ֆ҅ےǶ2010ǶޥᏢᖱကǶ୯ҥύᑫεᏢβᝆᕉნࣽᏢسǶѠύѱǶѠǶ
ֆޱǶ2009ǶβᝆྋనύઈނᅿϩթϷᙯᡂᆶځჹНዿϐࢥ্Ƕ୯ҥᆵε ᏢғނၗྍᄤၭᏢଣၭϯᏢࣴز܌ᅺγፕЎǶ
ֆߪֻǶ2014ǶబуᕗޥܭઈԦࢉβᝆύჹઈញрԿβᝆϾሜНύаϷНዿѴ भಕᑈઈϐቹៜǶ୯ҥᆵεᏢၭϯᏢࣴز܌ᅺγፕЎǶ
݅ǵഋનЎǵ؇ۑᆺǵ݅ଯ҉Ƕ 2008ǶᕗޥࡼҔჹβᝆઈಥߕϐቹៜǶ୯
77
ҥޜύεᏢғࢲࣽᏢسғࢲࣽᏢᏢൔ 12:61-75Ƕ
࠴ٵဖǶ2008ǶઈԦࢉӦၭҖβᝆᆶዿբઈ֖ໆᜢ߯ϐࣴزǶ୯ҥᆵεᏢ ғނᕉნسπำᏢࣴز܌ᅺγፕЎǶ
१ԯख़ߎឦज़ໆྗǶύ҇୯ 102 ԃ 08 Д 20 В१ӷಃ 1021350146 ဦз วѲঅ҅Ƕ
ഋࡱчǶ1974Ƕਜ਼ဌੰΓޑϩѲፓࣴزǶѠ࣪ፁғೀہૼϐፓࣴزൔ
। 7-25Ƕ
ഋ൧፣ǵጰևڻǵ҅ǵᒘᗶျǵஞ։ԿǵৎᑫǶ2002ǶβᝆԦࢉᆅڋ
ྗೕۓϐǶᕉߥࣴزൔ(EPA-91-H103-02-150)Ƕ
ഋࡌϘǶ2004ǶவѠޑઈᡍǴఈШࣚ҂ٰǶࣽᏢΓ 9 ДဦǶ
ഋӄǶ2003ǶѠࠄѳচཥܿϷᒸ෫ٿӦ؈ᑈނઈᆶញрϐࣴزǶ୯ ҥᆵεᏢӦ፦ࣽᏢࣴز܌ᅺγፕЎǶ
ഋ࢙ᑣǶ2014Ƕዿෘబуჹٿᅿ௨НόؼઈԦࢉβᝆύᕫԯઈᐚࡋޑቹៜǶ୯ ҥᆵεᏢၭϯᏢࣴز܌ᅺγፕЎǶ
҅፣()Ƕ1988ǶዿբᏢᆒाǶ୯ҥጓᓔጓӑǶѠчѱǶѠǶ
൧୯ǵЎߝǵЎၲǵ৪ཥǵࡹࡡǵ݅ඳՉǵէܿঢ়ǵጰ҅യǵՖ։
ᡦǵ݅࠶Ԁǵමዅܴǵ݅ဃయǶ2007ǶѠчѱၭӦβᝆख़ߎឦ֖ઈໆፓ
ϷीฝǶѠчѱࡹ۬ᕉნߥៈֽ(DEP-95-056)Ƕ
ᝄǶ2012ǶНϩᆅჹٿᅿڙઈԦࢉβᝆᅿНዿಕᑈઈϐቹៜǶ୯ҥᆵ
εᏢғނၗྍᄤၭᏢଣၭϯᏢࣴز܌ᅺγፕЎǶ
໙ࢅఘǶ2011ǶᆵӦዿԯύઈނᅿᆶᙿᐚࡋϩǶ୯ҥᆵεᏢᙍ
ᙴᏢᆶπፁғࣴز܌ᅺγፕЎǶ
ӵጪǶ1995ǶѠࠄѳচӦΠНઈғԋ৩ᆶӦ፦ᕉნϐ߃Ƕ୯ҥ ᆵεᏢӦ፦Ꮲࣴز܌ᅺγፕЎǶ
ੀ౺Ƕ2013ǶճҔβᝆНϩᆅफ़եٿᅿઈԦࢉβύᕫԯઈᐚࡋǶ୯ҥᆵ
78
Abedin, M.J., Cotter–Howells, J., Meharg, A.A., 2002a. Arsenic uptake and
accumulation in rice (Oryza sativa L.) irrigated with contaminated water. Plant Soil 240:311–319.
Abedin, M.J., Cresser, M.S., Meharg, A.A., Feldmann, J., Cotter-Howells, J., 2002b.
Arsenic accumulation and metabolism in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Environ Sci
79 Technol 36:962–968.
Abedin, M.J., Feldmann, J., Meharg, A.A., 2002c. Uptake kinetics of arsenic species in rice plants. Plant Physiol 128:1120–1128.
Agency for toxic substances and disease registry, 2007. Toxicological profile for arsenic. U.S. Department of health and human services. Atlanta, GA, USA.
Arao, T., Kawasaki, A., Baba, K., Mori, S., Matsumoto, S., 2009. Effects of water management on cadmium and arsenic accumulation and dimethylarsinic acid concentrations in japanese rice. Environ Sci Technol 43:9361–9367.
Barber S.A., 1984. Soil nutrient bioavailability: A mechanistic approachi. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. New York, USA.
Bhattacharjee, H., Rosen, B.P., 2007. Arsenic metabolism in prokaryotic and eukaryotic microbes. pp371–406. In: Nies, D.H., Silver, S. (eds) Molecular microbiology of heavy metals. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
Bogdan, K., Schenk, M.K., 2012. Arsenic mobilization in rice (Oryza sativa) and its accumulation in the grains. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 175:135–141.
Bolan, N., Mahimairaja, S., Kunhikrishnan, A., Choppala, G., 2013.
Phosphorus-arsenic interactions in variable-charge soils in relation to arsenic mobility and bioavailability. Sci Total Environ 463:1154–1162.
Brackhage, C., Huang, J.H., Schaller, J., Elzinga, E.J., Dudel, E.G., 2014. Readily available phosphorous and nitrogen counteract for arsenic uptake and
distribution in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Sci Rep 4:4944.
Buchet, J.P., Lauwerys, R., Roels, H., 1981. Comparison of the urinary-excretion of arsenic metabolites after a single oral dose of sodium arsenite,
monomethylarsonate, or dimethylarsinate in man. Int Arch Occ Env Hea 48:71–79.
Cao, X., Ma, L.Q., 2004. Effects of compost and phosphate on plant arsenic accumulation from soils near pressure-treated wood. Environ Pollut 132:435–442.
80
Chen, Z., Zhu, Y.G., Liu, W.J., Meharg, A.A., 2005. Direct evidence showing the effect of root surface iron plaque on arsenite and arsenate uptake into rice (Oryza
sativa) roots. New Phytol 165:91–97.
Codex alimentarius commission, 2014. Joint FAO/WHO food standards programme 37thSession. Geneva, Switzerland.
FAO, 2004. Food and agricultural organization of the United Nations-rice is life.
Gardnar, W. H., 1986. Water content. pp493–544. In: Klute, A. et al. (eds) Method of soil analysis. Part 2. Agron. Monogr. 9. 2ndEd. Physical and mineralogical method. Madison, WI, USA.
Gee, G.W., Bauder, J.W., 1979. Particle-size analysis by hydrometer-simplified method for routine textural analysis and a sensitivity test of measurement parameters. Soil Sci Soc Am J 43:1004–1007.
Halima, M.A., Majumder, R.K., Nessa, S.A., Hiroshiro, Y., Uddin, M.J., Shimada, J., Jinno, K., 2009. Hydrogeochemistry and arsenic contamination of groundwater in the Ganges Delta Plain, Bangladesh. J Hazard Mater 164:1335–1345.
Hingston, F.J., Posner, A.M., Quirk, J.P., 1971. Competitive adsorption of negatively charged ligands on oxide surfaces. Discuss Faraday Soc 52:334–342.
Bohn, H.L., McNeal, B.L., O’Connor, G.A., 2001. Soil Chemistry, 3rdEd. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. New York, USA.
Hossain, M.B., Jahiruddin, M., Loeppert, R.H., Panaullah, G.M., Islam, M.R., Duxbury, J.M., 2009. The effects of iron plaque and phosphorus on yield and arsenic accumulation in rice. Plant Soil 317:167–176.
Hu, P.J., Li, Z., Yuan, C., Ouyang, Y.N., Zhou, L.Q., Huang, J.X., Huang, Y.J., Luo, Y.M., Christie, P., Wu, L.H., 2013. Effect of water management on cadmium and arsenic accumulation by rice (Oryza sativa L.) with different metal accumulation capacities. J Soil Sediment 13:916–924.
Huang, J.H., Fecher, P., Ilgen, G., Hu, K.N., Yang, J., 2012. Speciation of arsenite
81
and arsenate in rice grain-Verification of nitric acid based extraction method and mass sample survey. Food Chem 130:453–459.
Hurd-Karrer, A.M., 1939. Antagonism of certain elements essential to plants toward chemically related toxic elements. Plant Physiol 14:9–29.
IARC, 1987. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to
humanoverall evaluation of carcinogenicity: An updating of IARC monograph.
Vol. 1–42, Supplement 7.
Jacobs, L.W., Keeney, D.R., 1970. Arsenic-phosphorus interactions on corn. Soil Sci Plant Analysis 1:85–93.
Jia, H.F., Ren, H.Y., Gu, M., Zhao, J.N., Sun, S.B., Zhang, X., Chen, J.Y., Wu, P., Xu, G.H., 2011. The phosphate transporter gene OsPht1;8 is involved in phosphate homeostasis in rice. Plant Physiol 156:1164–1175.
Jiang, W., Hou, Q.Y., Yang, Z.F., Zhong, C., Zheng, G.D., Yang, Z.Q., Li, J., 2014.
Evaluation of potential effects of soil available phosphorus on soil arsenic availability and paddy rice inorganic arsenic content. Environ Pollut 188:159–165.
Jonhnson, M.O., Cohly, H.H.P., Isokpehi, R.D., Awofolu, O.R., 2010. The case for visual analytic of arsenic concentrations in foods. Int J Env Res Pub He
7:1970–1983.
Khan, M.A., Stroud, J.L., Zhu, Y.G., McGrath, S.P., Zhao, F.J., 2010. Arsenic bioavailability to rice is elevated in Bangladeshi paddy soils. Environ Sci Technol 44:8515–8521.
Kirk, G., 2004. The biogeochemistry of submerged soils. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
New York, USA.
Lewinska, K., Karczewska, A., 2013. Influence of soil properties and phosphate addition on arsenic uptake from polluted soils by velvetgrass (Holcus Lanatus).
Int J Phytoremediat 15:91–104.
Lomax, C., Liu, W.J., Wu, L.Y., Xue, K., Xiong, J.B., Zhou, J.Z., McGrath, S.P.,
82
Meharg, A.A., Miller, A.J., Zhao, F.J., 2012. Methylated arsenic species in plants originate from soil microorganisms. New Phytol 193:665–672.
Lombi, E., Scheckel, K.G., Pallon, J., Carey, A.M., Zhu, Y.G., Meharg, A.A., 2009.
Speciation and distribution of arsenic and localization of nutrients in rice grains.
New Phytol 184:193–201.
Lou, L.Q., Ye, Z.H., Lin, A.J., Wong, M.H., 2010. Interaction of arsenic and phosphate on their uptake and accumulation in chinese brake fern. Int J Phytoremediat 12:487–502.
Ma, R., Shen, J.L., Wu, J.S., Tang, Z., Shen, Q.R., Zhao, F.J., 2014. Impact of agronomic practices on arsenic accumulation and speciation in rice grain.
Environ Pollut 194:217–223.
Martinez, V.D., Vucic, E.A., Becker-Santos, D.D., Gil, L., Lam, W.L., 2011. Arsenic exposure and the induction of human cancers. J Toxicol.
McGeehan, S.L., Naylor, D.V., Shafii, B., 1992. Statistical evaluation of arsenic adsorption data using linear-plateau regression analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 56:1130–1133.
Mckeague, J.A., Day, D.H., 1966. Dithionite- and oxalate-extractable Fe and Al as aids in differentiating various classes of soils. Can J Soil Sci 46:13–22.
McLaughlin, M.J., Hamon, R.E., McLaren, R.G., Speir, T.W., Rogers, S.L., 2000.
Review: A bioavailability-based rationale for controlling metal and metalloid contamination of agricultural land in Australia and New Zealand. Aust J Soil Res 38:1037–1086.
Meharg, A.A., Macnair, M.R., 1992. Suppression of the high affinity phosphate uptake system-a mechanism of arsenate tolerance in Holcus lanatus L. J Exp. Bot 43:519–524.
Meharg, A.A., Lombi, E., Williams, P.N., Scheckel, K.G., Feldmann, J., Raab, A., Zhu, Y.G., Islam, R., 2008. Speciation and localization of arsenic in white and brown rice grains. Environ Sci Technol 42:1051–1057.
83
Meharg, A.A., Macnair, M.R., 1994. Relationship between plant phosphorus status and the kinetics of arsenate influx in clones of Deschampsia Cespitosa (L.) Beauv. that differ in their tolerance to arsenate. Plant Soil 162:99–106.
Meharg, A.A., Rahman, M., 2003. Arsenic contamination of Bangladesh paddy field soils: Implications for rice contribution to arsenic consumption. Environ Sci Technol 37:229–234.
Moreno-Jimenez, E., Meharg, A.A., Smolders, E., Manzano, R., Becerra, D.,
Sanchez-Llerena, J., Albarran, A., Lopez-Pinero, A., 2014. Sprinkler irrigation of rice fields reduces grain arsenic but enhances cadmium. Sci Total Environ
485:468–473.
Meharg, A.A., Zhao, F.J., 2012. Arsenic & Rice. Springer, New York, USA.
Mehra, O.P., Jackson, M.L., 1960. Iron oxides removal from soils and clays
byadithionite-citrate system buffered with sodium bicarbonate. Clay Clay Miner 7:317–327.
Neupane, G., Donahoe, R.J., 2013. Calcium-phosphate treatment of contaminated soil for arsenic immobilization. Appl Geochem 28:145–154.
Nelson, D.W., Sommers, L.E., 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter.
pp539–579. In Page, A.L. et al. (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Agron.
Monogr. 9. 2nd Ed. ASA and SSSA. Madison, WI, USA.
Ng, J.C., Wang, J., Shraim, A., 2003, A global health problems caused by arsenic from natural sources. Chemosphere 52:1353–1359.
Norra, S., Berner, Z.A., Agarwala, P., Wagner, F., Chandrasekharam, D., Stuben, D., 2005. Impact of irrigation with As rich groundwater on soil and crops: A
geochemical case study in West Bengal Delta Plain, India. Appl Geochem 20:1890–1906.
Norton, G.J., Islam, M.R., Duan, G.L., Lei, M., Zhu, Y.G., Deacon, C.M., Moran, A.C., Islam, S., Zhao, F.J., Stroud, J.L., McGrath, S.P., Feldmann, J., Price, A.H., Meharg, A.A., 2010. Arsenic shoot-grain relationships in field grown rice
cultivars. Environ Sci Technol 44:1471–1477.
84
Pigna, M., Cozzolino, V., Caporale, A.G., Mora, M.L., Meo, D.V., Jara, A.A., Violante, A., 2010. Effects of phosphorus fertilization on arsenic uptake by wheat grown in polluted soils. J Soil Sci Plant Nut 10:428–442.
Quaghebeur, M., Rengel, Z., 2003. The distribution of arsenate and arsenite in shoots and roots of Holcus lanatus is influenced by arsenic tolerance and arsenate and phosphate supply. Plant Physiol 132:1600–1609.
Raab, A., Williams, P.N., Meharg, A., Feldmann, J., 2007. Uptake and translocation of inorganic and methylated arsenic species by plants. Environ Chem 4:197–203.
Raghothama, K.G., 1999. Phosphate acquisition. Ann Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 50:665–693.
Rahman, M.A., Hasegawa, H., Rahman, M.M., Rahman, M.A., Miah, M.A.M., 2007.
Accumulation of arsenic in tissues of rice plant (Oryza sativa L.) and its distribution in fractions of rice grain. Chemosphere 69:942–948.
Rhoades, J.D., 1996. Salinity: Electrical conductivity and total desolved solids.
pp419–420. In Sparks, D.L. (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical Methods. SSSA. Madison, WI, USA.
Roy, W.R., Hassett, J.J., Griffin, R.A. 1986. Competitive coeffi cient for the
adsorption of arsenate, molybdate, and phosphate mixtures by soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 50:1176–1182.
Rumburg, C.B., Engel, R.E., Meggitt, W.F., 1960. Effect of phosphorus concentration on the absorption of arsenate by oats from nutrient solution. Agron J
52:452–453.
Ryden, J.C., Syers, J.K., Harris, F.R., 1973. Adv Agron 25:1–45.
Mohanty, S., 2013. Trends in global rice comsuption. Vol. 12, No.1. Rice facts, Rice today, IRRI.
http://irri.org/rice–today/trends–in–global–rice–consumption
Sahoo, P.K., Kim, K., 2013. A review of the arsenic concentration in paddy rice from the perspective of geoscience. Geosci J 17:107–122.
85
Schoof, R.A., Yost, L.J., Eickhoff, J., Crecelius, E.A., Cragin, D.W., Meacher, D.M., Menzel, D.B., 1999. A market basket survey of inorganic arsenic in food. Food Chem Toxicol 37:839–846.
Sharma, P., Kappler, A., 2011. Desorption of arsenic from clay and humic acid-coated clay by dissolved phosphate and silicate. J Contam Hydrol 126:216–225.
Su, S.W., Tsui,C.C., Lai, H.Y., Chen, Z.S. 2014. Food safety and bioavailability evaluations of four vegetables grown in the highly arsenic-contaminated soils.
Int J Eev Res Pub He 11:4091–4107.
Su, Y.H., McGrath, S.P., Zhao, F.J., 2010. Rice is more efficient in arsenite uptake and translocation than wheat and barley. Plant Soil 328:27–34.
Takahashi, Y., Minamikawa, R., Hattori, K.H., Kurishima, K., Kihou, N., Yuita, K., 2004. Arsenic behavior in paddy fields during the cycle of flooded and
non-flooded periods. Environ Sci Technol 38:1038–1044.
Talukder, A.S.M.H.M., Meisner, C.A., Sarkar, M.A.R., Islam, M.S., Sayre, K.D., Duxbury, J.M., Lauren, J.G., 2012. Effect of water management, arsenic and phosphorus levels on rice in a high-arsenic soil-water system: II. Arsenic uptake.
Ecotox Environ Safe 80:145–151.
Thomas, G.W., 1996. Soil pH and soil acidity. pp.475–490. In: Sparks, D.L. et al. (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical Methods. ASA and SSSA. Madison, WI, USA.
Violante, A., Pigna, M., 2002. Competitive sorption of arsenate and phosphate on different clay minerals and soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:1788–1796.
Walsh, L.M., Keeney, D.R., 1975. Behavior and phytotoxicity of inorganic arsenicals in soils. Adv Chem Ser 7:35–52.
Wang, L.H., Duan, G.L., 2009. Effect of external and internal phosphate status on arsenic toxicity and accumulation in rice seedlings. J Environ Sci-China 21:346–351.
86
Wenzel, W.W., Kirchbaumer, N., Prohaska, T., Stingeder, G., Lombi, E., Adriano, D.C., 2001. Arsenic fractionation in soils using an improved sequential extraction procedure. Anal Chim Acta 436:309–323.
WHO, 1989. Evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants. In:
WHOTechnical Report Series. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additivesed., Vol. 776. WHO. Geneva, Switzerland.
Williams, P.N., Raab, A., Feldmann, J., Meharg, A.A., 2007a. Market basket survey shows elevated levels of as in South Central US processed rice compared to California: Consequences for human dietary exposure. Environ Sci Technol 41:2178–2183.
Williams, P.N., Villada, A., Deacon, C., Raab, A., Figuerola, J., Green, A.J.,
Feldmann, J., Meharg, A.A., 2007b. Greatly enhanced arsenic shoot assimilation in rice leads to elevated grain levels compared to wheat and barley. Environ Sci Technol 41:6854–6859.
Woolson, E.A., Axely, J.H., Kearney, P.C., 1973. The chemistry and phytotoxicity of arsenic in soils: Effect of time and phosphorus. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc
37:254–259.
Wu, Z.C., Ren, H.Y., McGrath, S.P., Wu, P., Zhao, F.J., 2011. Investigating the contribution of the phosphate transport pathway to arsenic accumulation in rice.
Plant Physiol 157:498–508.
Xu, X.Y., McGrath, S.P., Meharg, A.A., Zhao, F.J., 2008. Growing rice aerobically markedly decreases arsenic accumulation. Environ Sci Technol 42:5574–5579.
Yamaguchi, N., Nakamura, T., Dong, D., Takahashi, Y., Amachi, S., Makino, T., 2011. Arsenic release from flooded paddy soils is influenced by speciation, Eh, pH, and iron dissolution. Chemosphere 83:925–932.
Zavala, Y.J., Duxbury, J.M., 2008. Arsenic in rice: I. Estimating normal levels of total arsenic in rice grain. Environ Sci Technol 42:3856–3860.
Zhao, F.J., Harris, E., Yan, J., Ma, J.C., Wu, L.Y., Liu, W.J., McGrath, S.P., Zhou, J.Z., Zhu, Y.G., 2013a. Arsenic methylation in soils and its relationship with
87
microbial arsM abundance and diversity, and As speciation in rice. Environ Sci Technol 47:7147–7154.
Zhao, F.J., Stroud, J. L., Khan, M.A., McGrath, S.P., 2012. Arsenic translocation in rice investigated using radioactive As-73 tracer. Plant Soil 350:413–420.
Zhao, F.J., Zhu, Y.G., Meharg, A.A., 2013b. Methylated arsenic species in rice:
geographical variation, origin, and uptake mechanisms. Environ Sci Technol 47:3957–3966.
88
Ύ Ύǵߕᒵ
ߕᒵკ A1ǵβᝆНϩᆅೀ: Ⴋکރᄊ(a); Нރᄊ(b)Ƕ Fig. A1 Treatment of soil water management, saturated (a); flooding (b).
a. b.
89
ߕᒵკ A2ǵόӕ pH ΠઈނᅿޑှᚆރᄊǶa.ઈለ; b.٥ઈለ; c.ൂҘ୷ઈ; d.ᚈҘ
୷ઈǶ
Fig. A2 Dissociation of arsenate (a), arsenite (b), DMA (c) and MMA (d) as influenced by pH.
(Meharg and Zhao, 2012)
90
ߕᒵკ A3 ǵዿԯғߏຼයϷځНϩᆅ (යբ )Ƕ F ig . A3 Th e rice growth c y c le and water m ana g e ment of the padd y soil. (ၭᙂǴ 2007)
91
ߕᒵ߄ A1ǵНዿғߏය໔Β݅চۈβᝆ(Eh10) pH ޑᡂϯǶ Table A1 Soil pH in original Erlin soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15ƨ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124
Eh10-1P-S 1 6.8 7.3 7.6 7.3 8.1
2 7.0 7.6 6.5 7.1 7.7
3 7.2 7.9 7.4 7.8 7.8
Eh10-1P-F 4 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.7 7.1
5 6.8 7.0 6.4 6.9 7.2
6 7.0 7.4 6.9 6.5 7.3
Eh10-3.5P-S 7 6.7 7.5 7.4 7.5 8.4
8 6.9 5.3* 7.8 7.9 7.6
9 6.8 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.6
Eh10-3.5P-F 10 6.8 7.0 6.6 6.9 7.0
11 6.8 7.1 6.8 7.2 7.0
12 7.0 7.4 7.2 6.8 7.1
Eh10-6P-S 13 6.4 7.5 6.4 7.2 8.0
14 6.7 7.7 7.5 7.0 7.6
15 6.7 7.4 7.0 6.9 8.0
Eh10-6P-F 16 6.4 7.0 6.9 6.9 7.1
17 6.5 7.5 6.8 7.1 7.2
18 6.7 7.2 6.8 6.9 7.1
ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
92
ߕᒵ߄ A2ǵНዿғߏය໔Β݅ઈԦࢉβᝆ(Eh20) pH ޑᡂϯǶ
Table A2 Soil pH in As contaminated Erlin soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15ƨ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124
Eh20-1P-S 19 6.9 7.9 8.0 7.8 7.8
20 6.8 7.7 6.4 7.8 7.5
21 7.2 7.3 7.8 7.4 7.2
Eh20-1P-F 22 7.2 7.5 6.9 7.0 7.1
23 6.9 7.3 6.1 7.0 7.0
24 7.2 7.3 7.0 6.9 7.1
Eh20-3.5P-S 25 7.0 6.3 7.7 7.9 7.7
26 7.0 7.8 7.2 7.0 7.7
27 7.1 7.7 7.4 7.1 7.8
Eh20-3.5P-F 28 6.9 7.3 6.8 6.8 7.0
29 7.1 7.4 6.7 6.8 7.1
30 6.8 7.3 6.4 7.1 6.5
Eh20-6P-S 31 6.8 7.6 7.5 7.2 7.6
32 6.6 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.6
33 6.8 7.1 7.0 7.3 7.7
Eh20-6P-F 34 6.9 7.3 6.5 6.9 7.0
35 6.9 7.1 6.9 6.9 7.2
36 7.0 7.5 6.9 6.9 7.1
ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
93
ߕᒵ߄ A3ǵНዿғߏය໔ѳᙼচۈβᝆ(Pc10) pH ޑᡂϯǶ
Table A3 Soil pH in original Pinchen soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15ƨ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124
Pc10-1P-S 37 5.9 6.4 6.5 5.2 4.4
38 5.7 5.6 5.4 6.5 4.3
39 5.9 6.3 5.3 5.0 4.1
Pc10-1P-F 40 5.2 6.3 6.4 6.3 5.9
41 6.2 6.5 6.1 6.9 5.7
42 6.2 6.1 6.1 5.4 5.9
Pc10-3.5P-S 43 5.9 4.5 4.8 4.8 4.8
44 6.0 5.5 4.5 5.1 4.6
45 6.0 6.2 4.8 5.5 5.1
Pc10-3.5P-F 46 5.9 6.3 6.3 5.3 6.5
47 6.2 6.2 6.5 5.5 5.6
48 5.9 6.2 6.2 5.7 5.8
Pc10-6P-S 49 6.1 6.7 5.3 5.7 4.6
50 5.8 5.5 5.4 5.4 4.7
51 5.7 6.1 4.3 5.0 5.3
Pc10-6P-F 52 6.0 5.9 6.1 6.1 5.9
53 6.0 6.0 6.2 5.6 6.1
54 6.2 6.7 6.4 6.3 5.8
ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
94
ߕᒵ߄ A4ǵНዿғߏය໔ѳᙼઈԦࢉβᝆ(Pc40) pH ޑᡂϯǶ
Table A4 Soil pH in As contaminated Pinchen soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15ƨ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124
Pc40-1P-S 55 6.1 6.5 5.6 4.7 4.4
56 6.2 6.6 6.0 6.3 4.9
57 5.2 5.8 5.5 5.8 4.4
Pc40-1P-F 58 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.3 5.5
59 6.2 6.5 6.0 6.3 5.7
60 5.8 6.3 6.1 6.3 5.5
Pc40-3.5P-S 61 6.2 6.5 5.7 4.6 5.1
62 6.1 6.3 6.4 4.6 5.1
63 6.0 6.2 5.3 4.6 4.9
Pc40-3.5P-F 64 6.2 6.6 6.1 6.1 5.7
65 6.0 6.3 6.4 6.0 6.1
66 5.7 6.0 6.1 5.4 5.7
Pc40-6P-S 67 6.2 6.2 5.2 5.2 4.8
68 6.0 6.3 4.7 5.3 6.1
69 5.9 6.0 5.1 5.7 6.0
Pc40-6P-F 70 6.2 6.3 6.1 6.1 6.0
71 6.0 6.4 6.0 5.6 5.7
72 6.3 6.5 6.2 6.3 5.5
ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
95
ߕᒵ߄ A5ǵНዿғߏය໔Β݅চۈβᝆ(Eh10)਼ϯᗋচႝՏޑᡂϯǶ
Table A5 The redox potential in original Erlin soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15§ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124 mV
Eh10-1P-S 1 -108 -129 -139 -191 -210 2 -130 -147 -50 -153 27
3 -135 -110 -164 -108 25
Eh10-1P-F 4 -114 -112 -194 -197 -203
5 -52 -98 -155 -177 -213
6 -100 -136 -174 -183 -186
Eh10-3.5P-S 7 -112 -124 -133 -147 -49 8 -114 -193 -87 -134 157
9 -121 -109 -25 -149 -19
Eh10-3.5P-F 10 -125 -129 -174 -195 -205
11 -108 -159 -192 -203 -186
12 -112 -172 -148 -175 -196
Eh10-6P-S 13 -57 -111 -140 -135 -183
14 -108 -49 -74 -106 -93
15 -87 -33 -128 -136 -156
Eh10-6P-F 16 -61 -96 -155 -167 -200
17 -70 -77 -142 -178 -207
18 -103 -125 -175 -202 -234
ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
96
ߕᒵ߄ A6ǵНዿғߏය໔Β݅ઈԦࢉβᝆ(Eh20)਼ϯᗋচႝՏޑᡂϯǶ Table A6 The redox potential in As contaminated Erlin soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15§ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124 mV
Eh20-1P-S 19 -149 -114 -112 -164 80 20 -131 -154 -116 -168 79
21 -153 -163 -161 -151 -140
Eh20-1P-F 22 -152 -150 -157 -190 -174
23 -143 -158 -118 -217 -208
24 -142 -147 -180 -197 -193
Eh20-3.5P-S 25 -142 -171 0 -101 148
26 -115 -119 -73 -139 -230
27 -143 -120 -140 -154 -139
Eh20-3.5P-F 28 -116 -163 -158 -166 -156
29 -135 -54 -188 -208 -188
30 -51 -88 -144 -185 -198
Eh20-6P-S 31 -140 -150 -166 -127 199
32 -32 -61 -138 -71 -50
33 -75 -93 -117 -89 -74
Eh20-6P-F 34 -135 -153 -167 -213 -185
35 -22 -83 -182 -190 -228
36 -135 -149 -195 -193 -185
ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
97
ߕᒵ߄ A7ǵНዿғߏය໔ѳᙼচۈβᝆ(Pc10)਼ϯᗋচႝՏޑᡂϯǶ
Table A7 The redox potential in original Pinchen soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15§ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124 mV
Pc10-1P-S 37 -92 -110 -113 -128 354
38 -72 -30 19 -149 373
39 -88 -121 -42 -101 184
Pc10-1P-F 40 24 -68 -120 -132 -112
41 -67 -102 -109 -128 -122
42 -81 -114 -107 -112 -100
Pc10-3.5P-S 43 -79 -93 77 106 220
44 -94 51 -41 70 229
45 -94 -105 111 176 285
Pc10-3.5P-F 46 -77 -111 -104 -113 -127
47 -88 -99 -107 -90 -120
48 -90 -104 -84 -131 -51
Pc10-6P-S 49 -93 -129 -114 -68 250
50 -88 -114 130 211 322
51 -96 -57 304 175 207
Pc10-6P-F 52 -91 -115 -92 -79 -112
53 -108 -131 -76 -30 -102
54 -101 -113 -108 -130 -135
ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
98
ߕᒵ߄ A8ǵНዿғߏය໔ѳᙼઈԦࢉβᝆ(Pc40)਼ϯᗋচႝՏޑᡂϯǶ Table A8 The redox potential in As contaminated Pinchen soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15§ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124 mV
ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
99
ߕᒵ߄ A9ǵНዿғߏය໔Β݅চۈβᝆ(Eh10)ϾሜНઈᐚࡋޑᡂϯǶ
Table A9 As concentration of pore water in original Erlin soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15§ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124 ȝJ/
Eh10-1P-S 1 43.6 29.7 34.5 54.7 24.3 2 46.9 37.0 51.8 40.2 4.33¶
3 - 39.8 56.9 3.00 4.33
Eh10-1P-F 4 40.8 64.8 72.3 62.1 106
5 30.9 25.6 78.5 79.6 83.9
6 - 41.7 54.7 72.7 80.6
Eh10-3.5P-S 7 39.8 33.5 21.0 14.5 26.8 8 42.9 45.5 35.8 2.57* 4.33
9 - 32.7 47.2 16.2 7.58
Eh10-3.5P-F 10 52.0 73.6 82.8 110 87.8 11 49.3 68.5 82.8 74.3 110
12 - 76.5 78.4 79.8 55.0
Eh10-6P-S 13 17.7 17.6 43.6 36.9 25.8 14 30.5 31.9 53.7 13.5 47.8
15 - 12.5 43.7 33.9 23.4
Eh10-6P-F 16 28.8 20.5 61.8 72.0 47.0 17 11.8 43.0 84.2 53.0 85.5
18 - 25.4 90.2 96.2 77.6
ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
100
ߕᒵ߄ A10ǵНዿғߏය໔Β݅ઈԦࢉβᝆ(Eh20)ϾሜНઈᐚࡋޑᡂϯǶ Table A10 As concentration of pore water in As contaminated Erlin soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15§ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124 ȝJ/
Eh20-1P-S 19 241 160 49.3 15.9 4.33¶
20 244 59.4 14.3 91.2 6.80
21 - 212 199 129 77.0
Eh20-1P-F 22 232 205 67.6 242 219
23 296 182 248 111 218
24 - 149 266 337 290
Eh20-3.5P-S 25 249 252 2.6 76.6 4.33
26 216 93.3 173 172 58.2
27 - 105 10.2 58.7 142
Eh20-3.5P-F 28 203 312 207 72.8 139
29 241 255 269 356 361
30 - 144 358 277 168
Eh20-6P-S 31 233 216* 50.3 46.9 4.33 32 63.9 11.6 62.4 136 78.5
33 - 20.0 268 72.1 121
Eh20-6P-F 34 276 320 299 241 300
35 240 109 153 389 353
36 - 285 234 353 370
ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
101
ߕᒵ߄ A11ǵНዿғߏය໔ѳᙼচۈβᝆ(Pc10)ϾሜНઈᐚࡋޑᡂϯǶ Table A11 As concentration of pore water in original Pinchen soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15§ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124 ȝJ/
Pc10-1P-S 37 2.94 1.57 2.58 2.57 4.33 38 2.53 2.78 2.58 2.57 4.33
39 - 4.55 2.58 2.57 4.33
Pc10-1P-F 40 2.13¶ 4.07 2.58 2.57 4.33 41 3.00 1.93 2.58 3.64 4.33
42 - 5.01 2.58 2.57 4.33
Pc10-3.5P-S 43 4.23 4.46 2.58 2.57 4.33 44 11.6 6.53 2.58 2.57 4.33
45 - 4.93 2.58 2.57 4.33
Pc10-3.5P-F 46 2.13 13.8 2.58 2.57 4.33 47 2.68 6.30 2.58 3.26 4.33
48 - 3.84 2.58 2.57 4.33
Pc10-6P-S 49 7.37 3.12 3.16 3.20 4.33 50 4.97 3.42 2.58 2.57 4.33
51 - 5.80 2.58 2.57 4.33
Pc10-6P-F 52 6.30 5.57 6.00 2.57 4.33 53 6.64 8.07 6.85 18.3 6.42
54 - 7.01 24.4 3.08 4.33
ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
102
ߕᒵ߄ A12ǵНዿғߏය໔ѳᙼઈԦࢉβᝆ(Pc40)ϾሜНઈᐚࡋޑᡂϯǶ
Table A12 As concentration of pore water in As contaminated Pinchen soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15§ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124 ȝJ/
Pc40-1P-S 55 10.7 42.9 25.3 6.54 4.33 56 58.3 19.3 18.3 9.68 13.2
57 - 53.8 15.2 34.1 4.33
Pc40-1P-F 58 10.7 27.5 27.0 36.1 23.1 59 70.3 33.2 41.9 37.4 20.4
60 - 38.3 24.3 12.5 17.4
Pc40-3.5P-S 61 77.8 50.9 38.1 14.8 4.33 62 76.2 29.8 7.96 2.57¶ 4.33
63 - 52.6 9.08 2.57 4.33
Pc40-3.5P-F 64 66.3 44.3 40.9 10.9 8.42 65 79.6 90.1 9.49 21.9 18.9
66 - 58.3 54.5 17.5 9.36
Pc40-6P-S 67 93.5 38.8 8.03 2.57 4.33 68 106 44.7 6.90 11.0 4.33
69 - 30.5 12.8 14.2 4.33
Pc40-6P-F 70 84.9 48.8 22.3 36.7 34.3 71 70.3 78.2 26.7 9.58 29.3
72 - 37.3 51.8 15.3 40.7
ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
103
ߕᒵ߄ A13ǵНዿғߏය໔Β݅চۈβᝆ(Eh10)ϾሜНᕗᐚࡋޑᡂϯǶ
Table A13 P concentration of pore water in original Erlin soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15§ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124 mg/L
Eh10-1P-S 1 2.11 0.49 0.09 0.22 0.08 2 0.11 0.40 0.17 0.48 0.14 3 1.98 0.57 0.28 0.06 0.16 Eh10-1P-F 4 1.92 0.99 0.14 0.64 0.11 5 1.12 0.22 0.12 0.20 0.06 6 1.20 0.67 0.02 0.77 0.09 Eh10-3.5P-S 7 1.46 0.70 0.11 0.49 0.71 8 2.50 0.85 0.82 0.31 0.21 9 2.10 0.47 0.10 0.40 0.20 Eh10-3.5P-F 10 1.52 1.23 0.23 0.26 0.08 11 1.82 1.37 0.03 0.27 0.13 12 1.93 0.82 1.27 0.42 0.07 Eh10-6P-S 13 1.60 0.54 1.39 0.96 0.08 14 4.03 0.72 0.29 0.09 0.16 15 4.44 0.33 0.36 0.81 0.08 Eh10-6P-F 16 2.27 0.55 0.07 0.73 0.18 17 1.87 0.89 0.79 0.90 0.09 18 1.84 0.19 0.56 0.57 0.08 ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
104
ߕᒵ߄ A14ǵНዿғߏය໔Β݅ઈԦࢉβᝆ(Eh20)ϾሜНᕗᐚࡋޑᡂϯǶ
Table A14 P concentration of pore water in As contaminated Erlin soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15§ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124 mg/L
Eh20-1P-S 19 1.98 1.00 0.10 0.09 0.14 20 1.55 0.22 0.22 0.31 0.16 21 2.87 0.52 0.04 0.22 0.09 Eh20-1P-F 22 1.32 0.79 0.08 0.89 0.11 23 2.56 0.32 0.08 0.18 0.10 24 2.20 0.45 0.05 0.18 0.13 Eh20-3.5P-S 25 2.63 0.65 0.27 0.95 3.49*
26 2.17 0.27 0.21 0.21 0.08 27 1.81 0.73 0.13 0.91 0.11 Eh20-3.5P-F 28 2.32 0.78 0.16 0.31 0.11 29 2.00 0.97 0.08 0.64 0.08 30 2.29 0.33 0.89 0.88 0.08 Eh20-6P-S 31 3.38 0.61 0.15 1.13 0.32 32 2.76 0.42 0.10 0.20 0.16 33 2.69 0.30 0.56 0.52 0.45 Eh20-6P-F 34 2.14 0.67 0.12 0.57 0.08 35 4.69 1.08 0.47 0.51 0.08 36 2.89 0.97 0.02 0.06 0.11 ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
105
ߕᒵ߄ A15ǵНዿғߏය໔ѳᙼচۈβᝆ(Pc10)ϾሜНᕗᐚࡋޑᡂϯǶ Table A15 P concentration of pore water in original Pinchen soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15§ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124 mg/L
Pc10-1P-S 37 0.29 0.04 0.33 0.01 0.07 38 0.23 0.41 0.06 0.05 0.08 39 0.19 0.30 0.08 0.07 0.08 Pc10-1P-F 40 0.15 0.04 0.14 0.04 0.02 41 0.44 0.04 0.12 0.03 0.09 42 0.20 0.04 0.01¶ 0.02 5.40 Pc10-3.5P-S 43 0.36 0.58 0.14 0.10 0.08 44 0.52 0.36 0.65 0.14 0.06 45 0.22 0.07 1.33 0.04 0.08 Pc10-3.5P-F 46 0.16 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.07 47 0.24 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.07 48 0.22 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.08 Pc10-6P-S 49 0.36 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.11 50 0.36 0.47 0.78 0.20 0.08 51 0.67 0.30 0.26 0.05 0.09 Pc10-6P-F 52 0.11 0.30 0.32 0.11 0.04 53 0.41 0.15 0.23 0.09 0.15 54 0.48 0.19 0.10 0.08 0.06 ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
106
ߕᒵ߄ A16ǵНዿғߏය໔ѳᙼઈԦࢉβᝆ(Pc40)ϾሜНᕗᐚࡋޑᡂϯǶ Table A16 P concentration of pore water in As contaminated Pinchen soils during the
rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15§ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124 mg/L
Pc40-1P-S 55 0.19 0.09 0.65* 0.09 0.09 56 0.19 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.08 57 0.11 0.22 0.06 0.06 0.08 Pc40-1P-F 58 0.18 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.06 59 0.26 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.20 60 0.22 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.07 Pc40-3.5P-S 61 0.31 0.07 0.65* 0.10 0.09 62 0.27 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.09 63 0.28 0.35 0.06 0.07 0.10 Pc40-3.5P-F 64 0.34 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.06 65 0.89* 0.15 0.08 0.13 0.08 66 0.34 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.07 Pc40-6P-S 67 0.46 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.09 68 0.45 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.09 69 0.70 0.10 0.72* 0.09 0.02 Pc40-6P-F 70 0.41 0.10 0.01¶ 0.05 0.08 71 0.25 0.45 0.18 0.20 0.09 72 0.36 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.09 ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
107
ߕᒵ߄ A17ǵНዿғߏය໔Β݅চۈβᝆ(Eh10)ϾሜН៓ᐚࡋޑᡂϯǶ Table A17 Fe concentration of pore water in original Erlin soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15§ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124 mg/L
Eh10-1P-S 1 7.36 13.1 29.7 39.8 21.4 2 7.30 21.8 55.3 27.2 1.82 3 7.98 19.2 48.5 0.27* 2.65 Eh10-1P-F 4 5.80 25.4 55.5 30.0 38.0 5 5.51 7.02 55.7 29.4 27.3 6 1.82 11.3 33.7 37.3 34.7 Eh10-3.5P-S 7 5.99 10.1 17.9 9.51 19.2 8 7.41 18.8 21.4 1.95 1.70 9 8.97 11.3 39.3 8.78 6.83 Eh10-3.5P-F 10 5.18 29.0 53.9 40.3 21.8 11 7.13 26.9 35.9 30.4 36.3 12 5.76 23.7 64.1 36.2 27.6 Eh10-6P-S 13 1.75 0.95 20.5 19.8 19.3 14 1.67 7.93 31.7 4.96 21.3 15 0.77 0.58 20.4 17.0 18.7 Eh10-6P-F 16 1.85 7.30 26.0 24.1 13.2 17 1.41 6.87 41.2 21.5 30.1 18 3.92 5.14 34.8 42.9 18.9 ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
108
ߕᒵ߄ A18ǵНዿғߏය໔Β݅ઈԦࢉβᝆ(Eh20)ϾሜН៓ᐚࡋޑᡂϯǶ Table A18 Fe concentration of pore water in As contaminated Erlin soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15§ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124 mg/L
Eh20-1P-S 19 13.3 25.0 15.4 0.11* 4.81 20 11.3 6.91 20.3 19.9 2.73 21 12.2 27.9 47.6 26.5 8.84 Eh20-1P-F 22 11.1 23.1 9.35 40.6 18.3 23 15.9 23.5 46.9 12.4 17.7 24 11.0 15.0 50.7 37.3 35.9 Eh20-3.5P-S 25 11.8 15.0 3.99 31.0 0.35 26 9.80 8.60 40.7 33.2 9.92 27 9.08 15.5 1.62 7.97 12.2 Eh20-3.5P-F 28 11.7 30.9 41.2 14.7 17.6 29 12.9 32.7 44.8 36.9 36.3 30 0.97* 1.82* 27.2 36.1 21.1 Eh20-6P-S 31 12.6 25.8 19.0 3.13 0.34*
32 1.51 0.00*¶ 3.08 14.8 15.1 33 2.40 0.83 44.1 8.27 27.4 Eh20-6P-F 34 12.3 28.6 57.7 29.8 29.4 35 1.67* 7.28 17.8 29.1 25.5 36 12.3 45.8 28.7 35.2 28.4 ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
109
ߕᒵ߄ A19ǵНዿғߏය໔ѳᙼচۈβᝆ(Pc10)ϾሜН៓ᐚࡋޑᡂϯǶ Table A19 Fe concentration of pore water in original Pinchen soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15§ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124 mg/L
Pc10-1P-S 37 275 181 233 197 5.12
38 276 87.5 96.3 54.9 0.36
39 263 269 141 49.3 14.9
Pc10-1P-F 40 210 123 297 74.0 187
41 370 268 252 225 151
42 218 183 156 110 224
Pc10-3.5P-S 43 267 184 14.2 0.48 16.1
44 264 205 133 7.07 7.04
45 287 230 105 3.22 7.10
Pc10-3.5P-F 46 347 287 184 83.1 150
47 314 264 175 66.4 91.7
48 327 132 195 10.5 94.9
Pc10-6P-S 49 284 226 176 111 0.37
50 346 63.0 39.4 20.6 0.34 51 231 97.9 1.03 0.01¶ 4.24
Pc10-6P-F 52 223 58.2 152 18.7 181
53 304 124 96.3 41.3 73.2
54 306 142 65.6 82.5 137
ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
110
ߕᒵ߄ A20ǵНዿғߏය໔ѳᙼઈԦࢉβᝆ(Pc40)ϾሜН៓ᐚࡋޑᡂϯǶ
Table A20 Fe concentration of pore water in As contaminated Pinchen soils during the rice growing period.
Treatment ID DAT15§ DAT36 DAT57 DAT75 DAT124 mg/L
Pc40-1P-S 55 212 224 103 2.40 0.45
56 327 232 88.0 45.8 56.1
57 358 216 145 94.6 12.0
Pc40-1P-F 58 217 89.1 143 133 101
59 297 129 226 161 170
60 336 195 126 64.8 91.3
Pc40-3.5P-S 61 306 286 183 29.7 9.11
62 331 66.1 49.0 1.52 0.37
63 264 106 64.8 2.02 2.63
Pc40-3.5P-F 64 286 108 194 12.1 68.2
65 288 251 151 63.3 45.5
66 108 168 111 44.8 64.6
Pc40-6P-S 67 322 276 35.9 2.75 2.02
68 275 237 67.9 34.6 3.44
69 261 135 36.2 15.2 0.34
Pc40-6P-F 70 317 285 220 95.8 142
71 258 81.5 46.7 5.64 83.3
72 304 258 232 116 95.7
ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
111
ߕᒵ߄ A21ǵНዿᅿӧΒ݅চۈβᝆ(Eh10)ዼಈǵዿ仮ౢໆ(ଳख़)Ϸਲ਼ଯǶ Table A21 The biomass of grain, straw (dry weight) and plant height in original Erlin
soils.
Treatment ID Grain Shoot Height g/pot cm
Eh10-1P-S 1 12.3 16.8 101
2 19.6 23.1 104
3 17.5 20.4 99
Eh10-1P-F 4 16.8 20.3 98
5 14.3 17.6 95
6 9.32 13.9 91
Eh10-3.5P-S 7 19.2 15.9 96
8 11.1 26.7 99
9 19.5 19.3 96
Eh10-3.5P-F 10 18.5 19.6 99
11 16.5 17.6 93
12 14.7 18.3 103
Eh10-6P-S 13 12.7 12.5 99
14 13.6 15.1 93
15 11.2 12.5 97
Eh10-6P-F 16 17.1 16.3 94
17 12.9 15.5 90
18 17.5 20.5 88
ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
112
ߕᒵ߄ A22ǵНዿᅿӧΒ݅ઈԦࢉβᝆ(Eh20)ዼಈǵዿ仮ౢໆ(ଳख़)Ϸਲ਼ଯǶ Table A22 The biomass of grain, straw (dry weight) and plant height in As
contaminated Erlin soils.
Treatment ID Grain Shoot Height g/pot cm
Eh20-1P-S 19 15.7 21.3 98
20 21.1 20.3 99
21 14.8 20.1 105
Eh20-1P-F 22 17.5 23.7 114
23 15.8 21.0 98
24 1.58* 18.7 97
Eh20-3.5P-S 25 15.3 27.5 105
26 12.5 16.0 105 27 13.1 18.2 100
Eh20-3.5P-F 28 13.0 19.1 108
29 15.4 22.8 94
30 10.0 9.76 99
Eh20-6P-S 31 18.6 19.7 101
32 14.4 12.9 102 33 16.0 14.1 103
Eh20-6P-F 34 10.3 18.8 100
35 17.8 17.0 85
36 18.6 20.9 90
ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
113
ߕᒵ߄ A23ǵНዿᅿӧѳᙼচۈβᝆ(Pc10)ዼಈǵዿ仮ౢໆ(ଳख़)Ϸਲ਼ଯǶ Table A23 The biomass of grain, straw (dry weight) and plant heightin original Pinchen soils.
Treatment ID Grain Shoot Height g/pot cm
Pc10-1P-S 37 2.27 14.5 84
38 8.89 17.2 107
39 5.66 13.8 97
Pc10-1P-F 40 6.70 15.9 98
41 0.57 12.7 84
42 14.3 21.5 117
Pc10-3.5P-S 43 16.3 24.4 108
44 8.07 20.0 111
45 6.53 17.4 101
Pc10-3.5P-F 46 18.0 25.8 94
47 11.6 24.8 96
48 11.9 24.0 103
Pc10-6P-S 49 0.93* 11.4 86
50 12.2 21.7 108
51 21.6 25.6 113
Pc10-6P-F 52 5.84 18.2 103
53 12.2 21.8 98
54 5.72 18.3 103
ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
114
ߕᒵ߄ A24ǵНዿᅿӧѳᙼઈԦࢉβᝆ(Pc40)ዼಈǵዿ仮ౢໆ(ଳख़)Ϸਲ਼ଯǶ Table A24 The biomass of grain, straw (dry weight) and plant height in As
contaminated Pinchen soils.
Treatment ID Grain Shoot Height g/pot cm
Pc40-1P-S 55 12.4 18.5 97
56 0.78 8.59 93
57 7.27 16.0 100
Pc40-1P-F 58 31.2* 16.6 102
59 3.04 14.5 102
60 2.05 11.2 91
Pc40-3.5P-S 61 7.47 15.3 99
62 15.2 24.4 103
63 11.2 20.9 110
Pc40-3.5P-F 64 8.93 21.5 99
65 3.21 15.9 89
66 8.99 27.6 96
Pc40-6P-S 67 4.79 13.4 102
68 10.7 19.8 106
69 13.5 20.1 102
Pc40-6P-F 70 6.27 18.7 92
71 6.21 19.8 96
72 4.79 13.1 93
ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
115
ߕᒵ߄ A25ǵНዿᅿӧΒ݅চۈβᝆ(Eh10)ዿ仮ϷᕫԯᕴઈᐚࡋǶ Table A25 As concentration of straw and brown rice in original Erlin soils.
Treatment ID Straw Brown rice mg/kg
Eh10-1P-S 1 4.94 0.22
2 4.56 0.23
3 6.63 0.31
Eh10-1P-F 4 9.30 0.34
5 8.86 0.28
6 6.11 0.25
Eh10-3.5P-S 7 6.02 0.27
8 1.50 0.15
9 5.60 0.31
Eh10-3.5P-F 10 9.18 0.33 11 10.0 0.29 12 7.12 0.26 Eh10-6P-S 13 6.15 0.25 14 6.51 0.30 15 5.57 0.27 Eh10-6P-F 16 10.5 0.34 17 8.58 0.34 18 8.87 0.27 ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
116
ߕᒵ߄ A26ǵНዿᅿӧΒ݅ઈԦࢉβᝆ(Eh20)ዿ仮ϷᕫԯᕴઈᐚࡋǶ
Table A26 As concentration of straw and brown rice in As contaminated Erlin soils.
Treatment ID Straw Brown rice mg/kg
Eh20-1P-S 19 9.35 0.28 20 10.9 0.36 21 11.9 0.28 Eh20-1P-F 22 12.4 0.32 23 10.7 0.25 24 8.66 0.23 Eh20-3.5P-S 25 3.54 0.14 26 9.76 0.24 27 11.0 0.25 Eh20-3.5P-F 28 9.95 0.25 29 12.1 0.31 30 14.5 0.34 Eh20-6P-S 31 10.7 0.33 32 12.6 0.31 33 11.0 0.29 Eh20-6P-F 34 9.85 0.21 35 14.2 0.32 36 12.7 0.28 ƨDAT: Days after transplanting.
†n.d.: Not detected.
*: The data isn’t included in the average.
¶: The gray block represents instrument detection limit.
117
ߕᒵ߄ A27ǵНዿᅿӧѳᙼচۈβᝆ(Pc10)ዿ仮ϷᕫԯᕴઈᐚࡋǶ Table A27 As concentration of straw and brown rice in original Pinchen soils.
Treatment ID Straw Brown rice mg/kg
Pc10-1P-S 37 1.34 0.48
Pc10-1P-S 37 1.34 0.48