Use of GEOCHEM-PC to predict rare earth element (REE) species in nutrient solutions
- 109 Downloads
The interpretation of results of some experiments examining effects of rare earth elements (REE) on plant growth may have been complicated by rare earth phosphate precipitation. Simulations were undertaken using the computer model GEOCHEM-PC to define REE solubility limits and predict REE species in low and high ionic strength nutrient solutions. In low ionic strength solutions containing 5 μM P, lanthanum phosphate (LaPO4) precipitation is predicted to occur at solution pH>4.0, reaching a maximum (>95% of total) at pH 5.5. In high ionic strength solutions (1000 μM P) over 95% of the La is predicted to precipitate as phosphate at pH>4.0. The predicted behaviour of cerium (Ce) was closely similar to that for La.
At pH 5.5, the concentration of REE species in solution can be increased only after virtually all the P has been precipitated. Consequently, it is important to consider REE-P interactions in nutrient solutions when investigating REE effects on plant growth.
Key wordscerium computer simulation lanthanum nutrient solutions phosphate precipitation REE species
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Alejar A A, Macandog R M, Velasco J R and Sierra Z N 1988 Philipp. Agric. 71, 2, 185–197.Google Scholar
- Asher C J 1978 In CRC Handbook Series in Nutrition and Food. Ed. Miloslav Rechcigl Jr. Vol. 3, pp 575–609. CRC Press, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.Google Scholar
- Buyers A G, Giesbrecht E and Audrieth L F 1957 J. Inorg. & Nucl. Chem. 5, 133–140.Google Scholar
- Evans C H 1990 Biochemistry of the Lanthanides. Plenum Press, N.Y. 444 p.Google Scholar
- GuoBosheng 1987 In Rare Earth Horizons 1987, Aust. Dept. Industry and Commerce, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
- Hoagland D R and Arnon D I 1950 In Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. No. 347, College of Agriculture, University of California, Berkeley, 1–32.Google Scholar
- Jonasson R G, Bancroft G M and Nesbitt H W 1985 Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 49, 2133–2139.Google Scholar
- Loneragan J F and Asher C J 1967 Soil Sci. 103, 311–318.Google Scholar
- Loneragan J F, Carroll M D, Snowball K 1966 J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci. 32, 221–223.Google Scholar
- Meehan B, Peverill K I, and Skroce A 1993 In Australian Soil and Plant Analysis Council first national workshop on Soil and Plant analysis, Ballarat, Vic. Australia, 2–4th March 1993, p 36.Google Scholar
- Parker D R, Norvell W A and Chaney R L 1993 In Chemical Equilibrium and Reaction Models. Ed. RH Loeppert, Soil Science Society of American Special Publications, ASA, Madison, WI (in press).Google Scholar
- Smith F W, Jackson W A and Vanden Berg P J 1990 Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 17, 451–464.Google Scholar
- Tananaev I V and Vasil'eva V P 1963 Russ. J. Inorgan. Chem. 8, 5, 555–558.Google Scholar
- Velasco J R, Domingo L E, Lansangan A S and Sierra Z N 1979 Philipp. J. Coconut Stud. IV, 1, 1–13.Google Scholar
- Wood S A 1990 Chem. Geol. 82, 159–186.Google Scholar
- Wood S A 1993 Chem. Geol. (in press)Google Scholar
- Wurm M 1957 J. Biol. Chem. 192, 707–714.Google Scholar