Biochar-induced changes in soil properties affected immobilization/mobilization of metals/metalloids in contaminated soils
- 2k Downloads
Remediation of metal contaminated soil with biochar is attracting extensive interest in recent years. Understanding the significance of variable biochar properties and soil types helps elucidating the meticulous roles of biochar in immobilizing/mobilizing metals/metalloids in contaminated soils.
Materials and methods
Six biochars were produced from widely available agricultural wastes (i.e., soybean stover, peanut shells and pine needles) at two pyrolysis temperatures of 300 and 700 °C, respectively. The Pb-, Cu-, and Sb-contaminated shooting range soils and Pb-, Zn-, and As-contaminated agricultural soils were amended with the produced biochars. The mobility of metals/metalloids was assessed by the standard batch leaching test, principal component analysis and speciation modeling.
Results and discussion
The changes in soil properties were correlated to feedstock types and pyrolysis temperatures of biochars based on the principal component analysis. Biochars produced at 300 °C were more efficient in decreasing Pb and Cu mobility (>93 %) in alkaline shooting range soil via surface complexation with carboxyl groups and Fe-/Al-minerals of biochars as well as metal-phosphates precipitation. By contrast, biochars produced at 700 °C outperformed their counterparts in decreasing Pb and Zn mobility (100 %) in acidic agricultural soil by metal-hydroxides precipitation due to biochar-induced pH increase. However, Sb and As mobility in both soils was unfavorably increased by biochar amendment, possibly due to the enhanced electrostatic repulsion and competition with phosphate.
It is noteworthy that the application of biochars is not equally effective in immobilizing metals or mobilizing metalloids in different soils. We should apply biochar to multi-metal contaminated soil with great caution and tailor biochar production for achieving desired outcome and avoiding adverse impact on soil ecosystem.
KeywordsBioavailability Black carbon Charcoal Plant biomass Soil contamination Soil remediation
This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2015R1A2A2A11001432).
- Ahmad M, Lee SS, Moon DH, Yang JE, Ok Y (2012c) A review of environmental contamination and remediation strategies for heavy metals at shooting range soils. In: Grohmarin E, Malik A (eds) Environmental protection strategies for sustainable development. Springer, Netherlands, pp 437–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ahmad M, Ok YS, Rajapaksha AU, Lim JE, Kim BY, Ahn JH, Lee YH, Al-Wabel MI, Lee SE, Lee SS (2016) Lead and copper immobilization in a shooting range soil using soybean stover- and pine needle-derived biochars: chemical, microbial and spectroscopic assessments. J Hazard Mater 301:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Beesley L, Marmiroli M, Pagano L, Pigoni V, Fellet G, Fresno T, Vamerali T, Bandiera M, Marmiroli N (2013) Biochar addition to an arsenic contaminated soil increases arsenic concentrations in the pore water but reduces uptake to tomato plants (Solanumlycopersicum L.). Sci Total Environ 454–455:598–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Brebu M, Vasile C (2010) Thermal degradation of lignin—a review. Cellul Chem Technol 44:353–363Google Scholar
- IBI (2012) Standardized product definition and product testing guidelines for biochar that is used in soil. Int Biochar Initiative, 2012Google Scholar
- Mench M, Vangronsveld J, Lepp N, Ruttens A, Bleeker P, Geebelen W (2007) Use of soil amendments to attenuate trace element exposure: sustainability, side effects, and failures. In: Hamon R, McLaughlin MJ, Lombi E (eds) Natural attenuation of trace element availability in soils. SETAC Press, CRCTaylor & Francis, Pensacola, pp 197–228Google Scholar
- Merry RH (2010) Acidity and alkalinity of soils. In: Sabljic A (ed) Environmental and ecological chemistry, vol 2. UNESCO EOLSS, UKGoogle Scholar
- MOE (2010) Soil environment conservation act. Ministry of Environment, Republic of KoreaGoogle Scholar
- Olive IX (2006) Mobility of lead and antimony in shooting range soils. PhD thesis ETH No. 16689. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ZurichGoogle Scholar
- Sparks DL, Page AL, Helmke PA, Loeppert RH, Soltanpour PN, Tabatabai MA, Johnston CT, Summer ME (1996) Methods of soil analysis. Part 3 chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America Inc, MadisonGoogle Scholar