Sengar Et Al Bio Accumulation and Physiological Responses of Nickel in Plants

8/3/2019 Sengar Et Al Bio Accumulation and Physiological Responses of Nickel in Plants

1/23

Bioaccumulation And Physiological Responses Of Nickel In Plants

R.S. Sengar*and Kalpana Sengar

a

CONTENT

1. Introduction2. Nickel in the environment3. Global cycle of nickel4. Nickel accumulation in plants

4.1 Distribution of nickel in plant

4.2 Nickel and plant growth

4.3 Nickel and plant diseases

5. Summery6. References

College of Biotechnology, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel University of Agriculture & Technology,

Meerut-250110


2/23

Introduction

Heavy metals pollution, has become one of the most serious environmental problems because of

increased discharge , their toxic properties and other adverse effects, particularly on water

resources and users. These are released into the environment both naturally and through

anthropogenic sources, even natural weathering of rocks and soils accounts for one-sixth of the

total emission of metals like Nickel and chromium (Merin 1984). Many industrial wastes

contain metals or their salts. These have been accumulating in the sediments of streams , lakes,

rivers and soils for years. Heavy metals are particularly hazardous due to their persistent nature

and biological half life . the inorganic aerosols containing a large number of such trace

elements constituent and important family of carcinogens and mutagens (Vohra 1975). These

metals may act either synergistically or antagonistically on the aquatic biota, and insomer cases

cause a decline in biotic diversity.

Nickel is commonly found in surface water in low concentration and belong to the iron cobalt

group of metals. It is an important constituent of alloy and also used as a catalyst in

hydrogenation of vegetables oils. Nickel is readily taken up by the plants and animals. Plant

leaves are the major sink for nickel. It is accumulated even in seeds and husk. Even low

concentration of nickel is toxic to wide variety of plants (Mishra and Kar 1974). Thus, the

movement of nickel in the ecosystem is of great concern to mankind. An attempt is, therefore,

made to review the available studies on bioaccumulation of nickel in plants and its possible role

in plant diseases. Nickel is a heavy metal, present in soil, water and air, usually in trace amounts.

However, rapid industrialization and urbanization during the recent past have caused

accumulation of Ni and many other trace elements in varied habitats where from the acquisition

by the plants and their further transfer to human and animal population may affect the life forms


3/23

seriously. There are a number of reports of stimulation of growth in higher plants by low

concentrations of Ni in the nutrient medium (Mishra and Kar, 1974; Stedman, 1968; Welch,

1981) based on the studies with nutritional requirement of some plants (Welch, 1981; Reinbothe

and Mother Urea, 1980) several investigators had suggested that Ni was an essential

micronutrient for plant growth although no conclusive evidences were provided. However,

Browen et al. (1987) have demonstrated that Ni is an essential micronutrient for barley which

failed to complete its life cycle in the absence of Ni and addition of Ni to the growth medium

completely alleviated its deficiency symptoms. Nickel has been demonstrated to be associated as

the metallic co-factor of urease from Jack bean (Canavalia ensiformis) seeds (Dixon et al.,

1980b). this enzyme catalyses the hydrolytic cleavage of urea to ammonia and carbon dioxide

and is widely distributed in higher plants (Welch 1981; Aschmann and Zasuski 1987; De Kock

and Mutehell 1957; Pinamonti et al. 1997; Nandi et al. 1987; Halsteed et al. 1969; Sengar et al.,

1998; Prasad et al. 1997 and Sengar et al. 2008).

A Swedish Mineralogist Axel Fredrik Cronstedt (1751) first of all reported the discovery

of a new element which was named as Nickel. Further discovery of electrode position of nickel

by Boettgers in 1843 and later on commercial invention of electroplanting machine by Prime

and company of Birmingham, Enland in 1844, led to the excessive use of Nickel. This is evident

from the figures of Nickel shown in the following table as a consequence of cumulative addition

of nickel into the atmosphere through human activities.

It obvious from the table that both production and emission of nickel are increasing with

advancement of time.The quantities of nickel observed in principal reservoirs of earth crust have

been summarixed in following table (Table. 2).


4/23


5/23

particles. Barber (1974) reported that nickel contents of sedimentary rocks were generally low

and much of the nickel resides within a detrital clay component. In any event, nickel often

resides in a sulphide mineral following lithification and diagnosis of the sediment.

Global cycle of nickel

Human being represent a very important macrobiological agent in the present day

biogeochemical cycle of nickel.The nickel pool in human biomass is estimated to be 4X 10 9

individual, and the mean nickel content of an average individual reported to be 10mg.The dietry

nickel intake for the reference person has been given as 0.44 mg day-1

(Synder 1975) which

would extrapolate to 6.4X 108

g yr-1

for the entire human population.

Martin and meybeck (1979) reported that the quantity of nickel assimilated annually by the fresh

water biota (4x 10 9 g ) represent nearly 12 per cent of the total nickel reservoir in such

ecosystem.gibbs (1977) concluded that in rivers, 70 per cent nickel lies in the form of coating

on suspended particles, about 20 n per cent is bound to organic soild materials and only about 5

per cent in the form of solution or as absorbed materials. Other sources of nickel in the ocean

include materials. Other sources of nickel in the ocean include atmospheric input (2.5 x 10 10 g

yr -1), industrial and municipal waste discharge (0.38x 10 10 g yr -1) and outflux from

sediments from the nickel reservoir in the ocean (8.4 x 10 14 g yr -1). The input of nickel to the

deep ocean (i.e atmospheric fallout plus river input of dissolved nickel) is 1.8 x 10 10 g yr-1 .

the average residence time of nickel in the deep ocean is estimated to be 2.3 x 10 4 yr which

wopuld be considerably shorter in nearshore zones. Hodge et al (1978) showed that the

residence time for nickel in coastal water of southern California was only 19 yr. our


6/23

understanding of the biological pumps for nickel in the hydrosphere is tenous at best. From the

planktonic biomass (1.1 x 10 10 g ) asnd uptake of nickel during gross production (18x 10 10 g

yr -1), the residence time for nickel in marine biota is estimated to be about 22 days.

The nickel cycle in the atmosphere is presented in fig1 the total emission of nickel from natural

sources is 32x 10 6 kg yr -1 , about 70 percent of the annual rate (47 x 10 6 kg ) is contributed

by the anthropogenic sources (Nriagu 1980). Volcanic actiuvities and wind erosion of soil

particles each account for 409 to 50 poer cent of the air- borne nickel released from natural

sources. The principal sources of pollutant nickel in air are fossil fuel combustion (28x 10 6 kg

yr -1) and non-ferrous metal production (9.6 x 10 6 kg yr -1). If it is assumed that all the

emitted nickel is uniformaly distributed to a height of 10 km and that the average residence time

of nickel in atmosphere is 7-12 days, the average nickel concentration in the southern and

northern hemisphere would be 0.1 and 0,5 ng m-3 , respectively (Nriagu 1980) the hydrospheric

part of the nickel cycle is illustrated in fig 2 . Accurate data on nickel concentration in polar ice

are apparently not available. The nickel burden of the fresh water (3.4 x 10 10 g ) is

insignificant , compared to the ocean (8.4 x 10 10 g) (Nriagu 1980).

Nickel accumulation in plants

Nickel is usually absorbed in the ionic form (Ni ++) from the soil or solution culture (crooke

1954, do kock and Mitchell 1957). Its absorption by plants is regulated by (i) the soil properties,

notably pH an d organic matter content (Vergnano 1953, Halstead et al 1969), and (ii) the total

amount of nickel present in the soil (Masuda and Sato 1962, Roth et al 1971).Crooke (1954)

reported that when nickel versenate in ionic form was supplied to oat, the level was 10 times


7/23

more than the control. Tests with mustered (brassica compestris) and tomato (lycopersicon

esculentum) exhibited that divalent cations including Ni++, were not as strongly absorbed by

plants when chelated with ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA) De Kock and Mitchell

1957). Mizuno (1967), and musuda and sato (1962) found that the soil ph value


8/23

when the plants were treated with sewage sludge of high nickel content.The accumulation was

altogether lacking in the tubers. In hydrostemma motley and hydrilla verticilla, the uptake

increased generally with increase in nickel concentration in the medium (lec et al1984). The

enrichment factor which relates the metal content in plants to the metal content in cultivated

media, generally decreased with increasing metal concentrations.

Distribution of nickel in plant

Nickel is differentially distributed in plant parts. In oat (avena sativa), leaves usually contained

more nickel than stem (Vergnano 1953).Crooke and knight (1955) recorded initial increase in

nickel content for first 30 days of experimentation on oat. Maksudav et al (1962) reported 10-30

ppm nickel in leaves and 10 ppm in root system of Artemisia scoparia. Paribook and kuznetsova

(1963) reported that the high temperature of soil affected distribution of nickel in plant . The

stem had a low concentration , compared to leaves. In apple (Malus sylvestis), shkuvaruk et al

(1965) reported that root contained more nickel than shoots.

Makrova and Aivazyan (1968) found that the nickel content of cultivated crop plants was less

than the weeds grown in the same field. The difference may be due to selective absorption of

nickel by different plant species. The content of nickel in some apple trees, growing on alluvial

and brown soil was 2.5 ppm in flowers and 0.4 ppm in fruits (petrova and radenkov

1969).Srivastav (1987) while working on bioaccumulation of nickel around soyabean and

vanaspati industries complex recorded 98.45 to 133.37 ppm nickel in the liquid effluent

containing suspended impurities. In roots and shoot of Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), the

average concentration of nickel was 22.04 and 11.72 ppm, respectively. The nickel content in


9/23

sediments samples collected from effluent collection ditch varied from 132.40 to 143.56 ppm.

While the nickel concentration in a sample of water from a hand pump in the factory area was

0.30 ppm, in canal water 1 km and 1.5 km downstream from the discharge point , it was 0.58 and

0.51 ppm , respectively. In soil , the concentration of nickel ranged from 49.95 ppm (field 1 km

upstream from the discharge point ) to 119.79 ppm (irrigated land 1.5 km downstream from

discharge point) .

Nickel and plant growth

Nickel has been reported as a growth stimulant and a retardant for a wide variety of plants.

Moreover, at high concentration it has definite growth retarding effects. William (1960) reported

that nickel inhibited growth in Anacystis, whereas it was essential for the optimal growth of

chlorella vulgaris culture Chaney (1963) observed that when assimiable nickel was eliminated

from the soil , the plant growth was vigorous.

Biczek and Konarzewski (1968) reported that nickel significantly increased the elongation and

fresh weight of hypocotyls in sunflower (Helianthus annus). Using wheat coleoptiles or pea

stem as the test material, Ivanova and Bakurszhieva (1968) reported that 0.00058 to 0.58 ppm

nickel slightly affected the growth, while in combination with gibberelic acid at 34.7 ppm or

indole acetic acid at 17.5 ppm, nickel had stimulated synergistically the growth of wheat

coleoptiles but not the growth of pea stem Tansybeaeva and polyanichko (1970) reported that

presowing treatment of cotton (Gossypium sp.) seeds with 20 ppm NiSO4 solution for a period

of 16-18 hr increased the seedling growth .Pais et al. (1970) reprted that the growth and

development of chillies (capsicum frutescene) and tomato plant were stimulated by the

application of nickel at a concentration < 1 ppm, while at >1 ppm , it was toxic to these species.


10/23

Inhibition of the growth of Chlorella spp. By nickel (0.1ppm) was reported by upitis et al

.(1974) Flavin and Slaughter (1971) reprted inhibition of flagellar movement in Chlamydomonas

reinhardic with 0.18 ppm nickel acetate. Skaar et al. (1974) reported that Phaeodactylum

tricornutum remained unaffected by 0.5 ppm of nickel , and exhibited slight reduction in growth

at 1.0 ppm concentration . Fezy et al (1979) while working on Navicula pelluculosa reported

that under nickel stress, concentrations of 0.1 ppm nickel reduced the population growth rate by

50 per cent probably due to the presence of ionic nickel in the medium. Hollobaugh et al (1980)

reported that 0.06 ppm nickel inhibited growth ofthalassiobira aestivalus. In anacystis nidulans,

Whitton and Shekata (1982) observed that the growth of wild type was inhibited by 0.16 ppm of

nickel.

Nickel and plant diseases

Excess nickel concentration cause several physiological disturbance, of which yellowing of

leaves or chloresis usually followed by necrosis is the visual manifestation of toxicity (Hewitt

1948).The fundamental cause of chloresis has been attributed to the induced iron deficiency

since application of iron salts to the chlorotic tissue had restored the green pigment. Vergnono

and hunter (1953) concluded that though chloresis always preceeded by necrosis , the necrotic

areas in older plants were sometimes completely surrounded by the tissues with normal green

pigment . thus , when necrosis was developmed , it did not necessary occur in chlorotic leaves.

Crooke et al (1954) and Crooke (1955) concluded that the degree of chloresis was essentially

determined by the relative proportion of nickel and iron in the nutrient medium.chloresis was

severe at a nickel: iron ratio of >6 and usually negligible at


11/23

obtained a positive correlation between the severity of chloresis and nickel : iron ratio, nickel:

copper ratio has also been responsible for chloresis and necrosis in some plants. Mizuno (1968)

concluded that nickel : copper ratio value about 1.0 resulted in chloresis and necrosis of leaves.

The resistance of plants to nickel toxicity was reduced when nickel : iron and nickel : copper

ratios were increased.

There are some reports on the effect of nickel on the synthesis of chlorophyll in detached

etiolated wheat (Wang et al. 1958, Wang and Waygood 1959) and rice (Oryza sativa) (kar 1972)

leaves where nickel inhibited chlorophyll synthesis. Shkol nik and Smirnov (1970) recorded

stunting in stem and leaf deformation in sunflower. Ishihara et al (1968) reported that the

suppression of tree growth and chloresis could be alleviated by the application of molybdenum

either as a foliar spray or by adding into the soil.

Summery

Heavy metal pollution has become one of the serious environmental problems today. This review

is an attempt to collect and collate the published studies on bioaccumulation of nickel in plants,

its movement in the environment and possible consequence on the morphology and growth of the

plants factors affecting distribution of nickel in plants and nickel in plant diseases have been

examined critically.

Nickel has significance as a nutritive as well as a potentially toxic element in the plants and

environment. Nickel is a heavy metals, present in soil, water and air, usually in trace amounts.

However, rapid industrialization and urbanization during the recent past have caused

accumulation of Ni and many others trace elements in varied habitats where from the acquisition


12/23

by the plants and their further transfer to human and animal population may affect the life forms

seriously. Adequate literature does not exist to understand fully the mechanism of action of Ni in

plants, although it is an important environmental contaminant. Several important elements such

as nitrogen, sulphure, phosphorous and metabolism of macro-molecules are untouched. The

literature survey, however demonstrate that the growth of plants certainly responds to Ni which

of course varies according to the species, concentration of Ni and also according to the soil

nutrient composition. We all are aware that agriculture production in falling now a days and

scientists engaged in this field are trying their best to investigate the several factors affecting the

crop production. Few studies conducted on the adverse effect of pollutant like Nickel on the

physiological functions of few plants.Adequate literature does not exist to understand fully the

mechanism of action of Nickel in plants, although it is an important environmental contaminant.

Several important elements such as N, S, P and metabolism of macro-molecules (Proteins,

nucleic acid, etc.) are untouched. The literature survey, however demonstrates that the growth of

plants certainly responds to Ni, which of course varies according to the species, concentration of

Nickel and also according to the soil nutrient composition. Plant can not complete their life cycle

without adequate Ni. Nickel cannot be replaced by Al, Cd for the growth of soybeans. This is, in

conjunction with the findings that Ni is essential for cowpeas and produces beneficial growth

responses in several plants species, suggests that Ni should be classified as a micronutrient

element essential for higher plants.


13/23

Reference

Baeber C (1974) Major and trace element association in limestone and dolomites.Chem.Geol.14

:273-280

Bruce H, Ellinghaus R, Hetan J (1982) Heavy metal content of hessian soils and

supplementary studies of heavy metal uptake by plants. Kali Briefe 16:271-291

Buczek J, Konarzewski Z (1968) Effect of metal ions on the indole acetic acid and EDTA

induced elongation and water absorption of sunflower hypocotye sections. Acta soc bot

pol.37:245-254

Chaney EJ (1963) Plants containing substantially no assimilated nickel cons, US 3, 107, 163

(cl. 71-1) oct . 15 , 1963, appl. may 28 , 1959 pp 3.

Crooke WM (1954) Effect of nickel versenate on oak plants. Nature 173:403-404

Crook WM (1955) Further aspects of the relation between nickel toxicity and iron supply. Ann

appl. Boil 43:465-476

Crooke WM, Knight AH (1955) The relation between nickel toxicity symptoms and the

absorption of iron and nickel.Ann. Appl. Biol 43: 454-464

Crooke WM, Hunter JG, Vergnano O (1954) The relationships between nickel toxicity and iron

supply.Ann. appl.biol.41:311-324

Do knock PC, Mitchell, RL (1957) Absorption of metal chelates by plants. Soil Sci 84: 55-62

Fenzy, JS Spencer, DF, Greene RW (1979) The effect of nickel on the growth of fresh water

diatom-navicula pelliculosa env pollu (ser. B ) 20: 131-137


14/23

Flavin M, Slaughter C (1974) Microtubule assembly and function in chlamydomonas inhibition

of growth and flageller regeneration by antitubules and other drugs and isolation of resistant

mutant. J. Bacteriology 118: 59-69.

Austenfield FA (1979a) Phytotoxicity of nickel and cobalt on Phaseolus vulgaris cultivar saxa.

Z. Pflanze. Nernaehr, Bodenkd. 142 (6): 786 791.

Austenfield FA (1979b) Effects of nickel, cobalt and chromium on net photosynthesis of

primary and secondary leaves ofPhaseolus vularis cultivar saxa. Photosynthetica. 13(4): 434

438.

Aschmann SG, Zasoski RJ (1987) Nickel and rubidium uptake by whole oat plant in solution

culture. Physiol. Plant. 71: 191 196.

Banerji D, Kumar N (1979) The twin effect of growth promotion and heavy metal accumulation

in certain crop plants by polluted irrigation water. Ind. J. Eco. 6(2): 82 87.

Browen PH, Welch RM, Carry EE (1987) Nickel, a micronutrient essential for higher plants.

Plant Physiol. 85: 801 803.

Burton MAS, Lesuenr P, Puckett KJ (1981) Copper, nickel and thallium uptake by the lichen

Cladina rangiferina. Can. J. Bot. 59 (1): 91 100.

De Kock PC , Mitchell RL (1957) Absorption of metal chelates by plants. Soil Sci. 84: 55 62.


15/23

Dixon NE, Blakely RL, B Zerner (1980) Back bean urease (Ec 3.5, 1.5) III. The envolvment of

active site Nickel ion in inhibition by F - mercaptoethanol, phosphoramidate and fluoride. Ann.

J. Biochem. 58: 481 488.

Gambi OVF, Cardini L, Pancaro R, Gabbrielle (1976) Effects of serpentine and nickel on

some aspects of plant metabolism. G. Bot. Hal. Llo 415: 305 318.

Gambi OV, Brooks RR, Redford CC (1979) Nickel accumulation by Italian spices ofAlyssum

webbia. 33 (2): 269 278.

Halstead R.L., B.J. Finn and A.J. Mclean (1969). Extractability of nickel added to the soils and

its concentration in plants. Can. J. Soil Sci. 49: 335 342.

Heale E.L. and Ormrod D.P. (1982). Effects of nickel and copper on Acer rubum, Cornus

stolonifera, Lunicera tatarica and Pinus resimosa. Can. J. Bot. 60: 2674 2681.

Mishra D, M. Kar (1974) Nickel in plant growth and metabolism. Bot. Rev. 40: 395 452.

Morgotti SP, Bravo F, Marre MT, Cocucci SM (1981) Effect of nickel ion on proton extrusion

and related transport processes and transmembrane electrical potential in maize roots. Plant Sci.

Lett. 23(2): 123 128.

Nandi S.K., R.C. Pant and P. Nissen (1987). Multiphasic uptake of phosphate by cor roots. Plant

Cell Environ. 10: 463 471.


16/23

Nriagn J.O. (ed.) (1980). Nickel in the environment. A Wiley interscience publication. John

Wiley and Sons. New York.

Pinamonti FG, Strinnari F, Gasperi, Zorzi G (1997) Heavy metal levels in apple orchards after

the application of two composts. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 28; 15 16.

Prasad TSD, Singh RP, Sastry KV (1997) Accumulation of chromium and nickel in wheat is a

field irrigated with industrial effluents and water hyacinth in Sonepat city,H

aryana, India. J.

Environ. Biol. 18: 33 36.

Reinbothe H, Mother Urea K (1980) Ureides and Guanidines in plants. Ann. Rev. Plant

Physiol. 13: 129 150.

Sagner S, Kneer Z, Wanner G, Cossons JP, Deus Neumann B, Zenk MH (1998)

Hyperaccumulation complexation and distribution of nickel in Sebertia acumunata.

Phytochemistry. 47: 339 347.

Sengar RS, Gupta Shalini, Gautam Madhu, Sharma Amit and Sengar Kalpana (2008).

Occurrence, uptake, accumulation and physiological response of nickel in plants and its effects

on environment. Research J. Phytochemistry. 2(2): 44 60.


17/23

Sharma AK (1981). Impact of the development of science and technology on environment

presidential add 68th session. Indian Sci. Cong. Assoc. Varansi.

Singh SM (1984) Effects of nickel on germination and growth total nitrogen and phosphate

levels ofCicer arientinum L. seedlings. Tropical Ecology. 25 (1): 90 94.

Stedmann RL (1968). The chemical composition of tobacco and tobacco smoke. Chem.. Rev. 68:

153 207.

Tripathi BC, Bhatia B, Mohanthy P (1981) Inactivation of chloroplast photosynthetic electron

transport activity by nickel. Biochem. Biophysics. 638 (2): 217 224.

Welch RM (1981) The biological significance of nickel. J Plant Nutr. 3: 345 356.


18/23

Table 1:Production and emission trend of nickel to the atmosphere in different years (Nariagu,

1980).

Period Nickel production

(x 109

kg)

Nickel emission to the

atmosphere (x 109

kg)

1850 1900

1901 1910

1911 1920

1921 1930

1931 1940

1941 1950

1951 1960

1961 1970

1971 1980

1981 1990

1991 - 2000

0.20

0.14

0.33

0.36

0.83

1.37

2.38

4.37

7.07

8.09

9.06

12.0

8.2

21.00

21.00

49.00

80.00

140.00

257.00

415.00

446.00

464.00

All time total 34.15 10913.2


19/23

Table 2 Nickel in environment

Reservoir Total mass

(g)

Average

concentration

(g/kg)

Nickel

Reservoir

(g)

Lakes and Rivers

Total burden

Plank tons

Atmosphere

0.34 x 1020

5.7 x 1013

5.1 x 1018

1.0

4.0

0.3

3.4 x 1010

2.3 x 108

1.5 x 109

Oceanic

Dissolved

Plants

Consumers/ Reducers

Suspended Particles

Swamps and Marshes Biomass

1.4 x 1024

2.0 x 1014

3.0 x 1015

7.0 x 1016

6.0 x 1015

0.6

2.5

3.5

95.0

7.0

8.4 x 1014

5.0 x 108

1.1 x 1010

6.6 x 1012

4.2 x 1010

Terrestrial Biomass

Plants

Animals

Litter

2.4 x 1018

2.0 x 1016

2.2 x 1018

6.0

2.5

15.0

1.4 x 1013

5.0 x 1010

3.3 x 1013

Fossil Fuel Deposits

Coal

Oil shade

Crude oil

10 x 1018

46 x 1018

0.23 x 1018

15

30

10

1.5 x 1014

1.4 x 1015

2.3 x 1012


20/23

Lithosphere (Down to 45 cm)

Sedimentary Rocks

Shale and Clay

Lime Stone

Sand Stone

Organic Fraction

57 x 1024

2.5 x 1024

1.8 x 1024

0.35 x 1024

0.28 x 1024

6.8 x 1018

75

28

60

10

25

70

43 x 1020

1.2 x 1020

1.1 x 1020

0.04 x 1020

0.07 x 1024

4.8 x 1014

Table 3: Global values of Aerosol Production, Nickel Concentration in Particles and Nickel

emission.

Natural Sources

of Nickel

Aerosol Production

(109

Kg/year)

Nickel

concentration in

particles (PPM)

Nickel Emission

(106

Kg/Year)

Soil Suspension 120 40 4.80

Vegetation 75 11 0.82

Forest Fires 12 15 0.19

Meteoric Dust 0.0036 50,000 0.18

Seal Salt 1000 0.009 0.009

Total - - 8.5 (16%)

Anthropogenic

Sources

World

Concumption (109

Kg/year)

Nickel Emission

Factor

Nickel Emission

(106

Kg/Year)


21/23

Fuel Oil 323 0.03 Kg/ion

burned

9.7

Residual Oil 578 17

Municipal

Incenerators

2550 0.002 Kg/ion

burned

5.1

Nickel mining

and refining

0.80 9 Kg/ion

produced

7.2

Steel Production 0.24a 5 Kg/ion prduced 1.2

Transpiration - - 0.9

Nickel alloy

production

0.14 5 Kg/ion Ni

charged

0.70

Coal burning 3300 0.0002 Kg/ion

burned

0.66

Cast iron

production

0.03a

10 Kg/ion Ni

charged

0.30

Copper Nickel

alloy production

0.04a

1 Kg/ion Ni

charged

0.40

Sewage sludge

incineration

48 0.001 Kg/ion

burned

0.30

Total - - 43 (84%)

Where (a) indicates the amount of Nickel consumed in the activity


22/23

Table 4: Physical property of Nickel (Evenhort, J.L. 1971)

Characteristics Value

Atomic number 28

Atomic weight 58 .71 D

Boiling point 29130C

Crystal structure Face centered cubic

Curic temperature353o C

Density of the met al g cm-3

8.90

General appearance Soft silvery metal

Melting point 14550C

Poisson s ratio 0.31

Specific heat, 25 C 0.106 cal. /gm


23/23

Fig 1 Global cycle of nickel in environment

Sengar Et Al Bio Accumulation and Physiological Responses of Nickel in Plants

Documents