 197.86 mg/kg in 2019 and in the range of 152.83 ± 108.53 mg/kg in 2020, which exceed the statutory limit. The median value of chromium in Slovak soils in the soil horizon A is around 85 mg/kg [80]. The highest measured chromium content exceeded the median value by almost 10 times. The content of arsenic in the soil exceeded the limit value of 25 mg/kg in both years. The average values of arsenic were 25.83 mg/kg in 2019 and 27.17 mg/kg in 2020. The toxic effects of Cd and As are potentially greater than those of other heavy metals [81,82], significantly increasing their environmental risks and the need to pay attention to remediation. The Act No. 220/2004 Coll. of Laws [74] does not set the limit values for the manganese and magnesium content in soil. The manganese content in 2019 was 1341.67 ± 505.35 mg/kg and 1266.67 ± 396.19 mg/kg in 2020, while the average manganese content in the soils of the Slovak Republic is in the range of 2.10–95.27 mg/kg [75]. Kabata-Pendias [5] states that if manganese values exceed 1500 mg/kg, toxicity can be reported. The measured values of magnesium in the research areas exceeded the average values for the Slovak Republic by several times. According to Kobza et al. [83], the average values of magnesium for the Slovak Republic were in the range of 200–400 mg/kg. The magnesium content in the Jelšava-Lubeník area reached values in the range of 8400–83,100 mg/kg. The highest measured value of magnesium exceeded the average value by 415 times. Based on significant differences between the measured values, it is possible to state that there is heterogeneity in the concentration of magnesium in the investigated localities. Fazekaš et al. [25] found a significant level of soil contamination by magnesium in the study area, the values of which were in the range of 26,150 ± 59,039 mg/kg, representing an average excess that is 18 to 493 times higher. The result is secondary salinization with magnesium, chemical toxicity, and soil degradation. The area near the magnesite factory is made toxic by magnesite waste and is referred to as the lunar landscape, as a crust of Mg(OH)2-brucite has formed on the upper part of the soil. Heavy metals are released into the atmosphere by emissions, are transported, and are further concentrated in crusts, extending them and not allowing vegetation to grow [25,84,85]. Huge heaps have formed around the factory as a result of the mining of magnesite over a long time (Figure 3); still, more and more heavy metals are released into the surrounding areas.
The content of mercury, cadmium, lead, zinc, copper, and nickel in the research areas did not exceed the values set by law [74]. Mean mercury values ranged from 0.01 to 0.14 mg/kg. The results of the Geochemical Atlas of the Slovak Republic [86] show that Hg is present in the parent rock in the amount of 0.049–0.055 mg/kg. Therefore, similar values were expected and finally confirmed. The median cadmium value was 0.40 mg/kg. The average lead content was at the level of 29.92 mg/kg in 2019 and 28.90 mg/kg in 2020. Zinc reached values in the range of 52.00–113.00 mg/kg in the monitored years. The average copper content was 27.58 mg/kg in 2019 and 27.17 mg/kg in 2020. The average nickel content in the soil in 2019 was 32.58 mg/kg, and 31.92 mg/kg in 2020. Based on this data, it can be stated that the content of Hg, Cd, Pb, Zn, Cu, and Ni is below the level of harmfulness and toxicity in the investigated area.
In magnesium mining areas, high magnesium content in the soil has been confirmed, caused by the accumulation and deposition of magnesite dust, which increases soil degradation [23,77]. On the other hand, there are few studies that address the remediation of magnesium-contaminated soils. These facts have been confirmed in their studies by Raman et al. [20], Machin and Navas [21], Kautz et al. [22], and Wang et al. [23].
A correlation matrix, showing the relationships between heavy metals and pH at the significance level p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, is shown in Table 2. Based on the Spearman correlation coefficient, Rho, positive significant correlations were found between Zn-Cr, Cu-As, Ni-Cu, and Ni-As, and a single negative significant correlation between Cu-Pb, which is consistent with the results of the study by Zhang et al. [85], who studied heavy metal content in farmland soil in the context of human activities of mining and smelting, industry, irrigation by sewage, urban development, and fertilizer application. Furthermore, positive correlations were found between Hg-Mn, Mg-Cu and Cu-As, pH-Cu, pH-Mn, and pH-Mg. The positive significant relationship between pH and Mg in magnesite soils is also confirmed by Yang et al. [77], who studied soil chemical and microbial properties among mine tailings, abandoned mined land, contaminated cropland, and uncontaminated cropland around a magnesite mine, and clarified the impact of Mg on the soils. High correlation coefficients between heavy metals may indicate that metals have a similar origin of pollution sources and their presence reflects anthropogenic inputs from industrial activities. They can be characterized by a similar process of migration and transformation through physicochemical conditions in the environment. On the contrary, low or negative correlation coefficients may indicate different sources that are related to natural or geogenic processes [87,88].
The dendrogram of the hierarchical cluster analysis is shown in Figure 4. The metals included in the group come from the same polluting source. The first group consisted of Cd-Hg, the second group of Mn-Mg, the third group of Zn-Cr, and the fourth group of Pb-Cu, Ni, and As. The results of the hierarchical cluster analysis and the correlation analysis show that the grouped metals come from the same sources of pollution. The high content of Mg and Mn could come not only from the weathering of the basic materials, but is related mainly to the intensity of mining and processing of magnesite. Similar findings are presented in the work by Doležalová [88]. In our case, the amount of heavy metals in the soil forms the so-called natural background related mainly to the weathering of the rocks. However, the overall content of these elements is decisively influenced by the anthropogenic activity, which is pointed out in the work of Dercová et al. [89] and Sun et al. [90].
The content of heavy metals in the underground and aerial parts of Phragmites australis, Elytrigia repens, and Agrostis stolonifera is shown in Figure 5. Cadmium values exceeded the limit values in the roots of Elytrigia repens (0.25 mg/kg of dry matter) > Agrostis stolonifera (0.12 mg/kg of dry matter). The lead concentration exceeded the legal values in all examined plants except for the stem of Phragmites australis and the flower of Elytrigia repens. Extremely high lead concentrations were found in the roots of Elytrigia repens (16.20 mg/kg of dry matter) > Agrostis stolonifera (13.10 mg/kg of dry matter). Some hyperaccumulators can accumulate up to 10,000 mg/kg of zinc [91]. The limit value for zinc was exceeded in all examined plants, with the highest content in the root of Elytrigia repens (46.00 mg/kg of dry matter) > flower of Phragmites australis (43.90 mg/kg of dry matter) > root of Agrostis stolonifera (35.30 mg/kg of dry matter). Zinc concentrations ranged from 12.70 to 46.00 mg/kg of dry matter. The high content of zinc in Phragmites australis was pointed out by Bonanno and Giudice [47], Lesage et al. [92], and Vymazal et al. [93]. The measured values of chromium ranged from 1.20 to 14.30 mg/kg of dry matter. High chromium content was recorded in the roots of Elytrigia repens (14.30 mg/kg of dry matter) > Agrostis stolonifera (8.00 mg/kg of dry matter). Similar results for the heavy metal content (Cr, Cd, Pb) in Elytrigia repens were confirmed in the studies of Minkina et al. [57] and Chaplygin et al. [94]. High concentrations of manganese and magnesium were measured in all parts of the plants. Plants can accumulate manganese, especially in the roots. In general, plants are affected by 500 mg/kg of manganese content. In some parts, resistant hyperaccumulators can accumulate 1000–10,000 mg/kg of manganese [95]. Manganese values ranged from 64.00 ± 97.83 mg/kg of dry matter, with the highest content found in the roots of Elytrigia repens (337.00 mg/kg of dry matter) > Agrostis stolonifera (185.00 mg/kg of dry matter) > Phragmites australis (64.00 mg/kg of dry matter). Plants growing on magnesium-contaminated soil having a concentration of 5000 mg/kg show signs of toxicity within 12 days. Plants that receive 10,000 mg/kg of magnesium show signs of toxicity within 5 days [96]. The average concentration of magnesium in the plants was 5863.33 mg/kg of dry matter. The highest content was measured in the roots of Elytrigia repens (17,400 mg/kg of dry matter) > roots of Agrostis stolonifera (7870 mg/kg of dry matter) > Phragmites australis (7340 mg/kg of dry matter). The high content of Mg in Elytrigia repens, Agrostis stolonifera, and Phragmites australis near magnesite mining areas was confirmed in the studies of Zeleňáková et al. [97], Hronec and Hajdúk [98], and Blanár [99]. It can be stated that the content of Cd, Pb, Zn, Cr, Mn, and Mg in plants was high, and the highest concentration was found in the roots of Elytrigia repens > Agrostis stolonifera > Phragmites australis and the flowers of Phragmites australis (Zn, Mg).
The results showed that the monitored dominant plant species can accumulate heavy metals without serious damage to their metabolism. At the same time, we can state that the monitored plant species are applied in places with surface pollution. The mechanism, or tolerance, to heavy metals is described in detail in Dercová [89] and Zwolak [100]. In our case, Phragmites australis appears to be effective in the process of phytoextraction, which not only has the ability to accumulate hazardous soil elements through its root system, but also to transport and store them in the aboveground biomass. At the same time, our results show that the highest content of difficult-to-extract heavy metals, especially Pb, was found in the roots of Elytrigia repens and Agrostis Stolonifera, thus confirming the suitability of these plant species in the phytostabilization process.

4. Conclusions

This paper presents the results of research on the content of heavy metals in soils and plants in the waste dumping ground of the magnesite factory Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia). The main component of environmental pollution in Jelšava-Lubeník is magnesite powder originating from aerosol particles. Based on the results of the research, it can be stated that the soils in the investigated area are slightly acidic to strongly alkaline. The soils in the dumping ground of the magnesite factory Jelšava-Lubeník are contaminated with heavy metals, especially Cr, As, Mn, and Mg. In selected areas, the measured values exceeded the limit values set by law, such as the average values for soils of the Slovak Republic. The results of the hierarchical cluster analysis and the correlation analysis show that the grouped metals come from the same sources of pollution. The high content of Mg and Mn could come not only from the weathering of the basic materials, but is related mainly to the intensity of mining and processing of magnesite. The content of heavy metals (Cd, Pb, Zn, Cr, Mn, Mg) in plants was high and the highest concentration was found in the roots of Elytrigia repens > Agrostis stolonifera > Phragmites australis and the flowers of Phragmites australis (Zn, Mg). These findings show that Phragmites australis appears to be effective in the process of phytoextraction, and Elytrigia repens and Agrostis stolonifera in the process of phytostabilization. Heavy metals present in the soils and plants of the Jelšava-Lubeník magnesite mining area cause serious damage to the environment, with a possible impact on the health of the population. The acquired knowledge about the content of heavy metals in soil and plants in the waste dumping ground of the magnesite factory Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia) can help in planning and realization remediation measures, strengthening the control and management of active mining and industrial areas. At the same time, it would prevent the spread of heavy metals into the environment and contribute to improvement the state of the environment in areas exposed to magnesite mining.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.F., L.Š., J.F.; data analysis, L.Š., J.F.; writing—original draft preparation, L.Š.; writing—review and editing, D.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by GaPU grant number 25/2020, VEGA grant number 1/0313/19, and KEGA grant number 011PU-4/2019.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by GaPU 25/2020 Assessment of soil degradation in the magnesite mining area of Jelšava-Lubeník, VEGA 1/0313/19 Ecosystem approach as a parameter of the modern environmental research of contaminated areas, and KEGA 011PU-4/2019 Implementation of environmental education and research into the teaching of management courses in the study program management.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Foley, J.A.; Ramankutty, N.; Brauman, K.A.; Cassidy, E.S.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Mueller, N.D.; O’Connell, C.; Ray, D.K.; West, P.C.; et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 2011, 478, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Mueller, N.D.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Ray, D.K.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J.A. Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 2012, 490, 254–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Amundson, R.; Berhe, A.A.; Hopmans, J.W.; Olson, C.; Sztein, A.E.; Sparks, D.L. Soil and human security in the 21st century. Science 2015, 348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Xu, J.; Liu, C.; Hsu, P.C.; Zhao, J.; Wu, T.; Tang, J.; Liu, K.; Cui, Y. Remediation of heavy metal contaminated soil by asymmetrical alternating current electrochemistry. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Kabata-Pendias, A. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants, 4th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; Available online: https://books.google.sk/books?id=bS-9x8TdXB8C&hl=sk&lr= (accessed on 5 January 2021).
  6. Błońska, E.; Lasota, J.; Gruba, P. Effect of temperate forest tree species on soil dehydrogenase and urease activities in relation to other properties of soil derived from loess and glaciofluvial sand. Ecol. Res. 2016, 31, 655–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Gąsiorek, M.; Kowalska, J.; Mazurek, R.; Pająk, M. Comprehensive assessment of heavy metal pollution in topsoil of historical urban park on an example of the Planty Park in Krakow (Poland). Chemosphere 2017, 179, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Weber, J.; Dradrach, A.; Karczewska, A.; Kocowicz, A. The distribution of sequentially extracted Cu, Pb, and Zn fractions in Podzol profiles under dwarf pine of different stages of degradation in subalpine zone of Karkonosze Mts (central Europe). J. Soils Sediments 2018, 18, 2387–2398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Roba, C.; Roşu, C.; Piştea, I.; Ozunu, A.; Baciu, C. Heavy metal content in vegetables and fruits cultivated in Baia Mare mining area (Romania) and health risk assessment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 6062–6073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nawab, J.; Li, G.; Khan, S.; Sher, H.; Aamir, M.; Shamshad, I.; Khan, A.; Khan, M.A. Health risk assessment from contaminated foodstuffs: A field study in chromite mining-affected areas northern Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 12227–12236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Wang, Y.; Wang, R.; Fan, L.; Chen, T.; Bai, Y.; Yu, Q.; Liu, Y. Assessment of multiple exposure to chemical elements and health risks among residents near Huodehong lead-zinc mining area in Yunnan, Southwest China. Chemosphere 2017, 174, 613–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nuapia, Y.; Chimuka, L.; Cukrowska, E. Assessment of heavy metals in raw food samples from open markets in two African cities. Chemosphere 2018, 196, 339–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wahsha, M.; Nadimi-Goki, M.; Fornasier, F.; Al-Jawasehr, R.; Hussein, E.I.; Bini, C. Microbial enzymes as an early warning management tool for monitoring mining site soils. Catena 2017, 148, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wu, B.; Hou, S.; Peng, D.; Wang, Y.; Wang, C.; Xu, F.; Xu, H. Response of soil micro-ecology to different levels of cadmium in alkaline soil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 166, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Halecki, W.; Gąsiorek, M. Seasonal variability of microbial biomass phosphorus in urban soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 502, 42–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Solgi, E. Contamination of two heavy metals in topsoils of the Urban Parks Asadabad. Arch. Hyg. Sci. 2016, 5, 92–101. Available online: http://jhygiene.muq.ac.ir/article-1-90-en.html (accessed on 5 January 2021).
  17. Zhou, H.; Zhou, X.; Zeng, M.; Liao, B.H.; Liu, L.; Yang, W.T.; Wu, Y.M.; Qiu, Q.Y.; Wang, Y.J. Effects of combined amendments on heavy metal accumulation in rice (Oryza sativa L.) planted on contaminated paddy soil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2014, 101, 226–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Baláž, P. Slovak magnesite (in Slovak). Enviromagazín 2008, 13, 9. Available online: https://www.enviromagazin.sk/enviro2008/enviro6/06_slovensky.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2021).
  19. Jesenák, K. Wanderings around Slovakia with Karol Jesenák. Magnesite mining (in Slovak). 2014. Available online: https://fns.uniba.sk/fileadmin/prif/chem/kag/Zam-Jesenak/DnesnaSkola/dnesna_skola_apr_2014_Potulky_po_Slovensku_s_Karolom_Jesenakom_O_tazbe_magnezitu.pdf (accessed on 6 January 2021).
  20. Raman, N. Mycorrhizal status of plant species colonizing a magnesite mine spoil in India. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1993, 16, 76–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Machin, J.; Navas, A. Soil pH changes induced by contamination by magnesium oxides dust. Land Degrad. Dev. 2000, 11, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Kautz, G.; Zimmer, M.; Zach, P.; Kulfan, J.; Topp, W. Suppression of soil microorganisms by emissions of a magnesite plant in the Slovak Republic. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2001, 125, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wang, H.; Zhao, Q.; Zeng, D.; Hu, Y.; Yu, Z. Remediation of a magnesium contaminated soil by chemical amendments and leaching. Land Degrad. Dev. 2015, 26, 613–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ďurža, O. Impact of magnesite exploitation and processing on environment in Slovakia. Environment 2008, 42, 48–52. Available online: http://publikacie.uke.sav.sk/sites/default/files/2008_1_048_052_durza_0.pdf (accessed on 8 January 2021).
  25. Fazekaš, J.; Fazekašová, D.; Hronec, O.; Benková, E.; Boltižiar, M. Contamination of soil and vegetation at a magnesite mining area in Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia). Ekológia 2018, 37, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Lopez, M.L.; Narayan, M.; Saupe, G.; Gardea-Torresdey, J. The biochemistry of environmental heavy metal uptake by plants: Implications for the food chain. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2009, 41, 1665–1677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Babst-Kostecka, A.; Schat, H.; Saumitou-Laprade, P.; Grodzińska, K.; Bourceaux, A.; Pauwels, M.; Frérot, H. Evolutionary dynamics of quantitative variation in an adaptive trait at the regional scale: The case of zinc hyperaccumulation in Arabidopsis halleri. Mol. Ecol. 2018, 27, 3257–3273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. El Khalil, H.; El Hamiani, O.; Bitton, G.; Ouazzani, N.; Boularbah, A. Heavy metal contamination from mining sites in South Morocco: Monitoring metal content and toxicity of soil runoff and groundwater. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2008, 136, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Moroń, D.; Grześ, I.M.; Skórka, P.; Szentgyörgyi, H.; Laskowski, R.; Potts, S.G.; Woyciechowski, M. Abundance and diversity of wild bees along gradients of heavy metal pollution. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012, 49, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Azarbad, H.; Niklińska, M.; van Gestel, C.A.M.; van Straalen, N.M.; Röling, W.F.M.; Laskowski, R. Microbial community structure and functioning along metal pollution gradients. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013, 32, 1992–2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Wang, K.; Ma, J.; Li, M.; Qin, Y.; Bao, X.; Wang, C.; Cui, D.; Xiang, O.; Ma, L.Q. Mechanisms of Cd and Cu induced toxicity in human gastric epithelial cells: Oxidative stress, cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 756, 143951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Divan, A.M., Jr.; de Oliveira, P.L.; Perry, C.T.; Atz, V.L.; Azzarini-Rostirola, L.N.; Raya-Rodriguez, M.T. Using wild plant species as indicators for the accumulation of emissions from a thermal power plant, Candiota, South Brazil. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9, 1156–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Siedlecka, A.; Tukendorf, A.; Skórzyńska-Polit, E.; Maksymiec, W.; Wójcik, M.; Baszyński, T.; Krupa, Z. Angiosperms (Asteraceae, Convolvulaceae, Fabaceae and Poaceae; other than Brassicaceae). In Metals in the Environment. Analysis by Biodiversity; Prasad, M.N.V., Ed.; Marcel Dekket, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 171–217. [Google Scholar]
  34. Broadley, M.R.; White, P.J.; Hammond, J.P.; Zelko, I.; Lux, A. Zinc in plants. New Phytol. 2007, 173, 677–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Allen, S.E. Chemical Analysis of Ecological Material, 2nd ed.; Blackwell Scientific Publications: Oxford, UK, 1989; 368 p. [Google Scholar]
  36. Szabová, T.; Leščinská, M.; Gondová, A. Heavy metal cumulation in crops after the sewage sludge application. Acta Montan. Slovaca 1998, 3, 478–481. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/27184684.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2021).
  37. Hall, J.L. Cellular mechanisms for heavy metal detoxification and tolerance. J. Exp. Bot. 2002, 53, 1–11. Available online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11741035/ (accessed on 10 January 2021). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Reeves, R.D. Hyperaccumulation of trace elements by plants. In Phytoremediation of Metal-Contaminated Soils; Morel, J.L., Echevarria, G., Goncharova, N., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Harrier, L.A.; Watson, C.A. The potential role of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi in the bioprotection of plants against soil-borne pathogens in organic and/or other sustainable farming systems. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2004, 60, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Janoušková, M.; Pavlíková, D.; Vosátka, M. Potential contribution of arbuscular mycorrhiza to cadmium immobilisation in soil. Chemosphere 2006, 65, 1959–1965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Ma, L.Q.; Komar, K.M.; Tu, C.; Zhang, W.; Cai, Y.; Kenelley, E.D. A fern that hyperaccumulates arsenic—a hardy, versatile, fast-growing plant helps to remove arsenic from contaminated soils. Nature 2001, 409, 579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Schmidt, U. Enhancing phytoextraction: The effect of chemical soil manipulation on mobility, plant accumulation and leaching of heavy metals. J. Environ. Qual. 2003, 32, 1939–1954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Scragg, A. Environmental Biotechnology; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  44. Boguská, Z.; Fazekašová, D.; Angelovičová, L. Diversity of vegetation on contaminated substrates. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Environment and Mineral Processing, VŠB TU, Ostrava, Czech Republic, 6–8 June 2013. [Google Scholar]
  45. Baldantoni, D.; Alfani, A.; Di Tommasi, P.; Bartoli, G.; Virzo de Santo, A. Assessment of macro and microelement accumulation capability of two aquatic plants. Environ. Pollut. 2004, 130, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Quan, W.M.; Han, J.D.; Shen, A.L.; Ping, X.Y.; Qian, P.L.; Li, C.J.; Shi, L.Y.; Chen, Y.Q. Uptake and distribution of N, P and heavy metals in three dominant salt marsh macrophytes from Yangtze River estuary, China. Mar. Environ. Res. 2007, 64, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Bonanno, G.; Lo Giudice, R. Heavy metal bioaccumulation by the organs of Phragmites australis (common reed) and their potential use as contamination indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10, 639–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Minkina, T.; Fedorenko, G.; Nevidomskaya, D.; Fedorenko, A.; Chaplygin, V.; Mandzhieva, S. Morphological and anatomical changes of Phragmites australis Cav. due to the uptake and accumulation of heavy metals from polluted soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 636, 392–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Iannelli, M.A.; Pietrini, F.; Fiore, F.; Petrilli, L.; Massacci, A. Antioxidant response to cadmium in Phragmites australis plants. Plant. Physiol. Biochem. 2002, 40, 977–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ederli, L.; Reale, L.; Ferranti, F.; Pasqualini, S. Responses induced by high concentration of cadmium in Phragmites australis roots. Physiol. Plant. 2004, 121, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Weis, J.S.; Glover, T.; Weis, P. Interactions of metals affect their distribution in tissues of Phragmites australis. Environ. Pollut. 2004, 131, 409–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rai, P.K. Heavy metal pollution in aquatic ecosystems and its phytoremediation using wetland plants: An ecosustainable approach. Int. J. Phytorem. 2008, 10, 131–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Phillips, D.P.; Human, L.R.D.; Adams, J.B. Wetland plants as indicators of heavy metal contamination. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 92, 227–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Cicero-Fernández, D.; Peña-Fernández, M.; Expósito-Camargo, J.A.; Antizar-Ladislao, B. Long-term (two annual cycles) phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated estuarine sediments by Phragmites australis. N. Biotechnol. 2017, 38, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Huang, X.; Zhao, F.; Yu, G.; Song, C.; Geng, Z.; Zhuang, P. Removal of Cu, Zn, Pb, and Cr from yangtze estuary using the Phragmites australis artificial floating wetlands. BioMed Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Su, F.; Wang, T.; Zhang, H.; Song, Z.; Feng, X.; Zhang, K. The distribution and enrichment characteristics of copper in soil and Phragmites australis of Liao River estuary wetland. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Minkina, T.M.; Mandzhieva, S.S.; Chaplygin, V.A.; Bauer, T.V.; Burachevskaya, M.V.; Nevidomskaya, D.G.; Sushkova, S.N.; Sherstnev, A.K.; Zamulina, I.V. Content and distribution of heavy metals in herbaceous plants under the effect of industrial aerosol emissions. J. Geochem. Explor. 2017, 174, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Minkina, T.M.; Mandzhieva, S.S.; Chaplygin, V.A.; Nazarenko, O.G.; Maksimov, A.Y.; Zamulina, I.V.; Bukachevskaya, M.V.; Sushkova, S.N. Accumulation of heavy metals by forb stepe vegetation according to long-term monitoring data. Arid Ecosyst. 2018, 8, 190–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Enya, O.; Lin, C.; Qin, J. Heavy metal contamination status in soil-plant system in the Upper Mersey Estuarine Floodplain, Northwest England. Mar. Pollut. Bul. 2019, 146, 292–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Issaka, S.; Ashraf, M.A. Phytorestoration of mine spoiled: “Evaluation of natural phytoremediation process occurring at ex-tin mining catchment”. In Phytorestoration of Abandoned Mining and Oil Drilling Sites; Bauddh, K., Korstad, J., Sharma, P., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 219–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cadiz, N.M.; Davies, M.S.; de Guzman, C.C. Root growth characteristics of Ocimum sanctum and Festuca rubra cv. Merlin in response to cadmium, lead and zinc. Philipp. Agric. Sci. 1995, 78, 331–342. Available online: https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=PH9710113 (accessed on 15 February 2021).
  62. Cadiz, N.M.; de Guzman, C.C.; Davies, M.S. Tolerance strategies of plants to heavy metals: Cellular changes, accumulation pattern and intracellular localization of Cd, Pb and Zn in Festuca rubra L. cv. Merlin (Red Fescue) and Ocimum sanctum (Holy Basil). Philipp. Agric. Sci. 1999, 82, 5–24. Available online: https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=PH9610541 (accessed on 15 February 2021).
  63. Patra, D.K.; Acharya, S.; Pradhan, C.; Patra, H.K. Poaceae plants as potential phytoremediators of heavy metals and eco-restoration in contaminated mining sites. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pérez-de-mora, A.; Burgos, P.; Madejón, E.; Cabrera, F.; Jaeckel, P.; Schloter, M. Microbial community structure and function in a soil contaminated by heavy metals: Effects of plant growth and different amendments. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 327–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Parraga-Aguado, I.; Gonzáles-Alcaraz, M.N.; Schulin, R.; Conesa, H.M. The potential use of Piptatherum miliaceum for the phytomanagement of mine tailings in semiarid areas: Role of soil fertility and plant competition. J. Environ. Manage. 2015, 158, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gajic, G.; Djurdjevic, L.; Kostic, O.; Jaric, S.; Mitrovic, M.; Stevanovic, B.; Pavlovic, P. Assessment of the phytoremediation potential and an adaptive response of Festuca rubra L. Sown on fly ash deposits: Native grass has a pivotal role in Eco restoration management. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 93, 250–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gajic, G.; Djurdjevic, L.; Kostic, O.; Jaric, S.; Mitrovic, M.; Pavlovic, P. Ecological potential of plants for phytoremediation and Eco restoration of fly ash deposits and mine wastes. Front. Environ. Sci. 2018, 6, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Gajic, G.; Mitrovic, M.; Pavlovic, P. Eco restoration of fly ash deposits by native plant species at thermal power stations in Serbia. In Phytomanagement of Polluted Sites, Market Opportunities in Sustainable Phytoremediation; Pandey, V.C., Bauddh, K., Eds.; Elsevier: Amstredam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 113–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mazúr, E.; Lukniš, M. Regional Division SSR (in Slovak); Geografický Ústav SAV: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  70. Klinda, J.; Mičík, T.; Némethová, M.; Slámková, M. Environmental Regionalisation of the Slovak Republic 2016; Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2016; Available online: https://www.minzp.sk/files/environmentalna-regionalizacia-sr.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2021).
  71. Lapin, M.; Faško, P.; Melo, M.; Šťastný, P.; Tomlain, J. Climate Areas. Atlas of the Slovak Republic; Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  72. Slovak Technical Standard ISO 10381-6. Soil Quality—Sampling—Part 6: Guidance on the Collection, Handling and Storage of Soil Under Aerobic Conditions for the Assessment of Microbiological Processes, Biomass and Diversity in the Laboratory. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/43691.html (accessed on 15 November 2020).
  73. Ministry of Agriculture of the Slovak Republic. Ministry of Agriculture Decree No. 338/2005; Ministry of Agriculture of the Slovak Republic: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  74. Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No. 220/2004 Coll. Available online: https://www.mpsr.sk/zakon-c-220-2004-z-z/27-23-27-8366/ (accessed on 20 November 2020).
  75. Kobza, J.; Barančíková, G.; Čumová, L.; Dodok, R.; Hrivňaková, K.; Makovníková, J. Methods of Determining Indicators of Agrochemical Soil Properties; SSCRI: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  76. Martin, M.; Bonifacio, E.; Hossain, K.M.J.; Huq, S.M.I.; Barberis, E. Arsenic fixation and mobilization in the soils of the Ganges and Meghna floodplains. Impact of pedoenvironmental properties. Geoderma 2014, 228–229, 132–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Yang, D.; Zeng, D.H.; Zhang, J.; Li, L.J.; Mao, R. Chemical and microbial properties in contaminated soils around a magnesite mine in northeast China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2012, 23, 256–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Hronec, O.; Adamišin, P. Management of Areas Revitalization with Innovative Processes. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference Sustainability-Environment-Safety 2014, Bratislava, Slovakia, 2014. Available online: http://www.sszp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014_konf_SES__p-115__Adamisin-Hronec_.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2021).
  79. Tian, K.; Huang, B.; Xing, Z.; Hu, W. Geochemical baseline establishment and ecological risk evaluation of heavy metals in greenhouse soils from Dongtai. China. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 72, 510–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Šefčík, P.; Pramuka, S.; Gluch, A. Assessment of soil contamination in Slovakia according index of geoaccumulation. Agriculture 2008, 54, 119–130. Available online: https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=SK2008000265 (accessed on 13 February 2021).
  81. Xu, Z.Q.; Ni, S.; Tuo, X.G.; Zhang, C.J. Calculation of heavy metals’ toxicity coefficient in the evaluation of potential ecological risk index. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 31, 112–115. [Google Scholar]
  82. Zhong, X.; Chen, Z.; Li, Y.; Ding, K.; Liu, W.; Liu, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Zhang, M.; Baker, A.J.M.; Yang, W.; et al. Factors influencing heavy metal availability and risk assessment of soils at typical metal mines in Eastern China. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kobza, J. Current state and development of micronutrients in agricultural soils of Slovakia. Agrochémia 2018, 2, 15–21. Available online: http://agrochemia.uniag.sk/pdf/agrochemia_2_2018_kobza_3.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2021).
  84. Bobro, M.; Hančuľák, J. Mineralogical properties of imission sedimens in the areas of magnesite industry. Acta Montan. Slovaca 1997, 2, 240–243. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/26668833.pdf (accessed on 14 February 2021).
  85. Zhang, X.; Zhong, T.; Liu, L.; Ouyang, X. Impact of Soil Heavy Metal Pollution on Food Safety in China. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0135182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Čurlík, J.; Šefčík, P. Geochemický atlas Slovenskej republiky/Geochemical atlas of the Slovak Republic; SSCRI: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  87. Ma, Y.; Egodawatta, P.; McGree, J.; Liu, A.; Goonetilleke, A. Human health risk assessment of heavy metals in urban stormwater. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 557, 764–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Doležalová Weissmannová, H.; Mihočová, S.; Chovanec, P.; Pavlovský, J. Potential Ecological Risk and Human Health Risk Assessment of Heavy Metal Pollution in Industrial Affected Soils by Coal Mining and Metallurgy in Ostrava, Czech Republic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019, 16, 4495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Dercová, K.; Makovníková, J.; Barančíková, G.; Žuffa, J. Bioremediation of Soil and Wastewater Contaminated with Toxic Metals. Chem. Listy 2005, 99, 682–693. Available online: http://www.chemicke-listy.cz/ojs3/index.php/chemicke-listy/article/view/1984/1984 (accessed on 15 February 2021).
  90. Sun, Z.; Xie, X.; Wang, P.; Cheng, H. Heavy metal pollution caused by small-scale metal ore mining activities: A case study from a polymetallic mine in South China. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 639, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Baker, A.; McGrath, S.; Reeves, R.; Smith, J. Metal hyper-accumulator plants: A review of the ecology and physiology of a biological resource for phytoremediation of metal-polluted soils. In Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soil and Water; Terry, N., Banuelos, G., Eds.; Lewis Publisher: London, UK, 2000; pp. 85–107. [Google Scholar]
  92. Lesage, E.; Rousseau, D.P.L.; Meers, E.; Tack, F.M.G.; de Pauw, N. Accumulation of metals in a horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland treating domestic wastewater in Flanders, Belgium. Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 380, 102–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Vymazal, J.; Švehla, J.; Kröpfelová, L.; Chrastný, V. Trace metals in Phragmites australis and Phalaris arundinacea growing in constructed and natural wetlands. Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 380, 154–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Chaplygin, V.; Minkina, T.; Mandzhieva, S.; Burachevskaya, M.; Sushkova, S.; Poluektov, E.; Antonenko, E.; Kumacheva, V. The effect of technogenic emissions on the heavy metals accumulation by herbaceous plants. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Kabata-Pendias, A.; Mukherjee, A.B. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  96. Venkatesan, S.; Jayaganesh, S. Characterisation of Magnesium Toxicity, its Influence on Amino Acid Synthesis Pathway and Biochemical Parameters of Tea. Res. J. Phytochem. 2010, 4, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Zeleňáková, E.; Hajdúk, J.; Holub, Z. Obsah horčíka a iných prvkov v rastlinách (Agropyrum repens P. Beauv., Secale cereale L., Triticum aestivum L.) ovplyvnených magnezitovými exhalačnými splodinami/Content of magnesium and other elements in plants (Agropyrum repens P. Beauv., Secale cereale L., Triticum aestivum L.) affected by magnesite exhalation fumes. Biológia 1966, 21, 365–375. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  98. Hronec, O.; Hajdúk, J. Remarkable resistance of Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. growing on soils intoxicated by magnesium immissions. Ekologia 1998, 17, 117–124. [Google Scholar]
  99. Blanár, D.; Petrasova, A. Desmatodon cernuus (Huebener) Bruch & Schimp—A new species in the bryoflora of Slovakia. Reussia 2007, 4, 79–106. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296695052 (accessed on 14 February 2021).
  100. Zwolak, A.; Sarzyńska, M.; Szpyrka, E.; Stawarczyk, K. Sources of Soil Pollution by Heavy Metals and Their Accumulation in Vegetables: A Review. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2019, 230, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 13 04508 g001 550
Figure 1. Location of sampling points in the dumping ground of the magnesite factory Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia).
Figure 1. Location of sampling points in the dumping ground of the magnesite factory Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia).
Sustainability 13 04508 g001
Sustainability 13 04508 g002 550
Figure 2. Dominant plant species in the dumping ground of the magnesite factory Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia): (a) Phragmites australis, (b) Agrostis stolonifera, (c) Elytrigia repens.
Figure 2. Dominant plant species in the dumping ground of the magnesite factory Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia): (a) Phragmites australis, (b) Agrostis stolonifera, (c) Elytrigia repens.
Sustainability 13 04508 g002
Sustainability 13 04508 g003 550
Figure 3. Area near magnesite factory Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia); (a) crust Mg(OH)2 formed by magnesite dust particles; (b) magnesite heap.
Figure 3. Area near magnesite factory Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia); (a) crust Mg(OH)2 formed by magnesite dust particles; (b) magnesite heap.
Sustainability 13 04508 g003
Sustainability 13 04508 g004 550
Figure 4. Dendrogram of the heavy metal contents in the soils from hierarchical cluster analysis.
Figure 4. Dendrogram of the heavy metal contents in the soils from hierarchical cluster analysis.
Sustainability 13 04508 g004
Sustainability 13 04508 g005 550
Figure 5. Content of heavy metals (mg/kg) in underground and aerial parts of plants in the area Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia).
Figure 5. Content of heavy metals (mg/kg) in underground and aerial parts of plants in the area Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia).
Sustainability 13 04508 g005
Table
Table 1. Measured content of heavy metals in soil (mg/kg) and pH/KCl in the area Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia) expressed by descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Measured content of heavy metals in soil (mg/kg) and pH/KCl in the area Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia) expressed by descriptive statistics.
YearParameterMeanMedianMinimumMaximumStandard DeviationLimit Value *
2019pH/KCl8.057.636.589.270.97-
Cr168.58104.5085.00793.00197.8670.00
As 25.8321.0013.0063.0014.3125.00
Mn 1341.671350.00400.002200.00505.35-
Mg 31,500.0018,350.009800.0083,100.0025,749.07-
Hg0.070.070.010.140.030.50
Cd0.520.400.401.000.190.70
Pb29.9230.5022.0045.006.8670.00
Zn84.1777.5061.00113.0016.02150.00
Cu27.5828.0016.0045.009.2860.00
Ni 32.5830.5021.0054.0010.0750.00
2020pH/KCl8.147.906.739.320.95-
Cr152.83102.5078.00377.00108.5370.00
As 27.9221.5011.0084.0020.4525.00
Mn 1266.671300.00600.001900.00396.19-
Mg 24,891.6719,200.008400.0057,200.0017,033.73-
Hg0.070.060.030.100.030.50
Cd0.400.400.400.400.000.70
Pb28.9229.5016.0039.007.6170.00
Zn81.8382.0052.00108.0013.59150.00
Cu27.1727.0013.0049.0012.0460.00
Ni 31.9228.5019.0047.009.7750.00
Note: * Act No. 220/2004 Coll. of Laws.
Table
Table 2. Correlation matrix (Spearman′s Rho) between heavy metals and pH/KCl in the area Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia).
Table 2. Correlation matrix (Spearman′s Rho) between heavy metals and pH/KCl in the area Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia).
ParameterCdPbCrZnCuAsNiMnMgpH/KCl
Hg0.0440.559−0.252−0.355−0.315−0.282−0.3540.633 *−0.0900.115
Cd 0.0040.1430.3440.3450.4850.3760.1960.1520.231
Pb −0.343−0.364−0.656 *−0.551−0.5010.139−0.466−0.228
Cr 0.582 *0.0420.1110.056−0.474−0.168−0.509
Zn 0.3160.4200.284−0.1860.245−0.329
Cu 0.924 **0.924 **0.2590.723 **0.586 *
As 0.935 **0.2340.581 *0.420
Ni 0.1550.4700.393
Mn 0.5310.594 *
Mg 0.762 **
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Štofejová, L.; Fazekaš, J.; Fazekašová, D. Analysis of Heavy Metal Content in Soil and Plants in the Dumping Ground of Magnesite Mining Factory Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia). Sustainability 2021, 13, 4508. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084508

AMA Style

Štofejová L, Fazekaš J, Fazekašová D. Analysis of Heavy Metal Content in Soil and Plants in the Dumping Ground of Magnesite Mining Factory Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia). Sustainability. 2021; 13(8):4508. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084508

Chicago/Turabian Style

Štofejová, Lenka, Juraj Fazekaš, and Danica Fazekašová. 2021. "Analysis of Heavy Metal Content in Soil and Plants in the Dumping Ground of Magnesite Mining Factory Jelšava-Lubeník (Slovakia)" Sustainability 13, no. 8: 4508. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084508

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