Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2026

A Method to Preserve Wetland Roots and Rhizospheres for Elemental Imaging
Published on: February 15, 2021
Mobilization of heavy metals from contaminated paddy soil by EDDS, EDTA, and elemental sulfur
Guoqing Wang1, Gerwin F Koopmans, Jing Song
1Soil and Environment Bioremediation Research Centre, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, 210008, P.R. China.
Abstract:
For enhanced phytoextraction, mobilization of heavy metals (HMs) from the soil solid phase to soil pore water is an important process. A pot incubation experiment mimicking field conditions was conducted to investigate the performance of three soil additives in mobilizing HMs from contaminated paddy soil (Gleyi-Stagnic Anthrosol): the [S, S]-isomer of ethylenediamine disuccinate (EDDS) with application rates of 2.3, 4.3, and 11.8 mmol kg(-1) of soil, ethylenediamine tetraacetate (EDTA; 1.4, 3.8, and 7.5 mmol kg(-1)), and elemental sulfur (100, 200, and 400 mmol kg(-1)). Temporal changes in soil pore water HM and dissolved organic carbon concentrations and pH were monitored for a period of 119 days. EDDS was the most effective additive in mobilizing soil Cu. However, EDDS was only effective during the first 24 to 52 days, and was readily biodegraded with a half-life of 4.1 to 8.7 days. The effectiveness of EDDS decreased at the highest application rate, most probably as a result of depletion of the readily desorbable Cu pool in soil. EDTA increased the concentrations of Cu, Pb, Zn, and Cd in the soil pore water, and remained effective during the whole incubation period due to its persistence. The highest rate of sulfur application led to a decrease in pH to around 4. This increased the pore water HM concentrations, especially those of Zn and Cd. Concentrations of HMs in the soil pore water can be regulated to a large extent by choosing the proper application rate of EDDS, EDTA, or sulfur. Hence, a preliminary work such as our pot experiment in combination with further plant experiments (not included in this study) will provide a good tool to evaluate the applicability of different soil additives for enhanced phytoextraction of a specific soil.
More Related Videos
06:52Experimental Column Setup for Studying Anaerobic Biogeochemical Interactions Between Iron (Oxy)Hydroxides, Trace Elements, and Bacteria
Published on: December 19, 2017
10:31Detection and Recovery of Palladium, Gold and Cobalt Metals from the Urban Mine Using Novel Sensors/Adsorbents Designated with Nanoscale Wagon-wheel-shaped Pores
Published on: December 6, 2015
Related Concept Videos
Acid Mine Drainage
Microbial Leaching
Microbial Bioremediation of Uranium
Bioremediation
Extraction: Advanced Methods
Masking and Demasking Agents
There are many masking agents, such as cyanide, fluoride, triethanolamine, thiourea, and 2,3-bis(sulfanyl)propan-1-ol (formerly 2,3-dimercapto-1-propanol), with the masking agent chosen based on the metal...