2020
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-09165-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Chemical and ecotoxicological assessment of sludge-based biosolids used for corn field fertilization

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
24
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In order to summarize in a number the overall test results and to rank the foaming agent ecotoxicity in SIL and MON soils, a toxicity test battery integrated index was applied. The use of a set of biotests is a common practice when seeking an overview of toxicity [61][62][63]. It is interesting to note that the battery index applied was initially designed for the aquatic environment [55] and, for this reason, in this case reflects a highly precautionary scenario that takes into account any possible SLES leaching or run off to water bodies [16,17,27].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to summarize in a number the overall test results and to rank the foaming agent ecotoxicity in SIL and MON soils, a toxicity test battery integrated index was applied. The use of a set of biotests is a common practice when seeking an overview of toxicity [61][62][63]. It is interesting to note that the battery index applied was initially designed for the aquatic environment [55] and, for this reason, in this case reflects a highly precautionary scenario that takes into account any possible SLES leaching or run off to water bodies [16,17,27].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As such, the present work was conducted to investigate the possible use of a biosolid as a medium that improves soil properties, enhances tomato growth and increases tomato tolerance to Forl, suggesting its potential use as a soil amendment in agricultural land. Based on the results reported by Giannakis et al (2020b), this biosolid, made from municipal sludge produced in a WWTP of Thessaloniki, Greece, showed negligible ecotoxicological concerns.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…In particular, the substrate treatments consisted of two levels of biosolid (-, +), two levels of inoculum (-, +), and 3 peat treatments (peat, peat plus clay soil, peat plus sandy soil). The biosolid properties were described in Giannakis et al (2020b), the clay soil had silt 40%, 30% clay, 30% sand, 2.5% matter, pH 7.9, and the sandy soil had 71% sand, 20% silt, 9% clay, 1.15% organic matter, and pH 8.1. Biosolid, peat and soil mixture of each substrate was inoculated with Forl conidia at a concentration of 10 4 spores/g of the substrate, as described above.…”
Section: Pot Experiments Under Controlled Conditionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some sludge treatments conducted prior to composting often induce negative responses. Of these, Microtox or its equivalent (Vibrio fisheri) appears to be one of the most common test types (e.g., Mantis et al, 2005;Giannakis et al, 2020) among the aquatic standard tests (e.g., Malara and Oleszczuk, 2013;Chiochetta et al, 2014) and the terrestrial plant (e.g., Ramirez et al, 2008;Moreira et al, 2008) and invertebrate tests (e.g., Moreira et al, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%