【摘要】：通過對土壤調(diào)理劑主要原料的分類分析,研究我國主要土壤調(diào)理劑產(chǎn)品中Hg、As、Cd、Pb、Cr 5種重金屬元素含量及不合格率等現(xiàn)狀,就相關(guān)原料農(nóng)業(yè)資源化利用進(jìn)行探討,為我國土壤調(diào)理劑行業(yè)管理提供技術(shù)支撐。分析樣品主要來自農(nóng)業(yè)部肥料登記檢驗(yàn)樣品,部分樣品來自企業(yè)質(zhì)量跟蹤或質(zhì)量復(fù)核樣品,以及調(diào)研采集樣品;采用農(nóng)業(yè)推薦性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)NY/T 1978-2010《肥料汞、砷、鎘、鉛、鉻含量的測定》進(jìn)行重金屬元素含量檢測,根據(jù)農(nóng)業(yè)部肥料和土壤調(diào)理劑登記標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行結(jié)果判定。在4種類型的土壤調(diào)理劑中,有機(jī)源土壤調(diào)理劑、化學(xué)源土壤調(diào)理劑和農(nóng)林保水劑3類產(chǎn)品在本試驗(yàn)所有樣本中均未出現(xiàn)不合格情況。礦物源土壤調(diào)理劑中存在As、Pb、Cr3種重金屬元素超過限量規(guī)定的情況,尤其Pb元素導(dǎo)致的不合格率達(dá)20.9%,Pb含量檢測平均值為42.5 mg/kg,已經(jīng)接近限量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)(50 mg/kg),Pb含量最高檢測值達(dá)到204 mg/kg,是導(dǎo)致礦物源土壤調(diào)理劑不合格的主要原因。通過土壤調(diào)理劑主要原料的分類分析,發(fā)現(xiàn)導(dǎo)致Pb元素超標(biāo)所用原料主要包括鉀長石、牡蠣殼、鋼渣、鉬尾礦、磷礦石+堿渣等5種。因此,我國土壤調(diào)理劑產(chǎn)品中重金屬元素情況總體處于相對安全的水平范圍內(nèi),有機(jī)源土壤調(diào)理劑、化學(xué)源土壤調(diào)理劑和農(nóng)林保水劑質(zhì)量情況較好,而礦物源土壤調(diào)理劑中As、Pb、Cr元素存在一定質(zhì)量問題,尤其是Pb元素質(zhì)量問題突出。關(guān)于鉀長石、牡蠣殼作為土壤調(diào)理劑原料農(nóng)用,筆者認(rèn)為應(yīng)注意嚴(yán)格控制重金屬元素含量,避免因原料引起產(chǎn)品重金屬元素超標(biāo),而鋼渣則建議慎重作為土壤調(diào)理劑原料使用。
[Abstract]:Based on the classification and analysis of the main raw materials of soil conditioning agents, the contents of five heavy metal elements and the unqualified rate of Hg,As,Cd,Pb,Cr in the main soil conditioner products in China were studied, and the utilization of agricultural resources of the related raw materials was discussed. To provide technical support for the management of soil conditioning industry in China. The analytical samples are mainly from the fertilizer registration and inspection samples of the Ministry of Agriculture, and some samples are from the enterprise quality tracking or quality review samples, as well as the investigation and collection of samples; The contents of heavy metal elements were determined by agricultural recommendation standard NY/T 1978 / 2010 < determination of Mercury, arsenic, cadmium, lead and Chromium contents of Fertilizer >. The results were determined according to the Registration Standard of Fertilizer and soil conditioning agents of the Ministry of Agriculture. Among the four types of soil conditioning agents, organic soil conditioning agent, chemical soil conditioning agent and agroforestry water retention agent did not appear to be unqualified in all the samples in this experiment. 4 types of soil conditioning agents, organic soil conditioning agents, chemical soil conditioning agents and agroforestry water retention agents were not found to be unqualified in this experiment. In mineral source soil conditioning agent, As,Pb,Cr3 heavy metal elements exceed the limit, especially the failure rate caused by Pb element is 20.9%, and the average detection value of Pb content is 42.5 mg/kg,. The maximum detection value of 50 mg/kg), Pb was up to 204 mg/kg, which was the main reason for the non-conformity of mineral-derived soil conditioner. Through the classification and analysis of the main raw materials of soil conditioner, it is found that the main materials used to cause Pb to exceed the standard include potassium feldspar, oyster shell, steel slag, molybdenum tailings, phosphate rock alkali slag and so on. Therefore, the situation of heavy metal elements in soil conditioner products in China is generally within the relatively safe level. The quality of organic soil conditioning agent, chemical soil conditioning agent and agroforestry water retention agent is better than that of mineral source soil conditioning agent, while As, in mineral source soil conditioning agent is of better quality than that of organic source soil conditioning agent, chemical soil conditioning agent and agroforestry water retention agent. There are some quality problems in Pb,Cr elements, especially in Pb elements. As for potash feldspar, oyster shell is used as raw material of soil conditioning agent for agriculture, the author thinks that attention should be paid to controlling the content of heavy metal element strictly to avoid the heavy metal element exceeding standard in products caused by raw material, and steel slag is suggested to be used cautiously as soil conditioning agent raw material.
【作者單位】： 中國農(nóng)業(yè)科學(xué)院農(nóng)業(yè)資源與農(nóng)業(yè)區(qū)劃研究所;
【基金】：中央級公益性科研院所基本科研業(yè)務(wù)費(fèi)專項(xiàng)(2014-6) 國家重點(diǎn)研發(fā)計(jì)劃項(xiàng)目課題(2016YFD0201303)
【分類號】：S156.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 楊錫良,趙仁昌;論“免深耕”土壤調(diào)理劑的開發(fā)研究[J];蔬菜;2001年12期

2 周峰;;新型土壤調(diào)理劑——加樂多[J];農(nóng)業(yè)知識(shí);2011年04期

3 張敏;;土壤調(diào)理劑——“小螺號”老龜鈣[J];農(nóng)業(yè)知識(shí);2013年04期

4 ;生物土壤調(diào)理劑的生產(chǎn)方法[J];技術(shù)與市場;2002年04期

5 徐禮和;;土壤調(diào)理劑在酸性水稻田上的應(yīng)用效果研究[J];現(xiàn)代農(nóng)業(yè)科技;2014年06期

6 高文勝;;優(yōu)秀土壤調(diào)理劑——農(nóng)豐田[J];農(nóng)業(yè)知識(shí);2009年10期

7 楊光立;喻樂輝;吳嘉洲;;“免深耕”土壤調(diào)理劑作用機(jī)理與使用技術(shù)[J];作物研究;2006年01期

8 王興仁;;科學(xué)使用土壤調(diào)理劑改善土壤肥力[J];果農(nóng)之友;2011年07期

9 楊平;;土壤調(diào)理劑在稻油連作上的應(yīng)用效果研究[J];安徽農(nóng)學(xué)通報(bào);2014年12期

10 魏嵐;楊少海;鄒獻(xiàn)中;巫金龍;寧建鳳;;不同土壤調(diào)理劑對酸性土壤的改良效果[J];湖南農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(自然科學(xué)版);2010年01期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前2條

1 張愛華;BGA土壤調(diào)理劑千畝實(shí)驗(yàn)基地展開實(shí)驗(yàn)[N];科技日報(bào);2011年

2 許秀成　侯翠紅 趙秉強(qiáng) 張衛(wèi)峰;將中低品位磷礦制成土壤調(diào)理劑[N];農(nóng)資導(dǎo)報(bào);2014年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 呂書記;土壤調(diào)理劑對鎘污染煙田土壤及烤煙與水稻影響研究[D];湖南農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2015年

2 王英男;多功能土壤調(diào)理劑應(yīng)用效果研究[D];福建農(nóng)林大學(xué);2017年

3 武毅昶;土壤調(diào)理劑對酸性土壤改良效果初探[D];內(nèi)蒙古農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2017年

4 黃楚瑜;一種新型土壤調(diào)理劑對煙草和水稻降鎘效應(yīng)研究[D];湖南農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2016年

5 劉戀;有機(jī)、無機(jī)土壤調(diào)理劑配施對沙化潮土的改良效果研究[D];四川農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2014年

，

本文編號：2454691