Cement, Energy & Environment

Table-2:Effectofcementdustpollution on plant growth Snmple Shoot length , Root ' . .. L<iii( nre'i\'1) codf: (em) l~nglh ' (~~~~~)'_:::.:;: A1 A2 B1 A3 A5 B2 B4 85 M B3 A (em). ·. ,; -..·,. .!.. .: A. Green gram 18.4 12.6 13.0 9.2 21 .3 14 B. Cotton 62.0 56.8 67.0 64.5 59.4 24.4 22.4 21 .54 15.05 17.68 49.10 62.37 86.96 91.24 72.43 34.83 53.17 Biochemical Analysis Here in this study we have tried to find out the effect of cement dust on the carbohydrate content of agriculture crops in the vicinity of 0 to 1 km and 1 to 10 km around OC. Surprisingly, the contents of reducing, non-reducing and total carbohydrates in all three crops of region A were higher than the crops in region B (Table 4). Protein content of soybean has not been affected because of cement dust while in cotton and green gram it is considerably less in zone A as compare to crops of zone B (Table 4). The reduction in protein content of cotton and green gram plants from zone A could be because of reduced biomass which resulted in the decreased percentage of photosynthesis and synthesis of proteins (Raajasubramanian et al. 2011) The growth condition was evaluated from the fresh and dry weight of biomass (plant cell proliferation) of all three seJected crops as it is directly proportional to shoot and root length (Table 3). Here our study ~ been showed close proximity of shoot. root length. leaf area. fresh and dry biomass of all three crops in both zones A and B. The values of fresh and dry weight are slightly less in the al three crops of zone A than zone B. This trend proved excelent crop growth and showed no aleraOOn by cement dust polk:Jtion in Cl nearest legion A. This could be beaM~ of 1he instaMation of &Xteitent cem.ent dust polkJtion Cflfttrol system by OC. Table 4: Effect of cement dust pollution on Sugars, Total Carbohydrates and Proteins A1 A2 B1 A3 AS B2 84 ~ M B3 Tllble 3: Ellect of C8ID8nt dust polution ontbe:lllftbmrss Sample Fresh Weight Dry Weigf1t · Code (gm) (gm) A. Gr.DGraa A1 2..44 I:E A2 2.64 81 3oM a. CGIIDn A3 2..0S Q.54. AS 2..90 0..66 82 3..10 0.69 84 2.3t 052 85 2..85 1.31 c. SoJbem M 3..17 0.6S B3 4..13 Q..87 A. Green Gram 0.64 1.42 2.06 0.38 0.76 3.56 4.32 0.38 0.54 0.24 0.78 0.78 B. Cotton 0.59 1.27 1.86 0.77 0.94 0.04' 0.98 0.62 0.5 1.()5 2.55 1.88 1.48 1.03 2.51 0.84 0.81 1.11 . 1.96 0.79 c. Soybean Ul6 5.34- 6.4 0.66 0..86 0.16 1.02 0.66 It is evident from Table 2 and 3 that the growth patterns of crops in both vicinities of OC were almost same which could also be confirmed with chtorophyll and carotenoid content and photosynthetic potential of plants. The chlorophyll and carotenoid concentration in leaves of green gram was almost equal in region A and region B (Table 5). Same kind of trend has been observed in Cotton and Soybean {Table 5). Even photosynthesis rate is same in selected three plants. Thus, photosynthetic assembly has not been disturbed because of cement dust and the g,rowth and productivity of crops have not been altered drastically, which proves the excellence of cement dust pollution control system. 4 I