1. Hazardous Effects of Cyprus Mining Corporation (CMC) and Consumption Risks of Cress, Lettuce, Radish and Spinach Irrigated with the Water of CMC Tailing Ponds Şerife GÜNDÜZ, PhD Near East University, Faculty of Education, Northern Cyprus, Lefkoşa (via Mersin – Türkiye)

2. 1. INTRODUCTION Mining in Cyprus started in Copper Age (3000 B.C.) and was an important phenomenon during:  Phoenicians,  Greeks and  Romans. “Copper” Cyprus (Kurusakız and Uğur, 1999).

3. - Cyprus covers 9251 km 2 - 32°17´ - 34°35´ east longitudes - 34°33´ - 35°41´ north latitudes

5. CMC 1566 da

6. Cyprus Mining Corporation (CMC) was established in 1916 in Gemikonağı and processed the mine till 1974. Produced major metals:  Copper (Cu),  Gold (Au),  Silver (Ag) and  Iron Pyrites (FeS 2 ) (Cohen, 2002).

7. In 1974, CMC closed the corporation and left all buildings, tailing ponds and other wastes face to face with the environment (Kurusakız and Uğur, 1999). During the operations of CMC, wastes were flowed into the sea and caused a big pollution in the area (Cohen, 2002).

8. Additionally to the sea and soil pollutions, there are 12 tailing ponds and mine wastes which are flowing on the soil surface (Cohen, 2002). These ponds are surrounded with ~9 m hills. hills

9. Heavy metals which aren’t problem naturally for thousands of years are started to be problem because of the negative effects of human beings. They are threating cities, agricultural areas and the natural environment (Robinson, 1997). Heavy metals, such as; Arsenic, Lead, Copper, Cadmium and Nickel, are extremely toxic in very small amounts and are found in CMC area.

10. To determine the heavy metal accumulations of:  Lepidum sativum L. spp. sativum (cress),  Spinacia oleraceae L. (spinach),  Raphanus sativus L. var. niger (radish) and  Lactuca sativa L. convar. sativa (lettuce). which are being planted around and inside the CMC area. AIM

11. Selected test plants are belonging to the plant families which includes at least one hyper accumulator plant species (Robinson, 1997; Baker et al., 2000). 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 20 seeds from each of selected plant species were firstly sowed into violas filled with sandy- soils (Pinto et al., 1998) in March 2003.

12. These plants were irrigated by the water obtained from the tailing ponds (#12, 14, and 17) of the CMC. Waters from tailing ponds were applied to the plants with 1/1, 1/10, 1/100 and 1/1000 concentrations and the plants were also irrigated with normal water for control (Hinchman and Negri, 1994).

13. The Complatelly Randomized Design were used with 3 replications for each plant species with 13 treatments (different irrigation waters). 3 weeks later; 4 healthy plants were selected for each plant species and treatments, then were transplanted into plastic pots filled with 5 kg (Vysloužilová et al., 2003) sandy soils (Küpper et al., 1999).

14. 60 days later (Pinto et al., 1998); All plants were uprooted from the plastic pots and were devided as below-ground and above- ground. Thus, washed with pure water, placed into nylon bags (Küpper et al., 1999).

15.  Plant samples were decomposed by Method 7300 (NIOSH, 2003) by using Nitric Acid (HNO 3 ) and Perchloric Acid (HClO 4 ).  Soil samples were decomposed by the Method SW-846, 3050B (USEPA, 1996).

16.  Concentrations of ten elements (As, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Pb, Zn) in the digests of plants and soils were determined by Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) (Fassel ve Kniseley, 1974; NIOSH, 2003).

17. Table 1. Heavy Metal Concentrations (ppm) of Irrigation Waters Irrigation WaterArsenicCadmiumCobaltCromCopper Control-H 2 O  0.001 0.001±0.00080.115±0.03340.002±0.0004 17-1/1  0.010 3.246±0.06670.882±0.218026.97±0.348 14-1/1  0.010 38.16±0.21521.81±0.613676.50±3.200 12-1/1  0.010 31.48±0.20856.18±10.61299.60±1.450 Irrigation WaterIronManganeseMolybdeniumLeadZinc Control-H 2 O 0.076±0.0326  1.000  0.001 0.011±0.0046  1.000 17-1/1 780.50±3.7055.26±0.139  0.010 0.606±0.03716.89±0.0730 14-1/1 13280±149.284.13±1.188  0.010 3.603±0.5633102.0±0.612 12-1/1 22530±313.041.00±0.300  0.010 5.995±0.285072.57±0.387 ±stdev

18. Results showed a linear relationship between the accumulation of heavy metals in plant tissues and the concentration of heavy metals in soils. These results are similar with the findings of Wang et al., (1999) where they have reported that increase in soil acid concentration also increases the heavy metal uptake of the plants. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

19. Out of the ten elements studied;  Arsenic,  Cadmium,  Iron and  Lead had been accumulated more than that of found in plants under normal conditions.

20. Figure 1. Total Arsenic concentration in soil, water and removal by plants (above- and below-ground).

21. Figure 2. Total Cadmium concentration in soil, water and removal by plants (above- and below-ground).

22. Figure 3. Total Iron concentration in soil, water and removal by plants (above- and below-ground).

23. Figure 4. Total Lead concentration in soil, water and removal by plants (above- and below-ground).

24. One of the most important results of this study is that application of waste waters to the plants in concentration of 1/1, 1/10, 1/100 and 1/1000 had no significant effect on the metal accumulation of the plants and both were accumulated elements in high concentrations. This is because of: 1)Waste waters were thinned out (1/10, 1/100, 1/1000) and applied, however, application continued throughout the growing period and it caused metals to accumulate in soils. Therefore, concentration of the elements in plants were found to have a linear relationship with soils not waters.

25. 2)Some plants excrete special extracts with small molecular weight. These stabilite and mobilize some metals such as: Copper, Lead and Cadmium and this increase the uptake of heavy metals by plants (Marschner, 1988). 3)The last mechanism to explain this situation is antagonism. Increse in the concentration of one heavy metal in soil decrese the uptake of another heavy metal, vice versa, and this phenomen is known as antagonism. Such as increase in the sulfate concentration decrease Selenium uptake by the plants (Marschner, 1988).

26. Determination of Consumption Risks of Test Plants: Where, application of waste waters to the plant species in different concentration had no significant effect on the metal accumulation in plants, means of these treatments (1/1, 1/10, 1/100 and 1/1000) were taken for each plant species and tailing ponds. For L. sativum, L. sativa and S. oleraceae above-ground plant parts and For R. sativus below-ground plant parts were taken into account.

27. Table 2. Comparison of the Cadmium Concentration of the Test Plants with the Maximum Limits (ML) Determined by the World Health Organization (WHO-Codex) Cadmium (Cd) PlantWHO ML# 12# 14# 17 L. sativum0.10.30.2 S. oleraceae0.10.2 0.1 L. sativa0.10.2 R. sativus0.10.06*0.09*0.08* *Cadmium concentration in the R. Sativus determined less than the Maximum Limits, however Lead concentration of these plants were more than the Maximum Limits

28. Table 3. Comparison of the Lead Concentration of the Test Plants with the Maximum Limits (ML) Determined by the World Health Organization (WHO-Codex) Lead (Pb) PlantWHO ML# 12# 14# 17 L. sativum0.110.64.64.9 S. oleraceae0.11.71.32.0 L. sativa0.12.01.31.8 R. sativus0.30.81.61.2

29. 1)These results indicate that # 12, 14 and 17 tailing ponds of CMC can not be thinned out to be used as fetrilizer for L. sativum, S. oleraceae, R. sativus and L. sativa. 2)Physiology of other plants may differ from the test plants, however, it seems that these tailing ponds are also not suitable to be used as fertilizer for other plants. 4. CONCLUSIVE RESULTS AND SUGGESSIONS

30. 3)Additionally, results reveal that, plants being produced closelly around and inside the Cyprus Mining Corporation area may be unhealthy and they have to be analyzed before consuming. 4)According to the results, it is therefore of paramount importance to rehabilite CMC area for the health of local people and for environment. Finally, rehabilitation processess must be social, economic and environmental to reach sustainability in the area.

31. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION