Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 15, Issue 7, pp 1500–1509 | Cite as

Adsorption of phosphate on pure and humic acid-coated ferrihydrite

Soils, Sec 3 • Remediation and Management of Contaminated or Degraded Lands • Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

Humic acid and mineral oxides are simultaneously present in soils and can form organomineral complexes. These complexes can influence the transport and fate of phosphate in the environment. The objective of this study was to investigate the adsorption of phosphate on these complexes by comparing them with phosphate adsorption on only the mineral.

Materials and methods

Phosphate adsorption on ferrihydrite (FH) and the humic acid (HA)-coated ferrihydrite (FH–cHA) complex, as a function of pH and ionic strength, was investigated through adsorption measurements of zeta potential and attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy.

Results and discussion

The FH–cHA complex had a lower isoelectric point and less specific surface area than FH. A greater amount of phosphate was adsorbed on FH than on the FH–cHA complex, and phosphate adsorption increased with increasing ionic strength. The adsorption process was controlled by chemisorption. The zeta potential strongly decreased with an increase of phosphate adsorption at low pH, while it less obviously decreased at higher phosphate adsorption at high pH. The ATR-FTIR showed that the phosphate species on the FH–cHA complex was dominated by bidentate inner-sphere complexes. The addition of HA did not change the formation of the inner-sphere phosphate complexes, but it diminished the non-protonated bidentate complexes at lower pH. Also, the HA inhibited the non-protonated bidentate complexes at lower pH and generated P = O···H or P–O···H bonds by its acid groups.

Conclusions

Results suggested that the affinity of phosphate for the FH–cHA complex was lower than for FH, and HA also influenced the formation of the phosphate species.

Keywords

In situ ATR-FTIR spectroscopy Ionic strength Isotherm and kinetic experiment Phosphate adsorption Surface complexation Zeta potential 

References

  1. Antelo J, Arce F, Avena M, Fiol S, López R, Macías F (2007) Adsorption of a soil humic acid at the surface of goethite and its competitive interaction with phosphate. Geoderma 138:12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antelo J, Fiol S, Pérez C, Mariño S, Arce F, Gondar D, López R (2010) Analysis of phosphate adsorption onto ferrihydrite using the CD-MUSIC model. J Colloid Interface Sci 347:112–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arai Y, Sparks D (2001) ATR-FTIR spectroscopic investigation on phosphate adsorption mechanisms at the ferrihydrite–water interface. J Colloid Interface Sci 241:317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bao SD (2008) Soil and agricultural chemistry analysis (3rd edn). China Agriculture, BeijngGoogle Scholar
  5. Carabante I, Grahn M, Holmgren A, Hedlund J (2010) In situ ATR-FTIR studies on the competition adsorption of arsenate and phosphate on ferrihydrite. J Colloid Interface Sci 351:523–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen CM, Dynes J, Wang J, Karunakaran C, Sparks DL (2014) Soft X-ray spectromicroscopy study of mineral–organic associations in pasture soil clay fractions. Environ Sci Technol 48:10322–10331Google Scholar
  7. Elzinga E, Kretzschmar R (2013) In situ ATR-FTIR spectroscopic analysis of the co-adsorption of orthophosphate and Cd(Π) onto hematite. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 117:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fu HB, Quan X (2006) Complexes of fulvic acid on the surface of hematite, goethite, and akaganeite: FTIR observation. Chemosphere 63:403–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fu QL, Deng YL, Li HS, Liu J, Hu HQ, Chen SW, Sa TM (2009) Equilibrium, kinetic and thermodynamic studies on the adsorption of the toxins of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki by clay minerals. Appl Surf Sci 255:4551–4557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fu ZY, Wu FC, Song K, Lin Y, Bai YC, Zhu YR, Giesy JP (2013) Competitive interaction between soil-derived humic acid and phosphate. Appl Geochem 36:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grøn C, Raben-Lange B (1992) Isolation and characterization of a haloorganic soil humic acid. Sci Total Environ 113:281–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Iglesias A, López R, Gondar D, Antelo J, Fiol S, Arce F (2010a) Adsorption of MCPA on goethite and humic acid-coated goethite. Chemosphere 78:1403–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Iglesias A, López R, Gondar D, Antelo J, Fiol S, Arce F (2010b) Adsorption of paraquat on goethite and humic acid-coated goethite. J Hazard Mater 183:664–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Khare N, Hesterberg D, Beauchemin S, Wang SL (2004) XANES determination of adsorbed phosphate distribution between ferrihydrite and boehmite in mixtures. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:460–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Khare N, Martin JD, Hesterberg D (2007) Phosphate bonding configuration on ferrihydrite based on molecular orbital calculations and XANES fingerprinting. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 71:4405–4415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li L, Stanforth R (2000) Distinguishing adsorption and surface precipitation of phosphate on goethite (α-FeOOH). J Colloid Interface Sci 230:12–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Luengo C, Brigante M, Antelo J, Avena M (2006) Kinetics of phosphate adsorption on goethite: comparing batch adsorption and ATR-FTIR measurements. J Colloid Interface Sci 300:511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mallet M, Barthélémy K, Ruby C, Renard A, Naille S (2013) Investigation of phosphate adsorption onto ferrihydrite by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. J Colloid Interface Sci 407:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mikutta C, Lang F, Kaupenjohann M (2006) Kinetics of phosphate sorption to polygalacturonate-coated goethite. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:541–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Plazinski W, Rudzinski W, Plazinska A (2009) Theoretical models of sorption kinetics including a surface reaction mechanism. Adv Colloid Interf 152:2–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shuai XF, Zinati G (2009) Proton charge and adsorption of humic acid and phosphate on goethite. Soil Sci Soc Am J 73:2013–2020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sibanda HM, Young SD (1986) Competitive adsorption of humus acids and phosphate on goethite, gibbsite and two tropical soils. J Soil Sci 37:197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tejedor-Tejedor M, Anderson MA (1990) Protonation of phosphate on the surface of goethite as studied by CIR-FTIR and electrophoretic mobility. Langmuir 6:602–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Violante A (2013) Elucidating mechanisms of competitive sorption at the mineral/water interface. Adv Agron 118:111–176Google Scholar
  25. Wang XM, Li W, Harrington R, Liu F, Parise J, Feng XH, Sparks DL (2013) Effect of ferrihydrite crystallite size on phosphate adsorption reactivity. Environ Sci Technol 47:10322–10331Google Scholar
  26. Wang H, Zhu J, Fu QL, Xiong JW, Hong C, Hu HQ, Violante A (2015) Adsorption of phosphate onto ferrihydrite and ferrihydrite/humic-acid complexes. Pedosphere (Accepted)Google Scholar
  27. Weng LP, Van Riemsdijk WH, Hiemstra T (2008) Humic nanoparticles at the oxide–water interface: interactions with phosphate ion adsorption. Environ Sci Technol 42:8747–8752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhong B, Stanforth R, Shunnian W, Chen JP (2007) Proton interaction in phosphate adsorption onto goethite. J Colloid Interface Sci 308:40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhou YL, Zhang YB, Li P, Li GH, Jiang T (2014) Comparative study on the adsorption interactions of humic acid onto natural magnetite, hematite and quartz: effect of initial HA concentration. Powder Technol 251:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Arable Land Conservation (Middle and Lower Reaches of Yangtse River), Ministry of Agriculture, College of Resources and EnvironmentHuazhong Agricultural UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations