Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response

doi:10.4236/ojss.2012.22019

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Open Journal of Soil Science, 2012, 2, 133-145

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojss.2012.22019 Published Online June 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojss) 133

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen

and Wheat Plant Response

Sutapa Bose1,2*, Asim K. Bhattacharyya1

1School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India; 2Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute

of Science Education and Research (IISER) Kolkata PO: BCKV Main Campus, Mohanpur Nadia, India.

Email: *[email protected]

Received January 5th, 2012; revised February 10th, 2012; accepted February 23rd, 2012

ABSTRACT

Wazirpur industrial area of Delhi generates a huge quantity of sludge per day, which is highly acid ic in nature (pH 2.7

to 4.4) and contains macronutrients, micronutrients as well as toxic metals. A pot-culture experiment was conducted by

taking the two soils (JNU and Chhattarpur) amended with sludge (0%, 10%, 20%, 30%), pretreated with lime (0%,

0.5% and 1%). Two wheat seedlings were planted per pot containing 3 kg sludge amended or control soil and the

experiment was carried out till harvesting (four months) in a glass house. Lime treatments enhanced the N content in

wheat plant in almost all cases. Sludge and lime treatments enhanced dry weight in wheat plants grown in Chhattarpur

soil and dry weight increased with time. Maximum growth was observed in 0.5 lime treated and 20% sludge amended

soils. But we have to take an account about any kind of metal toxicity before disposal of this waste to land.

Keywords: Industrial Sludge; Lime Treatment; Land Disposal; Soil Nitrogen; Wheat Plant

1. Introduction

Like many countries in South Asia, India is regarded as

an agricultural country. Indian agricultural soils have

been used extensively for crop production for extended

period of time and are usually low in soil organic matter

and essential plant nutrients fo r crop. Addition of chemi-

cal fertilizers is most commonly used, which increased

the cost of crops. To re duce such expenditure an d to ma-

nage the soil quality o f land, sludge app lication (which is

considered an organic fertilizer) is an alternative source

of plant nutrients for crops.

Land application of industrial sludge is an option for

safe and economic methods for waste disposal. The ap-

plication of urban industrial sludge mixed with sewage

sludge to agricultural soil is generally most economic

outlet for waste disposal, in this way it is possible to re-

cycled the plant nutrients such as N, P and organic matter

and many more macro and micro nutrients. On the other

hand it can affect the soil fertilit y, food safety and natural

ecosystem in general. Many researches have been carried

out on the effect of applying sewage to agricultural soil

as regards both the potential effects due to sewage toxic

components [1-11]. Sewage sludge provides labile or-

ganic matter in sufficient quantities to stimulate soil mi-

croorganisms. This kind of organic residue improves the

soil physical characteristics: increasing soil’s water hold-

ing capacity and percentage of stable aggregates and en-

hanced the nutritional quality of soils [12]. It can im-

prove the physical properties of soils [13] by increasing

soil porosity, and the stability of soil aggregation [14]. So,

sludge can be used as soil fertilizer provided that pre-

treatments have done for its metal contents. Liming to

soil offers a mean of minimizing the risk of food chain

contamination by reducing the plant uptake of sludge-

born heavy metals [15-17]. Urban sludge application on

land increased the dry matter yield of maize over control

[18]. According to several studies the effectiveness of

liming varies depending on the soil, metal, pH value of

the limed soils and crop species [19,20]. Matula and

Pechová [21] studied that application of lime in lower pH

value increased nitrification in soil. Nitrogen supply in

plants mainly depends on soil available nitrogen so be-

fore cultivation it is necessary to estimate N release from

mineralization. In a field experiment the shoot dry weight

of lowland rice (Oryza sativa L.) increased with the in-

crease in shoot N uptake up to flowering stage of plant

growth. At harvest, N uptake in the shoot decreased due

to translocation to th e grain.

The aim of the present study is to investigate the be-

havior of sludge amended soil in respect to available ni-

trogen in soils and response of wheat p lants in context of

root shoot length, dry weight and nitrogen content in it.

The industrial sludge, which was used for the experiment,

*Corresponding a uthor.

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response

134

was acidic in nature, so that, sludge was treated with dif-

ferent dosages of lime and then the sludge was mixed

with soils collected from two different parts of Delhi. A

pot culture experiment was conducted in a glass house to

see the response of wheat plants grown in lime treated or

untreated industrial sludge amended soils.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Samples Collection

Samples were collected from different location of of

Wazirpur industrial area, Delhi (Figure 1) for each sea-

son (summer, monsoon and winter) from road-side

dumps by following the standard methods. Soil samples

were collected from 5 different spots from JNU as well

as from Chhattarpur and were homogenized separately.

Soil sampling was done once during the study period.

Soon after the collection of sludge and soils, the pH

Electrical Conductivity (EC), Water Holding Capacity

(WHC) and Moisture Content (MC) were measured [22]

and remaining samples were kept for drying. Then air-

dried sludge samples were grinded and pass through 2

mm sieve and homogenized to make a representative

sample. Soil samples were also processed by following

the same methods.

2.2. Preparation for Glass House Experiment

The homogenized sludges were treated with three diffe-

rent dosages of lime (0%, 0.5% and 1%) separately. Then

the lime treated and untreated sludges were mixed with

two soils (Chhattarpur and JNU) separately at the rate of

0%, 10% 20% and 30% (dry weight basis). Then the

sludge amended and control soils were put in new ear-

then pots (3 kg/pot).

The wheat grains (HD1553) were collected from Na-

tional Seed Corporation (NSC), Pusa, New Delhi. The

plants were grown in two trays with two different soils.

Two wheat seedlings of 10 days old were transferred per

pots containing 3 kg sludge amended soil or control soil.

Figure 1. Showing the sampling sites (Wazirpur industrial area in NCT De lhi).

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response 135

Distilled water was given to plants to maintained 50%

moisture of WHC in sludge amended and control soils

throughout the experiment. Whole experiment was car-

ried out in a glass house maintaining the temperature at

20˚C - 30˚C. The experiment was performed with three

replicates and was continued from January to April 2004.

2.3. Collection and Preservation of Soil and Plant

Samples

Plants and soils samples were taken out from the pots in

different stages of plant growth, viz. planting, tillering,

flowering, grain formation and harvesting respectively.

At each harvest plants were removed carefully and

washed first with tap water followed by de-ionized water.

Root and shoot were separated and lengths were mea-

sured. Then folded it in brown paper and kept in oven at

80˚C for 48 hrs. After drying root and shoot weights

were taken separately. Wheat grains were also measured

after harvesting stage of wheat plant growth. The soil

samples were air-dried at ambient room temperature, and

passed through 2 mm sieve for chemical analysis. The

available (mineralizable) nitrogen analyzed by following

Subbian and Asija [23] method. The soil samples were

stored in an airtight polythene bags and kept at 4˚C to

prevent any kind of microbial degradation. The total ni-

trogen of plant samples was an alyzed through acid diges-

tion followed by Kjeldahl method [24]. The parameters

were carried out in triplicate for better results.

2.4. Data Analysis

In the present study, the plant total nitrogen and soil

available (mineralizable) nitrogen (amended with differ-

ent proportion of lime treated sludge) were monitored on

five growth stages of plants (days). Similarly, plant’s

nitrogen was also monitored on four growth stages of

plants. These parameters were studied for root and shoot

separately. Each set of data was arranged to accomplish

two sets of 2-factor ANOVA as follows:

1) Keeping sludge treatment constant, growth period

and lime treatment were taken as two factors.

2) Keeping lime treatment constant, growth period and

sludge amendment were taken as two factors.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Available (Mineralizable) Nitrogen in Soils

The available nitrogen of Chhattarpur control soil (49 ±

2.9 ppm) was higher than JNU control soil (42 ± 2.2

ppm). Sludge application increased the available nitrogen

in both soils. Sludge amendment enhanced the available

nitrogen in alkaline so il than acidic soil [25]. Lime treat-

ment (0.5%) decreased the available nitrogen in Chhat-

tarpur soil, whereas 1% lime application enhanced the

available nitrogen in sludge amended Chhattarpur soil. In

JNU soil lime treatment gradually and slowly increased

and got stabilized the available nitrogen concentration in

sludge amended JNU soil, in most of the cases. ANOVA

results show the variation in available nitrogen, were

highly significant. With the successive stages of plant

growth the changes in available (mineralizable) nitrogen

in soils were also highly significant. It is clear that higher

amount of lime application had neutralized the acidity of

amended soil. Hence, there was an increase amount of

available nitrogen in those soils. Lime treatment gradu-

ally, but slowly increased (or stabilized in some cases)

the available (mineralizable) nitrogen concentration in

waste amended JNU soil. Both mineralization and im-

mobilization take place simultaneously and may not be

quantified separately. Gaseous N loss would also depend

on pH and temperature regimes of soil. The pH inhibits

mineralization only at the levels whose pH is below 5

and higher than 8. Nitrogen mineralization dynamics are

predominantly determined by the soil properties such as

total C, total N, soil texture and water holdidg capacity

[26]. A sufficiently long latent time (8 weeks) was

needed for tolerant microorganisms to release or to start

nitrogen minerilazation. The nitrogen mineralization was

positive in the presence of metals in most of the cases

[27].

Figures 2 and 3 showing that available (mineralizable)

nitrogen in soils increased till flowering stage and the

gradually decreased with the successive stages of wheat

plant growth which indicated that the rate of release of

available (mineralizable) N was higher than the uptake or

immobilization on nitrogen in waste amended soil till

flowering stage of wheat plant growth. The changes in

available (mineralizable) nitrogen were significant with

lime treatments, sludge amendment as well as with

growth periods (P < 0.05).

3.2. Dry Weight of Wheat Plant’s

Root-Shoot-Grain

Sludge amendments increased plant growth significantly

as compared to the control soil and the growth was

higher in the plant grown in Chhattarpur pure soil than

JNU soil. Lime amendment showed a positive effect on

plant growth at each sludge amendment, which is likely

due to neutralizing pH, reducin g the availability o f heavy

metals. The dry wt. of crops increased with increasing

soil pH [4] which was also observed in th e present study.

The control soils were alkaline in nature viz. pH of

Chhattarpur soil was 8.66 and JNU soil was 8.37 whereas,

the sludge was very acidic (pH 3.05) in nature [17,28].

The dry weights of harvested grains were higher in wheat

plants grown in JNU soil than Chhattarpur soil. Sludge

application increased the dry weight of grains in all cases.

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response

136

Lime treatment increased the dry weight of grain. The

changes in shoot dry weight were significant with lime

treatments, sludge amendment as well as with growth

periods (P < 0.05). (Table 1) The changes in root dry

weight were significant with lime treatments as well as

with growth periods while these were insignificant with

sludge amendment (P < 0.05).

3.3. Lengths of Wheat Plant’s Root-Shoot

The length of wheat plant’s shoot was higher in plants

grown in JNU control soil than Chhattarpur control soil

(Table 2). 10% sludge application reduced the shoot

length as compared with control one. But 20% and 30%

sludge application increased the shoot length. The

changes in root-shoot length were almost insignificant

with lime treatments, sludge amendment as well as with

growth periods (P < 0.05). Lime treatment increased the

shoot length slightly. Length of wheat plant’s root in-

creased with increasing percent of sludge (10% and 20%)

but decreased at 30% sludge amendment, which showed

that application of sludge had some, limiting factors,

which prevents the growth of plants. Lime treatments in-

creased the root length. Over the time (i.e. stages of plant

growth) the root length increased significantly.

3.4. Total Nitrogen in Wheat Plant

The total nitrogen in wheat plant’s shoot and root were

0.44% ± 0.02% and 0.15% ± 0% of dry weight at the d ay

of plantation respectively. The nitrogen concentration in

wheat plant’s shoot increased with the successive stages

of plants growths in most of the cases. It was observed

that the available nitrogen in sludge amended soil de-

creased during grain formation to harvesting, which may

be due to higher uptake of nitrogen in wheat plants (Fig-

ures 2, 3). Sludge application (20% and 30%) decreased

the N content in wheat plants, which might be due to

toxic effects of heavy metals. But, the total nitrogen in-

creased in wheat plants shoots grown in 10% sludge

amended Chhattarpur soil. The changes in total nitrogen

in wheat shoot were almost insignificant with lime treat-

ments, sludge amendment as well as growth periods (P <

0.05). The changes in total nitrogen in wheat root were

largely significant with lime treatments as well as sludge

amendment while insignificant with growth periods (P <

0.05). The sludge contained higher concentration of

heavy metals, which caused the stress of nutrients to the

plants [17,28,29]. Sludge application in Chhattarpur soil

enhanced the total nitrogen in wheat plant’s root, except

30% sludge amended Chhattarpur soil (Figure 4). The

Table 1 . Dry weight (g/P ot) of wheat plant’s shoot and root grown in s ludg e amended soils in different stages of plant growth.

Stages of plant growth

Tillering Flowering Grainform Harvesting

Sample code Shoot Root Shoot Root Shoot Root Shoot Root

C-0-0 1.22 ± 0.02 0.34 ± 0.02 3.1 ± 0.06 0.52 ± 0.04 3.85 ± 0.04 0.92 ± 0.05 5.21 ± 0.02 1.25 ± 0.03

C-10-0 1.04 ± 0.03 0.31 ± 0.01 2.8 ± 0.05 0.48 ± 0.04 3.42 ± 0.05 0.68 ± 0.05 5.34 ± 0.07 0.95 ± 0.05

C-10-0.5 1.15 ± 0.06 0.35 ± 0.02 3 ± 0.04 0.53 ± 0.03 3.66 ± 0.05 0.72 ± 0.06 5.56 ± 0.07 1.08 ± 0.05

C-10-1.0 1.21 ± 0.05 0.33 ± 0.03 3.2 ± 0.02 0.55 ± 0.04 3.79 ± 0.02 0.75 ± 0.04 5.84 ± 0.05 1.15 ± 0.05

C-20-0 1.54 ± 0.06 0.34 ± 0.04 3.6 ± 0.03 0.42 ± 0.05 3.91 ± 0.03 0.75 ± 0.06 5.92 ± 0.04 0.95 ± 0.04

C-20-0.5 1.68 ± 0.03 0.38 ± 0.04 3.8 ± 0.04 0.46 ± 0.04 4.16 ± 0.04 0.81 ± 0.06 6.13 ± 0.06 1.02 ± 0.05

C-20-1.0 1.98 ± 0.02 0.41 ± 0.02 3.86 ± 0.02 0.51 ± 0.03 4.28 ± 0.02 0.85 ± 0.07 6.28 ± 0.05 1.05 ± 0.06

C-30-0 1.86 ± 0.06 0.44 ± 0.05 4.3 ± 0.05 0.5 ± 0.01 4.76 ± 0.05 0.71 ± 0.07 6.11 ± 0.06 0.89 ± 0.06

C-30-0.5 2.05 ± 0.05 0.49 ± 0.06 4.1 ± 0.07 0.53 ± 0.02 4.55 ± 0.08 0.82 ± 0.07 6.42 ± 0.07 0.95 ± 0.07

C-30-1.0 2.21 ± 0.08 0.51 ± 0.05 4.5 ± 0.04 0.57 ± 0.04 4.62 ± 0.09 0.88 ± 0.07 6.44 ± 0.08 0.99 ± 0.03

J-0-0 1.14 ± 0.05 0.27 ± 0.05 2.54 ± 0.05 0.33 ± 0.02 2.75 ± 0.05 0.73 ± 0.07 4.88 ± 0.04 1.11 ± 0.03

J-10-0 1.08 ± 0.02 0.24 ± 0.02 2.33 ± 0.03 0.28 ± 0.03 2.55 ± 0.04 0.57 ± 0.07 4.73 ± 0.05 0.86 ± 0.05

J-10-0.5 1.28 ± 0.02 0.28 ± 0.03 2.62 ± 0.02 0.31 ± 0.02 2.75 ± 0.03 0.59 ± 0.07 4.95 ± 0.03 0.97 ± 0.05

J-10-1.0 1.34 ± 0.03 0.27 ± 0.04 2.6 ± 0.02 0.33 ± 0.01 2.76 ± 0.07 0.63 ± 0.08 5.06 ± 0.02 0.99 ± 0.07

J-20-0 1.35 ± 0.04 0.3 ± 0.03 2.91 ± 0.03 0.35 ± 0.03 2.99 ± 0.07 0.68 ± 0.05 5.16 ± 0.07 0.79 ± 0.07

J-20-0.5 1.45 ± 0.05 0.34 ± 0.05 3.12 ± 0.04 0.37 ± 0.03 3.22 ± 0.03 0.73 ± 0.05 5.37 ± 0.08 0.82 ± 0.06

J-20-1.0 1.49 ± 0.02 0.35 ± 0.04 3.05 ± 0.04 0.39 ± 0.04 3.29 ± 0.05 0.77 ± 0.05 5.52 ± 0.09 0.88 ± 0.04

J-30-0 1.38 ± 0.02 0.38 ± 0.05 3.15 ± 0.02 0.43 ± 0.04 3.29 ± 0.08 0.56 ± 0.06 5.11 ± 0.08 0.77 ± 0.07

J-30-0.5 1.55 ± 0.03 0.4 ± 0.03 3.36 ± 0.03 0.46 ± 0.04 3.54 ± 0.08 0.64 ± 0.06 5.38 ± 0.06 0.81 ± 0.08

J-30-1.0 1.67 ± 0.06 0.42 ± 0.04 3.45 ± 0.04 0.5 ± 0.02 3.62 ± 0.06 0.68 ± 0.05 5.49 ± 0.08 0.85 ± 0.05

[C = Chhattarpur soil, J = JNU soil; 0, 10, 20, 30 (% of sludge amendments); 0, 0.5, 1 (% of Lime treatments). All the values are mean of three replicates].

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response 137

Table 2. Length (cm) of wheat plant’s shoot and root grown in sludge amended soils in different stages of plant growths.

Stages of plant growths

Tillering Flowering Grainform Harvesting

Sample code Shoot Root Shoot Root Shoot Root Shoot Root

C-0-0 33.2 ± 1.2 5.4 ± 0.3 48.35 ± 3.2 7.1 ± 0.5 64.2 ± 4.5 8.2 ± 0.5 72.9 ± 5.5 8.5 ± 0.8

C-10-0 28.3 ± 2.3 6.3 ± 0.5 46.2 ± 2.5 8.5 ± 0.6 61.5 ± 4.6 9.1 ± 0.4 70.5 ± 5.4 9.4 ± 0.5

C-10-0.5 29.7 ± 2.1 6.8 ± 0.4 49.3 ± 3.2 8.9 ± 0.8 65.5 ± 4.2 9.8 ± 0.6 75.3 ± 5.1 10.5 ± 0.6

C-10-1.0 30.1 ± 2.5 7.2 ± 0.5 51.8 ± 4.2 9.1 ± 0.7 67.9 ± 5.7 10.5 ± 0.6 77.5 ± 5.2 11.6 ± 0.7

C-20-0 35.8 ± 2.6 6.1 ± 0.6 50.2 ± 4.2 7.3 ± 0.5 64.3 ± 5.2 8.9 ± 0.6 75.6 ± 4.2 9.3 ± 0.9

C-20-0.5 37.3 ± 3.3 6.4 ± 0.6 55.6 ± 4.5 7.8 ± 0.6 68.9 ± 5.4 8.5 ± 0.8 79.2 ± 4.1 9.5 ± 0.9

C-20-1.0 39.5 ± 3.4 6.9 ± 0.6 58.3 ± 3.8 8.4 ± 0.4 72 ± 5.8 9.3 ± 0.7 80.5 ± 5.7 9.9 ± 0.8

C-30-0 34.2 ± 3.5 4.9 ± 0.2 48.1 ± 3.7 6.9 ± 0.5 55.2 ± 5.4 7.8 ± 0.4 62.9 ± 4.1 8.1 ± 0.8

C-30-0.5 37.2 ± 2.8 5.4 ± 0.3 50.6 ± 4.5 7.5 ± 0.7 59.2 ± 5.2 8.4 ± 0.8 66.2 ± 4.2 8.7 ± 0.8

C-30-1.0 38.1 ± 4.2 5.9 ± 0.5 52.3 ± 4.6 7.8 ± 0.5 62.1 ± 4.2 8.2 ± 0.7 69.2 ± 3.8 8.9 ± 0.7

J-0-0 35.2 ± 2.5 6.2 ± 0.4 52.9 ± 4.2 8.2 ± 0.6 67.3 ± 4.3 8.9 ± 0.8 74.6 ± 3.3 9.7 ± 0.8

J-10-0 28.3 ± 3.4 6.8 ± 0.4 51.3 ± 4.1 8.9 ± 0.7 64.8 ± 4.3 9.7 ± 0.8 74.3 ± 4.2 10 ± 0.7

J-10-0.5 30.5 ± 3.1 7.3 ± 0.6 55.2 ± 4 9.3 ± 0.8 68.2 ± 4.2 10.5 ± 0.8 76.3 ± 3.8 11.5 ± 1.0

J-10-1.0 30.8 ± 3.2 7.1 ± 0.5 57.8 ± 3.8 9.5 ± 0.8 70.2 ± 4.3 10.6 ± 0.5 78.4 ± 3.3 11.4 ± 1.0

J-20-0 35.8 ± 3.2 7.5 ± 0.5 52.3 ± 3.9 8.9 ± 0.9 65.3 ± 5.7 9.7 ± 1.0 74.6 ± 4.2 9.9 ± 0.9

J-20-0.5 39.1 ± 2.5 7.9 ± 0.4 55.2 ± 4 9.5 ± 0.9 70.2 ± 5.1 10.5 ± 0.8 78.5 ± 4.1 10.9 ± 0.5

J-20-1.0 38.5 ± 3.6 8.1 ± 0.4 57.4 ± 4.7 9.9 ± 0.7 74.3 ± 4.9 11.2 ± 1.0 81.6 ± 5.0 11.6 ± 0.8

J-30-0 36.8 ± 3.5 5.8 ± 0.6 45.3 ± 4.1 7.8 ± 0.5 58.3 ± 5.5 8.6 ± 0.5 62.7 ± 3.6 8.8 ± 0.7

J-30-0.5 39.2 ± 3.7 6.4 ± 0.3 49.6 ± 3.8 8.4 ± 0.6 62.1 ± 5.8 9.5 ± 0.6 66.3 ± 3.3 9.8 ± 0.8

J-30-1.0 40.1 ± 3.6 6.6 ± 0.2 49.5 ± 4.5 8.9 ± 0.6 63.5 ± 5.5 9.9 ± 0.6 68.9 ± 3.1 10.1 ± 0.8

[C = Chhattarpur soil, J = JNU soil; 0, 10, 20, 30 (% of sludge amendments); 0, 0.5, 1 (% of Lime treatments). All the values are mean of three replicates].

wheat- shoot N and a v - N in 10% was t e am e nded Chha t t a rpur soil

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

tilleringfloweringpodform harvesting

stages of plant growths

N conc(%)

A v -N con c (p pm)

C-0-0PN

C-10-0PN

C-10-0.5PN

C-10-1.0PN

C-0-0AN

C-10-0AN

C-10-0.5AN

C-10-1.0AN

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response

138

wheat-shoot N and av-N in 20% waste amended Chhattarpur soil

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

tilleringfloweringpodform harvesting

stages of plant growths

N conc(%)

Av-N conc (ppm)

C-0-0PN

C-20-0PN

C-20-0.5PN

C-20-1.0PN

C-0-0AN

C-20-0AN

C-20-0.5AN

C-20-1.0AN

wheat-shoot N and av-N in 30% waste amended Chhattarpur soil

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

tilleringfloweringpodf ormharv esting

stages of p l an t g r o wths

N c onc(% )

Av -N c onc (ppm)

C-0-0PN

C-30-0PN

C-30-0.5PN

C-30-1.0PN

C-0-0AN

C-30-0AN

C-30-0.5AN

C-30-1.0AN

Figure 2. Available N in 10%, 20% and 30% waste amended Chhattarpur soil in different stages of wheat plant growth.

wh eat-sh o o t N an d av-N i n 10% waste amen d ed JN U so i l

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

tilleringfloweringpodformharvesting

s tages of plant growths

N c onc(%)

Av -N c onc (ppm )

J -0-0PN

J -10-0PN

J -10-0.5PN

J -10-1.0PN

J -0-0AN

J -10-0AN

J -10-0.5AN

J -10-1.0AN

wh eat-sh o o t N an d av-N i n 20% waste amen d e d JN U soil

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

tilleringfloweringpodform harvesting

stag es o f p l an t g r o wth s

N conc(%)

A v-N co n c (p p m)

J-0-0PN

J-20-0PN

J-20-0.5PN

J-20-1.0PN

J-0-0AN

J-20-0AN

J-20-0.5AN

J-20-1.0AN

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response 139

wheat-shoot N and av-N in 30% waste amended JNU soil

0. 0

0. 5

1. 0

1. 5

2. 0

2. 5

3. 0

3. 5

4. 0

4. 5

tilleringfloweringpodform harvesting

stages of plant growths

N conc(%)

A v-N co n c (p p m)

J-0-0PN

J-30-0PN

J-30-0. 5PN

J-30-1. 0PN

J-0-0AN

J-30-0AN

J-30-0. 5AN

J-30-1. 0AN

Figure 3. Available N in 10%, 20% and 30% waste amended JNU soil in different stages of wheat plant growth.

wheat-root N and av-N in 10% waste amended Chhattarpur

so il

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

tilleringfloweringpodf ormharv esting

stag es o f p l an t g rowth s

N conc(%)

A v-N co n c (p p m)

C-0-0 PN

C-10-0PN

C-10-0.5PN

C-10-1.0PN

C-0-0AN

C-10-0AN

C-10-0.5AN

C-10-1.0AN

wh eat-r o o t N and av-N i n 20% waste amend ed C h h attar p u r

soil

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

tilleringfloweringpodform harvesting

stag es o f p l an t g r o wth s

N conc(%)

A v-N c o n c (p p m )

C-0-0PN

C-20-0PN

C-20-0.5PN

C-20-1.0PN

C-0-0AN

C-20-0AN

C-20-0.5AN

C-20-1.0AN

wheat-root N and av-N in 30% waste amen ded Chhattarpu r

soil

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

tilleringfloweringpodformharv esting

stag es o f p l an t gro wth s

N conc(%)

A v-N co n c (p p m )

C-0-0PN

C-30-0PN

C-30-0.5PN

C-30-1.0PN

C-0-0AN

C-30-0AN

C-30-0.5AN

C-30-1.0AN

Figure 4. Wheat root Nitrogen and available N in 10%, 20% and 30% waste amended Chhattarpur soil in different stages of

wheat plant growth.

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response

140

nitrogen content of root in wheat plants grown in sludge

amended JNU soil increased than control soils (Figure

5).

wheat plants at harvesting stage. The nitrogen concentra-

tion in wheat grains increased in the plants grown in 10%

sludge amended soil, but it decreased in other sludge

amendments (20% and 30%). Lime treatment did not

make any significant changes in grain nitrogen concen-

tration. The nitrogen in shoot was always >80% of the

total nitrogen concentration in wheat plants in all cases

At harvesting stage the nitrogen was almost 90% in

above ground part of wheat plants as compared to the

total nitrogen co ncentration in plants (Figure 6).

Lime treatment did not make any significant changes

in nitrogen content in wheat plant’s shoots. The total

nitrogen in root in creased till grain formation stage, after

that reduced slightly. The available nitrogen in sludge

amended soil had decreased continuously from grain

formation to harvesting stage, where nitrogen concentra-

tions in root increased in grain formation stage and

slightly decreased in harvesting stag e (Figure 6). At har-

vesting stage the uptake of available nitrogen may be

same or more but the nitrogen were used in grain matura-

tion. So, there was a slight decrease of total nitrogen in

4. Conclusion

Available nitrogen in both the so ils increased with sludge

wh eat-r oo t N an d av-N i n 10% waste amend ed JN U

soil

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

tilleringfloweringpodform harvesting

stag es of p l an t g r o wth s

N conc(%)

Av-N conc (ppm)

J -0-0 PN

J-10-0PN

J-10-0.5PN

J-10-1.0PN

J-0-0AN

J-10-0AN

J-10-0.5AN

J-10-1.0AN

wh eat-r o o t N an d av-N i n 20% waste amen d ed JN U

soil

0. 0

0. 2

0. 4

0. 6

0. 8

1. 0

tilleringfloweringpodf ormharv esting

stag es o f p l an t g r o wth s

N conc(%)

Av-N conc (ppm)

J-0-0PN

J-20-0PN

J-20-0. 5PN

J-20-1. 0PN

J-0-0AN

J-20-0AN

J-20-0. 5AN

J-20-1. 0AN

wh eat-ro o t N an d av-N i n 30% waste amend ed JN U

soil

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

tilleringfloweringpodform harvesting

stages of plant growths

N conc(%)

A v-N co n c (p p m)

J-0-0PN

J-30-0PN

J-30-0.5PN

J-30-1.0PN

J-0-0AN

J-30-0AN

J-30-0.5AN

J-30-1.0AN

Figure 5. Wheat root Nitrogen and available N in 10%, 20% and 30% waste amended JNU soil in different stages of wheat

plant growth.

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response 141

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

C-0-0C-10-0 C-10-

0.5

C-1 0-

1.0

C-20-0 C-20-

0.5

C-20-

1.0

C-30-0 C-30-

0.5

C-3 0-

1.0

tr e atments

Percentage of total Nitrogen in shoot-root-grain of wheat plants

grown in Chhattarpur soil at harvesting sta ge

Grain

shoot

root

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

J-0-0J-10-0J-10-0.5 J-10-1.0J-20-0J-20-0.5J-20-1.0J-30-0J-30-0.5 J-30-1.0

treatments

Percentag e of total Nitrogen in shoot-root-grain of wheat plants

grown in JNU soil at harvesting stage

Grain

shoot

root

Figure 6. The percentage of wheat root-shoot-grain Nitrogen concentration in Chattarpur and JNU soil at harvesting stage.

addition and lime treatment. Wheat plants observed in-

crease in plant biomass as well as grain yields with the

both sludge and lime amendments except 30% sludge

amendment. The nitrogen content in both root and shoot

increased with 10% sludge amendment but continuously

decreased with other amendments i.e., 20% and 30%

sludge amendments. Total nitrogen in root increased till

grain formation and onward decreased which indicated

that during grain filling an d maturation the nitro gen con-

tent was utilized by upper part of the wheat plants.

Available nitrogen was also continuously decreased dur-

ing grain formation and harvesting stage. At harvesting

stage the total nitrogen in shoot was 90% of the whole

plant nitrogen. So, from this study, it seems that 20%

sludge can be disposed off the land after 0.5 lime treat-

ment. But, before make any final suggestion the heavy

metal content in the consumable part of the wheat plant

should be taken into an account pursued by field trial by

following USEPA land application of sewage sludge

[30].

5. Acknowledgements

Authors are thankful to Dean of School of Life Sciences,

Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India, for pro-

viding glass house during the pot-culture experiment and,

Sutapa Bose is thankful to University Gran t Commission

(UGC), India to provide fund in the form of Junior Re-

search Fellowship (JRF) followed by Senior Research

Fellowship (SRF) du ri ng period o f he r work.

REFERENCES

[1] A. C. Chang, A. L. Page and F. T. Bingham, “Heavy

Metal Absorption by Winter Wheat Following Termina-

tion of Cropland Sludge Application,” Journal of Envi-

ronmental Quality, Vol. 11, No. 4, 1982, pp. 705-708.

doi:10.2134/jeq1982.00472425001100040030x

[2] E. Witter and J. Lopez-Real, “Nitrogen Losses During

Composting of Sewage Sludge and the Effectiveness of

the Clay Soil, Zeolite and Composting the Volatilized

Ammonia,” Biological Wastes, Vol. 23, No. 4, 1988, pp.

279-294. doi:10.1016/0269-7483(88)90016-X

[3] S. R. Wild, M. L. Berrow and K. C. Jones, “The Persis-

tence of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Pahs) in

Sewage Sludge Amended Agricultural Soils,” Environ-

mental Pollution, Vol. 72, No. 2, 1991, pp. 141-157.

doi:10.1016/0269-7491(91)90064-4

[4] S. R. Smith, “Effects of Sewage Sludge Application on

Soil Microbial Processes and Soil Fertility,” In: B. A.

Stewart, Ed., Advances in Soil Science, Springer-Verlag,

New York, 1991, pp. 191-212.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-3144-8_4

[5] B. J. Alloway and A. P. Jackson, “The Behavior of Heavy

Metals in Sewage Sludge-Amended Soils,” Science of the

Total Environment, Vol. 100, 1991, pp. 151-176.

doi:10.1016/0048-9697(91)90377-Q

[6] M. E. Mesquita, J.-M. Vieira, E. Silva and H. Domingues,

“Copper Adsorption by a Schistic Soil. Application of

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response

142

Sewage Sludge,” Environmental Technology, Vol. 15, No.

11, 1994, pp. 1089-1094.

doi:10.1080/09593339409385518

[7] H. Hani, A. Siegenthaler and T. Cardinas, “Soil Effects

Due to Sewage Sludge Application in Agriculture,” Nu-

trient Cycling in Agroecosystems, Vol. 43, No. 1-3, 1996,

pp. 149-156.

[8] M. Pietrantonio, A. Liberatori, B. M. Petronio and M.

Pietrolett, “Change in Soil’s Metal Carrying Capacity as a

Result of Urban Sludge Addition,” Water, Air, and Soil

Pollution, Vol. 132, No. 1-2, 2000, pp. 141-151.

doi:10.1023/A:1012044202829

[9] J. J. Kelly, M. Haggblom and R. L. Tate, “Effects of the

Land Application of Sewage Sludge on Soil Heavy Metal

Concentrations and Soil Microbial Communities,” Soil

Biology and Biochemistry, Vol. 31, No. 10, 1999, pp.

1467-1470. doi:10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00060-7

[10] I. Walter and G. Cuevas, “Chemical Fractionation of

Heavy Metals in a Soil Amended with Repeated Sewage

Sludge Application,” Science of the Total Environment,

Vol. 226, No. 2-3, 1999, pp. 113-119.

doi:10.1016/S0048-9697(98)00374-X

[11] P. Parkpain, K. Klanrong, R. DeLaure and A. Jugsujinda,

“Metal Leachability from Sewage Sludge Amended Thai

Soils,” Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Vol.

37, No. 5, 2002, pp. 765-791.

doi:10.1081/ESE-120003588

[12] I. Marcote, T. Hernandez, C. Garcia and A. Polo, “Influ-

ence of One or Two Successive Annual Application Or-

ganic Fertilizers on the Enzyme Activity of a Soil under

Barley Cultivation,” Biores Tecnnology, Vol. 79, No. 2,

2001, pp. 147-154. doi:10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00048-7

[13] P. Parkpian, K. Klankrong, R. DeLaune and A. Jugsu-

jinda, “Metal Leachability from Sewage Sludge-Amended

Thai Soils,” Journal of Environmental Science and

Health, Vol. 37, No. 5, 2002, pp. 765-791.

doi:10.1081/ESE-120003588

[14] M. Pagliai, G. Guidi, M. La Marca, M. Giachelti and G.

Lucamante, “Effects of Sewage Sludges and Compost on

Soil Porosity and Aggregation,” Journal of Environ-

mental Quality, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1981, pp. 556-561.

doi:10.2134/jeq1981.00472425001000040028x

[15] I. C. Smith and B. L. Carson, “Trace Metals in the Envi-

ronment,” Vol. I, Thallium, Ann Arbor Science Publish-

ers, Ann Arbor, 1977, p. 394.

[16] D. E. William, J. Vlamis, J. Pukite and J. E. Corey,

“Metal Movement in Sludge-Amended Soil: A Nine-Year

Study,” Soil Science, Vol. 143, No. 2, 1987, pp. 124-131.

doi:10.1097/00010694-198702000-00007

[17] S. Bose and A. K. Bhattacharyya, “Heavy Metal Accu-

mulation in Wheat Plant Grown in Soil Amended with

Industrial Sludge,” Chemosphere, Vol. 70, No. 7, 2008,

pp. 1264-1272. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.07.062

[18] K. J. Rao and M. V. Santaram, “Effects of Urban Solid

Wastes on Dry Matter Yield, Uptake of Micronutrients

and Heavy Metal by Maize Plant,” Journal of Environ-

mental Biology, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1996, pp. 25-32.

[19] T. D. Hinsley, D. E. Alexander, H. E. Redborg and E. L.

Zielger, “Differential Accumulations of Cadmium and

Zinc by Corn Hybrids Grown on Soil Amended with

Sewage Sludge,” Journal of Agronomy, Vol. 74, No. 3,

1982, pp. 469-474.

doi:10.2134/agronj1982.00021962007400030017x

[20] I. L. Pepper, D. F. Bezedicek, A. S. Baker and J. M. Sims,

“Silage Corn Uptake of Sludge-Applied Zn and Cd as

Affected by Soil pH,” Journal of Environmental Quality,

Vol. 12, No. 2, 1983, pp. 270-275.

doi:10.2134/jeq1983.00472425001200020024x

[21] M. Jiríand and M. Pechová, “A Simplified Approach to

Liming and Its Evaluation,” Communications in Soil Sci-

ence and Plant Analysis, Vol. 33. No. 15-18, 2002, pp.

15-18.

[22] P. R. Hess, “A Text Book of Soil Chemical Analysis,”

Chemical Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1972, pp. 197-

299.

[23] B. V. Subbiah and G. L. Asija, “A Rapid Procedure for

the Determination of Available Nitrogen in Soils,” Cur-

rent Science, Vol. 25, No. 8, 1956, pp. 259-260.

[24] J. M. Bremner, “Détermination of Nitrogen in Soil by the

Kjeldahl Method,” Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol.

55, No. 1, 1960, pp. 11-33.

doi:10.1017/S0021859600021572

[25] D. R. Morris and D. J. Lathwell, “Anaerobically Digested

Dairy Manure as Fertilizer for Maize in Acid and Alka-

line Soils,” Communications in Soil Science and Plant

Analysis, Vol. 35, No. 11-12, 2004, pp. 1757-1771.

[26] F. Amlinger, B. Gotaz, P. Dreher, J. Geszti and C. Weis-

steiner, “Nitrogen in Biowaste and Yard Waste Compost:

Dynamics of Mobilization and Availability—A Review,”

European Journal of Soil Biology, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2003,

pp. 107-116. doi:10.1016/S1164-5563(03)00026-8

[27] H. Abdennaceur, N. Jedidi, A. Mohamed Cherit, A.

M’Hiri, A. Boudabous and O. van Cleemput, “Minerali-

zation of Nitrogen in a Clayey Loamy Soil Amended with

Organic Wastes Enriched with Zn, Cu And Cd,” Biore-

source Technology, Vol. 64, No. 1, 1998, pp. 39-45.

doi:10.1016/S0960-8524(97)00153-3

[28] S. Bose, S. Chandrayan, V. Rai, A. K. Bhattacharyy a and

A. L. Ramanathan, “Translocation of Metals in Pea Plants

Grown on Various Amendment of Electroplating Indus-

trial Sludge,” Bioresource Technology, Vol. 99, No. 10,

2008, pp. 4467-4475. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2007.08.020

[29] S. Bose, A. Jain, V. Rai and A. L. Ramanathan, “Chemi-

cal Fractionation and Translocation of Heavy Metals in

Canna indica L., Grown on Industrial Waste Amended

Soil,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 160, No. 1,

2008, pp. 187-193.

[30] United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA), “Process Design Manual: Land Application of

Sewage Sludge and Domestic Septage,” EPA/625/R-95

/001, Washington DC, 1995.

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response 143

Appendix

The ANOVA results sh ow ed that there was no significant

variation with shoot length with lime treatments but sig-

nificant with waste treatments with growth periods (Ta-

bles 3-4). There were significant variations of root length

with growth periods vs. lime treatments (Tables 5-6).

There were significant variations in shoot and root dry

weight with lime treatment as well as waste treatments

with time (Tables 7-10).

Table 3. Two-factor ANOVA to test significance of difference in shoot length of wheat plants due to growth period vs. lime-

treatment (0.05 level of significance).

Sl Sample Type Diff. due to rows (lime treat.) Diff. due to columns (growth period)

No. W.T. Types of soil F-value S/IP-value F-value S/I P-value

3.862548358 3.862548358

1 10 Chhattarpur 2.80089534 I 0.10085409 1.36952767 I 0.31327613

2 20 Chhattarpur 1.04325427 I 0.4194115 1.77487315 I 0.22174935

3 30 Chhattarpur 1.08555646 I 0.40359894 3.28148057 I 0.07247967

4 10 JNU 3.59780665 I 0.05900359 3.42628045 I 0.06589362

5 20 JNU 2.34824843 I 0.14068319 5.09836706 S 0.02473357

6 30 JNU 4.45204426 S0.03526918 16.2355516 S 0.00056451

[S = Significant, I = Insignificant, L.T = Lime Treatment, W.T = Waste Treatment].

Table 4. Two-factor ANOVA to test significance of difference in shoot length of wheat plants due to growth period vs. waste

treatment (0.05 level of significance).

Sl Sample Type Diff. due to rows (waste treat.) Diff. due to columns (growth period)

No. L.T. Types of soil F-value S/IP-value F-value S/I P-value

5.14325285 4.757062664

1 0 Chhattarpur 2.90301471 I 0.13126295 4.06873986 S 0.06787549

2 0.5 Chhattarpur 2.23234569 I 0.18848399 2.15438156 I 0.19459993

3 1.0 Chhattarpur 0.64899014 I 0.55570678 1.1870683 I 0.39087041

4 0 JNU 2.40100834 I 0.17137175 2.20585797 I 0.188207

5 0.5 JNU 1.97041866 I 0.21987956 6.06722174 S 0.03006147

6 1.0 JNU 2.66796403 I 0.14827998 0.9644555 I 0.468265

Table 5. Two-factor ANOVA to test significance of difference in root length of wheat plants due to growth period vs. lime-

treatment (0.05 level of significance).

Sl Sample Type Diff. due to rows (lime treat.) Diff. due to columns (growth period)

No. W.T. Types of soil F-value S/IP-value F-value S/I P-value

3.862548358 3.862548358

1 10 Chhattarpur 7.68367347 S0.00747719 3.64285714 I 0.05734072

2 20 Chhattarpur 11.1152263 S0.0022114 2.04526749 I 0.17805747

3 30 Chhattarpur 46.6595745 S8.2566E–06 14.3829787 S 0.00088341

4 10 JNU 5.97297297 S0.01592064 2.02702703 I 0.18066299

5 20 JNU 15 S0.00075721 8.3553719 S 0.00573319

6 30 JNU 92.2173913 S4.4661E–07 10.826087 S 0.00242189

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response

144

Table 6. Two-factor ANOVA to test significance of difference in root length of wheat plants due to growth period vs. waste

treatment (0.05 level of significance).

Sl Sample Type Diff. due to rows (waste treat.) Diff. due to columns (growth period)

No. L.T. Types of soil F-value S/IP-value F-value S/I P-value

5.14325285 4.757062664

1 0 Chhattarpur 2.95184591 I 0.12805859 0.70786517 I 0.58156322

2 0.5 Chhattarpur 30.9130435 S0.00069225 2.47826087 I 0.15858281

3 1.0 Chhattarpur 12.6521739 S0.00704109 3.83524027 I 0.07584365

4 0 JNU 30.1 S0.00074453 1.425 I 0.3249824

5 0.5 JNU 16.6470588 S0.00356017 3.82352941 I 0.07627518

6 1.0 JNU 16.0851064 S0.00388401 2.40425532 I 0.16598793

Table 7. Two-factor ANOVA to test significance of difference in dry wt of wheat plant’s shoot due to growth period vs. lime-

treatment (0.05 level of significance).

Sl Sample Type Diff. due to rows (lime treat.) Diff. due to columns (growth period)

No. W .T. Types of soil F-value S/IP-value F-value S/I P-value

3.8625387 3.8625387

1 10 Chhattarpur 4.20874228 S0.04060626 621.723262 S 9.5143E–11

2 20 Chhattarpur 21.8091038 S0.00018257 632.987198 S 8.7795E–11

3 30 Chhattarpur 36.2245354 S2.3701E–05 440.704479 S 4.433E–10

4 10 JNU 27.8083333 S6.9627E–05 4693.825 S 1.0879E–14

5 20 JNU 45.5981364 S9.0945E–06 2163.11448 S 3.5401E–13

6 30 JNU 41.6209744 S1.3323E–05 947.602808 S 1.4397E–11

Table 8. Two-factor ANOVA to test significance of difference in dry wt of wheat plant’s shoot due to growth period vs. waste

treatment (0.05 level of significance).

Sl Sample Type Diff. due to rows (waste treat.) Diff. due to columns (growth period)

No. L.T. Types of soil F-value S/IP-value F-value S/I P-value

5.1432494 4.7570552

1 0 Chhattarpur 29.2108183 S0.0008079 224.023777 S 1.5105E–06

2 0.5 Chhattarpur 163.399597 S5.8601E–06 1783.92552 S 3.0709E–09

3 1.0 Chhattarpur 34.4543499 S0.00051387 375.318959 S 3.2512E–07

4 0 JNU 18.6513872 S0.00266015 382.00769 S 3.0844E–07

5 0.5 JNU 18.8861997 S0.00257545 421.615483 S 2.298E–07

6 1.0 JNU 16.6040024 S0.00358368 319.740553 S 5.2421E–07

Table 9. Two-factor ANOVA to test significance of difference in dry wt of wheat plant’s root due to growth period vs.

lime-treatment (0.05 level of significance).

Sl Sample Type Diff. due to rows (lime treat.) Diff. due to columns (growth period)

No. W.T. Types of soil F-value S/IP-value F-value S/I P-value

3.8625387 3.8625387

1 10 Chhattarpur 3.88824826 S0.04921775 109.643717 S 2.1007E–07

2 20 Chhattarpur 4.13899921 S0.04231368 118.920572 S 1.4725E–07

3 30 Chhattarpur 1.22792023 I 0.35508087 29.9721674 S 5.1446E–05

4 10 JNU 4.94354839 S0.02686225 213.58871 S 1.1143E–08

5 20 JNU 0.80088735 I 0.52403263 50.4266854 S 5.9525E–06

6 30 JNU 0.47305089 I 0.70860701 19.9606418 S 0.00025753

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response

145

Table 10. Two-factor ANOVA to test significance of difference in dry wt of wheat plant’s root due to growth period vs. waste

treatment (0.05 level of significance).

Sl Sample Type Diff. due to rows (waste treat.) Diff. due to columns (growth period)

No. L.T. Types of soil F-value S/IP-value F-value S/I P-value

5.1432494 4.7570552

1 0 Chhattarpur 0.3559322 I 0.71437168 74.0550847 S 3.9385E–05

2 0.5 Chhattarpur 0.25141777 I 0.78549864 51.8941399 S 0.00011023

3 1.0 Chhattarpur 0.32450936 I 0.7348202 41.4472843 S 0.00020966

4 0 JNU 0.56346927 I 0.59668444 33.5778288 S 0.00038031

5 0.5 JNU 0.24285139 I 0.79174007 26.6129682 S 0.00072719

6 1.0 JNU 0.53441802 I 0.6115191 30.6032541 S 0.0004932