Next Article in Journal
In Silico Identification of Six Mushroom-Derived Sterol and Triterpenoid Compounds as Potential P-Glycoprotein Modulators in Multidrug Resistance
Previous Article in Journal
White Noise Exemplifies the Constrained Disorder Principle-Based Concept of Overcoming Malfunctions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 16
10.3390/app15168770
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Ecotoxicological Assessment of Soils Reclaimed with Waste

by
Marta Bik-Małodzińska
1,*,
Kamila Rybczyńska-Tkaczyk
2 and
Anna Jakubczyk
3
1
Institute of Soil Science, Engineering and Environmental Management, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Leszczyńskiego Street 7, 20-069 Lublin, Poland
2
Department of Environmental Microbiology, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Leszczyńskiego Street 7, 20-069 Lublin, Poland
3
Department of Biochemistry and Food Chemistry, Sub-Department of Nutraceuticals and Food Fortification, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Skromna Street 8, 20-950 Lublin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(16), 8770; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15168770
Submission received: 10 July 2025 / Revised: 30 July 2025 / Accepted: 2 August 2025 / Published: 8 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Degraded Soil Treatment and Influence on Biodiversity)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study aimed to conduct an ecotoxicological assessment of soils reclaimed with waste, assessing the treatments’ impacts on both plants and the soils themselves. The reclamation experiment was conducted on the former sulfur mine “Jeziórko”. A microplot experiment was established on a slightly clayey sand to assess the possibilities of different technologies for applying mineral wool to degraded soil. The highest toxicity level was observed in the unreclaimed degraded soil. The M index value was 200%, indicating the death of half of the test organisms. At the same time, root growth inhibition reached 75%, indicating significantly limited root system development. The addition of lime and mineral fertilizers contributed to a slight reduction in toxicity—M = 250%, GI = 50%. Application of sewage sludge at a dose of 100 Mg·ha−1 significantly reduced environmental toxicity—M decreased to 333.3% and 500%, and GI to 35% and 10%, respectively. The addition of mineral wool resulted in further improvement. The best results were achieved in the variant where the soil was enriched with lime, sewage sludge and a large volume of mineral wool (400 m3·ha−1). The GI and M levels indicate that, in this variant, soil toxicity was practically eliminated.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, there has been a growing interest in the sustainable management of natural resources and the remediation of degraded areas, including soils contaminated by industrial activity. This is related to a new trend in the global economy, the “farm to fork” strategy, which follows the “zero waste” principle, aiming to minimize waste [1]. One of the increasingly common solutions is the use of industrial, municipal, or organic wastes as remediation materials. Despite their potential to improve the physicochemical properties of soils, the question of environmental safety of such an approach remains important. Ecotoxicology, as an interdisciplinary field that examines the impact of pollutants on organisms and ecosystems, provides tools for assessing the potential effects of using waste in remediation and its impact on the quality of plants and food [2]. Soil remediation is one of the most important processes in environmental resource management aimed at restoring the usability of degraded areas. Due to the growing pressure to utilize waste, it is increasingly being used as a supporting material for remediation. In particular, industrial wastes such as ash, sewage sludge or waste materials from the mineral industry are used in soil improvement processes, increasing the soil’s capacity to support plant and microbiological life. However, despite the potential benefits associated with recycling and waste utilization, concerns exist about their environmental impact, particularly on soil ecosystems. One of the key issues that has not yet been fully explored is the toxicity of soils remediated with waste, particularly for plants and microorganisms, which are the basis of soil health. Contaminants introduced into soil can originate from various sources and include heavy metals, chemicals, and pathogenic microorganisms. Therefore, the assessment of the ecotoxicity of soils subjected to waste remediation becomes a key element in studying the impact of such practices on the environment and plants used in food production [3]. Soil plays a key role in storing and filtering water and nutrients, transforming chemical compounds, producing biomass, and storing carbon [4]. In addition, soil microorganisms play a key role in both supplying nutrients to plants and in bioremediation of contaminated soils [5]. Microbiological activity also contributes to soil aggregation and increases water capacity, which is essential for plant growth [6]. Microorganisms synthesize enzymes that facilitate nutrient cycling and improve soil fertility [6,7]. Protection of these functions is crucial for maintaining soil fertility and overall ecosystem health. Soil contamination poses a serious threat to the biodiversity of soil organisms, which are crucial for maintaining the ecological balance of this environment. Ecotoxicology helps assess the risks associated with various contaminants, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, metals, and industrial residues [8,9,10]. Additionally, the use of bioindicators and biotests is crucial for assessing the ecotoxicological impact of contaminants on soil organisms. These tools help in understanding the bioavailability and toxicity of contaminants [4,11]. Variability in soil properties, such as pH, organic matter content, and cation exchange capacity, can significantly affect the toxicity of contaminants [12,13,14]. The presented research contributes to this trend, adding new value by applying an integrated approach to assessing the impact of waste on indicator plants and residual toxicity in soil. These results can serve as a benchmark for remediation practices in other regions with similar industrial profiles, where it is necessary to reconcile effective waste management with soil environmental protection. Remediation of soils degraded by industrial and municipal waste is becoming an increasingly important issue in the context of sustainable development and the circular economy (CE). Strategies supporting the reuse of waste to improve the quality of degraded soils are being implemented in EU countries, the USA, and China, and these strategies also align with the goals of the European Green Deal. The conducted research aims to assess the effectiveness of these practices from an environmental toxicology perspective. This study contributes to the development of methods for assessing the toxicity of remediated soils and their further use in biomass production.
This study aimed to conduct an ecotoxicological assessment of soils reclaimed with wastes, taking into account their impact on both plants and soils.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design

The reclamation experiment was conducted on the site of the former sulfur mine “Jeziórko” (Poland, Podkarpackie, N 50°33′09″, E 21°46′40″). This region is characterized by an average annual precipitation of 550 to 650 mm and an average annual temperature of +8.2 °C (Figure 1).
Sulfur extraction was carried out using the Frash method. The Frash borehole method extracted sulfur from deep underground, using water at temperatures between 120 and 1600 °C, which was injected into the deposit through exploitation holes. Molten sulfur, under the pressure of injected air, was pumped to the surface and then transported through a system of pipes for further processing. This method, although intended to be ecological, caused extensive environmental degradation, but in a manner different from open-pit mining. As a consequence of underground sulfur extraction, the resulting damage was primarily due to imperfections in the extraction process itself and the failure of the pipes transporting the liquid sulfur, which caused extensive dispersion of the sulfur into the environment. Subsidence at the site of the extracted sulfur also contributed to the degradation of the soil and water environment [15,16]. The Frash method is named after the German-American Hermann Frash. The “Jeziórko” sulfur mine was the only mine in the world where sulfur was extracted using this method. A microplot experiment was established on a low-clay sand to assess the potential of different technologies for applying mineral wool to degraded soil. On microplots with an area of 30 m2 each, various methods of reclamation for degraded soil were employed (Figure 2).
Flotation lime (100 Mg∙ha−1) was used to deacidify the degraded soil (slightly clayey sand), and post-consumer mineral wool (Grodan) from Przedsiębiorstwo Ogrodnicze in Nisko was used to fertilize it, against the background of a melioration dose (100 Mg∙ha−1) of sewage sludge from the municipal sewage treatment plant in Stalowa Wola (Table 1). Flotation lime was spread using 2 C-360 tractors and manure spreaders, as well as a K-162 backhoe loader. Sewage sludge and mineral wool were applied in doses according to the experimental scheme, using a manure spreader. Mineral wool was used at an appropriate moisture level to eliminate possible spraying during its introduction into the soil. The introduced substances and applied mineral fertilizers were integrated with the soil using a disc harrow and a rotary tiller. Mineral fertilizers (100% P and K and ½ N) were applied before sowing, and in subsequent years, they were applied in spring. The second half of the nitrogen dose was applied after the first cut. On the plots prepared in this way, a reclamation mixture of grasses was sown with the following species composition: meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis)—41.2%; red fescue (Festuca rubra)—19.2%; perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne)—14.7%; Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum)—12.4%; cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata)—6.5%; and red clover (Trifolium pratense)—6%.
In microplots no. 5 and 6, mineral wool (5 cm layer) was placed in the soil at a depth of 40 cm. In microplots no. 7 and 8, an identical dose of mineral wool (400 m3·ha−1) was incorporated into the soil in a layer of 0–25 cm. Microplot no. 1 consisted of native soil (control), without any additives. In microplot no. 2, post-flotation lime and NPK mineral fertilization were applied, and in microplot no. 3, post-flotation lime and sewage sludge at a dose of 100 Mg·ha−1 were applied, while in microplot no. 4, sewage sludge alone was applied.

2.2. Laboratory Analyses

Selected biological and physicochemical properties were analyzed in the collected samples, which were used to explore the problems included in the research objective:
  • Physicochemical properties (pH, V, Corr. heavy metals);
  • PHYTOTOXIKIT biological test;
  • MARA biological test.

2.2.1. Phytotoxicity Assessment Using the PHYTOTOXIKIT Test

The tested waste and mixtures were placed on test plates, and then moistened with distilled water to the maximum water capacity. Then, the test plates with the mixtures were covered with a paper filter, and seeds of the test plant Lepidium sativum were sown at a rate of 10 per plate. The plates prepared in this way were incubated in a vertical position at 25 °C in the dark for 3 days (72 h). After this time, an image was recorded using a digital camera, and the image analysis program “Image Tools” was used to measure the length of the roots. The entire experiment was carried out in three replications for each of the tested combinations (waste–plant). The percentage inhibition of germination (GI) and root growth of the test plants was calculated according to the following formula:
G I = A − B A   · 100
where A is the average seed germination or root growth in the control, and B is the average seed germination or root growth of the plants in the test mixtures [ISO 11269 1:2012] [17].

2.2.2. Ecotoxicity Assessment Using the Microbial Assay for Risk Assessment (MARA) Test

Biotoxicity was determined using the Multi-Species Microbial Assay (MARA) test, in which the samples are analyzed against 11 microorganisms, including (1) Microbacterium sp., (2) Brevundimonas diminuta, (3) Citrobacter freudii, (4) Comamonas testosteroni, (5) Entrococcus casselifavus, (6) Delftia acidovorans, (7) Kurthia gibsoni, (8) Staphylococcus warneri, (9) Pseudomonas aurantiaca, (10) Serriatia rudidaea and (11) Pichia anomala, by reducing colorless 2,3,5-triphenyltetrazolium hydrochloride to red formazan [18]. Soil samples for the MARA test were prepared following the EN 12457-2 standard [19]. In the first stage, the degree of biotoxicity was determined in all samples using the MARA test screening variant. Based on the analysis of the MARA plate image, the average (for all microorganisms) and minimum (for individual microorganisms) MTC (minimum toxic concentration for microorganisms) values (in %) were calculated. In addition, for samples that the screening test indicated were biotoxic, the MARA test was performed in a dilution version [18].

2.2.3. Statistical Analysis

The data are presented as means ± SD of three independent experiments (n = 3).

3. Results

3.1. Assessment of Selected Physicochemical Properties of Reclaimed Soil

The control soil had a very acidic pH of 4.7. After applying remediation treatments (lime, sewage sludge, and/or wool), the pH increased to 6.1–6.7, indicating a transition to slightly acidic or neutral conditions. An increase in pH increases the number of negative surface charges (–COO−, –OH−), which intensifies the sorption of metal cations, especially Pb and Zn. Sorption capacity (V) increased from 27.5% in the control soil to 62–93% in the remediated soils, indicating a significantly greater ability of the soil to bind cations (Pb2+, Zn2+). A key role in this ability is played by both the higher proportion of organic matter and the effect of pH on the deprotonation of soil functional groups or humus. The increase in Corg. content from 1.8 to 4.8 g/kg is important for metal stabilization—functional groups (carboxyl, phenolic) complex metal cations, forming strong complexes unavailable to plants. The control variant contained 4.5 mg Pb/kg and 5.6 mg Zn/kg—low concentrations. After adding sewage sludge, the concentrations increased to 32 mg Pb/kg and 42 mg Zn/kg, indicating a significant increase in the metal load in the soil. The data indicate that remediation improved the soil properties for metal sorption—pH, CEC, and Corg. increased, contributing to the reduction in Pb and Zn availability. At the same time, the content of these metals increased in the soil with sewage sludge, which indicates that caution is required (Table 2).

3.2. Phytotoxicity Assessment Using the Phytotoxikit Test

In the conducted studies, a control root length of 2 cm was used, which was a reference point for assessing the effect of recultivation (Table 3). In the non-recultivated sample (variant 1), the highest degree of root growth inhibition was noted, reaching 75%. The gradual introduction of recultivation treatments led to a systematic reduction in the GI value. Variants containing lime and mineral fertilizers (variant 2) showed 50% growth inhibition, while additives in the form of sewage sludge (variants 3 and 4) significantly reduced toxicity, reaching 35% and 10% GI, respectively. Even lower GI values were noted in the variants containing mineral wool (variants 5–8). The lowest growth inhibition values, around 5%, were observed in variants 6 and 8, where comprehensive reclamation was applied, including liming, sewage sludge, and a large-volume layer of mineral wool.
Root growth inhibition is a sensitive and simple indicator of the biological effectiveness of remediation. The results confirm that the most effective remediation actions are those that combine improvements in pH (lime), increases in organic matter and nutrients (sewage sludge), and enhancements in soil structure and sorption properties (mineral wool) (Table 3). Phytotoxicity analysis conducted using the bioindicative method showed significant differences in the level of toxicity between remediation variants (Table 4). In the control sample, which included degraded soil without additives (variant 1), a high mortality rate of test organisms was observed at a level of 200%. The introduction of lime and mineral fertilizers (NPK) (variant 2) only slightly improved survival (250%). The use of sewage sludge at a dose of 100 Mg∙ha−1, both alone (variant 4) and in combination with liming (variant 3), significantly improved the survival of test organisms (500% and 333.3%, respectively). Variants 5, 6, and 7, which used mineral wool as a structural and sorption layer, showed a further reduction in toxicity (333.3–500%). The best remediation effect was achieved in variant 8, where the degraded soil was subjected to a comprehensive treatment using lime, sewage sludge, and mineral wool at the rate of 400 m3∙ha−1. The mortality rate was 1000%, which corresponds to the death of only one test organism in 10 (Table 4).
The use of complex remediation methods, including liming, fertilization with sewage sludge, and the introduction of a layer of mineral wool, significantly reduces the toxicity of degraded soil. The results suggest the existence of a synergistic effect between the individual remediation components, which is reflected in the reduced mortality of test organisms.

3.3. Assessment of Ecotoxicity Using the MARA Test

The multi-species MARA test was used to assess the biotoxicity of the samples. The assessment of the degree of ecotoxicity in the samples revealed that the soil reclaimed solely with sewage sludge exhibited the highest degree of toxicity, with MTC = 18 ± 2.5%. In the case of this test, the most sensitive microorganisms were the bacteria Kurthia gibsoni (MTC = 14 ± 1.25%). For soils reclaimed with mineral wool (in the form of an insert), NPK, and sewage sludge (variants 1, 3, 5, 6), low selective toxicity was demonstrated (MTC from 32 ± 21.1 to 42 ± 2.5%). In the variants in which crushed mineral wool and NPK fertilizers were used (variants 7, 8, and 2), no toxicity was demonstrated in the screening test.

4. Discussion

Analysis of the chemical properties of the soil after remediation showed that the pH increased from 4.7 to 6.1–6.7. Already at this value, Pb sorption increases rapidly, and Zn is transformed into insoluble forms (e.g., Zn(OH)2, carbonates), reducing its bioavailability. The soil sorption capacity increased to 60–92%, and the organic matter content to 4.8 g/kg, which supports metal complexation and stabilization in the soil [20].
Analysis of GI for root length shows that record-high inhibition (≈75%) occurred in the degraded soil without amendments. The sewage sludge treatments showed a significant decrease in GI to approximately 35%, and after adding wool and lime (or NPK), the GI value decreased to 5–10%. These results indicate a synergistic effect of the remediation components. The literature confirms that sewage sludge phytotoxicity decreases with time and organic matter stabilization—Oleszczuk et al. (2012) reported a 55–81% GI reduction after a 29-month period. Similarly, in the case of composting, more stable sludges were found to have GIs in the 40–86% range, while less processed sludges achieved lower GIs (2.9–45.8%) [21]. Organic matter stability and limited metal mobility (especially Cu, Zn, and Pb) correlate with higher GI values and lower phytotoxicity. Analysis of the mortality rate (M) reveals the strong phytotoxic effects of sewage sludge, especially when combined with remediation additives. The control variant showed M ≈ 200%, while the combinations of sewage sludge with lime and wool/NPK showed extreme values—from 500% to 1000%. Such high mortality means that, in some cases, the number of dead organisms exceeded the initial population many times over. The literature confirms that even low concentrations of sewage sludge (3–6%) can cause serious phytotoxicity [22]. Moreover, sludge stabilization processes (composting, thermal treatment) significantly reduce its toxicity—composted sludge has a GI of 40–86%, while non-composted sludge has a GI of 2.9–45.8% [21,23].
Root growth inhibition (GI) is a recognized indicator of environmental phytotoxicity, which reflects the presence of harmful substances that hinder the development of the plant root system [24,25]. The highest degree of root growth inhibition, reaching 75% in non-reclaimed soil, is confirmed by the extremely unfavorable habitat properties of degraded soil, resulting from, among other factors, the presence of heavy metals, nutrient deficiency, and improper physical structure [26]. The usefulness of municipal sludge as a source of organic matter and microelements was supported by its ability to enhance root development [27]. Regarding mineral wool waste in the study, its presence supported root development by improving water and air conditions and limiting the availability of heavy metals [28]. The synergistic effect of three components—post-flotation lime, municipal sewage sludge, and waste mineral wool—favors the reconstruction of the biological properties of the soil [29]. Unfavorable physicochemical properties and high concentrations of toxic substances are typical for anthropogenically degraded soils [26]. Improving the pH and providing macronutrients alone is not sufficient to effectively neutralize organic pollutants and heavy metals in degraded soils [30]. The beneficial effect of using municipal sewage sludge alone or in combination with other waste is confirmed by previous studies indicating the positive impact of sewage sludge on the biological activity of soils and their remediation potential [31,32,33]. Mineral wool can act as a physical barrier limiting the migration of pollutants and as a sorbent for heavy metals [28]. The presence of both sorption material and organic substances (e.g., sewage sludge) promotes the development of microorganisms responsible for the biodegradation of pollutants [27]. The validity of using an integrated approach in the remediation of degraded areas, which combines pH correction, restoration of organic matter, and improvement of soil structure, is confirmed in studies by other authors [29]. The Microbial Assay for Risk Assessment (MARA) test is a valuable tool for assessing the ecotoxicity of soils, including those enriched with compost, mineral wool, or sewage sludge. This test uses 11 different microorganisms to assess the toxic effects of contaminants in the soil environment. The MARA test has been used, among other applications, to assess the ecotoxicity of soils contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) [34] and pesticides [35]. Additionally, the MARA test is used to assess the degree of biotoxicity in reclaimed soil. The addition of compost to soil can affect its quality, including its ecotoxicity. A study using ecotoxicological tests, including the MARA test, showed that the addition of compost increased soil toxicity at higher concentrations [36]. It suggests that, although compost can improve soil properties, its dose must be appropriately selected to avoid adverse effects. Mineral wool in combination with sewage sludge has also been shown to have a positive effect on the chemical and biological properties of degraded soils, although the specific use of MARA in this context has not been described in detail [37]. Sewage sludge, depending on the treatment method and origin, can exhibit various ecotoxicological effects. According to Domene et al. (2010), composted sewage sludge is more stable and less toxic than thermally dried sludge, which exhibits higher toxicity due to its instability [38]. The use of sewage sludge in soil can have both beneficial and harmful environmental effects. This work also demonstrated that the addition of mineral wool, as well as its combination with sewage sludge, reduces soil toxicity. However, when only sewage sludge was used, the soil was still highly toxic. As reported by other authors, the application of sewage sludge to soil can provide significant agronomic benefits by improving soil fertility and structure. However, it also poses potential environmental hazards due to the presence of heavy metals, pathogens, toxic organic compounds, and new contaminants. Effective treatment and continuous monitoring are crucial for mitigating these hazards and ensuring the safe use of sewage sludge in agriculture. The impact of sewage sludge on soil toxicity varies depending on the soil type. For example, sandy soils may exhibit different levels of toxicity compared to clayey or loamy soils [38,39]. In addition, sewage sludge often contains potentially toxic heavy metals such as Zn, Cu, Pb, Cd, and Ni. Furthermore, the combination of contaminants, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other pharmaceuticals, in sewage sludge may interact with heavy metals and antibiotic resistance genes, thereby complicating their environmental impact [40]. Long-term use may lead to the accumulation of these metals in the soil, which may be toxic to plants, soil microorganisms, and soil invertebrates [41,42,43,44,45,46]. Heavy metals in sewage sludge may adversely affect soil microbial communities, reducing their diversity and function [28,41,47]. Furthermore, the presence of heavy metals may inhibit plant growth and lead to the accumulation of these metals in plant tissues, which poses a risk to the food chain [39,44,48]. Various tests have shown that sewage sludge may have ecotoxicological effects on various soil organisms, including earthworms (Eisenia fetida), plants (Lepidium sativum), and some microorganisms, disturbing the ecological balance. This effect is often due to the presence of heavy metals and other contaminants in the sludge [49,50,51]. The results of this study showed that the most sensitive bacterium in the sample, with only sewage sludge added, was Kurthia gibsoni. There is no information in the literature on the toxicity of sewage sludge concerning this bacterium; however, if Khurtia gibsoni is sensitive to heavy metals, the addition of sewage sludge may pose a risk due to the potential accumulation of toxic metals in the soil, such as Cd and Cr [52]. On the other hand, the addition of sewage sludge may have a beneficial effect on the growth and metabolic activity of some microorganisms, especially bacteria such as Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Chloroflexi, while reducing the numbers of others, such as Acidobacteria, Proteobacteria and Verrucomicrobia [53,54,55]. An example is Microbacterium sp. belonging to the phylum Actinobacteria, the numbers of which increase after the application of sewage sludge [53,55]. This suggests that Microbacterium sp. can grow in environments enriched with sewage sludge.

5. Conclusions

Soils degraded by mining using the Frash method are characterized by high ecotoxicity, as confirmed by both mortality rates of test organisms (M = 200%) and severe inhibition of root growth (GI = 75%). The combination of post-flotation lime, municipal sewage sludge, and mineral wool waste significantly reduced soil toxicity. The best remediation results were achieved with a high dose of mineral wool (400 m3·ha−1), where M and GI indices indicated almost complete neutralization of toxicity. The key factor in effectiveness was the synergy between the waste components used. Their combined use yielded significantly better results than individual treatments, both in terms of reducing toxicity and improving soil biological parameters. The conducted research provides valuable information on the effectiveness of remediating degraded soils using industrial and municipal waste. However, its limitations should be recognized, particularly with regard to the scale of the experiment and the specific location. Based on the obtained results and identified limitations, long-term monitoring and implementation of full-scale experiments on various types of degraded soils, taking into account variable climatic and geographical conditions, are recommended. This will allow for verification of the effectiveness of the tested methods in diverse environments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.B.-M. and K.R.-T.; methodology, M.B.-M. and K.R.-T.; validation, M.B.-M., K.R.-T. and A.J.; formal analysis, M.B.-M., K.R.-T. and A.J.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B.-M., K.R.-T. and A.J.; writing—review and editing, M.B.-M. and A.J.; project administration, M.B.-M. 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

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

Acknowledgments

The authors have reviewed and edited the manuscript and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Gonzales-Yanac, T.; Nagadeepa, C.; Mukthar, J.; Castillo-Picón, J.; Manrique-Cáceres, J.; Ramirez-Asis, E.; Huerta-Soto, C. Minimalist Farm-To-Table Practices: Connecting Consumers with Local Agriculture. Technol. Bus. Model Innov. Challenges Oppor. 2024, 1, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sabaté, J.; Harwatt, H.; Soret, S. Environmental Nutrition: A New Frontier for Public Health. Am. J. Public Health 2016, 106, 815–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Qin, G.; Niu, Z.; Yu, J.; Li, Z.; Ma, J.; Xiang, P. Soil Heavy Metal Pollution and Food Safety in China: Effects, Sources and Removing Technology. Chemosphere 2021, 267, 129205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wong, J.W.Y.; Hitzfeld, B.; Zimmermann, M.; Werner, I.; Ferrari, B.J.D. Current Developments in Soil Ecotoxicology and the Need for Strengthening Soil Ecotoxicology in Europe: Results of a Stakeholder Workshop. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2018, 30, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kaur, A.; Vyas, P. Nutrient Recycling by Microbes for Healthy Soil. In Microorganisms for Sustainability; Springer: Singapore, 2024; Volume 50, pp. 173–187. [Google Scholar]
  6. Khan, B.N. Impact of Biochar on Soil Organisms. In Biochar—Solid Carbon for Sustainable Agriculture; Bentham Science Publishers: Potomac, MD, USA, 2024; pp. 29–63. [Google Scholar]
  7. Nabi, M. Role of Microorganisms in Plant Nutrition and Soil Health. In Sustainable Plant Nutrition: Molecular Interventions and Advancements for Crop Improvement; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 263–282. [Google Scholar]
  8. Niva, C.C.; Niemeyer, J.C.; Júnior, F.M.R.D.S.; Nunes, M.E.T.; De Sousa, D.L.; Aragão, C.W.S.; Sautter, K.D.; Espindola, E.G.; Sousa, J.P.; Römbke, J. Soil Ecotoxicology in Brazil Is Taking Its Course. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 11363–11378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kuperman, R.G.; Checkai, R.T.; Garcia, M.V.B.; Römbke, J.; Stephenson, G.L.; Sousa, J.P. State of the Science and the Way Forward for the Ecotoxicological Assessment of Contaminated Land. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 2009, 44, 811–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pereira, R.; Cachada, A.; Sousa, J.P.; Niemeyer, J.; Markwiese, J.; Andersen, C.P. Ecotoxicological Effects and Risk Assessment of Pollutants. In Soil Pollution: From Monitoring to Remediation; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 191–216. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bécaert, V.; Deschênes, L. Using Soil Health to Assess Ecotoxicological Impacts of Pollutants on Soil Microflora. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2006, 188, 127–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Santos, M.J.G.; Ferreira, V.; Soares, A.M.V.M.; Loureiro, S. Evaluation of the Combined Effects of Dimethoate and Spirodiclofen on Plants and Earthworms in a Designed Microcosm Experiment. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2011, 48, 294–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Amorim, M.J.B.; Römbke, J.; Scheffczyk, A.; Soares, A.M.V.M. Effect of Different Soil Types on the Enchytraeids Enchytraeus Albidus and Enchytraeus Luxuriosus Using the Herbicide Phenmedipham. Chemosphere 2005, 61, 1102–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gainer, A.; Bresee, K.; Hogan, N.; Siciliano, S.D. Advancing Soil Ecological Risk Assessments for Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils in Canada: Persistence, Organic Carbon Normalization and Relevance of Species Assemblages. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 668, 400–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Siuta, J. Rekultywacja Gruntów w Górnictwie Siarkowym, Inżynieria Ekologiczna, Przyrodnicze Użytkowanie Osadów Ściekowych; Ochrona i Rekultywacja Gruntów.P.T.I.E: Bydgoszcz, Poland, 2001; ISBN 8391139050. [Google Scholar]
  16. Warzybok, W. Rekultywacja Terenów Górniczych Kopalni Siarki „Jeziórko”, Materiały Konferencji Naukowo-Technicznej—Baranów Sandomierski. Inżynieria Ekol. 2000, 1, 121–133. [Google Scholar]
  17. ISO 11269-1:2012; Soil Quality-Determination of the Effects of Pollutants on Soil Flora. Method for the Measurement of Inhibition of Root Growth BSI Standards Publication: London, UK, 2012.
  18. Rybczyńska-Tkaczyk, K.; Korniłłowicz-Kowalska, T.; Szychowski, K.A. Possibility to Biotransform Anthracyclines by Peroxidases Produced by Bjerkandera Adusta CCBAS 930 with Reduction of Geno- and Cytotoxicity and Pro-Oxidative Activity. Molecules 2021, 26, 462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. EU Council. Council Decision of 19 December 2002 Establishing Criteria and Procedures for the Acceptance of Waste at Landfills Pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC. Off. J. Eur. Communities 2003, L11, 27–49. [Google Scholar]
  20. Asare, M.O.; Száková, J.; Tlustoš, P.; Kumar, M. Zinc Contamination in Soils and Its Implications on Plant Phytoalexins. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2025, 22, 8581–8600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Oleszczuk, P.; Malara, A.; Jośko, I.; Lesiuk, A. The Phytotoxicity Changes of Sewage Sludge-Amended Soils. Water. Air. Soil Pollut. 2012, 223, 4937–4948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Obidoska, G.; Karaczun, Z.; Żarska, B. Phytotoxicity and Phytogenotoxicity of Municipal Sewage Sludge. Ann. Wars. Univ. Life Sci.-SGGW Hortic. Landsc. Archit. 2020, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Oleszczuk, P. Phytotoxicity of Municipal Sewage Sludge Composts Related to Physico-Chemical Properties, PAHs and Heavy Metals. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2008, 69, 496–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Terrestrial Plant Test: Seedling Emergence and Seedling Growth Test. OECD Guidel. 2006, 208, 21.
  25. Sobolewska, M.; Siemiginowska, A.; Guainazzi, M.; Hardcastle, M.; Migliori, G.; Ostorero, L.; Stawarz, Ł. The Impact of the Environment on the Early Stages of Radio Source Evolution. Astrophys. J. 2019, 871, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kwiatkowska-Malina, J. Functions of Organic Matter in Polluted Soils: The Effect of Organic Amendments on Phytoavailability of Heavy Metals. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 123, 542–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rusan, M.; Hinnawi, S.; Rousan, L. Long Term Effect of Wastewater Irrigation of Forage Crops on Soil and Plant Quality Parameters. Desalination 2007, 215, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lemanowicz, J.; Brzezińska, M.; Siwik-Ziomek, A.; Koper, J. Activity of Selected Enzymes and Phosphorus Content in Soils of Former Sulphur Mines. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 708, 134545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Głąb, T.; Żabiński, A.; Sadowska, U.; Gondek, K.; Kopeć, M.; Mierzwa-Hersztek, M.; Tabor, S.; Stanek-Tarkowska, J. Fertilization Effects of Compost Produced from Maize, Sewage Sludge and Biochar on Soil Water Retention and Chemical Properties. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 197, 104493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Twardowska, I.; Allen, H.E.; Kettrup, A.F.; Lacy, W.J. Solid Waste: Assessment, Monitoring and Remediation. Gulf Prof. Publ. 2004, 1992, 3–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fjałkowski, K.; Kacprzak, M. Wpływ Dodatku Osadów Ściekowych Na Wybrane Fizyczno-Chemiczne i Mikrobiologiczne Parametry Gleb Zdegradowanych. Inżynieria i Ochr. Środowiska 2009, 12, 133–141. [Google Scholar]
  32. Frąc, M.; Jezierska-Tys, S. Zmiany Aktywności Mikrobiologicznej Gleby Brunatnej Pod Uprawą Pszenicy Ozimej w Różnych Latach Oddziaływania Osadu z Oczyszczalni Ścieków Mleczarskich. Agron. Sci. 2008, 63, 118–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bik-Małodzińska, M. The Impact of Waste Application on the Reclamation and Biological Life of Degraded Soils. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Oleszczuk, P.; Jośko, I.; Futa, B.; Pasieczna-Patkowska, S.; Pałys, E.; Kraska, P. Effect of Pesticides on Microorganisms, Enzymatic Activity and Plant in Biochar-Amended Soil. Geoderma 2014, 214–215, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Arienzo, M.; Albanese, S.; Lima, A.; Cannatelli, C.; Aliberti, F.; Cicotti, F.; Qi, S.; De Vivo, B. Assessment of the Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Organochlorine Pesticides in Soils from the Sarno River Basin, Italy, and Ecotoxicological Survey by Daphnia Magna. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pivato, A.; Raga, R.; Vanin, S.; Rossi, M. Assessment of Compost Quality for Its Environmentally Safe Use by Means of an Ecotoxicological Test on a Soil Organism. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2014, 16, 763–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bik-Małodzińska, M.; Żukowska, G.; Paśmionka, I.; Rybczyńska-Tkaczyk, K.; Jakubczyk, A. Assessment of the Effectiveness of Soil Reclamation Techniques Degraded by the Sulfur Industry. Adv. Sci. Technol. Res. J. 2022, 16, 324–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Domene, X.; Colón, J.; Uras, M.V.; Izquierdo, R.; Àvila, A.; Alcañiz, J.M. Role of Soil Properties in Sewage Sludge Toxicity to Soil Collembolans. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2010, 42, 1982–1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Oleszczuk, P.; Hollert, H. Comparison of Sewage Sludge Toxicity to Plants and Invertebrates in Three Different Soils. Chemosphere 2011, 83, 502–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Buta, M.; Hubeny, J.; Zieliński, W.; Harnisz, M.; Korzeniewska, E. Sewage Sludge in Agriculture—The Effects of Selected Chemical Pollutants and Emerging Genetic Resistance Determinants on the Quality of Soil and Crops—A Review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 214, 112070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Zoomi, I.; Zuby, S.; Kehri, H.K.; Akhtar, O.; Pandey, D.; Narayan, R.P. Sewage Sludge and Soil Microbes. In Development in Waste Water Treatment Research and Processes: Treatment and Reuse of Sewage Sludge: An Innovative Approach for Wastewater Treatment; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dhanker, R.; Chaudhary, S.; Goyal, S.; Garg, V.K. Influence of Urban Sewage Sludge Amendment on Agricultural Soil Parameters. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 23, 101642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Souza, A.C.Z.; Santos, J.E.; Marin-Morales, M.A.; Mazzeo, D.E.C. Ecotoxicological Aspects and Environmental Implications of the Use of Water and Sewage Treatment Sludges. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 21, 3527–3552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hernández, A.J.; Gutiérrez-Ginés, M.J.; Pastor, J. Benefits of the Use of Sewage Sludge over EDTA to Remediate Soils Polluted with Heavy Metals. J. Environ. Qual. 2015, 44, 1579–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Aghanaghad, M.; Asgari, E.; Sheikhmohammadi, A.; Tajfar, H. Health Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals/Metalloid Caused by Using Sewage Sludge in Agriculture. Desalin. Water Treat. 2025, 321, 100977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Garbellini, L.R.; Chrispim, M.C.; Silveira, J.E.; Pacca, S.A. (Eco)Toxicological Impact Potential from Inorganic Substances in Biosolids: Real Data-Based Suggestions for Regulatory Improvements. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 2023, 20, 100846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Suhadolc, M.; Schroll, R.; Hagn, A.; Dörfler, U.; Schloter, M.; Lobnik, F. Single Application of Sewage Sludge—Impact on the Quality of an Alluvial Agricultural Soil. Chemosphere 2010, 81, 1536–1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Corrêa Martins, M.N.; de Souza, V.V.; Souza, T. da S. Genotoxic and Mutagenic Effects of Sewage Sludge on Higher Plants. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2016, 124, 489–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Liu, C.; Chen, X.; Zhao, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Liu, W.; Wu, C. Effect of Dewatered Municipal Sewage Sludge on the Growth and Reproduction of Eisenia Fetida. Huanjing Kexue Xuebao/Acta Sci. Circumstantiae 2017, 37, 4026–4032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Filipi, Á.C.K.; dos Santos Gonçalves Nascimento, G.C.; Bressani, P.A.; Oliveira, A.K.G.; Santo, D.E.; Duarte, C.C.S.; Gomes, E.M.V.; Ferreira, P.M.P.; Pokrywiecki, J.C.; da Silva Gonzalez, R.; et al. Biological Effects of Sewage Sludge—Does Its Incorporation into Agricultural Soils in the State of Paraná, Brazil, Represent an Environmental Risk? Water. Air. Soil Pollut. 2023, 234, 296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kończak, M.; Oleszczuk, P. Application of Biochar to Sewage Sludge Reduces Toxicity and Improve Organisms Growth in Sewage Sludge-Amended Soil in Long Term Field Experiment. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 625, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chu, L.; He, W.; Xu, F.; Tong, Y.; Xu, F. Ecological Risk Assessment of Toxic Metal(Loid)s for Land Application of Sewage Sludge in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 836, 155549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhao, Q.; Chu, S.; He, D.; Wu, D.; Mo, Q.; Zeng, S. Sewage Sludge Application Alters the Composition and Co-Occurrence Pattern of the Soil Bacterial Community in Southern China Forestlands. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 157, 103744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bai, Y.; Mei, L.; Zuo, W.; Zhang, Y.; Gu, C.; Shan, Y.; Hu, J.; Dai, Q. Response of Bacterial Communities in Coastal Mudflat Saline Soil to Sewage Sludge Amendment. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 144, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Shen, C.; Xu, L.; Yi, S.; Zhao, Y.; Zuo, W.; Gu, C.; Shan, Y.; Bai, Y. Structural and Predicted Functional Diversities of Bacterial Microbiome in Response to Sewage Sludge Amendment in Coastal Mudflat Soil. Biology 2021, 10, 1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 15 08770 g001
Figure 1. Location of the study area and general outline.
Figure 1. Location of the study area and general outline.
Applsci 15 08770 g001
Applsci 15 08770 g002
Figure 2. Microplot experiment. Various technologies for reclaiming degraded land using waste (sewage sludge, post-flotation lime, mineral wool).
Figure 2. Microplot experiment. Various technologies for reclaiming degraded land using waste (sewage sludge, post-flotation lime, mineral wool).
Applsci 15 08770 g002
Table 1. Scheme of the microplot experiment.
Table 1. Scheme of the microplot experiment.
No. Reclamation Variants
1Degraded soil
2Degraded soil + lime + NPK
3Degraded soil + lime + sewage sludge 100 Mg·ha−1
4Degraded soil + sewage sludge 100 Mg·ha−1
5Degraded soil + wool 5 cm/40 cm + lime + NPK
6Degraded soil + wool 5 cm/40 cm + lime + sewage sludge 100 Mg·ha−1
7Degraded soil + lime + NPK + wool 400 m3·ha−1
8Degraded soil + lime + wool 400 m3·ha-1 + sewage sludge 100 Mg·ha−1
Table 2. Selected physicochemical properties of the reclaimed soil.
Table 2. Selected physicochemical properties of the reclaimed soil.
Reclamation VariantsPhysicochemical Properties
pH in 1 mol KClSorption Capacity V (%)Organic Carbon Content Corg. (g·kg−1)Lead Content Pb (mg∙kg−1)Zinc Content Zn (mg∙kg−1)
Degraded soil4.727.461.804.515.56
Degraded soil + lime + NPK6.491.702.103.542.97
Degraded soil + lime + sewage sludge 100 Mg·ha−16.385.494.6032.0341.87
Degraded soil + sewage sludge 100 Mg·ha−16.162.014.0024.2336.33
Degraded soil + wool 5 cm/40 cm + lime + NPK6.787.603.0523.1010.20
Degraded soil + wool 5 cm/40 cm + lime + sewage sludge 100 Mg·ha−16.686.513.9521.5030.90
Degraded soil + lime + NPK + wool 400 m3·ha−16.792.833.0519.5310.63
Degraded soil + lime + wool 400 m3·ha−1 + sewage sludge 100 Mg·ha−16.688.244.8023.7722.70
Table 3. Inhibition of plant root growth.
Table 3. Inhibition of plant root growth.
No.Reclamation VariantAB1B2B3Mean B GI1GI2GI3Mean GI
1.Degraded soil2.000.500.500.400.4775.0075.0080.0076.67
2.Degraded soil + lime + NPK2.001.000.901.000.9750.0055.0050.0051.67
3.Degraded soil + lime + sewage sludge 100 Mg·ha−12.001.301.201.301.2735.0040.0035.0036.67
4.Degraded soil + sewage sludge 100 Mg·ha−12.001.801.501.601.6310.0025.0020.0018.33
5.Degraded soil + wool 5 cm/40 cm + lime + NPK2.001.701.601.501.6015.0020.0025.0020.00
6.Degraded soil + wool 5 cm/40 cm + lime + sewage sludge 100 Mg·ha−12.001.901.801.801.835.0010.0010.008.33
7.Degraded soil + lime + NPK + wool 400 m3·ha−12.001.801.801.901.8310.0010.005.008.33
8.Degraded soil + lime + wool 400 m3·ha−1 + sewage sludge 100 Mg·ha−12.001.901.801.701.805.0010.0015.0010.00
Average between reclamation variants1.491.391.401.4325.6330.6330.0028.75
Standard deviation0.480.450.460.4623.9122.5623.1823.06
Explanations: GI—root inhibition coefficient, A—root length in the control soil [cm], B1, B2, B3—root length in the tested soil [cm]; G = A − B A   · 100 % ;   GI 1 = A − B 1 A   · 100 %   GI 2 = A − B 2 A   · 100 % , GI 3 = A − B 3 A   · 100 % .
Table 4. Phytotoxicity assessment of plants.
Table 4. Phytotoxicity assessment of plants.
No.Reclamation VariantAB1B2B3 M 1 M 2 M 3 Mean BMean M
1.Degraded soil10.005.006.004.00200.00166.67250.005.00205.56
2.Degraded soil + lime + NPK10.004.003.002.00250.00333.33500.003.00361.11
3.Degraded soil + lime + sewage sludge 100 Mg·ha−110.003.003.004.00333.33333.33250.003.33305.56
4.Degraded soil + sewage sludge 100 Mg·ha−110.002.001.003.00500.001000.00333.332.00611.11
5.Degraded soil + wool 5 cm/40 cm + lime + NPK10.002.002.001.00500.00500.001000.001.67666.67
6.Degraded soil + wool 5 cm/40 cm + lime + sewage sludge 100 Mg·ha−110.003.002.003.00333.33500.00333.332.67388.89
7.Degraded soil + lime + NPK + wool 400 m3·ha−110.002.001.001.00500.001000.001000.001.33833.33
8.Degraded soil + lime + wool 400 m3·ha−1 + sewage sludge 100 Mg·ha−110.001.001.001.001000.001000.001000.001.001000.00
Average between reclamation variants2.752.382.38452.08604.17583.332.50546.53
Standard deviation1.201.581.22234.44322.08330.721.21259.82
Explanations: M—mortality rate, A—number of organisms used in the test, B—number of dead organisms. M 1 = A   · 100 % B 1 ;   M 2 = A   · 100 % B 2 ;   M 3 = A   · 100 % B 3 .
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bik-Małodzińska, M.; Rybczyńska-Tkaczyk, K.; Jakubczyk, A. Ecotoxicological Assessment of Soils Reclaimed with Waste. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 8770. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15168770

AMA Style

Bik-Małodzińska M, Rybczyńska-Tkaczyk K, Jakubczyk A. Ecotoxicological Assessment of Soils Reclaimed with Waste. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(16):8770. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15168770

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bik-Małodzińska, Marta, Kamila Rybczyńska-Tkaczyk, and Anna Jakubczyk. 2025. "Ecotoxicological Assessment of Soils Reclaimed with Waste" Applied Sciences 15, no. 16: 8770. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15168770

APA Style

Bik-Małodzińska, M., Rybczyńska-Tkaczyk, K., & Jakubczyk, A. (2025). Ecotoxicological Assessment of Soils Reclaimed with Waste. Applied Sciences, 15(16), 8770. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15168770

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