IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-1

Research article
erd

Environmental Effects from Contamination of AgriculturalSoils via Spraying and Dust Application to Crops andAnimals
BARRY N NOLLER*
The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
Email: b.noller.@.uq.edu.au
Received 17 February 2020

Accepted 10 April 2020(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Salinity from spraying may be important with crop cultivation and pasture forgrazing. Soil guidelines can indicate salinity build up in soil. Effects on cultivated crops andsoil cumulative contaminant loading limit trigger values are generally available for salinity,
heavy metals and pesticides (kg/ha) for long-term application of irrigation water to soil. Inaddition, metal levels in meat from livestock and fowl species can be compared against foodstandard guidelines. The air quality guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO),European Commission (EC) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
are based on studies of health effects undertaken globally. However, little detail exists oneffects of air particulates on terrestrial animals. Animals breathe air and may ingest depositedparticles on soil surface or via ingestion of grass or other plants. Soil contamination guidelines
are well developed for the ecological health case but may require extensive assessment forsoil and the native/wild species that are not characterized. The German metal deposition
guidelines (TA Luft) are useful in this case. In contrast to native/wild species, domestic
animal effects from soil contamination and particularly pasture grazing by cattle, sheep, pigs
and fowl are well understood. Such guidelines provide a basis for developing site specificcriteria for spray deposition to farm land. Particle dispersion and deposition for prediction ofenvironmental effects from spraying using risk assessment can be developed. Guidelines for
air particulates and fall out may be relevant to assess if spraying is significant to humans oranimals but limitations of guidelines for contaminants can occur. Risk-based assessment forenvironmental management of spray dispersion and deposition of agricultural wastewater canbe undertaken as such contaminants may be significant if they are dispersed at sufficiently
high concentrations.
Keywords crops, animals, spraying, contaminants, risks, management

INTRODUCTION
Particulate matter (PM) is defined by diameter (µm) or size based on its physical property (NEPC,2016). PM10 (diameter 10 µm) and PM2.5 (diameter 2.5 µm) can be mixtures of solid particles andliquid droplets in air (NEPC, 2016). Particle sizes <10 µm and 2.5 µm can penetrate deep into thehuman lung and transfer to the bloodstream. PM2.5 approximate the fine mode particles giving
alveolar deposition, while PM10 is the thoracic aerosol component (Raunemaa, 2002). Particles frommechanical means have larger-sized particles (> PM2.5) compared with particulate matter generated
during combustion (high temperature) processes having a higher percentage of fine particles < PM2.5
to ultrafine particles. Particles generated from spraying activities can also be fine to ultrafine.
Particles that fall out of suspension under gravity are collected using a dust deposition gauge anddescribed as ‘deposited matter’. People exposed to particulate contaminants in food, air and water
receive background exposure primarily from food and water. The potential pathways for exposure ofhumans to contaminants are dermal, inhalation and ingestion (eNHealth, 2012). Only <PM250(diameter 250 µm) fall out material can be ingested by humans or animals (Ng et al., 2015) as
deposited larger particles on ground do not readily adhere to hands. Particle size dependence and oral
exposure have specific associations (eNHealth, 2012).
Ⓒ ISERD

69

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-1

Fall out guidelines in Australian are limited to nuisance soiling of property (Noller, 2018). TheGerman air pollution control regulation and guidelines (TA LUFT, 1990 and Annex 2, 1999) provide
metal and arsenic deposition guidelines for assessing deposition or spraying (Table 1). Higherdeposition rates require additional evaluation using Annex 2 (TA LUFT 1999).
Table 1 Arsenic and metal deposition guidelines for fall out
Arsenic or metal
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Protection of human healthProtection of crop land integrity
Protection of grassland integrity
NickelStandard(µg/m2.day)
42100 (1990)
185 (1999)
1900 (1999)
15

Averaging period
1-year1-year1-year1-year

Source: TA LUFT (1990, Annex 2 1999).

The Australian National Environmental Protection Measure (NEPM) soil contamination
guidelines are well-developed, risk-based Health and Ecological criteria for respective receptors, andan alternative to fall out monitoring (Tables 2 and 3). Deposition to soil is assessed by measuring
specified constituents in soil to a surface depth (e.g. 1 cm) per unit area and comparing concentrations
against the NEPM soil contamination guidelines (NEPC, 2013). Soil cumulative contaminant loading
limit (CCL) trigger values for metals and arsenic (kg/ha) (NWQMS, 2000) are applicable for longterm application of irrigation water to soil (Table 4). Excessive salinity from spraying or dust
deposition may affect crop cultivation and pasture for grazing (Table 5). Comparison with soil
guidelines can indicate salinity build up in soil and if soil cumulative contaminant loading limit
trigger values for salinity and heavy metals (kg/ha) are occurring for long-term application ofirrigation water to soil.
Table 2 Soil Health Investigation Levels for various land use
Arsenic
or metal

Arsenic
Cadmium
CopperLeadNickelZinc

HIL Level A
Urban residentialwith garden
100
206,000
300
400
7,400

Health Investigation Levels (HIL) for soil (mg/kg)
HIL Level B Urban
HIL Level C
HIL Level D
residential without garden Public open space
Commercial
and industrial
500
300
3,000150
90
900
30,00017,000240,000
1,200
600
1,500
1,200
1,200
6,000
60,00030,000400,000

Source: NEPC (2013) Australian soil contamination guidelines for health risk assessments.

Table 3 Soil Ecological Investigation Levels in soil for various land uses
Arsenic or metal
and age ofcontamination(fresh/aged)
Arsenic
CopperLead
NickelZinc

Ecological Investigation Levels (EIL) for soil (mg/kg) and various land uses
Area of ecological
Urban residential/Commercial andsignificancepublic open spaceindustrial
20/40
15-60/20-80
110/470
1-25/5-95
7-130/15-280

50-10030-120/60-230
270/1100
10-170/30-560
25-500/70-1300

80/16045-200/85-340
440/1800
20-350/55-800
15.64

Source: NEPC (2013) Australian soil contamination guidelines for ecological risk assessments.

Ⓒ ISERD

70

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-1

Table 4 Soil cumulative contaminant loading limits (CCL) and preferred level in soil
Element

Arsenic
Cadmium
CopperLeadNickel
Zinc

Soil cumulative contaminantloading limit (CCL) (kg/ha)(NWQMS, 2000)
202140260
85300

Preferred level in soil(mg/kg)(NSW Soil, 2011)<20<12-50
<35
1-20
1-200

Source: Soil cumulative contaminant loading limit (CCL) (NWQMS, 2000) and preferred level in soil (NSW Soil, 2011)

Table 5 Soil guidelines associated with salinity
Test
Available sulfur (KCl 40test)
Total sulfur
Exchangeable Calcium
Exchangeable Magnesium
Exchangeable PotassiumExchangeable Sodium
Soil salinity(dS/m)

Agriculture Victoria(2017)>8 mg/kg>5 meq/100g
65-80% Total Cation>1.6 meq/100g
10-20% Total Cation>0.5 meq/100g<1% Total Cation<0.1 meq/100g<1% Total Cation<0.2% dS/m

Rural Solutions SA(2016)>10 mg/kg

NSW Soil(2011)10-20 mg/kg>5 meq/100g
65-75% Total Cation>1.6 meq/100g
10-15% Total Cation
3-8% Total Cation<6% Total Cation
Many plants affected
4-8 dS/mTolerant plants affected8-16 dS/m>0.5 meq/100g>0.5% Total Cation>1.0 meq/100g<0-1% Total Cation
Plants tolerant<8.6 dS/m
Tolerant plants affected8-16 dS/m

Source: Agriculture Victoria (2017), Rural Solutions SA (2016) and NSW Soil (2011) Soil guidelines for sulfur, calcium,magnesium, potassium, sodium and salinity

Contributions to human diet are assessed by comparing contaminant levels with food guidelines(FSANZ, 2009). Metal and arsenic levels in meat from livestock and fowl species can be comparedagainst food standard guidelines. Wild (game) animals for consumption as food can also be comparedsimilarly. However, wild species that are part of the ecosystem generally have no guidelines for
estimating exposure to specific contaminants. Although particulate matter effect is not normallyassessed for domesticated terrestrial animals, wild animals also breathe air and may ingest depositedparticles on soil surface or via grazing of grass or other plants (Arslan and Aybek, 2012; Serita, 1999).
Wild animals may also be exposed when air particulates drift over natural open land or forest(Isaksson, 2010). In contrast, domestic animal effects from soil contamination and particularly
pasture grazing by cattle, sheep, pigs and fowl are well understood.
OBJECTIVE
The Objective is to use a risk-based approach to examine contamination of agricultural activities inselected studies from air particulates and fall out produced from spray-base activities with irrigationwaters or other dust-generating agricultural activities, to provide a means to assess the significanceof effects to humans via uptake in crops, domesticated animals, and potentially for wild animals.
METHODOLOGYⒸ ISERD71

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-1

Details from published papers, reports and other sources were summarized. Selected data for salinity,
arsenic and heavy metals was used as case studies from Australian locations. Monitoring data for air
particulates and fall out for ambient air quality in Australia (NEPC 2016) is described (Noller, 2018).
Deposition of metals and arsenic to soil is assessed by collecting fall out and by measuring specified
constituents in soil for comparison against guidelines (Table 1). Soil requires sufficientcharacterization of the site (Standards Australia, 2005); selection of appropriate guidelines ensuresthat meaningful and appropriate comparison is made (Tables 1-4). Salinity from spraying may also
be important with crop cultivation and well as pasture (Table 5) and give rise to a buildup in soil
affecting cultivated crops. The tolerances of pasture and other plant species to various forms ofsalinity can be low but salinity build-up is likely when existing soil levels are high (Table 5). Datafor various livestock body weight, peak water intake and peak food intake is summarised(ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000 p 9.3-16). Peak food intake assumes importance with cattle and sheepfrom grazing and involuntary ingestion because (Thornton and Abrahams, 1983): (i) cattle ingest up
to 20% as soil (2 kg); and (ii) sheep ingest up to 30% as soil (0.7 kg). Spraying deposition over open
farmlands used for grazing may be significant if contamination occurs.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Data from case studies is examined to demonstrate how deposition to soil by fall out or via irrigation
can be assessed using guidelines given in Tables 1-5. Background concentrations of metals andarsenic in the soil from natural mineralisation of the Line of Load at Broken Hill, NSW, Australia(AARC, 2011) are given together with fall out data for the deposition of lead in Broken Hill city,nearby the Rasp Mine (Rasp Mine, 2010). Comparison of soil concentrations in Table 6 with the Soil
Health Investigation Levels (Table 2) shows that HIL Level A (urban residential) is exceeded forarsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc, and HIL Level C (public open space) is exceeded for lead and zinc.
Comparison with the Soil Ecological Investigation Levels for various land uses (Table 3) shows that
all categories of land use are exceeded for arsenic and all metals. Comparison of lead in fall out atBroken Hill for both high and low deposition exceed the guideline for protection of crop land but notgrassland (Table 1). Thus the extent of contamination is indicated.
Table 6 Background concentrations of metals and arsenic in the soil with naturalmineralisation of the Line of Load at Broken Hill, NSW, Australia anddeposition of lead
Element
Arsenic
Cadmium
CopperLeadZincConcentration (mg/kg)
Mean ± sd (n) (AARC, 2011)290±51 (9)89±45 (6)585±254 (6)8317±10161 (65)

Fall out (µg/m2.day)(Rasp Mine, 2010)

High deposition 822
Low deposition 274

45,510±76943 (20)

Source: AARC (2011) background concentrations of metals and arsenic in Line of Lode at Broken Hilland data for fall out in Broken Hill (Rasp Mine, 2010)

Potential build-up of salinity from a mining operation within a cattle station in Northern
Australia is given in Tables 7 - 8 (Noller, 2017). Total and water soluble sulfate, salinity based on
EC are all very low (Table 7). Similarly water soluble calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium
are also very low (Table 8). The location is in the wet-dry tropics receiving high rainfall during theannual monsoonal wet season in excess of 1500 mm. Comparison with guidelines (Table 5) shows
the soil is highly leached by rainfall and shows no buildup of salinity. In fact the soil is deficient insulfur for pasture growth for cattle feed and requires addition of supplement.

Ⓒ ISERD

72

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-1

Table 7 Total and water soluble sulfate and electrical conductivity (EC) of water extractof soil from cattle station
Test

Total Sulfur(mg/kg)Soluble Sulfur(mg/kg)

Electrical conductivity (1:5)(dS/m)

Within Mine Lease 1
Surface (0-10 cm)
Depth (100 cm)<100<100<10<100.025
0.0085

Within Mine Lease 2
Surface (0-10 cm)
Depth (100 cm)

130<100<10100.0164
0.0089Property Lot 1
Surface (0-10 cm)
Depth (100 cm)

300<100<10<100.0353
0.007

Property Lot 2
Surface (0-10 cm)
Depth (100 cm)

100<100<10<100.0324
0.0573

Source: ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000 (p 9.3-16 and explanation) Electrical conductivity measured in a 1:5
water extract

Table 8 Water soluble calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium in soil from cattle station
TestCalcium(meq/100g)

Magnesium(meq/100g)

Potassium(meq/100g)

Sodium(meq/100g)

Within Mine Lease 1
Surface (0-10 cm)
Depth (100 cm)

<0.05
<0.05

<0.082<0.0820.033<0.026<0.043<0.043

Within Mine Lease 2
Surface (0-10 cm)
Depth (100 cm)

<0.05
<0.05

<0.082<0.082<0.026<0.026<0.043<0.043

Property Lot 1
Surface (0-10 cm)
Depth (100 cm)

0.10
<0.05

<0.082<0.0820.052<0.026<0.043<0.043

Property Lot 2
Surface (0-10 cm)
Depth (100 cm)

0.08500.15<0.082<0.082<0.026<0.026<0.043<0.043

Source: ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000 (p 9.3-16 and explanation) meq/100g = milli-equivalents per 100 grams soil.
Electrical conductivity measured in a 1:5 water extract.

CONCLUSION
The use a risk-based approach to examine contamination of agricultural activities from air
particulates and fall out in two dust-generating studies is able to provide a means to assess thesignificance of effects to humans via uptake in crops and domesticated animals. For terrestrial species,
NEPM soil contamination guidelines for ecological effects are able to provide a comprehensive
assessment procedure to follow. In contrast to native/wild species, domestic animal effects from soil
contamination and particularly pasture grazing by cattle and sheep are well understood. Thus
application of such guidelines provides a basis for developing site specific criteria for fall out fromdust and spray deposition to farm land.

Ⓒ ISERD73

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Phil McKenna and Raijeli Taga, both of Centre For Mined Land Rehabilitation, the University ofQueensland, provided assistance.
REFERENCES
AARC. 2011. Literature review of soil heavy metal contamination at Broken Hill. 29 July 2011. AustralAsian
Resource Consultants Pty Ltd.
Agriculture Victoria. 2017. Understanding soil tests - pastures. State of Victoria. Retrived fromhttp://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/farm-management/soil-and-water/soils/understanding-soil-testspastures
ANZECC/ARMCANZ. 2000. Australia and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality,
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource
Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, October 2000.
Arslan, S. and Ali Aybek, A. 2012. Particulate matter exposure in agriculture. Chapter 3 in Air Pollution - A
Comprehensive Perspective, INTECH, Retrived from http://www.intechopen.com/books/air-pollution-acomprehensiveperspective, 73-104.
eNHealth. 2012. Environmental health risk assessment. Guidelines for Assessing Human Health Risks fromEnvironmental Hazards, Canberra.
FSANZ. 2009. Food standards Australia New Zealand. User Guides to the New Food Standards Code, Retrived
from http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodstandards/userguides/
Isaksson, C. 2010. Pollution and its impact on wild animals: A meta-analysis on oxidative stress. EcoHealth 7,342-350.
NEPC. 2016. Ambient air quality standards. National Environment Protection Council, Australian Government.
NEPC. 2013. National environment protection (Assessment of site contamination), Measure Guideline on
Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater, Amendment of the NEPM 1999. National Environmental
Protection Council. Canberra, Australia.
Ng, J.C., Juhasz, A., Smith, E. and Naidu, R. 2015. Assessing bioavailability and bioaccessibility of metals
and metalloids. Environ Science Pollution Research, 22, 8802-8825.
Noller, B.N. 2017. Unpublished report. The University of Queensland.
Noller, B.N. 2018. Evaluation of dust generation from animal farm activities. ISERD, International Journal ofEnvironmental and Rural Development, 9 (1), 91- 96.
NSW soil. 2011. Results interpretation. Retrived from http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/about-us/services/laboratory-services/soil testing/interpret
NWQMS. 2000. National water quality management strategy. Australian and New Zealand Environment andConservation Council, Canberra.
Rasp Mine. 2010. Rasp Mine zinc–lead–silver project application No 07_0018. Broken Hill Operations Pty
Ltd, Broken Hill, NSW.
Raunemaa, T. 2002. Urban PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations and traffic related exposure to fine particles.
Retrived from http://www.ktl.fi/sytty/abstracts/raune2.htm
Rural Solution SA. 2016. Standard soil test methods and guidelines for interpretation of soil results. NaturalResources South east, Agricultural Bureau of South Australia Inc., Government of South Australia.
Retrived from www.naturalresources.sa.gov.au/files/sharedassets/south_east/get
Serita, F. 1999. An animal exposure system using ultrasonic nebulizer that generates well controlled aerosols
from liquids. Industrial Health, 37 (1), 82-87.
Standards Australia. 2005. AS 4482.1 - 2005 Guide to the investigation and sampling of sites with potentiallycontaminated soil - Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds.
TA LUFT. 1990, Annex 2 1999. Technical instructions on air quality control (Technische Anleitung zur
Reinhaltung der Luft) Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (FederalEnvironment Ministry), Bonn, D-53175, Germany and Annex 2, Retrived from http://www.
umweltbundesamt.de and in the brochure Texte 37/02 Luftreinhaltung 2010, Umweltbundesamt.
(Technical Instructions on Air Quality Control – TA Luft). Dated 24th July 1999 Annex 2.
Thornton, I. and Abrahams, P. 1983. Soil ingestion – A major pathway of heavy metals into livestock grazing
contaminated land. Sci. Total Environ., 28, 287-294.

Ⓒ ISERD74