Phytoremediation is a high-performance and cost-effective approach to clean up contaminated water. This study aimed to investigate the rate of cadmium (Cd) uptake and changes in absorption of other elements using different plants at different cadmium concentrations under salinity conditions. This study was performed as a factorial experiment in a completely randomized design with three replications at Zanjan University located in northwestern Iran. For this purpose, three aquatic plants, Azolla Caroliniana, Watercress, and Duckweed, were used. In these experiments, different levels of Cd (0, 5, 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg L−1) in the nutrient solution as well as different NaCl concentrations (0, 10, 20, 40 and 80 mM L−1) were employed. After producing nutrient solutions with salinity and different Cd concentrations, three plants were grown in them for 30 days. The absorption of different elements such as Cd, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, and Na was measured in the plants. The results showed that the studied plants absorbed high concentrations of Cd. It was also concluded that the salinity of nutrient solution directly relates to Cd concentration in the plant tissues. The highest concentration of Cd in Azolla Caroliniana in 40 mg Cd and 80 mM NaCl was obtained with an average of 3,470.8 mg kg−1. In general, the results showed that the use of all three plants is suitable for purifying Cd-contaminated water.

  • The rate of Cadmium uptake and changes in absorption of other elements using three aquatic plants, Azolla Caroliniana, Watercress, and Duckweed at different cadmium concentrations under salinity conditions were investigated.

  • Three plants were grown in them for 30 days.

  • The absorption of different elements such as Cd, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, and Na was measured in the plants.

Parameter

Description

Mn

Manganese

Fe

Iron

Zn

Zinc

N

Nitrogen

K

Potassium

Mn

Manganese

Cu

Copper

Ca

Calcium

Mg

Magnesium

Na

Sodium

P

Phosphorus

Cadmium (Cd) pollution in the environment has increased in recent years (Alloway 1995; Rahimi et al. 2021). Cadmium is one of the toxic heavy metals that negatively affect the environment, especially living organisms. It can enter the human food chain in various forms and endanger our health (Rahimi et al. 2021). According to the US Department of Health, there is ample evidence for the carcinogenicity of Cd and its compounds in humans. Cadmium can cause kidney, bone, liver, and blood cancer (Sari & Tuzen 2008; Jiang et al. 2021; Kiani et al. 2021).

It is costly to clean heavy metals from contaminated soil and water. Therefore, efforts have been made to develop practical and cost-effective technologies to rehabilitate degraded lands and polluted waters (Dodangeh et al. 2018; Ansari et al. 2020). Plants used for wastewater treatment and heavy metals absorption must resist salinity because effluents contain large amounts of soluble salts. The harmful effects of salinity on plant growth occur by reducing major processes such as photosynthesis, protein synthesis, and energy and lipid metabolism (Agastian et al. 2000). Water salinity can affect plant growth rate and metal uptake capacity (Parida & Das 2005).

Phytoremediation is a promising method for soil and water purification. In this method, plants absorb or extract contaminants from water and soil (Baker et al. 1994; Yan et al. 2020; Kamal et al. 2021). This method is less expensive than other conventional technologies and is environmentally friendly (Ali et al. 2013; Sharma & Pandey 2014). Kara & Kara (2005) used Duckweed (Lemna trisulca L.) to remove Cd from water. The researchers showed that Duckweed could remove 75% to 85% of Cd per 100 mL. The plant absorbs Cd at a high rate. The results of the Stêpniewska et al. (2005) study in Poland on Lead (Pb) and Cd uptake by Azolla Caroliniana showed Pb concentration reduction up to 90% and Cd concentration reduction up to 22% in contaminated water. However, Azolla Caroliniana's growth dropped between 22% and 47% compared to the control case. The effect of salinity and soil reaction on the biological accumulation of different Cd levels was investigated in Helianthus Annus. With increasing salinity, metal accumulation in roots and stems increased steadily (Bhargavi & Sudha 2013).

Due to the drought trend in many countries, remediation of water contaminated with Cd and other toxic elements is essential. The study of different plants in saline conditions is of particular importance for managing and treating contaminated water. Therefore, considering the importance of water purification, the purpose of this study was to investigate the Cd uptake by three plants, such as Azolla Caroliniana, Watercress (Nasturtium officinale), and Duckweed (Lemna minor L.), and changes in the concentration of some elements in these plants under different salinity stress conditions.

The study area was located in Zanjan province which is situated in northwestern Iran. Three plants, Azolla Caroliniana, Watercress, and Duckweed, were opted to perform this study. Plastic containers with a depth of 20 cm and a 15 cm diameter were used to grow plants. In this experiment, an Epestin nutrient solution with half concentration or ionic strength was used. Table 1 presents the composition of Epstein's nutrient solution.

Table 1

Composition of nutrient solution (Epestin 1972)

CompoundStorage solution concentration (g L−1)Solution typeThe volume of storage solution per liter in final solution (ml)
KNO3 101.10  6.0 
Ca(NO3)24 H2236.16 4.0 
NH4H2PO4 115.08  2.0 
MgSO4 7H2246.49  1.0 
KCl 3.728   
H3BO3 1.546   
MnSO4 H20.338   
ZnSO47H20.575 1.0 
CuSO4 5H20.125   
H2MoO4 (%85 MoO40.081   
Fe-EDTA 0.922 1.0 
CompoundStorage solution concentration (g L−1)Solution typeThe volume of storage solution per liter in final solution (ml)
KNO3 101.10  6.0 
Ca(NO3)24 H2236.16 4.0 
NH4H2PO4 115.08  2.0 
MgSO4 7H2246.49  1.0 
KCl 3.728   
H3BO3 1.546   
MnSO4 H20.338   
ZnSO47H20.575 1.0 
CuSO4 5H20.125   
H2MoO4 (%85 MoO40.081   
Fe-EDTA 0.922 1.0 

The cadmium absorption potential of the opted plants was investigated from nutrient solutions with different salinities. The experiments were carried out factorially in a completely randomized design with three replications in the greenhouse. In these experiments, levels of Cd from the CdSO4 source were 0, 5, 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg L−1, and soluble salt concentrations from the NaCl source were 0, 10, 20, 40, and 80 mM prepared and added to Epstein's nutrient solution. Three aquatic plants Azolla, Watercress, and Duckweed, were grown in these prepared solutions (A total of 90 samples). After 30 days, the plants were removed from each container, washed with distilled water, and dried in an oven at 55 °C for 72 hours. Then, plant samples were milled, and after their digestion in the laboratory, their element contents were measured.

The content of heavy metals in plants was measured according to Figueroa et al. (2008). The amount of heavy metals such as Manganese (Mn), Iron (Fe), Zinc (Zn), Copper (Cu), Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), and Cd in the plants was measured using atomic absorption (spectrophotometer model Varian 220). Total Nitrogen (N) was measured using the Kjeldahl method (Sparks et al. 1996), Potassium (K) content was determined using the Flame photometer through digestion (Moradi 2002). Phosphorus (P) content was measured using the ammonium molybdate method (Cottenie 1980). The data analyses were performed using SAS 91 software, and Duncan's test at the 5% level was used to compare the data mean.

Effect of salinity and Cd on Cd absorption in plants

The results presented in Table 2 show that the highest concentration of Cd in the Duckweed plant was in Cd5S4 treatment with an average of 4,137.23 mg kg−1 of its dried tissue and the lowest value was in the control treatment with an average concentration of 13.32 mg kg−1. The interaction of salinity and Cd in nutrient solution increased the absorption of Cd in Duckweed. Increasing the salinity and Cd concentration of the nutrient solution has led to an increase in the Cd concentration in Azolla (Table 2). The highest concentration of Cd in Azolla was in Cd4S4 treatment with an average of 3,470.4 mg kg−1. In Azolla, at concentrations above 40 mg Cd per liter of nutrient solution, Cd uptake decreased. Through comparing the means of interactions between salinity and soluble Cd, it was shown that the Cd concentration of the Watercress plant was highest in Cd5S4 and Cd5S3 treatments with 4,220.53 and 4,115.89 mg kg−1, respectively. Many factors such as salinity, pH, redox potential, the concentration of metals in the growth medium affect the absorption of metals from the environment. Greger et al. (1995) stated that sodium (Na) ions could release Cd from sediment into the water and increase the Cd concentration. Smolder et al. (1998) reported that salinity is one of the significant factors influencing plant motility and Cd absorption. The results of this study are similar to the research conducted by Ozkutlu et al. (2007), in which they reported that Cd concentration in the plant increased as NaCl content increased. Mandakini et al. (2016) also show that Azolla is beneficial for Cd uptake and phytoremediation.

Table 2

The effect of different salinity and Cd levels on the concentration of absorbed Cd in the studied plants

TreatmentCd-Duckweed (mg kg−1)Standard deviationCd-Watercress (mg kg−1)Standard deviationCd-Azolla Caroliniana (mg kg−1)Standard deviation
Cd0S0 13.32h 1.2 149.94n 1.6 41.65r 1.0 
Cd0S1 15.54h 1.3 166.60n 1.6 55.51r 1.3 
Cd0S2 16.12h 1.4 166.60n 1.6 77.72r 1.1 
Cd0S3 18.87h 1.4 188.81n 1.5 78.24r 1.5 
Cd0S4 21.65h 1.5 222.13n 1.7 94.46r 1.6 
Cd1S0 244.34gh 2.4 588.65m 1.9 710.84q 1.5 
Cd1S1 238.79gh 2.4 610.87m 1.8 755.20pq 1.2 
Cd1S2 255.45gh 2.5 621.97lm 1.8 849.66op 2.3 
Cd1S3 272.11gh 2.6 699.72lm 1.9 916.31no 2.6 
Cd1S4 277.65gh 2.6 777.47l 2.4 1,060.70lm 2.6 
Cd2S0 222.23gh 2.5 1,182.86k 2.2 871.87op 2.3 
Cd2S1 244.34gh 2.5 1,249.50k 2.5 866.32op 2.5 
Cd2S2 238.81gh 2.6 1,432.76j 2.6 955.17mlno 2.6 
Cd2S3 310.98ij 2.5 1,671.55hi 2.6 1,021.81nm 2.3 
Cd2S4 527.56g 2.9 1,749.30h 2.8 1,149.54kl 3.1 
Cd3S0 871.86f 3.2 1,454.97j 2.7 1,193.97kl 2.7 
Cd3S1 894.00f 3.0 1,471.63j 2.6 1,255.05jk 2.7 
Cd3S2 927.38f 3.1 1,577.15ij 2.3 1,310.59ij 3.2 
Cd3S3 977.38f 3.1 2,210.23g 3.2 1,399.44i 3.3 
Cd3S4 1,127.70f 3.7 2,543.14f 3.0 1,538.27h 3.1 
Cd4S0 1,638.23e 3.5 2,571.19f 2.8 3,009.91c 4.5 
Cd4S1 1,638.62e 3.8 2,582.30ef 2.7 3,076.55c 3.6 
Cd4S2 1,715.98e 3.7 2,654.49ef 3.6 3,065.44c 3.8 
Cd4S3 1,710.42e 3.5 2,737.79ed 3.1 3,243.15b 3.5 
Cd4S4 1,738.19e 3.6 2,871.07d 3.3 3,470.83a 4.0 
Cd5S0 2,432.36d 3.6 3,720.73c 4.0 1,821.50g 4.0 
Cd5S1 2,934.26c 3.6 3,759.61bc 3.9 2,093.61f 4.0 
Cd5S2 3,009.90c 3.7 3,887.33b 4.3 2,143.61f 4.4 
Cd5S3 3,436.96b 4.1 4,153.89a 4.2 2,648.94e 3.8 
Cd5S4 4,137.23a 4.7 4,220.53a 4.2 2,848.86d 3.6 
TreatmentCd-Duckweed (mg kg−1)Standard deviationCd-Watercress (mg kg−1)Standard deviationCd-Azolla Caroliniana (mg kg−1)Standard deviation
Cd0S0 13.32h 1.2 149.94n 1.6 41.65r 1.0 
Cd0S1 15.54h 1.3 166.60n 1.6 55.51r 1.3 
Cd0S2 16.12h 1.4 166.60n 1.6 77.72r 1.1 
Cd0S3 18.87h 1.4 188.81n 1.5 78.24r 1.5 
Cd0S4 21.65h 1.5 222.13n 1.7 94.46r 1.6 
Cd1S0 244.34gh 2.4 588.65m 1.9 710.84q 1.5 
Cd1S1 238.79gh 2.4 610.87m 1.8 755.20pq 1.2 
Cd1S2 255.45gh 2.5 621.97lm 1.8 849.66op 2.3 
Cd1S3 272.11gh 2.6 699.72lm 1.9 916.31no 2.6 
Cd1S4 277.65gh 2.6 777.47l 2.4 1,060.70lm 2.6 
Cd2S0 222.23gh 2.5 1,182.86k 2.2 871.87op 2.3 
Cd2S1 244.34gh 2.5 1,249.50k 2.5 866.32op 2.5 
Cd2S2 238.81gh 2.6 1,432.76j 2.6 955.17mlno 2.6 
Cd2S3 310.98ij 2.5 1,671.55hi 2.6 1,021.81nm 2.3 
Cd2S4 527.56g 2.9 1,749.30h 2.8 1,149.54kl 3.1 
Cd3S0 871.86f 3.2 1,454.97j 2.7 1,193.97kl 2.7 
Cd3S1 894.00f 3.0 1,471.63j 2.6 1,255.05jk 2.7 
Cd3S2 927.38f 3.1 1,577.15ij 2.3 1,310.59ij 3.2 
Cd3S3 977.38f 3.1 2,210.23g 3.2 1,399.44i 3.3 
Cd3S4 1,127.70f 3.7 2,543.14f 3.0 1,538.27h 3.1 
Cd4S0 1,638.23e 3.5 2,571.19f 2.8 3,009.91c 4.5 
Cd4S1 1,638.62e 3.8 2,582.30ef 2.7 3,076.55c 3.6 
Cd4S2 1,715.98e 3.7 2,654.49ef 3.6 3,065.44c 3.8 
Cd4S3 1,710.42e 3.5 2,737.79ed 3.1 3,243.15b 3.5 
Cd4S4 1,738.19e 3.6 2,871.07d 3.3 3,470.83a 4.0 
Cd5S0 2,432.36d 3.6 3,720.73c 4.0 1,821.50g 4.0 
Cd5S1 2,934.26c 3.6 3,759.61bc 3.9 2,093.61f 4.0 
Cd5S2 3,009.90c 3.7 3,887.33b 4.3 2,143.61f 4.4 
Cd5S3 3,436.96b 4.1 4,153.89a 4.2 2,648.94e 3.8 
Cd5S4 4,137.23a 4.7 4,220.53a 4.2 2,848.86d 3.6 

Cd0, Cd1, Cd2, Cd3, Cd4 and Cd5 are 0, 5, 10, 20, 40 and 80 mg L−1 Cd, respectively.

S0, S1, S2, S3 and S4 are 0, 10, 20, 40 and 80 mM salinity of the nutrient solution, respectively.

Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at P < 0.05.

Effect of salinity and Cd on element concentrations in Azolla Caroliniana

Table 3 presents the changes in the absorption of different elements in Azolla in various treatments. The highest N concentration, with an average of 2.5%, was related to the control treatment (Cd0S0) (Table 3). Increasing the salinity concentration and Cd content negatively affected the N concentration of Azolla. The lowest N concentration was measured in Cd5S4 treatment (Table 3). It can be inferred that both salinity and Cd reduced N concentrations in the plant. Shirazi et al. (2012) reported that Cd significantly reduced N content in seven rice cultivars. The significant drop in N concentration as salinity increases possibly results from Na and Cl ions interaction with NH4 and NO3 ions, respectively (Ben-Gal & Shani 2003). The highest concentration of K was observed in Azolla in the control treatment, which is 1.76%. It is also shown that Cd content and salinity adversely affected the K concentration in the plant. The lowest amount of plant K with a concentration of 0.145% is related to Cd5S4 treatment (Table 3). Replacement of K by Na in Azolla under saline conditions reduced K uptake (van Kempen et al. 2013). Nocito et al. (2002) stated that Cd reduced K uptake through the plant roots but did not affect P uptake.

Table 3

The effect of different salinity and Cd levels on the concentration of elements in Azolla Caroliniana

TreatmentN (%)K (%)Mg (%)Ca (%)Fe (mg kg−1)Mn (mg kg−1)Zn (mg kg−1)Na (mg kg−1)
Cd0S0 2.50a 1.76a 0.77a 1.92h–j 686.4a 240.3cde 224.9a 229.8o 
Cd0S1 2.41ab 1.55b 0.69bc 1.73i–k 641.1b 212.0h–k 174.3cd 858.3m 
Cd0S2 2.25bcd 1.31c 0.65de 1.55jkl 552.0cd 203.1i–l 164.9cde 1,025.9j–l 
Cd0S3 2.05de 1.18cd 0.55i–k 1.30kl 497.3ef 197k–m 149.8e–h 1,277.3h–j 
Cd0S4 1.88efg 1.10d 0.47lmn 1.7li–k 420.9h–j 177.6no 106.6mn 2,045.5de 
Cd1S0 2.45ab 1.31c 0.71b 2.77efg 647.8ab 249.7b–d 201.5b 257.8o 
Cd1S1 2.38abc 1.26c 0.67cd 2.46fgh 581.4c 235.3d–f 175.5cd 900.2lm 
Cd1S2 2.25bcd 1.09d 0.62d–g 2.27g–i 568.9cd 212.5h–j 156.6d–g 1,211.5i–k 
Cd1S3 2.05de 0.77e 0.53jk 1.96hij 505.3ef 195.9lm 139.9f–j 15,556.7gh 
Cd1S4 1.72f–l 0.67ef 0.48lm 1.56jkl 434.3g–i 165.9o 107.7mn 2,241cd 
Cd2S0 2.17cd 1.50b 0.71b 2.76efg 626.9b 249.7bcd 207.7ab 537.1n 
Cd2S1 1.91ef 0.77e 0.64de 2.06hij 563.1cd 235.3def 179.3c 928.2k–m 
Cd2S2 1.74f–k 0.48f–j 0.58hij 1.95hij 523.4de 218.2g–i 147.1e–i 1,431g–i 
Cd2S3 1.60i–l 0.40h–k 0.51kl 1.82i–k 461.7f–h 218.2g–i 116.6k–m 2,087.4de 
Cd2S4 1.54kl 0.29j–l 0.46mn 1.56j–l 410.6ij 184.2mn 106.0mn 2,422.6c 
Cd3S0 1.88efg 0.76e 0.66cde 4.02c 535.0de 260.4ab 201.6b 648.8mn 
Cd3S1 1.75f–j 0.62efg 0.61e–h 3.25de 471.7fg 238.8cde 157.8d–f 970.1kl 
Cd3S2 1.70f–l 0.51f–i 0.59g–i 3.07de 424.2h–j 216.6h–j 137.1g–j 1,710.3fg 
Cd3S3 1.68g–l 0.45g–j 0.56ij 2.79d–g 410.4ij 208.8h–l 123.3j–m 2,443c 
Cd3S4 1.60i–l 0.33i–l 0.41op 1.76i–k 385.1jk 201.6j–l 108.8l–n 2,925.4b 
Cd4S0 1.86e–h 0.76e 0.63d–f 1.57b 524.8de 263.0ab 207.1ab 872.3m 
Cd4S1 1.83e–i 0.60e–h 0.59f–i 3.95c 444.5g–i 254.2abc 162.7c–e 1,353.6hi 
Cd4S2 1.65h–l 0.50f–j 0.55i–k 2.98d–f 410.4ij 241.4cde 128.3i–l 1,856.4ef 
Cd4S3 1.68g–l 0.44g–j 0.51kl 2.23hi 380.1jk 213.6hij 107.7mn 2,729.9b 
Cd4S4 1.60i–l 0.30i–l 0.47l–n 1.60j–l 320.7l 182.6mn 95.5n 3,504.4a 
Cd5S0 1.57j–l 0.51f–i 0.53jk 5.42a 450.4g–i 266.4a 171.6cd 934.6k–m 
Cd5S1 1.63i–l 0.43g–j 0.44no 3.92c 348.4kl 252.5abc 149.4e–h 1,493.2g–i 
Cd5S2 1.55j–l 0.33i–l 0.40op 3.32d 333.2l 243.1cde 135.5h–k 2,079.8de 
Cd5S3 1.55j–l 0.20kl 0.39pq 2.82d–f 308.7l 232.0efg 121.0j–m 3,001.6b 
Cd5S4 1.50l 0.14l 0.36q 2.11h–j 237.4m 221.4fgh 94.9n 3,588.2a 
TreatmentN (%)K (%)Mg (%)Ca (%)Fe (mg kg−1)Mn (mg kg−1)Zn (mg kg−1)Na (mg kg−1)
Cd0S0 2.50a 1.76a 0.77a 1.92h–j 686.4a 240.3cde 224.9a 229.8o 
Cd0S1 2.41ab 1.55b 0.69bc 1.73i–k 641.1b 212.0h–k 174.3cd 858.3m 
Cd0S2 2.25bcd 1.31c 0.65de 1.55jkl 552.0cd 203.1i–l 164.9cde 1,025.9j–l 
Cd0S3 2.05de 1.18cd 0.55i–k 1.30kl 497.3ef 197k–m 149.8e–h 1,277.3h–j 
Cd0S4 1.88efg 1.10d 0.47lmn 1.7li–k 420.9h–j 177.6no 106.6mn 2,045.5de 
Cd1S0 2.45ab 1.31c 0.71b 2.77efg 647.8ab 249.7b–d 201.5b 257.8o 
Cd1S1 2.38abc 1.26c 0.67cd 2.46fgh 581.4c 235.3d–f 175.5cd 900.2lm 
Cd1S2 2.25bcd 1.09d 0.62d–g 2.27g–i 568.9cd 212.5h–j 156.6d–g 1,211.5i–k 
Cd1S3 2.05de 0.77e 0.53jk 1.96hij 505.3ef 195.9lm 139.9f–j 15,556.7gh 
Cd1S4 1.72f–l 0.67ef 0.48lm 1.56jkl 434.3g–i 165.9o 107.7mn 2,241cd 
Cd2S0 2.17cd 1.50b 0.71b 2.76efg 626.9b 249.7bcd 207.7ab 537.1n 
Cd2S1 1.91ef 0.77e 0.64de 2.06hij 563.1cd 235.3def 179.3c 928.2k–m 
Cd2S2 1.74f–k 0.48f–j 0.58hij 1.95hij 523.4de 218.2g–i 147.1e–i 1,431g–i 
Cd2S3 1.60i–l 0.40h–k 0.51kl 1.82i–k 461.7f–h 218.2g–i 116.6k–m 2,087.4de 
Cd2S4 1.54kl 0.29j–l 0.46mn 1.56j–l 410.6ij 184.2mn 106.0mn 2,422.6c 
Cd3S0 1.88efg 0.76e 0.66cde 4.02c 535.0de 260.4ab 201.6b 648.8mn 
Cd3S1 1.75f–j 0.62efg 0.61e–h 3.25de 471.7fg 238.8cde 157.8d–f 970.1kl 
Cd3S2 1.70f–l 0.51f–i 0.59g–i 3.07de 424.2h–j 216.6h–j 137.1g–j 1,710.3fg 
Cd3S3 1.68g–l 0.45g–j 0.56ij 2.79d–g 410.4ij 208.8h–l 123.3j–m 2,443c 
Cd3S4 1.60i–l 0.33i–l 0.41op 1.76i–k 385.1jk 201.6j–l 108.8l–n 2,925.4b 
Cd4S0 1.86e–h 0.76e 0.63d–f 1.57b 524.8de 263.0ab 207.1ab 872.3m 
Cd4S1 1.83e–i 0.60e–h 0.59f–i 3.95c 444.5g–i 254.2abc 162.7c–e 1,353.6hi 
Cd4S2 1.65h–l 0.50f–j 0.55i–k 2.98d–f 410.4ij 241.4cde 128.3i–l 1,856.4ef 
Cd4S3 1.68g–l 0.44g–j 0.51kl 2.23hi 380.1jk 213.6hij 107.7mn 2,729.9b 
Cd4S4 1.60i–l 0.30i–l 0.47l–n 1.60j–l 320.7l 182.6mn 95.5n 3,504.4a 
Cd5S0 1.57j–l 0.51f–i 0.53jk 5.42a 450.4g–i 266.4a 171.6cd 934.6k–m 
Cd5S1 1.63i–l 0.43g–j 0.44no 3.92c 348.4kl 252.5abc 149.4e–h 1,493.2g–i 
Cd5S2 1.55j–l 0.33i–l 0.40op 3.32d 333.2l 243.1cde 135.5h–k 2,079.8de 
Cd5S3 1.55j–l 0.20kl 0.39pq 2.82d–f 308.7l 232.0efg 121.0j–m 3,001.6b 
Cd5S4 1.50l 0.14l 0.36q 2.11h–j 237.4m 221.4fgh 94.9n 3,588.2a 

Cd0, Cd1, Cd2, Cd3, Cd4 and Cd5 are 0, 5, 10, 20, 40 and 80 mg L−1 Cd, respectively.

S0, S1, S2, S3 and S4 are 0, 10, 20, 40 and 80 mM salinity of the nutrient solution, respectively.

Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at P < 0.05.

Based on the mean comparison results, the highest Ca concentration was obtained from Cd5S0 treatment with an average of 5.42% (Table 3). Calcium concentration in the plant tissues increased with Cd but increasing the salinity prevented its absorption. The lowest Ca concentration with an average of 1.07% was related to Cd0S4 treatment. As mentioned above, Ca concentration increased with Cd, probably due to the relative content of Ca and K ions within the sample. The absorption potential of Ca increases with a decrease in the K concentration due to Cd elevation. By comparing the mean interactions of salinity and Cd levels (Table 3) on the plant's Mg concentration, it was found that the highest Mg concentration was obtained from the control treatment with an average of 0.77%. The lowest plant Mg concentration with a relative 54% reduction was related to Cd5S4 treatment with an average concentration of 0.36% (Table 3).

The interaction of different salinity levels and Cd on Fe concentration in Azolla was meaningful at a 5% probability level (Table 3). Fe concentration decreased in Azolla tissues under salinity and Cd stresses. The highest Fe concentration was obtained in the control plant with an average of 686.4 mg kg−1 in dried tissues. Salinity and Cd treatments individually reduced Fe uptake, and their interaction further reduced the plant Fe concentration, which was expected. The lowest Fe concentration was related to Cd5S4 treatment with an average of 237.4 mg kg−1 (Table 3). Based on the results of the analysis of the variance table, the interaction of salinity and Cd levels on Mn concentration in Azolla was meaningful at the level of 1% probability (Table 3). Increasing the concentration of Cd in the nutrient solution increased the Mn concentration in the plant tissues, while salinity decreased it. The highest and lowest Mn concentrations were from Cd5S0 and Cd1S4 treatments with averages of 266.4 mg kg−1 and 165.9 mg kg−1 of dried tissues, respectively. Increased Mn concentration in chickpea plants with increasing soil Cd concentration has been reported by Hernandez et al. (1996), probably due to the interaction of Fe and Mn ions. In addition, the plant's Fe concentration decreased with Cd concentration in the growing medium.

The results of data analysis showed that the interaction of different salinity and Cd levels on Zn concentration in Azolla was meaningful at a 5% probability (Table 3). The highest concentration of Zn with an average of 224.9 mg kg−1 was obtained from the control treatment (Cd0S0). Increasing salinity and Cd concentration decreased Zn uptake, and the lowest Zn concentration was observed in Cd5S4 treatment with an average of 94.96 mg kg−1. Abdel-Sabour et al. (1988) stated that the presence of Cd causes problems in the zinc and other trace elements transfer in the plant. The variance analysis showed that the interaction of salinity and Cd levels on Na concentration of Azolla was also meaningful at the level of 5% probability (Table 3). According to the comparison of the mean data, the highest Na concentration was obtained from Cd5S4 treatment. Increasing both salinity and Cd factors increased Na concentration within plant tissues. The lowest plant Na concentration was observed in Cd0S0 and Cd1S0 treatments with 229.8 and 257.8 mg kg−1, respectively which did not differ significantly. Khellaf & Zerdaoui (2010) examined the growth response of blue lentils to the bioaccumulation of Copper and Nickel. They found that blue lentils were resistant to the presence of ≤0.3 mg L−1 copper and ≤0.5 mg L−1 nickel. When copper in the growing medium reached 0.45 mg L−1 and nickel reached 0.75 mg L−1, the plant growth decreased by 50%. Their results also showed that blue lentils accumulated much more copper in their tissues than nickel. Xue et al. (2012) investigated the bioaccumulation and speciation of arsenic in aquatic macrophytes Ceratophyllum Demersum L, and their results showed a significant accumulation of arsenic (862–963 μg g−1) in plant branches when exposed to 10 mM of arsenate and arsenite, regardless of whether arsenate or arsenite was supplied to the plant. Arsenite was the predominant species in plant tissues.

Effect of salinity and Cd on element concentrations in Watercress

The results showed that the interaction of salinity and Cd on the N concentration of Watercress was meaningful at the level of 5% probability (Table 4). Through comparing the means of interaction between salinity and Cd levels on plant N concentration (Table 4), it was found that Cd0S0 and Cd1S0 treatments with averages of 1.614% and 1.572% were the highest N plant concentrations. The N concentration in plant tissues decreased with increasing the Cd concentration and salinity in the nutrient solution. The lowest plant N concentrations were related to Cd2S4 and Cd5S4 treatments with 1.482% and 1.48% averages, respectively.

Table 4

The effect of different salinity and Cd levels on the concentration of elements in Watercress

TreatmentN (%)P (%)K (%)Ca (%)Mg (%)Mn (mg kg−1)Zn (mg kg−1)Cu (mg kg−1)Na (mg kg−1)
Cd0S0 2.49a 1.07a 1.61a 5.74a 0.86a 240e–g 71.4a 23.8d–h 483m 
Cd0S1 2.36a–d 1.02a 1.43b 4.29b 0.78b 226ij 64.9b 20.5g–k 678klm 
Cd0S2 2.33a–d 0.86b 1.32c 3.57c 0.72c 216kl 54.9c 17.2j–m 944i–m 
Cd0S3 2.22b–f 0.73d–f 1.19def 2.92d–g 0.56h–k 205mn 43.8efg 15.0lm 1,265g–j 
Cd0S4 2.14c–g 0.57h–k 1.11f 2.56f–j 0.47o 192o 37.7g–j 12.7m 2,201cde 
Cd1S0 2.41abc 0.89b 1.57a 3.34cd 0.78b 243def 63.3b 26.1c–f 575m 
Cd1S1 2.32a–d 0.89b 1.42b 2.68e–h 0.68d 243def 53.3cd 21.6e–j 1,000i–l 
Cd1S2 2.19b–g 0.74cde 1.32c 2.59f–i 0.66de 236fgh 42.7e–h 20.5g–k 1,111g–k 
Cd1S3 2.00f–j 0.64f–h 1.22de 2.45f–k 0.61fg 221jk 36.6hij 18.8h–l 1,586fg 
Cd1S4 1.77j–l 0.51j–m 1.98gh 1.17l–q 0.56h–k 201ln 27.2lmn 16.6j–m 2,284cde 
Cd2S0 2.47a 0.83bc 1.28cd 2.30cde 0.77b 249cde 55.5c 27.2cd 636klm 
Cd2S1 2.41abc 0.74cde 1.14ef 2.60f–i 0.69cd 250cd 46.1ef 21.6e–j 1,069h–l 
Cd2S2 2.30a–e 0.72def 1.01g 2.19h–m 0.64ef 229hi 40f–i 21.6e–j 1,335g–i 
Cd2S3 1.83h–k 0.63f–i 1.98ghi 1.91i–p 0.54j–l 212klm 34.4i–k 20.0g–l 1,907ef 
Cd2S4 1.48m 0.51j–l 0.81kl 1.57m–q 0.46o 209lmn 31.6j–l 19.4g–l 2,578bcd 
Cd3S0 2.24a–f 0.69efg 1.15ef 3.16c–f 0.60gh 257bc 59.4c 27.7cd 678klm 
Cd3S1 2.22b–f 0.61g–j 0.97gh 2.33g–l 0.57h–j 249cde 47.7de 24.4c–g 1,153g–k 
Cd3S2 2.08d–i 0.59h–k 0.91h–j 2.09h–o 0.54j–l 239fg 36.6h–j 23.3d–h 1,530f–h 
Cd3S3 1.96f–j 0.54h–l 0.86jk 1.87j–p 0.52k–m 232g–i 31.1j–l 21.6e–j 2,089de 
Cd3S4 1.85hij 0.46lm 0.81kl 1.36pq 0.48no 216kl 23.3mn 19.4g–l 2,642bc 
Cd4S0 1.31a–d 0.76cde 0.91hij 2.52f–j 0.58g–i 267a 56.6c 33.3b 720klm 
Cd4S1 2.06d–i 0.53i–l 0.79klm 2.22h–m 0.54i–l 252cd 44.4efg 27.2cd 1,273g–j 
Cd4S2 201d–i 0.50klm 0.70mlo 2.11h–n 0.51l–n 236fgh 33.8i–l 22.7d–i 3,033b 
Cd4S3 2.02e–j 0.46lm 0.66nop 1.91i–p 0.49mno 230hi 23.8mn 21.1f–i 3,759a 
Cd4S4 1.83h–k 0.34n 0.61pq 1.46o–q 0.45o 270kl 20.5no 17.7i–l 2,955b 
Cd5S0 2.11d–h 0.63f–i 0.87ijk 2.26g–m 0.46o 268a 40.5f–i 39.9a 776j–m 
Cd5S1 1.93g–j 0.50k–m 0.73lmn 1.92i–p 0.41p 261ab 37.7g–j 29.4bc 2,195cde 
Cd5S2 1.82i–k 0.45lm 0.66nop 1.81i–p 0.39pq 244def 27.7k–m 26.6de 3,061b 
Cd5S3 1.57k–m 0.41mn 0.62opq 1.41k–p 0.38pq 219jk 23.8mn 20.0g–l 4,039a 
Cd5S4 1.48m 0.32ln 0.55q 1.11q 0.36q 213klm 16.7o 15.5k–m 4,123a 
TreatmentN (%)P (%)K (%)Ca (%)Mg (%)Mn (mg kg−1)Zn (mg kg−1)Cu (mg kg−1)Na (mg kg−1)
Cd0S0 2.49a 1.07a 1.61a 5.74a 0.86a 240e–g 71.4a 23.8d–h 483m 
Cd0S1 2.36a–d 1.02a 1.43b 4.29b 0.78b 226ij 64.9b 20.5g–k 678klm 
Cd0S2 2.33a–d 0.86b 1.32c 3.57c 0.72c 216kl 54.9c 17.2j–m 944i–m 
Cd0S3 2.22b–f 0.73d–f 1.19def 2.92d–g 0.56h–k 205mn 43.8efg 15.0lm 1,265g–j 
Cd0S4 2.14c–g 0.57h–k 1.11f 2.56f–j 0.47o 192o 37.7g–j 12.7m 2,201cde 
Cd1S0 2.41abc 0.89b 1.57a 3.34cd 0.78b 243def 63.3b 26.1c–f 575m 
Cd1S1 2.32a–d 0.89b 1.42b 2.68e–h 0.68d 243def 53.3cd 21.6e–j 1,000i–l 
Cd1S2 2.19b–g 0.74cde 1.32c 2.59f–i 0.66de 236fgh 42.7e–h 20.5g–k 1,111g–k 
Cd1S3 2.00f–j 0.64f–h 1.22de 2.45f–k 0.61fg 221jk 36.6hij 18.8h–l 1,586fg 
Cd1S4 1.77j–l 0.51j–m 1.98gh 1.17l–q 0.56h–k 201ln 27.2lmn 16.6j–m 2,284cde 
Cd2S0 2.47a 0.83bc 1.28cd 2.30cde 0.77b 249cde 55.5c 27.2cd 636klm 
Cd2S1 2.41abc 0.74cde 1.14ef 2.60f–i 0.69cd 250cd 46.1ef 21.6e–j 1,069h–l 
Cd2S2 2.30a–e 0.72def 1.01g 2.19h–m 0.64ef 229hi 40f–i 21.6e–j 1,335g–i 
Cd2S3 1.83h–k 0.63f–i 1.98ghi 1.91i–p 0.54j–l 212klm 34.4i–k 20.0g–l 1,907ef 
Cd2S4 1.48m 0.51j–l 0.81kl 1.57m–q 0.46o 209lmn 31.6j–l 19.4g–l 2,578bcd 
Cd3S0 2.24a–f 0.69efg 1.15ef 3.16c–f 0.60gh 257bc 59.4c 27.7cd 678klm 
Cd3S1 2.22b–f 0.61g–j 0.97gh 2.33g–l 0.57h–j 249cde 47.7de 24.4c–g 1,153g–k 
Cd3S2 2.08d–i 0.59h–k 0.91h–j 2.09h–o 0.54j–l 239fg 36.6h–j 23.3d–h 1,530f–h 
Cd3S3 1.96f–j 0.54h–l 0.86jk 1.87j–p 0.52k–m 232g–i 31.1j–l 21.6e–j 2,089de 
Cd3S4 1.85hij 0.46lm 0.81kl 1.36pq 0.48no 216kl 23.3mn 19.4g–l 2,642bc 
Cd4S0 1.31a–d 0.76cde 0.91hij 2.52f–j 0.58g–i 267a 56.6c 33.3b 720klm 
Cd4S1 2.06d–i 0.53i–l 0.79klm 2.22h–m 0.54i–l 252cd 44.4efg 27.2cd 1,273g–j 
Cd4S2 201d–i 0.50klm 0.70mlo 2.11h–n 0.51l–n 236fgh 33.8i–l 22.7d–i 3,033b 
Cd4S3 2.02e–j 0.46lm 0.66nop 1.91i–p 0.49mno 230hi 23.8mn 21.1f–i 3,759a 
Cd4S4 1.83h–k 0.34n 0.61pq 1.46o–q 0.45o 270kl 20.5no 17.7i–l 2,955b 
Cd5S0 2.11d–h 0.63f–i 0.87ijk 2.26g–m 0.46o 268a 40.5f–i 39.9a 776j–m 
Cd5S1 1.93g–j 0.50k–m 0.73lmn 1.92i–p 0.41p 261ab 37.7g–j 29.4bc 2,195cde 
Cd5S2 1.82i–k 0.45lm 0.66nop 1.81i–p 0.39pq 244def 27.7k–m 26.6de 3,061b 
Cd5S3 1.57k–m 0.41mn 0.62opq 1.41k–p 0.38pq 219jk 23.8mn 20.0g–l 4,039a 
Cd5S4 1.48m 0.32ln 0.55q 1.11q 0.36q 213klm 16.7o 15.5k–m 4,123a 

Cd0, Cd1, Cd2, Cd3, Cd4 and Cd5 are 0, 5, 10, 20, 40 and 80 mg L−1 Cd, respectively.

S0, S1, S2, S3 and S4 are 0, 10, 20, 40 and 80 mM salinity of the nutrient solution, respectively.

Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at P < 0.05.

The interaction of salinity and Cd levels on the K concentration of Watercress tissues was meaningful at a 5% probability level (Table 4). The highest K concentration of Watercress tissues was related to Cd0S0 treatment. With increasing Cd concentration and salinity in the nutrient solution, the K tissue concentration of plant tissues decreased. Its lowest value was observed at the highest salinity and Cd concentration (Cd5S4) (Table 4). According to the obtained results, it can be stated that salinity has intensified the adverse effect of Cd on plant K concentration. Subsequently, the interaction of salinity and Cd has further reduced the K concentration of the Watercress. Increasing the amount of Na in plant tissues may lead to changes in the osmotic pressure of cells. This factor causes plasmolysis and reduces the selective uptake in root cells (Pessarakli 1999).

The interaction of different salinity and Cd levels on the P concentration of Watercress was significant at the level of 5% probability (Table 4). The highest P concentration was obtained from Cd0S0 and Cd0S1 treatments with an average of 1.07% and 1.02%. Increasing the salinity and Cd concentration of the nutrient solution decreased the plant P uptake. The lowest plant P concentration with an average of 0.32% was assigned to Cd5S4 treatment. Each of the salinity and Cd treatments adversely affects the plant P concentration. Their interaction had a more severe effect on plant P concentration. Cadmium toxicity may cause P deficiency or problems in P transfer within the plant (Haghiri 1974).

The interaction of different salinity and Cd levels on the Ca concentration of Watercress was significant at a 5% probability level (Table 4). The maximum plant Ca concentration was obtained from Cd0S0 treatment with an average of 5.74%. Like their simple individual effects, the interaction of salinity and Cd reduced the Ca concentration in the plant. The minimum Ca concentration of the plant was observed from Cd5S4 treatment with an average concentration of 1.11% (Table 4). Hu & Schmidhalter (2005) attribute the lack of calcium in saline conditions to competition between Na and Ca elements and an increase in the Na/Ca ratio in the plant. According to the results of comparing the mean of the data (Table 4), the highest amount of plant Mg with an average of 0.86% was related to the control treatment. The lowest concentration of Mg with an average of 0.36% was observed in Cd5S4 treatment.

The interaction of different salinity and Cd levels on Mn concentration of Watercress was significant at the level of 1% probability (Table 4). Based on comparing the mean data obtained from the interaction of salinity and Cd on Mn concentration, the highest plant Mn concentration was observed in Cd4S0 and Cd5S0 treatments with mean concentrations of 267.6 and 268.2 mg kg−1, respectively (Table 4). The Mn concentration increased with Cd of the nutrient solution but decreased as salinity increased. The lowest concentration of Mn with an average of 1.192 mg kg−1 was related to Cd0S4 treatment. Based on the comparison of the mean data (Table 4), the highest Zn concentration was obtained from the Cd0S0 treatment with an average of 71.4 mg kg−1. Cd5S4 treatment had the lowest Zn content (with an average of 16.7 mg kg−1) with a 77% reduction compared to the control. Yildiz (2005) stated in a study that with increasing Cd levels, Zn concentration decreased in both tomato and corn. The decrease in Zn concentration following the increase in Cd concentration is probably due to the chemical similarity of these two elements and their antagonistic relationship in adsorption.

The interaction of different salinity levels and Cd on plant Cu concentration was meaningful at the level of 5% probability (Table 4). Cd5S0 treatment had the highest Cu concentration with an average of 40 mg kg−1 of the plant tissues. Increasing salinity decreases the Cu concentration. The lowest Cu concentration of the plant was observed in Cd0S4 treatment, with an average of 12.77 mg kg−1 (Table 4). Anjum (2008) reported that trace elements Fe, Zn, Cu, and Mn in citrus leaves and roots decreased with increasing salinity (80 mM). The highest Na concentrations in Cd4S3, Cd5S3, and Cd5S4 treatments were 3,759.8, 4,039.2, and 4,123 mg kg−1, respectively. The lowest Na content was obtained from Cd0S0 and Cd1S0 treatments with averages of 483.3 and 575.4 mg kg−1, respectively (Table 4).

Effect of salinity and Cd on element concentrations in Duckweed

The interaction of different salinity and Cd levels on N concentration in Duckweed was meaningful at a 5% probability level (Table 5). Comparison of the data means showed that the interaction of salinity and Cd levels reduced the N uptake. Maximum plant N concentration was observed in Cd0S0 treatment with an average of 0.875%. In Cd5S4 treatment, the lowest N value was obtained with an average of 0.146%. Cadmium disrupts N metabolism by inhibiting the activity of the enzymes glutamine synthetize, glutamate syntheses, nitrate reductase, and the nitrate reduction process (Wang et al. 2008).

Table 5

The effect of different levels of salinity and Cd on the concentration of elements in Duckweed

TreatmentN (%)Ca (%)K (%)Fe (mg kg−1)Mn (mg kg−1)Cu (mg kg−1)Na (mg kg−1)
Cd0S0 0.87a 3.9a 1.10a 566a 264c–g 42.7a 329i–k 
Cd0S1 0.72b 3.7a 0.92b 526b 246fg 37.7b 566fg 
Cd0S2 0.62c 2.7bc 0.60d 495bc 226j–n 33.8cd 745e 
Cd0S3 0.57cd 1.6e–h 0.40fg 462cde 213l–o 28.3efg 115bc 
Cd0S4 0.52de 1.3h–l 0.31g–i 418fg 209no 25.5f–i 1,326a 
Cd1S0 0.57cd 3.7a 0.75c 499bc 269cd 34.3c 226j–l 
Cd1S1 0.51de 2.9b 0.70c 473cd 246f–j 31.1de 559fg 
Cd1S2 0.48ef 2.3d 0.60d 448def 234i–l 25.5f–i 866de 
Cd1S3 0.42g–i 1.8e–g 0.54de 419fg 219k–o 22.2i–k 1,111c 
Cd1S4 0.34j–n 1.3h–k 0.31g–i 352ij 211m–o 17.2l–n 1,285a 
Cd2S0 0.53de 2.6bc 0.77c 439d–g 266c–f 28.8ef 226j–l 
Cd2S1 0.46e–g 2.7b 0.60d 400gh 257d–i 26.6f–h 491fg 
Cd2S2 0.43f–h 2.3cd 0.43f 368hi 242g–j 24.4h–j 737e 
Cd2S3 0.37h–l 1.5f–i 0.30g–i 293l–o 226j–n 21.6jk 1,052c 
Cd2S4 0.31l–o 1.2h–l 0.26hi 259o–q 244f–j 18.8k–m 1,225ab 
Cd3S0 0.39h–k 2.8b 0.77c 424e–g 268cde 25.0g–j 245j–l 
Cd3S1 0.40h–j 1.9e 0.45ef 351ij 259d–h 22.2i–k 429g–i 
Cd3S2 0.32k–o 1.6e–h 0.35f–h 334i–k 242g–j 20.5kl 530fg 
Cd3S3 0.31l–o 1.2i–m 0.30g–i 318j–m 240h–k 18.8k–m 600f 
Cd3S4 0.35i–m 1.9k–n 0.24i 258o–p 207no 15.0no 901d 
Cd4S0 0.37h–l 1.8ef 0.40fg 358ij 294ab 22.2i–k 190kl 
Cd4S1 0.32k–o 1.4g–j 0.36f–h 329i–l 276b–d 20.5kl 315i–k 
Cd4S2 0.30m–p 1.0j–m 0.30g–i 290l–o 247e–j 17.7l–n 469f–h 
Cd4S3 0.26op 1.0j–m 0.28hi 276n–p 227j–n 16.1m–o 609f 
Cd4S4 0.31l–o 0.8mn 0.23i 239pq 203o 10.5pq 850de 
Cd5S0 0.32k–o 1.5f–i 0.36f–h 412fg 310a 17.7l–n 134l 
Cd5S1 0.29m–p 1.0j–m 0.30g–i 308k–n 281bc 16.7m–o 287jk 
Cd5S2 0.28nop 0.9l–n 0.28hi 278m–p 241h–k 13.3op 434h–j 
Cd5S3 0.23p 0.7no 0.26hi 253o–q 232j–m 11.6pq 560fg 
Cd5S4 0.14q 0.5o 0.21i 223q 213l–o 8.3q 743e 
TreatmentN (%)Ca (%)K (%)Fe (mg kg−1)Mn (mg kg−1)Cu (mg kg−1)Na (mg kg−1)
Cd0S0 0.87a 3.9a 1.10a 566a 264c–g 42.7a 329i–k 
Cd0S1 0.72b 3.7a 0.92b 526b 246fg 37.7b 566fg 
Cd0S2 0.62c 2.7bc 0.60d 495bc 226j–n 33.8cd 745e 
Cd0S3 0.57cd 1.6e–h 0.40fg 462cde 213l–o 28.3efg 115bc 
Cd0S4 0.52de 1.3h–l 0.31g–i 418fg 209no 25.5f–i 1,326a 
Cd1S0 0.57cd 3.7a 0.75c 499bc 269cd 34.3c 226j–l 
Cd1S1 0.51de 2.9b 0.70c 473cd 246f–j 31.1de 559fg 
Cd1S2 0.48ef 2.3d 0.60d 448def 234i–l 25.5f–i 866de 
Cd1S3 0.42g–i 1.8e–g 0.54de 419fg 219k–o 22.2i–k 1,111c 
Cd1S4 0.34j–n 1.3h–k 0.31g–i 352ij 211m–o 17.2l–n 1,285a 
Cd2S0 0.53de 2.6bc 0.77c 439d–g 266c–f 28.8ef 226j–l 
Cd2S1 0.46e–g 2.7b 0.60d 400gh 257d–i 26.6f–h 491fg 
Cd2S2 0.43f–h 2.3cd 0.43f 368hi 242g–j 24.4h–j 737e 
Cd2S3 0.37h–l 1.5f–i 0.30g–i 293l–o 226j–n 21.6jk 1,052c 
Cd2S4 0.31l–o 1.2h–l 0.26hi 259o–q 244f–j 18.8k–m 1,225ab 
Cd3S0 0.39h–k 2.8b 0.77c 424e–g 268cde 25.0g–j 245j–l 
Cd3S1 0.40h–j 1.9e 0.45ef 351ij 259d–h 22.2i–k 429g–i 
Cd3S2 0.32k–o 1.6e–h 0.35f–h 334i–k 242g–j 20.5kl 530fg 
Cd3S3 0.31l–o 1.2i–m 0.30g–i 318j–m 240h–k 18.8k–m 600f 
Cd3S4 0.35i–m 1.9k–n 0.24i 258o–p 207no 15.0no 901d 
Cd4S0 0.37h–l 1.8ef 0.40fg 358ij 294ab 22.2i–k 190kl 
Cd4S1 0.32k–o 1.4g–j 0.36f–h 329i–l 276b–d 20.5kl 315i–k 
Cd4S2 0.30m–p 1.0j–m 0.30g–i 290l–o 247e–j 17.7l–n 469f–h 
Cd4S3 0.26op 1.0j–m 0.28hi 276n–p 227j–n 16.1m–o 609f 
Cd4S4 0.31l–o 0.8mn 0.23i 239pq 203o 10.5pq 850de 
Cd5S0 0.32k–o 1.5f–i 0.36f–h 412fg 310a 17.7l–n 134l 
Cd5S1 0.29m–p 1.0j–m 0.30g–i 308k–n 281bc 16.7m–o 287jk 
Cd5S2 0.28nop 0.9l–n 0.28hi 278m–p 241h–k 13.3op 434h–j 
Cd5S3 0.23p 0.7no 0.26hi 253o–q 232j–m 11.6pq 560fg 
Cd5S4 0.14q 0.5o 0.21i 223q 213l–o 8.3q 743e 

Cd0, Cd1, Cd2, Cd3, Cd4 and Cd5 are 0, 5, 10, 20, 40 and 80 mg L−1 Cd, respectively.

S0, S1, S2, S3 and S4 are 0, 10, 20, 40 and 80 mM salinity of the nutrient solution, respectively.

Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at P < 0.05.

Based on the comparison of the mean data, the control treatment with an average of 1.08% had the highest K concentration. With increasing salinity and Cd levels in the nutrient solution, K concentration decreased (Table 5). The lowest K concentrations were measured in three treatments of Cd3S4, Cd4S4, and Cd5S4 with averages of 0.24%, 0.23%, and 0.21%, respectively. Haouari et al. (2012) reported that the concentration of Cl and Na ions in the plant increased with salinity. In that condition, the amount of K decreased, and Cl and Na caused plant poisoning. Metabolic Na toxicity results from the ability of this ion to compete with K ions to attach to major sites for cell functions. More than 50 enzymes are activated by K, and Na cannot substitute these enzymes (Tester & Davemport 2003).

The interaction of different salinity and Cd levels on the Ca concentration of the Duckweed plant was meaningful at the level of 5% probability (Table 5). The highest Ca concentration was obtained from Cd0S0, Cd0S1, and Cd1S0 treatments with averages of 3.9, 3.7, and 3.7%, respectively, which were not significantly different. The interaction between Cd and salinity caused a sharp decrease in Ca concentration in this plant. The lowest Ca concentration was observed in the treatment containing the highest concentration of Cd and salinity (Cd5S4) (Table 5). Cadmium accumulation in many plants causes Fe, Mg, and Ca deficiency. It stops chlorophyll synthesis and drastically reduces growth rate and photosynthesis (Mobin & Khan 2007).

The analysis of variance showed that the interaction of different salinity and Cd levels on the Fe concentration of the Duckweed plant was significant at the level of 1% probability (Table 5). The highest plant Fe concentration was obtained in Cd0S0 treatment with an average of 566.16 mg kg−1. The interaction of Cd and salinity levels reduced the Fe concentration so that the lowest Fe concentration was found in Cd5S4 treatment with an average of 223 mg kg−1 (Table 5). The Fe concentration decreasing with increasing Cd content was due to antagonistic effects of these two elements and reported in Wong et al. (1984).

The interaction of different salinity and Cd levels on plant Mn concentrations was significant at the 5% probability level (Table 5). The highest concentration of plant Mn with an average of 311 mg kg−1 was related to Cd5S0 treatment. The lowest concentration was observed in Cd4S4 treatment, with an average concentration of 203.2 mg kg−1 (Table 5). Based on the results of data analysis (Table 5), the interaction of salinity and Cd on Cu concentration in Duckweed was significant at the level of 5% probability. The highest Cu concentration was obtained from Cd0S0 treatment with an average of 42.76 mg kg−1. The lowest amount of Cu was observed in Cd5S4 treatment with an average of 8.33 mg kg−1 (Table 5). Decreasing the concentration of trace elements in plants contaminated with heavy metals under saline conditions can be attributed to increased concentration of heavy elements and Na and their antagonistic relationship with trace elements. The highest Na concentration was obtained from Cd0S4 treatment with an average of 1,326.3 mg kg−1. The lowest concentration of Na in the plant was obtained in Cd5S0 treatment with 134.1 mg kg−1 of the plant tissues.

This study showed that Azolla Caroliniana, Watercress, and Duckweed plants absorbed high concentrations of Cd. Cadmium uptake increased with the salinity concentration, and consequently, its content was elevated in the tissues of Azolla Caroliniana, Watercress, and Duckweed. Also, increasing the concentration of Cd in the nutrient solution decreased the concentrations of N, K, P, Mg, Fe, and Zn and increased the concentrations of Ca, Mn, Cu, and Na in Azolla Caroliniana. The results showed that increasing the concentration of Cd in the nutrient solution decreased the concentrations of N, K, P, Ca, Mg, Fe, and Zn, increasing the concentrations of Mn, Cu, and Na in Watercress and Duckweed. It has also been shown that increasing the salinity concentration decreased N, K, P, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu and increased Na in Azolla Caroliniana, Watercress, and Duckweed. It can be concluded from this study that the three opted plants help purify Cd-contaminated water. In general, according to the obtained results, these plants can be recommended for phytoremediation and removal of heavy metals, especially Cd, in unsuitable aqueous systems in the presence of salinity. This approach can be used in future studies to alleviate the cadmium pollution in water resources.

None.

The subject of plagiarism has been considered by the authors and this article is without problem.

None.

Yes

In the order of the authors

None.

Yes

None.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

1

SAS Institute is an American multinational developer of analytics software based in Cary, North Carolina. SAS develops and markets a suite of analytics software (also called SAS), which helps access, manage, analyze and report on data to aid in decision-making. The company is the world's largest privately held software business[3] and its software is used by most of the Fortune 500.

Abdel-Sabour
M. F.
,
Mortvedt
J. J.
&
Kelsoe
J. J.
1988
Cadmium-zinc interactions in plants and extractable cadmium and zinc fractions in soil
.
Soil Science
145
,
424
31
.
Agastian
P.
,
Kingsley
S. J.
&
Vivekanandan
M.
2000
Effect of salinity on photosynthesis and biochemical characteristics in mulberry genotypes
.
Photosynthetica
38
,
287
290
.
Ali
H.
,
Khan
E.
&
Sajad
M. A.
2013
Phytoremediation of heavy metals-Concepts and applications
.
Chemosphere
91
,
869
881
.
Alloway
B. J.
1995
Heavy Metals in Soils: Lead. Blackie and Glasgow
.
Springer
,
Netherlands
, p.
368
.
Ansari
A. A.
,
Naeem
M.
,
Gill
S. S.
&
AlZuaibr
F. M.
2020
Phytoremediation of contaminated waters: an eco-friendly technology based on aquatic macrophytes application
.
The Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research
46
(
4
),
371
376
.
Baker
A. J. M.
,
McGrath
S. P.
,
Sidoli
C. M. D.
&
Reeves
R. D.
1994
The possibility of in situ heavy metal decontamination of polluted soils using crops of metal-accumulating plant
.
Resource, Conservation and Recycling
11
,
41
49
.
Bhargavi
V. N.
&
Sudha
P. N.
2013
Effect of salinity and ph on the accumulation of heavy metals in sun flower (Helianthus annus) plant
.
Cottenie
A.
1980
Methods of plant analysis, In: Soil and plant testing: FAO Soils Bulletin 38/2, 120 pages. State University of Gent, Gent, Belgium
.
Epestin
E.
1972
Mineral Nutrition in Plants: Principles and Perspectives
.
John Wiley and Sons
,
New York
.
Figueroa
J. A. L.
,
Wrobel
K.
,
Afton
S.
,
Caruso
J. A.
,
Corona
J. F. G.
&
Wrobel
K.
2008
Effect of some heavy metals and soil humic substances on the phytochelatin production in wild plants from silver mine areas of Guanajuato, Mexico
.
Chemosphere
70
(
11
),
2084
2091
.
Greger
M.
,
Kautsky
L.
&
Sandberg
T. A.
1995
Tentative model of Cd uptake in Potamogeton pectinatus in relation to salinity
.
Environmental and Experimental Botany
35
,
215
225
.
Haouari
C. C.
,
Nasraoui
A. H.
,
Bouthour
D.
,
Houda
M.
,
Daieb
C. B.
,
Mnai
J.
&
Gouia
H.
2012
Response of tomato (Solanum lycopersicon) to cadmium toxicity: growth, element uptake, chlorophyll content and photosynthesis rate
.
African Journal of Plant Science
6
(
1
),
1
7
.
Hernandez
L. E.
,
Carpenaruiez
R.
&
Garate
A.
1996
Alternation in the mineral nutrition of pea seedlings exposed to cadmium
.
Journal of Plant Nutrition
19
,
1581
1598
.
Hu
Y.
&
Schmidhalter
U.
2005
Drought and salinity: a comparison of their effects on mineral nutrition of plants
.
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science
168
,
541
549
.
Jiang
A.
,
Gong
L.
,
Ding
H.
&
Wang
M.
2021
Cancer Mortality and Long-Term Environmental Exposure of Cadmium in Contaminated Community Based on a Third Retrospective Cause of Death Investigation of Residents Living in the Guangdong Province from 2004 to 2005
.
Biological Trace Element Research
199
,
1
12
.
Kara
Y.
&
Kara
I.
2005
Removal of cadmium from water using Duckweed (Lemna trisulca L.)
.
International Journal of Agriculture and Biology
7
(
4
),
660
662
.
Khellaf
N.
&
Zerdaoui
M.
2010
Growth response of Lemna gibba L. (Duckweed) to copper and nickel phytoaccumulation
. In:
7th International Conference on Sustainable Techniques and Strategies in Urban Water Management
3
(
3
),
1
8
.
Kiani
B.
,
Amin
F. H.
,
Bagheri
N.
,
Bergquist
R.
,
Mohammadi
A. A.
,
Yousefi
M.
,
Faraji
H.
,
Roshandel
G.
,
Beirami
S.
,
Rahimzadeh
H.
&
Hoseini
B.
2021
Association between heavy metals and colon cancer: an ecological study based on geographical information systems in North-Eastern Iran
.
BMC Cancer
21
(
1
),
1
12
.
Mandakini
L. L. U.
,
Bandara
N. J.
&
Gunawardana
D.
2016
A study on the phytoremediation potential of Azolla pinnata under laboratory conditions
.
Journal of Tropical Forestry and Environment
6
(
1
),
36
49
.
Moradi
F.
2002
Physiological Characterization of Rice Cultivars for Salinity Tolerance During Vegetative and Reproductive Stages
.
PhD Thesis
,
The University of the Philippines Los Baños
.
Laguna
.
Philippines
.
Nocito
F. F.
,
Pirovano
L.
,
Cocucci
M.
&
Sacchi
G. A.
2002
Cadmium-induced sulphate uptake in maize roots
.
Plant Physiology
129
,
1872
1879
.
Ozkutlu
F.
,
Ozturk
L.
,
Erdem
H.
,
McLaughlin
M.
&
Cakmak
I.
2007
Leaf-applied sodium chloride promotes cadmium accumulation in durum wheat grain
.
Plant and Soil
290
(
1–2
),
323
331
.
Parida
K. A.
&
Das
B. A.
2005
Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: review
.
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety
60
,
324
349
.
Pessarakli
M.
1999
Handbook of Plant and Crop Stress
.
Marcel Dekker Incorporation
,
New York
, p.
1254
.
Rahimi
M.
,
Rahimi
G.
,
Ebrahimi
E.
&
Moradi
S.
2021
Assessing the distribution of cadmium under different land-use types and its effect on human health in different gender and age groups
.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
28
,
1
10
.
Saffarzadeh Shirazi
S.
,
Ronaghi
A.
,
Karimian
N.
,
Yasrebi
J.
&
Emam
Y.
2012
Influence of cadmium toxicity on nitrogen and phosphorus uptake and some vegetative growth parameters in shoot of seven rice cultivars
.
Journal of Science and Technology of Greenhouse Culture
3
(
9
),
118
123
.
Sharma
P.
&
Pandey
S.
2014
Status of phytoremediation in world scenario
.
International Journal of Environmental Bioremediation and Biodegradation
2
,
178
191
.
Smolder
E.
,
Lambergts
R. M.
,
Mclaughin
M. J.
&
Tiller
K. G.
1998
Effect of soil solution chloride on cadmium availability to Swiss chard
.
Journal of Environmental Quality
27
,
426
431
.
Sparks
D. L.
,
Helmke
P.
&
Page
A.
1996
Methods of soil analysis: Chemical methods
.
Soil Science Society America
,
10.2136/sssabookser5.3
.
Stêpniewska
Z.
,
Bennicelli
R. P.
,
Balakhnina
T. I.
,
Szajnocha
K.
,
Banach
A.
&
Woliñska
A.
2005
Potential of Azolla caroliniana for the removal of Pb and Cd from wastewaters
.
International Agrophysics
19
(
3
),
251
255
.
Tester
M.
&
Davemport
R.
2003
Na+ tolerance and Na+ transport in higher plants. A review
.
Annals of Botany
91
,
503
527
.
Wang
L.
,
Zhou
Q.
,
Ding
L.
&
Sun
Y.
2008
Effect of cadmium toxicity on nitrogen metabolism in leaves of Solanum nigrum L
.
Journal of Hazardous Materials
154
,
818
825
.
Wong
M. K.
,
Chuah
G. K.
,
Koh
L. L.
,
Ang
K. P.
&
Hew
C. S.
1984
The uptake of cadmium by Brassica chinensis and its effect on plant zinc and iron distribution
.
Environmental and experimental botany
24
(2),
189
195
.
Xue
P.
,
Yan
C.
,
Sun
G.
&
Luo
Z.
2012
Arsenic accumulation and speciation in the submerged macrophyte Ceratophyllum demersum
.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
19
,
3969
3976
.
Yan
A.
,
Wang
Y.
,
Tan
S. N.
,
Yusof
M. M.
,
Ghosh
S.
&
Chen
Z.
2020
Phytoremediation: a promising approach for revegetation of heavy metal-polluted land
.
Frontiers in Plant Science
11
,
359
.
Yildiz
N.
2005
Response of Tomato and Corn plants to increasing Cd levels in nutrient culture
.
Pakistan Journal of Botany
37
(
3
),
593
599
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits copying and redistribution for non-commercial purposes with no derivatives, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).