Journal of Scientitic & Industrial Research

Vol. 62, September 2003, pp 883-891

Impact of Pulp and Paper Mill Effluent on Lysimetric Soil and Vegetation Used for Land Treatment

A Kumar, V Singhal , B D Joshi t and J P N Rai *

Department of Environmental Sciences, G B P University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar 263 145, Uttaranchal

Received: 13 February 2003; accepted: 18 June 2003

The paper reports on N-mineralization, microbial biomass C and N and microbial respiration of the pulp and paper mill eftluent affected Iysi metric soils. The pulp and paper mill eftl uent has high values of BOD, COD, total solids, li gnin and cellulose fibres and thus affects the various physico-chemical and microbi al properties of soil while usi ng in irrigation. The four types of soi l textures viz., ST1 (pure soil-49 per cent sand, 33 per cent silt and 18 per cent clay) , ST2 (soil mixed with equal amount of sand-65 per cent sand , 23 per cent silt and 12 per cent clay), ST3 (soil mixed with c1ay-23 per cent sand , 12 per cent silt and 65 per cent clay) and ST4 (pure sand) were taken for Iysimetric treatment of this effl uent. The experiment showed that the minimum microbial characteristics were recorded in normal soil (ST 1) at 25 per cent effluent concentration, while their maximum values were recorded in ST, at 100 per cent effluent concentration. Further, chl orophyll a, chloroph yll b, and total proteins in wheat and rice leaves were observed maximum in ST 1 at 25 per cent eftl uent. On irrigation with 100 per cent eftlu ent the values showed a significant decrease. Phosphorus, and sod ium content in wheat and rice leaves were found to be maximum in ST1 at 100 per cent eftluent level and minimum in ST4 at 25 per cent eflluent level. There was maximum value of leaf chl orophyll a and b plant height, grain yie ld , shoot biomass, root biomass and grain/g biomass, protein, carbohydrate and lipid in the grains of both the crops at ST1 with 25 per cent eftl uent irrigation. Based on the above findings, application of normal soil for land treatment of pulp and paper mill eftluent at 25 per cent concentration is recommended.

Keywords: Pulp eftluent, Paper eftl uent, Vegetation, Lysimetric soil , Land treatment

Introduction

Rapid industrialization and urbanization has caused inevitable effects on environment, resulting in all the three components of the physical environment viz., air, water and soil are being subjected to increased pollution in the recent past. Presently, India has developed a sound base in several core industrial sectors like metal, chemical, petroleum, paper and pulp, and textile. Most of these industries have come up in the last SOy, which produce huge amount of pollutants of diverse nature. Pulp and paper industry is one of the largest industries in our country consuming large amount of water l

. About 80 per cent of this water reappears as wastewater and is usually discharged back into the streams2

. The Century Pulp and Paper Mill, situated at Lalkuan, discharges a huge amount of dark brown effluent, which is having slightly alkaline pH, high biochemical oxygen demand, and electrical conductivity and poses serious threat to aquatic as

* Author for correspondence t Department of Zoology & Environmental Science,

G K University, Haridwar 249 404, Uttaranchal

well as soil flora and fauna. These changes might influence the fertility of soil and thereby biological productivity of the region which is least known.

Like any other industrial effluent treatments, the pulp and paper mill effluent treatment also invol ves primary, secondary and tertiary level of treatment to recover the pollutants at source, prevent or reduce their formation, conserving water and other basic raw materials and chemicals and easy disposal of industria l waste by economical treatments. To achieve this, much emphasis has been laid on physical, chemical and biological treatment of industrial effluents" which although pave way for another type of environmental problems . Several workers used the Iysimetric approach (land treatment procedure) for treatment of wastewater and for evaluation of change in soil properties and crop yield using wastewater4

-6

. The various soil textures influence physical and chemical properties of soil like, water holding capacity, nutrient retention, nutrient fixation , nutrient availability, drainage, strength, compressibility, and thermal regime. The efforts to evaluate the effects of various soil textures on soil microbial attributes are negligible.

884 J SCI IND RES VOL 62 SEPTEMBER 2003

Also national water policy pointed out that bypromoting wastewater reuse in agriculture the waterresources could be protected from pollution as wellas provides an alternative source of water for cropirrigation. In view of this, several efforts have beenmade to utilize industrial wastewater as crop irrigant,much of which is being used even without minimalconventional treatment and result into severe adverseeffects on soil properties and crops. Such adverseeffects are further accentuated owing to specificityof effluent-plants-soil interaction, which call for athorough understanding of the plant and soilresponses to a particular industrial effluent, prior toits application as crop irrigant. Therefore, it is worthevaluating the effect of pulp and paper mill effluenton various microbial attributes such as, N-mineralization, microbial biomass C, and Nandmicrobial respiration of Iysimetric soil and plantgrowth analysis for wheat and rice plants withdifferent soil textures and treatments.

Materials and Methods

Collection of Effluent SamplesThe effluent from Century Pulp and Paper

Mill, Ghanshyamdham, Lalkuan, which is situated ata distance of 7 km away from Pantnagar is usedthroughout the course of present study. The variousphysico-chemical characteristics of the pulp andpaper mill effluent were analyzed in autumn, winter,summer and rainy seasons. Effluent samples fromthe different collecting sites were collected in cleanplastic containers from three adjacent placesrandomly and were mixed to form a compositesample. Immediately after collection the effluentwas brought to the laboratory and stored at 4°C in arefrigerator until analysis for its physico-chemicalproperties and further use.

Collection of Soil SamplesThe soil samples collected in sterilized plastic

bags were taken to the laboratory and stored at 2°Cuntil used for the study.

Lysimetric Set-upLysimeter consists of galvanized sheet having

0.9 m length, 0.9 m width and 1.3 m height with abasement and open top. In one side, near basementthere is an outlet of 5 em diam for removal of excesswater, if any. There is an 8 em diam pipe erected aspiezometer attached in the side of this cabinetinternally up to full height, i.e., 1.3 rn, whose base is

perforated up to 30 ern. The Iysimeter was filled withsoil, in accordance with various soil textures required.

Experimental DesignBefore starting the experiment, various physico-

chemical parameters of pulp and Paper mill effluentwere analyzed following the standard methods. In orderto assess the impacts of pulp and paper mill effluent onIysimetric soil and vegetation used for land treatmentthe four soil textures, i.e., ST, (pure soil-49 per centsand, 33 per cent silt and 18 per cent clay), ST2 (soilmixed with equal amount of sand-65 per cent sand, 23per cent silt and 12 per cent clay), ST1 (soil mixed withclay-23 per cent sand, 12 per cent silt and 65 per centclay), and ST4 (pure sand) were taken for theexperiment and the wheat and rice plants in thesedifferent textured lysimeters were irrigated with pulpand paper mill effluent at the cone, of 25 to lOOpercent and with normal water (control). Variousmicrobial characteristics of soil were analyzed after105 d, whereas plant growth parameters were analyzedafter 135 d of start of the experiment.

Analytical ProceduresThe various effluent characteristics viz., pH, EC,

BOD, COD, TS, TDS, Na, K, Ca, and Mg wereassessed according to standard methods described inAPHAR

• Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR) wasdetermined by the known method as follows:

SAR=------

The colour content was measured according to themethod of CPPA \0 and lignin, according to Pearl andBenson".

The soil microbial biomass was determined by thecholoroform fumigation technique'f. Soil microbialrespiration was determined by estimation of the CO2

evolved using the method described by Mac Fadyan13•

N-mineralization and the change in NO}-N during theincubation were determined following procedure ofPastor et al.'4. Plant height of main shoot from soillevel to the tip of full open leaf of main shoot wasrecorded with a plastic scale to the nearest millimeter.Protein was estimated by the method described byLowry et al. '5. The total carbohydrate was estimated,according to Sadasivam and Manickam'6 technique andlipid was estimated by Approved methods of AmericanCereal Chemists 17. The chlorophyll content of plants

KUMAR el at.: IMPACT OF PULP & PAPER MILL EFFLUENT ON LAND TREATMENT 885

was measured following the procedure of Arnon 18 by extracting plant ti ssue in 80 per cent acetone and measuring its absorbance at 645 and 663 nm and Na, K, and P contents were measured by the method of Tandon l 9

.

Results and Discussion

Initial physico~chemical characteristics of pulp and paper mill effluent is shown in Table I . The pulp and paper mill effluent had dark brown color and it was slightly alkaline in nature (pH 7.6 to 7.8). The EC ranged from 110 I to 1189 ~s/cm . Maximum values of BOD, COO, TS and TOS of the effluent were 1642, 3879.3 , 4913 and 2613 ppm, respectively. Further, maximum values of sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, lignin and sodium absorption ratio were 19.6, 47.3, 10.9, 8.2, 1235.7 and 0.6 I ppm, respectively (Table I ).

Table 1- Physico-chemical characteristi cs (± SE) of pulp and paper mill eftl uent

Parameters Autumn Winter Summer Rai ny season

pH 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.6 ±O.O ±O.O ±O.O ±O.O

EC (~ s/cm) 1120 1121 111 8 1101 ±IO.O ±IO. I ±IO.O ±IO. I

BOD (ppm) 1638 1639 1642 161 2 ±7.2 ±1.7 ±7.4 ±7.1

COD (ppm) 3873.7 3878. 1 3879.3 3851.3 ±23. 1 ±22. 11 ±19.2 ±17.1

TS (ppm) 4870 4863 4865 491 3 ±20.7 ±15 .54 ± 15.40 ±17 .30

TDS (ppm) 2565 1563 2567 261 3 ±1 8.7 ±18.83 ±18.83 ±17.1 3

Na (ppm) 19.6 19.5 19.45 16.3 ±0.7 ±0.7 ±D.8 ±0.5

K (ppm) 47 .3 47.3 47.1 30. 1 ±0.8 ±0.5 ±0.2 ±O.8

Ca (ppm) 10.9 10.4 10.3 10.8 ±0.2 ±0.2 ±0.2 ±0. 3

Mg (ppm) 8.2 8.1 8.0 7.0 ±O.5 ±0.4 ±0.4 ±0.4

SAR (ppm) 0.6 1 0.61 0.59 0.47 ±0.02 ±0.02 ±O.02 ±0.O2

Li gn in 1235.7 1234 1229 11 0 1 ±12.8 ±9 . IS ±9.7 ±9.6

Co lou r Dark Dark Dark Li ght brown brown brown brown

The impact of pulp and paper mill effluent at different dilutions was evaluated on so i I microbi al biomass, which showed a significant decrease on irrigation with increasing concentration of tile effluent except at 25 per cent concentration (Figure I). It has been20 reported that the alkaline industrial effluent imparted maximum deleteriou s effects on fungal community due to alteration in soil pH. The lower value for microbial biomass extending up to early winter is probably due to hi gher concentration of undesirable solids, metal s, organic and inorganic substances coupled with overflowing of effluent which imparted high 'oil pH and unfavorable climatic conditions due to low temperature in winter, as has

d h ? 1 22· C been suggeste by ot ers-· . Biomass was maximum at ST2 soil irrigated with 25 per cent effluent. Change in pH of the soil may be one of the reasons of alteration in microbial so il biomass observed in the present study . The effect being more pronounced on biomass N than C. This resulted into a further decrease in C/N ratio with increase in effluent concentration . However the value of biomass N was

<..> VI

-+-CONTROl ___ 25 Y. __ 507. -0-75 7; ~ 1001. VI 500 « :;[ 0

400 iii .... -« '" 300 -.>< m, ~ E 200

~~ =:::::: : \l u i i

v_ i 100 .... 0 VI

ST2 ST 3 514 SO IL lEX lURE a

Z

VI 300 ~ ~ 250 m

200 ~~,~ ~~~ !r 100 ~~ ~ 50 ~ L-_____ ~ ______ ~ ______ ~ ____ _

ST2 ST3 SOIL TEXTURE b

srI ST2 ST 3 SOIL TEXTURE C

Figure I-Soi l microbial biomass (Illg/kg) (:1) C (h) N and (c) ON rati o of differen t textured soi l as innuenced by pulp and paper mill

efflu ent at different concentrati ons

886 J SCI IND RES VOL 62 SEPTEMBER 2003

observed maximum at ST I soil irrigated with 25 percent effluent. Soil respiration, measured in terms ofCO2 evolution, showed an increase on irrigation withincreasing concentration of effluent. However, at 25per cent effluent concentration there wasconspicuous increase in soil respiration (Figure 2).

Results on N-mineralization, potentiallymineralizable N and nitrification of differenttextured soil, as affected by pulp and paper milleffluent application at different concentration areshown in Figure 3. N-mineralization was measuredin terms of cumulative net change in theconcentration of ammonia and nitrate nitrogenduring 8-wk of incubation and showed an increaseon irrigation with increasing concentration ofeffluent. The values were observed minimum in STItextured soil and maximum in ST, textured soil.Potentially mineralizable nitrogen was determinedby measuring cumulative nitrogen mineralizationassuming that the process followed first orderkinetics also showed the same trend. Nitrificationalso showed a similar trend. Similar observation inN- mineralization in response to other industrialeffluent was observed by Santo Domingo et al.2

'.

Data presented in Tables 2-4 reveal a generaltrend that all the growth parameters of wheat andrice plants were reduced by irrigation with 100 percent effluent and it is vice-versa with 25 per cent.The values of chlorophyll-a, chlorophyll b and totalproteins in wheat and rice leaves were observedmaximum, i.e., 0.57 mg/g, 0.36 mg/g, and 2789 ug/gof fresh weight, respectively, in wheat leaves and0.49 mg/g, 0.35 mg/g and 909 ug/g of fresh weight,respectively, in STI when irrigated with 25 per cent

'">-~o

-+-COHfROl--15'/, •..•...5/1"·/. -0-75'/. """*-100'1.

STi

Figure 2- Soil microbial respiration [lO-d cumulative C02-C (g/kg)] of different textured soil as influenced by pulp and

paper mill effluent at different concentrations

effluent. On irrigation with 100 per cent effluent thevalues showed a significant decrease. The changedstatus of soil characteristics in response to the effluentirrigation has brought significant change in wheat andrice plant growth. Chlorophyll and protein content ofwheat and rice plant was more at 25 per cent effluentirrigation over control (Tables 2-4). On the contrary,irrigation with 100 per cent effluent resulted intodecreased chlorophyll and protein content in wheat and. I S I h 24-?6nee eaves. evera ot ers - have also reported thatleaf chlorophyll and leaf area was reduced by theirrigation with higher concentration of effluent, whilethese parameters enhanced at lower concentration ofeffluent. Reduction in plant growth by undiluted papermill effluent irrigations observed in the present study,might be due to higher concentration of effluents,which contain inorganic and organic substances inhigher concentration prompting plant growth inhibitionat initial stage. Further the higher level of total~UJ_ .••••• CONTROL 25'1. ....•.. 50% -<>-75·/.. --100".~~ 50r- ~~h~

!::tilZo-.0< ~w .........•0

g~~ ~b~~ ~gi::E::Ez1 30 ~~--~----~------~-----~UJ....•m-<~ ~r_------------------------------------~_ .75~=170-0::E", 165>-'"...••.0<;:( ••••160

~~ I!iS

~ ISOa~ ~5L-------~--------_'_ ~~ _

ST,

ST, ST2 ST)SOil TEX TURE a

ST2 Sf 3SOil TEXTURE

ST4b

~ 55r----------------------------- _!;(~_ 50--'~oz'" 450'"- .~ 40~E!L_a: )5•....z )OL- ~ _L ~ _

ST 2 ST)SOil TEXTURE

Figure 3 - N-mineralization(a), potentially mineralizable N,(b) and nitrification, (c) of different textured soil as affected by

pulp and paper mill eftluent application at differentconcentrations

ST,

Table 2 - Chlorophyll . protein and nutrients (±SE) in leaves of wheat and rice plants grown in different soil textured lysimeter and irrigated with varied concentration of pulp and paper mill effluent

Parameter

Control

o per cent

E

Chi a 0.59 (mglg fresh ±O.OI weight)

Chi b 0.37 (mglg fresh ±O.O I weight)

Protein 2791 (~glg fresh ±41 weight)

P per cent 0.0002

±O.O

K per cent 0.13

±O.OI

Na per cent 0.09

±O.002

Chi a 0.51 (mglg fres h ±O.OI weight)

Chi b 0.39 (mglg fre sh ±O.O I weight)

Protein 91 2 (~glg fresh ±32 weight)

P per cent 0.0003

±O.O

K per cent 0.18

±O.OI

Na per cent 0.08

±O.OO I

ST,

25 50 75 100

per cent per cent per cent per cent

E E E E

0.57 0.33 0.27 0.26

±O.OI ±O.OI ±O.O ±O.O

0.36 0.35 0.30 0.27

±O.02 ±O.OI ±O.OI ±O.OI

2789 2787 2781 27 19

±40. I ±40 ±39 ±37

0.0003 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005

±O.O ±O.O ±O.O ±O.O

o. I 3 0.15 0.16 0.17

±O.04 ±O.OI ±O.OI ±O.02

O. I I 0.13 0.14 0.14

±O.OO6 ±O.005 ±O.005 ±O.005

0.49 0.29 0.23 0.21

±O.OI ±O.OI ±O.OI ±O.OI

.0.35 0.32 0.30 0.27

±0.0 1 ±O.OI ±OOI ±O.OI

909 909 899 891

±31 ±30 ±31 ±30

0.0004 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005

±O.O ±O.O ±O.O ±O.O

0.18 0.19 0.19 0.20

±O.OI ±O.OI ±O.OI ±O.OI

0.08 0.09 0.10

±O.OOI ±O.OO I ±O.OO I

0.15

±O.OOI

Control

o per ce nt

E

0.58

±O.OI

0.35

±O.OI

2740

±49

0.0003

±O.O

0.13

±O.OI

0.09

±O.002

0.50

±O.OI

0.36

±O.OI

862

±30

0.0002

±O.O

0.08

±O.O

0.09

±O.OOI

25

per cent

E

0.51

±O.02

0.32

±O.OI

2738

±48

0.0004

±O.O

0.14

±O.OI

0.10

±O.003

0.46

±O.OI

0.34

±O.OI

859

±31

0.0002

±O.O

0.08

±O.O

0.09

±O.OOI

50

per cent

E

0.48

±O.OI

0.32

±O.OI

2737

±47

0.0004

±O.O

0.15

±O.02

0.12

±O.003

0.28

±O.OI

0.32

±O.OI

855

±30

0.0003

±O.O

0.08

±O.O

0.10

±O.002

ST,

75

per cent

E

0.42

±O.OI

0.28

±O.OI

2736

±46

0.0005

±O.O

0.16

±O.02

0.13

±O.003

0.22

±O.OI

0.28

±O.OI

855

±30

0.0004

±O.O

0.09

±O.OI

0.11

±O.OI

100

per cent

E

Wheat

0.38

±O.02

0.28

±O.OI

2729

±43

0.0003

±O.O

0.16

±O.OI

0.14

±O.003

Rice

0.17

±O.OI

0.27

±O.OI

849

±29

0.0005

±O.O

0.09

±O.OI

0.12

±O.OOI

Control

o per cent

E

0.58

±O.OI

0.36

±O.OI

2790

±41

0.0003

±O.O

0.13

±O.OI

0.10

±O.002

0.52

±O.02

0.36

±O.OI

850

±31

0.0003

±O.O

0.10

±O.OI

0.12

±OOOI

25

per cent

E

0.57

±O.OI

0.32

±O.OI

2787

±48

0.0003

±O.O

0.14

±O.OI

0.11

±O.003

0.48

±O.OI

0.35

±O.OI

849

±29

0.0003

±O.O

0.12

±O.OI

0.12

±O.OOI

50

per cent

E

0.45

±O.OI

0.31

±O.OI

2781

±46

0.0003

±O.O

0.15

±O.02

0.11

±O.003

0.39

±O.OI

0.32

±O.OI

845

±28

0.0004

±O.O

0.12

±O.OI

0.13

±O.OOI

ST,

75

per cent

E

0.40

±O.OI

0.31

±O.OI

2779

±47

0.0004

±O.O

0.15

±O.02

0.12

±O.003

0.37

±O.02

0.29

±O.OI

843

±28

0.0005

±O.O

0.13

±O.OI

0.13

±O.OOI

100

per cent

E

0.37

±O.OI

0.28

±O.OI

2771

±47

0.0005

±O.O

0.16

±O.02

0.14

±O.OO4

0.29

±O.OI

0.26

±O.OI

843

±28

0.0005

±O.O

0.14

±O.OI

0.14

±O.002

Control

o per cent

E

0.52

±O.OI

0.35

±O.OI

2781

±41

0.0002

±O.O

0.14

±O.OI

0.08

±O.OOI

0.52

±O.03

0.35

±O.OI

875

±30

0.0004

±O.O

0.15

±O.OI

0.14

±O.002

25

per cent

E

0.48

±O.OI

0.32

±O.OI

2778

±43

0.0003

±O.O

0.14

±O.OI

0.09

±O.OOI

0.48

±O.OI

0.32

±O.OI

872

±29

0.0004

±O.O

0.17

±O.OI

0.11

±O.OOI

ST,

50

per cent

E

0.47

±O.OI

0.31

±O.OI

2775

±45

0.0003

±O.O

0.15

±O.02

0.11

±O.003

0.42

±O.OI

0.31

±O.OI

872

±29

0.0005

±O.O

0.17

±O.OI

0.12

±O.OOI

75 100

per cent per cent

E E

0.41 0.32

±O.OI ±O.OI

0.29 0.28

±O.OI ±O.OI

2770 2768

±41 ±39

0.0004 0.004

±O.O ±O.O

0.16 0.16

±O.02 ±O.02

0.12 0.12

±O.OOI ±O.003

0.37 0.31

±O.OI ±O.OI

0.28 0.26

±O.OI ±O.OI

869 867

±28 ±28

0.0005 0.0005

±O.O ±O.O

0.17 0.18

±O.OI ±O.OI

0.13 0.13

±O.OOI ±O.OO I

;><; c: s:: )­:;>::l

~ I:l ,.....

s:: '"Cl )­n ...., o 'Tl '"Cl c: ~ Ro '"Cl )­'"Cl tTl :;>::l

s:: ~ tTl

:iJ r c: tTl Z ...., o z r )-z o ;;l tTl )­...., s:: tTl

~

00 00 -..)

Table 3 - Growth cha~ac teris t ics and grain yie ld of wheat plants grown in different soi l textured lysimeter and irr!gated wi th varied concentration of pulp and paper mi l! efflu ent

Parameter

Plant height

(em)

Grain yield

(g/ penicle)

Shoot biomass

(g/ plant)

Root biomass

(g/ plant)

Grain ig biomass (g)

Per cent protein

(grain)

Per cent carbohydra te (grain)

Per cent lipid

(grain)

Control

o per cent

E

82.3

±3 .5

2.82

±D.08

4.92

±D.3

0.91

±D.03

0.61

±D.OI

10.2 1

±DA

72.61

±2.9

1.62

±D. I

25

per cent

E

85.1

±2.5

3.47

±D.07

5.87

±D.5

0.94

±D.04

0.74

±D.02

13.12

±D.5

75 .13

±2.7

2.1

±D.9

50

per cent

E

83.7

±2.1

3.36

±D.08

5.66

±D.3

0.92

±D.04

0.65

±D.02

11.1 7

±DA

73A2

±1.6

1.74

±D.3

ST,

75

per cenl

E

75.1

±2.1

2.25

±D.03

4.12

±D.3

0.71

±D.03

OA5

±D.02

10.1

±D.3

69.12

±2.1

1.59

±D.2

100

per cent

E

70.7

±2.7

1.21

±D.04

2.16

±D.2

0.67

±D.02

0.31

±D.OI

9.95

±D.3

67 .72

±2. 1

1.45

±D. I

Control

o per cent

E

79.1

±29

1.81

±D.05

3.72

±D.2

0.79

±D.02

OA7

±D.OI

9.32

±D.3

68 .72

±2.5

1.60

±D.2

25

per cent

E

80.2

±3. 1

2.35

±D.08

4.12

±DA

0.89

±D.04

0 .53

±D.02

10.98

±D.3

72. I

±2.7

1.83

±D.3

50

per cent

E

74.5

±2.9

2.12

±D.O

3.65

±D.2

0.83

±D.O 4

OA9

±D.O 2

9.90

±D.3

70.1

±2.3

1.71

±D.3

ST,

75

per cent

E

69.1

±2.5

1.68

±D.05

3.12

±D.2

0.7 1

±D.03

0.35

±D.02

9.92

±D.2

68. I 3

±2.1

!.54

±D.02

100

per cent

E

67.2

±30

1.02

±D.04

2.9 1

±D. I

0.65

±D.05

0.29

±D.Ol

9.83

±D.2

65 . 12

±2.6

!.43

±D.02

Control

o per cent

E

81.3

±3 .5

2.81

±D.08

4.72

±D.3

0.8 1

±D.04

0.51

±D.OI

10.22

±DA

71.65

±2.9

!.61

±D. I

25

per cent

E

84A

±3.7

3.13

±D.05

5.13

±DA

50

per cent

E

73. 1

±3.1

2.71

±D.04

4.99

±DA

0.98 0.89

±D.03 ±D.04

Q67 Q59

±Dm ±Dm

11.3 1 10. I I

±0.5 ±DA

83.10 79. 12

±3.5 ±3 .1

1.93 1.73

±D. 2 ±D. I

ST)

75

per cem

E

69.1

±3 .0

1.97

±D.03

3.92

±D. 3

100

per cent

E

61.1

±3.9

1. 12

±D.02

3.12

±D.3

0.67 0.59

±D.03 ±D.03

OA7 0.3 1

±D.02 ±D.02

9. 10

±DA

65.33

±2.7

1.1 3

±D. I

7.13

±D.3

55.12

±2.1

1.01

±D. I

Control

O'

per cent

E

8 1.9

±3 .7

2.89

±D.07

4.7 1

±D.3

0.87

±D.03

0.55

±D.OI

10.24

±D.5

7 1.65

±2.8

!.60

±D. I

25

per cent

E

85.1

±3.7

3.12

±D. I o

5.12

±D.5

50

per cent

E

79.1

±3.5'

2.99

±D.07

4.99

±DA

0.90 0.82

±D.O ±D.03 4

0.65 0.63

±D.O ±D.03 2

11.1

±D.6

83. I 2

±3.1

1.91

±D. I

10.91

±D.5

72.1 I

±2.9

1.73

±D.2

ST,

75

per ce nt

E

69.1

±3.5

2.12

±D.O 6

4.12

±D.3

0.77

±D.8

0.53

±D.O 2

9.13

±D. 5

65 .10

±2.5

1.59

±D.2

100

per cent

E

51 .32

±2.7

2.09

±D.05

3.99

±D.3

0.67

±D.02

OA5

±D.02

7.1 I

±DA

51.72

±2.1

1.32

±D. I

00 00 00

en Q

Z o ;:0 tTl en

< o r 0\ tv

en tTl "0

t!l s:: CO tTl ;:0 tv

8 w

Table 4 - Growth characteristics and grai n yield (±SE) of rice plants grown in different soil textured Iys imeter and irrigated with varied concentration of pulp and paper mill effluent

Parameters

Plant height

(cm)

Grain yield

(g! penicle)

Shoot biomass

(g! plant)

Root biomass

(g! plant)

Grain Ig biomass (g)

Per cent protein

(grain)

Per cent carbohydrate (grain)

Per cent lipid

(grain)

Control

o per cent

E

60

±1.5

1.91

±D.7

3.12

±D.9

0.7 1

±D.03

0.51

±D.03

8.19

±D.3

81.10

±IO. I

2.13

±D.OI

25

per cent

E

69.1

±1.7

2.13

±D.8

4.13

±I.I

0.93

±D.04

0.69

±D.04

9.01

±D.5

83.31

±II.O

3.12

±D.04

ST,

50

per cent

E

62.3

±I.5

2.11

±D.8

3.93

±1.0

0.69

±D.03

0.59

±D.03

8.99

±D.5

89.01

±IO. I

2.93

±D.03

75

per cent

E

59. 1

±1.4

1.87

±D.7

3.10

±D.9

0.69

±D.02

0.50

±D.03

8.12

±D.4

78.11

±9.7

2.3 1

±D.03

100

per cent

E

52.9

±1.5

1.53

±D.6

2.99

±D.8

0.63

±D.02

0.49

±D.02

7.89

±D.3

71.12

±7.7

1.99

±D.02

Control

o per cent

E

63

± 1.9

2. 10

±D.8

3.09

±D.8

0.73

±D.04

0.53

±D.03

8.09

±D.3

83.33

±II.I

2.3 1

±D.02

25

per cent

E

67 .12

±2.1

2.30

±D.9

3.19

±D.9

0.84

±D.04

0.63

±D. 04

8.92

±D.4

88.11

±1 1.7

2.9 1

±D.03

ST,

50

per cent

E

63 .10

±1.9

2.17

±D.8

3.12

±D.7

0.79

±D.03

0.59

±D.03

8.73

±D.3

85.10

±II.I

2.65

±D.03

75

per cent

E

59.1

±1.7

2.0

±D.7

2.99

±D.7

0.65

±D.02

0 .5 1

±D.03

8.12

±D.3

78.1

±IO. I

2. 12

±D.02

100

per cent

E

45.1

±I.3

2.0 1

±D.7

2.83

±0.6

0.59

±D.02

0.49

±D.02

7.9

±D.3

75.02

±9.7

1.99

±D.02

Control

o per cent

E

61

±1.7

2.09

±D.8

2.99

±D.7

0.72

±D.03

0.53

±D.03

8. ll

±D.3

82.12

±10.9

2.12

±D.02

ST,

25 50 75

per cent per cent per cent

E E E

~ ~ ~

± 1.9 ±1 .8 ±1 .7

2.93 2. 13 2.10

±D.9 ±D.8 ±D.7

3.33 3.12 2.93

±D.9 ±D.8 ±D.7

0.84 0.79 0.7 1

±D.04 ±D.04 ±D.04

0.64 0.59 0.50

±D.04 ±D.03 ±D.03

9.0 1 8.9 1 8.0

±D.5 ±D.4 ±D.9

89.11

±I I.I

85 .10±10 79 .98 .3 ±9.9

3. 10 299 205

±Dill ±Dm ±Dm

100

per cent

E

56

±1.6

1.97

±D.7

2.64

±D.7

0.65

±D.03

0.47

±D.02

7.99

±D.3

75.12

±9. 1

1.97

±D.OI

Control

o per cent

E

60

±1.6

1.96

±D.7

3.10

±D.9

0.7 1

±D.03

0.52

±D.04

8.13

±D.3

83.10

±I I.O

2.10

±D.OI

ST.

25 50 75

per cent per cent per cent

E E E

68 63 60

±1.9 ±1.7 ±1.6

2. 12 2.01 1.95

±D.7 ±D.7 ±D.7

3.27 3.21 2.09

±1.0· ±D.9 ±D.9

O~ O~ OW

±DM ±DM ~04

0.58 0 .55 0.49

±D.03 ±D.03 ±D03

8.92 8.5 1 8.0 1

±D.4 ±D.4 ±D.3

89.0 1±1 85.11±1 1.2 0.9

78 .12

±9.9

3. 10 2.99 2.0

±0.03 ±D.03 ±D.02

100

per cent

E

59

±1. 5

1.93

±D.7

2.08

±D.5

0.69

±D.03

0.47

±D.02

7.99

±D.2

75.9 1

±9.1

1.8

±D.OI

;;0:: c 3: » ~

~ ., ,....

3: "0 » q o '"rl "0 C r "0

Rc "0

~ tTl ~

3: t= r ~ ~ C tTl Z -l o Z r » z o ;d tTl » -l 3: tTl Z -l

00 00 1..0

890 1 SCl INO RES VOL 62 SEPTEMBER 2003

dissolved solids like, Na+, cr and SO/-.may alsoinhibit the uptake of other elements like K+, Ca2+,phosphorous, and Mg2+ by the plant which resultedinto stunted growth of wheat plant". Phosphorus andsodium content in wheat and rice leaves were foundmaximum in ST I at 100 per cent effluent level andminimum in ST4 at 25 per cent effluent level(Table 2). This is in conformity with theobservations of earlier workers28,2'J.

Relatively increased plants height, grain yieldand shoot biomass in response to effluent irrigationespecially with 25 per cent effluent than controlshowed the similaritv with the observations ofPushpavalli", who reported that the plant growthparameters were positively affected by dilutedeffluent, while concentrated effluent exertednegative impact. In the present study also 100 percent effluent irrigation reduced the wheat plantgrowth substantially. Plant height, grain yield, shootbiomass, root biomass, and grain/g biomass werefound maximum in ST1 at 25 per cent effluentconcentration and minimum in ST4 at 100 per centeffluent concentration (Table 3 and 4). Twentyfiveper cent effluent irrigation resulted into substantialincrease in ail these parameters in STI, whilst 100per cent effluent caused negative impact. Protein,carbohydrate, and lipid content in wheat and ricegrains were increased by irrigation with 25 per centeffluent and decreased by irrigation with 100 percent effluent. In general, maximum increase ingrowth characteristics was observed in the plantsgrown in Iysimeter treated with 25 per cent effluent,followed by SO, 75, and 100 per cent effluent,respecti vely.

. .,I ,JAs like others ,- the chlorophyll content,

shoot and root length, number of tillers per plant, dryweight of shoot, grain weight and total grainproduction of paddy in the present study wereincreased when irrigated with diluted pulp and paperfactory effluent. It may be attributed to the presenceof nutrients like, nitrogen, potassium, calcium, andmagnesium in the diluted effluents, which are atoptimum level, and promoted the growth of bothroot and shoot. However, in the undiluted effluentconcentration of these nutrients are increased so asto become toxic, resulting in retardation of root andshoot growth. The relatively more of protein,carbohydrate, and lipids in crop seeds may be due toavailability of more nutrients in the effluent ascompared to the well water and/or innate tendency to

accumulate inorganic nutrient in organic forms such as,protein, carbohydrate, and lipid. Such observationcould be profitably utilized for enhancing the wheatand rice crops in terms of its quantity and quality byutilizing industrial wastewater, especially the treated!diluted effluent of paper mill industry.

Conclusions

On the basis of the results, it is concluded that theuse of effluent for irrigation after diluting with normalwater is beneficial for crop growth and yield than thealone normal water. By doing so, one can utilize theinorganic/organic contents of effluent as substitute offertilizer for enhancing growth of wheat and rice plant.Not only this, it will also save huge amount of waterfrom being used for irrigation and thus avoid its furtherpollution. Disposal of effluent to irrigate crop will alsominimize the pollution hazards and prove to be saferand economically viable option. As such thesustainability of such disposal system deserves furtherresearch with specific soil and crop choices (fastgrowing, higher tonnage per unit time, and per unitarea, quick rejuvenation after harvested) along withmanagement technologies (seasonal flooding andimproved drainage) to combat the iII effects on theenvironment without deteriorating it any more.

Acknowledgements

Research facilities provided by G B PantUniversity of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagarand financial assistance from Indian Council ofAgricultural Research, Government of India aregratefully acknowledged.

References

Trivedi P K & Raj G. Encyclopaedia of environmentalsciences environmental industrial pollution control. Vol 9(Akashdccp Publishing House) i992,337.

2 Chakravarthi K R, Singanan M & Rao K S, A correlationstudy on physico-chemical characteristics of paper milleffluent, Nuzvid, lndian J Environ Protect. 16 (19')6) 46.

3 Singhal V, Kumar 1\ & Rai J P N. Phytorcmcdiation or pulpand paper mill and distillery effluents hy channel grass(Valisncria spiralis),.1 Sci lnd Res, 62 (2003) 31').

4 Angel J S, Menintosh M S, Hill R C, Nash R G & Leslie A R,Ground water residue satnpl: designs (Premier Press,Berkeley) 19lJI, p290.

5 Chauhan II K & Kaur P, Impact 01 pulp and paper milleffluent on sol micro flora, Environ Ecol, 11 (1993) 400.

6 Wong M T F, Kruijs A C B N V, Juo A S R, Vander & Kruijs1\ C B M, Leaching loss of calcium, magnesium, potassiumand nitrate derived from soil, lime and fertilizers as influencedhy urea applied to undisturbed Iysimetcrs in south-castNigeria, Fcrt Res, 31 (I <)92) 2f\ 1.

KUMAR et af.: IMPACT OF PULP & PAPER MILL EFFLUENT ON LAND TREATMENT 891

7 luwarkar A S, Bhalkar D V & Subrahmanyam P V R, Effect of pulp and paper mill wastewater on soil properties, Indian J Environ Hlth , 29 (1987) 313.

8 APHA, Standard Methods for examination of water and wastewater (American Public Health Association , American Water Works Associati on, Water Pollution Control Federation Washington DC, USA) 1995.

9 Richards L A, Diagnosis and ill1provemelU of saline and alkali soil (U S Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook) 1954.

10 CPPA, Colour of pulp mill effluen ts, Technical Section, Standard Method, 1974, H5P.

I I Pearl I A & Benson H K, The determination of lignin in sulphite pulping liquor, Pap Trade J, 111 (1940) 35.

12 Jenkinson D S & Powlsen D S, The effect of biocidal treatments on metabolism in soil , Soil Biol Biochem, 8 (1976) 209.

13 Mac Fadyan A. Soil metabolism in relation to ecosystem energy Ilow and to primary and secondary production , cited in Methods of study in soil ecology, edi ted by Phillipson, Proc Paris 5),II1P , UNESCO, I B P (1970) 167 -In.

14 Pastor J, Aber J D. Mc Claugherty C A & Melillo J M, Above ground production and Nand P cycling along a nitrogen mineralization gradient on Blackhawk Island , Wiscoll Ecol, 60 (1984) 256.

IS Lowry 0 H, Rosebrough N J, Farr A L & Randall R J, Protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent, J Bioi Ch ell1 , 193 ( 1951) 265 .

16 Sadasivam S & Mani ckam A, Biochemical methods for agricultural sciences (Wiley Eastern Limited , New Delhi ) 1992, II.

17 AACC, Approved methods oj AlI1erican cereal chemists (Central laboratory methods, St Paul Minnesota USA) 1969.

18 Arnon D I, Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris, Plant Physiol, 24 (1949) 1.

19 Tandon H L S, Methods of analysis of soils, plants, walers alld f ertilizers (Fertili zer Development and Consultation Organi zation, New Delhi ) 1993, 143.

20 Gowrisankar R, Palani appan R, Ramasamy K & Ponpandi S, Microbiota of textile mill eftlu ent, treatment and effect

of treated eftluent on plant growth , J In d Pollw Cant, 13 (1997) 61.

2 1 Bath E, Effect of heavy metals in soil on microbial processes and populations: a review, Water Air Soil PoIILt! , 47 (1989) 335.

22 Malik A & Ahmad M, Seasonal and locational vari at ions in certain bacteriological param.eters in the vici nity of industri al area of Aligarh city, Indian J Environ Protect, 15 ( 1995) 12 1.

23 Santo-Domingo J W, Fuentes F A & Hezen S T C, Survival and activities of streptococcus jaecalis and Escheri chi a co li in petroleum contaminated tropi ca l amrine waters, Environ Poll , 56 (1989) 265.

24 Chaturvedi C, Zaidi P H & Agrawal S R. Effect of industri al eflluent and aging on the chl orophyll content of wheat pl ants, J Rec Adv Appl Sci, 10 (1995) 65 .

25 Mishra R N & Behra P K, The effect of paper industry effl uent on growth pigment, carbohydrate and protein of rice seed lings , Environ POllUl , 72 (i 99 1) 159.

26 Agrawal S R, Chaturwedi C & Chatu rved i C, Effect of industri al cftluent of a paper and sugar mill on the germination of wheat (Triticum aesti vu m val' UP 262), J Livilrg World, 2 (1995) 46.

27 Bansal R L, Nayyar V K & Takkar P N, Accumulation and bioactivity of Zn , Cu , Mn and Fe in soils polluted with industrial waste-water, J Indian Soc Soil Sci, 40 ( 1992) 796.

28 Cameron K C, Rate A W, Carey P L & Smith N P, Fate of nitrogen in pig eflluent applied to a shallow stony pasture soil , New Zealand J Agric Res, 38 (1995) 533 .

29 Pathmanabhan G, Kumar U & Sastry S K, Effect of paper mill eftluent on groundnut genotypes in sand culture, Mysore J Agric Sci, 21 (1987) 290.

30 Pushpavalli R, Impact of Paper lIlill e.ffl.uent irrigation all soil nutrient balance, M.Sc. (Agric) Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, Indi a. 1990.

3 1 Mishra P C & Sunandashoo G, Agropotentiality of paper mi ll waste water, Soil PoUut Soil Org, (1989) 97.

32 Dutta S K & Boissya C L, Effect of paper mill eftlu ent on germination of rice seed (Oryza sati va L var Masuri) and growth behaviour of its seed lings, J Ind Pollut COllt , 12 (1996) 123.