Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 20, pp 20116–20124 | Cite as

Capacity and mechanism of arsenic adsorption on red soil supplemented with ferromanganese oxide–biochar composites

  • Lina Lin
  • Shiwei Zhou
  • Qing Huang
  • Yongchun Huang
  • Weiwen Qiu
  • Zhengguo Song
Research Article
  • 103 Downloads

Abstract

Two ferromanganese oxide–biochar composites (FMBC1 and FMBC2) were prepared by an impregnation method to promote the adsorption of As on red soil. Maximum adsorption capacities (Qm) of 0.687 and 0.712 mg g−1 were observed for FMBC1 and FMBC2, respectively, corresponding to increases of 104 and 111% relative to the control treatment (Qm = 0.337 mg g−1). Treatment with FMBC1 increased the pH of red soil, whereas a reverse trend was observed for FMBC2. A variety of analytical techniques were used to explain the differences between FMBC1 and FMBC2, revealing that the oxidation of As(III) to As(V) by Mn and Fe oxides was aided by interactions with the oxygen-containing functional groups of the ferromanganese oxide–biochar composites. Thus, red soil supplemented with the ferromanganese oxide–biochar composites mainly adsorbed As by chemisorption, thereby projecting ferromanganese oxide–biochar composites as potential absorbents for effectively remediating As-polluted red soil.

Keywords

Ferromanganese oxide–biochar composite (FMBC) Arsenic Red soil Adsorption ability 

Abbreviations

FMBC

Ferromanganese oxide–biochar composite

BC

Biochar

TGA

Thermogravimetric analysis

DSC

Differential scanning calorimetry

SEM

Scanning electron microscopy

FTIR

Fourier-transform infrared

XPS

X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy

DOC

Dissolved organic carbon

Eh

Oxidation reduction potential

CEC

Cation exchange capacity

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge financial support from the National Science Foundation of China (grant numbers 41771525 and 41273136) and the National Science Foundation of Tianjin (grant number 15JCZDJC33900).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11356_2018_2188_MOESM1_ESM.docx (924 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 923 kb)
11356_2018_2188_MOESM2_ESM.docx (17 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 16.6 kb)

References

  1. Bang S, Johnson MD, Korfiatis GP, Meng XG (2005) Chemical reactions between arsenic and zero-valent iron in water. Water Res 39:763–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beesley L, Moreno-Jimenez E, Gomez-Eyles JL, Harris E, Robinson B, Sizmur T (2011) A review of biochars’ potential role in the remediation, revegetation and restoration of contaminated soils. Environ Pollut 159:3269–3282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boehm H-P, Diehl E, Heck W, Sappok R (1964) Surface oxides of carbon. Angew Chem Int Ed 3:669–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang F, Qu J, Liu H, Liu R, Zhao X (2009) Fe–Mn binary oxide incorporated into diatomite as an adsorbent for arsenite removal: preparation and evaluation. J Colloid Interf Sci 338:353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen W, Parette R, Zou J, Cannon FS, Dempsey BA (2007) Arsenic removal by iron-modified activated carbon. Water Res 41:1851–1858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen B, Chen Z, Lv S (2011) A novel magnetic biochar efficiently sorbs organic pollutants and phosphate. Bioresour Technol 102:716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chiu VQ, Hering JG (2000) Arsenic adsorption and oxidation at manganite surfaces. I. Method for simultaneous determination of adsorbed and dissolved arsenic species. Environ Sci Technol 34:2029–2034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Datsyuk V, Kalyva M, Papagelis K, Parthenios J, Tasis D, Siokou A, Kallitsis I, Galiotis C (2008) Chemical oxidation of multiwalled carbon nanotubes. Carbon 46:833–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feng Q, Zhang Z, Chen Y, Liu L, Zhang Z, Chen C (2013) Adsorption and desorption characteristics of arsenic on soils: kinetics, equilibrium, and effect of Fe(OH)3 colloid, H2SiO3 colloid and phosphate. Procedia Environ Sci 18:26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gregory SJ, Anderson CWN, Arbestain MC, McManus MT (2014) Response of plant and soil microbes to biochar amendment of an arsenic-contaminated soil. Agric Ecosyst Environ 191:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hrudey SE, Chen W, Rousseaux CG (1996) Bioavailability in environmental risk assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  12. Huang YH, Shih YJ, Cheng FJ (2011) Novel KMnO4-modified iron oxide for effective arsenite removal. J Hazard Mater 198:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hu X, Ding Z, Zimmerman AR, Wang S, Gao B (2015) Batch and column sorption of arsenic onto iron-impregnated biochar synthesized through hydrolysis. Water Res 68:206–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jia Y, Xu L, Wang X, Demopoulos GP (2007) Infrared spectroscopic and X-ray diffraction characterization of the nature of adsorbed arsenate on ferrihydrite. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 71:1643–1654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones DL, Rousk J, Edwards-Jones G, DeLuca TH, Murphy DV (2012) Biochar-mediated changes in soil quality and plant growth in a three year field trial. Soil Biol Biochem 45:113–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kong S, Wang Y, Zhan H, Liu M, Liang L, Hu Q (2014) Competitive adsorption of humic acid and arsenate on nanoscale iron–manganese binary oxide-loaded zeolite in groundwater. J Geochem Explor 144:220–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kumpiene J, Lagerkvist A, Maurice C (2008) Stabilization of As, Cr, Cu, Pb and Zn in soil using amendments–a review. Waste Manag 28:215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lafferty BJ, Gindervogel M, Sparks DL (2010) Arsenite oxidation by a poorly crystalline manganese-oxide 1. Stirred-flow experiments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44:8460–8466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. LeMonte JJ, Stuckey JW, Sanchez JZ, Tappero RV, Rinklebe J, Sparks DL (2017) Sea level rise induced arsenic release from historically contaminated coastal soils. Environ Sci Technol 51(11):5913–5922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liao XY, Chen TB, Xie H, Liu Y-R (2005) Soil As contamination and its risk assessment in areas near the industrial districts of Chenzhou City, Southern China. Environ Int 31:791–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li P, Jiang EY, Bai HL (2011) Fabrication of ultrathin epitaxial γ-Fe2O3 films by reactive sputtering. J Phys D Appl Phys 44:075003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lim KT, Shukor MY, Wasoh H, (2014) Physical, chemical, and biological methods for the removal of arsenic compounds. BioMed Res. Int. 503784 (9 pp)Google Scholar
  23. Lin L, Gao M, Qiu W, Wang D, Huang Q, Song Z (2017) Reduced arsenic accumulation in indica rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivar with ferromanganese oxide impregnated biochar composites amendments. Environ Pollut 231(Pt 1):479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu WJ, Jiang H, Tian K, Ding YW, Yu HQ (2013) Mesoporous carbon stabilized MgO nanoparticles synthesized by pyrolysis of MgCl2 preloaded waste biomass for highly efficient CO2 capture. Environ Sci Technol 47:9397–9403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lubin JH, Fraumeni JF (2000) Re: “Does arsenic exposure increase the risk for circulatory disease?”. Am J Epidemiol 152:290–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Namgay T, Singh B, Singh BP, (2010) Plant availability of arsenic and cadmium as influenced by biochar application to soil. World Congress of Soil Science: Soil Solutions for a Changing World, Brisbane, Australia, 1–6 August 2010. Symposium 2.5.2 Bioavailability of Metals and Organics. 78–81Google Scholar
  27. Nesbitt HW, Canning GW, Bancroft GM (1998) XPS study of reduction dissolution of 7A-birnessite by H3AsO3, with constraints on reaction mechanism. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 62:2097–2110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oprea G, Michnea A, Mihali C, Senila M, Roman C, Jelea S, Butean C, Barz C (2010) Arsenic and antimony content in soil and plants from Baia Mare area, Romania. Am J Environ Sci 6:33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ouvrard S, Donato PD, Simonnot MO, Begin S, Ghanbaja J, Alnot M, Duval YB, Lhote F, Barres O, Sardin M (2005) Natural manganese oxide: combined analytical approach for solid characterization and arsenic retention. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 69:2715–2724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pakuła M, Biniak S, ŚwiaTkowski A (1998) Chemical and electrochemical studies of interactions between iron(III) ions and an activated carbon surface. Langmuir 14:3082–3089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pradhan M, Bhargava P (2008) Defect and microstructural evolution during drying of soap nut-based alumina foams. J Eur Ceram Soc 28:3049–3057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith E, Naidu R, Altson AM (1998) Arsenic in the soil environment: a review. Adv Agron 64:149–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Suda A, Makino T (2016) Functional effects of manganese and iron oxides on the dynamics of trace elements in soils with a special focus on arsenic and cadmium: a review. Geoderma 270:68–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Takahashi Y, Minamikawa R, Hattori KH, Kurishima K, Kihou N, Yuita K (2004) Arsenic behavior in paddy fields during the cycle of flooded and non-flooded periods. Environ Sci Technol 38:1038–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tufano KJ, Reyes C, Saltikov CW, Fendorf S (2008) Reductive processes con-trolling arsenic retention: revealing the relative importance of iron and arsenic reduction. Environ Sci Technol 42:8283–8289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Welch AH, Westjohn DB, Helsel DR, Wanty RB (2010) Arsenic in ground water of the United States: occurrence and geochemistry. Groundwater 38:589–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warren GP, Alloway BJ (2003) Reduction of arsenic uptake by lettuce with ferrous sulfate applied to contaminated soil. J Environ Qual 32:767–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wuana RA, Okieimen FE, (2011) Heavy metals in contaminated soils: a review of sources, chemistry, risks and best available strategies for remediation. ISRN Ecol. 402647Google Scholar
  39. Wu Y, Zhou XY, Lei M, Yang J, Ma J, Qiao PW et al (2016) Migration and transformation of arsenic: contamination control and remediation in realgar mining areas. Appl Geochem 17:44–51Google Scholar
  40. Xu X, Chen C, Wang P, Kretzschmar R, Zhao FJ (2017) Control of arsenic mobilization in paddy soils by manganese and iron oxides. Environ Pollut 231(Pt 1):37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yamaguchi N, Nakamura T, Dong D, Takahashi Y, Amachi S, Makino T (2011) Arsenic release from flooded paddy soils is influenced by speciation, eh, pH, andiron dissolution. Chemosphere 83:925–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yang W, Kan AT, Chen W, Tomson MB (2010) pH-dependent effect of zinc on arsenic adsorption to magnetite nanoparticles. Water Res 44:5693–5701.38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yu Z, Zhou L, Huang Y, Song Z, Qiu W (2015) Effects of a manganese oxide-modified biochar composite on adsorption of arsenic in red soil. J Environ Manag 163:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yu Z, Qiu W, Wang F, Lei M, Wang D, Song Z (2017) Effects of manganese oxide-modified biochar composites on arsenic speciation and accumulation in an indica rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivar. Chemosphere 168:341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhang HH, Yuan HX, Hu YG, Wu ZF, Zhu LA, Zhu L, Li FB, Ll DQ (2006) Spatial distribution and vertical variation of arsenic in Guangdong soil profiles, China. Environ Pollut 144:492–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang GS, Qu JH, Liu HJ, Liu RP, Li GT (2007) Removal mechanism of as (III) by a novel Fe−Mn binary oxide adsorbent: oxidation and sorption. Environ Sci Technol 41:4613–4619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhu J, Lou Z, Wang Z, Xu X (2014) Preparation of iron and manganese oxides/carbon composite materials for arsenic removal from aqueous solution. Prog Chem 26:1551–1561Google Scholar
  48. Zhu J, Baig SA, Sheng T, Lou Z, Wang Z, Xu X (2015) Fe3O4 and MnO2 assembled on honeycomb briquette cinders (HBC) for arsenic removal from aqueous solutions. J Hazard Mater 286:220–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lina Lin
    • 1
  • Shiwei Zhou
    • 2
  • Qing Huang
    • 1
  • Yongchun Huang
    • 1
  • Weiwen Qiu
    • 3
  • Zhengguo Song
    • 1
  1. 1.Agro-Environmental Protection InstituteMinistry of Agriculture of ChinaTianjinChina
  2. 2.School of AgricultureLudong UniversityYantaiChina
  3. 3.The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research LimitedChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations