Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 1327–1334 | Cite as

Irreversible sorption of humic substances causes a decrease in wettability of clay surfaces as measured by a sessile drop contact angle method

  • Vladimir A. Kholodov
  • Evgeny Y. Milanovskiy
  • Andrey I. Konstantinov
  • Zemfira N. Tyugai
  • Nadezhda V. Yaroslavtseva
  • Irina V. Perminova
Natural Organic Matter: Chemistry, Function and Fate in the Environment

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of the study was to obtain quantitative assessments of the hydrophobic impact of irreversible sorption of humic substances (HSs) onto clay mineral surfaces using a sessile drop contact angle method.

Materials and methods

Two clays (kaolin and montmorillonite) were modified with four humic materials: (1) sod podzolic soil, (2) chernozem, (3) peat, and (4) coal (leonardite). The humic materials were characterized using elemental analysis, size exclusion chromatography, and 13C NMR spectroscopy. Both clay samples were saturated with Ca2+ prior to modification with HS using a sorption isotherm technique. Contact angles (CAs) of the obtained HS-clay complexes were determined using a static sessile drop method after drying the obtained HS-clay complexes in the form of a thin film.

Results and discussion

HS modification rendered both clays under study—kaolin and montmorillonite—more hydrophobic. In case of Ca-kaolin, the CA values increased from 27° (Ca-kaolin) up to 31°–32° (all HS-kaolin complexes) with no significant difference among the HS types used for modification. In the case of Ca-montmorillonite, the CA values increased from 41° (Ca-montmorillonite) up to 51°–83° with the following ascending trend for the humic types investigated: chernozem HS < coal HS < peat HS < sod-podzolic HS. This trend is in reverse to the degree of aromaticity of the HS, expressed as the content of aromatic carbon, and it is directly proportional to the molecular weight of each HS.

Conclusions

Application of a sessile drop method showed increased surface hydrophobicity of HS-modified clays. Much more substantial hydrophobization was observed for montmorillonite as compared to kaolin, which was explained by the differences in the sorption mechanism.

Keywords

Contact angle Humic substances Hydrophobization Kaolin Montmorillonite Sorption Sessile drop method 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (grant no. 14-26-00079 for the portion of the working involving preparation of soil-HS complexes and using a sessile drop method for contact angle measurements). Grant no. 16-14-00167 supported the portion of the study contributing to HS characterization and the data interpretation that determined the hydrophobicity assessment.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bachmann J, Ellies A, Hartge KH (2000) Development and application of a new sessile drop method to assess soil water repellency. J Hydrol 231–232:66–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Badun GA, Kulikova NA, Chernysheva MG, Tyasto ZA, Korobkov VI, Fedoseev VM, Tsvetkova EA, Konstantinov AI, Kudryavtsev AV, Perminova IV (2009) Tritium labeling: a unique tool for studying the behavior of humic substances in living systems. Mosc Univ Chem Bull 64(5):276–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baham J, Sposito G (1994) Adsorption of natural dissolved organic matter at the oxide/water interface. J Environ Qual 23:147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balcke GU, Kulikova NA, Kopinke D, Perminova IV, Hesse S, Frimmel FH (2002) The influence of humic substances structure on their adsorption onto kaolin clay. SSSAJ 66:1805–1812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binks B, Murakami R (2006) Phase inversion of particle-stabilized materials from foams to dry water. Nat Mater 5:865–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chibowski E, Gonzalez-Caballero F (1993) Theory and practice of thin-layer wicking. Langmuir 9(1):330–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cruz-Guzman M, Celis R, Hermosin MC, Leone P, Negre M, Cornejo J (2003) Sorption-desorption of lead (II) and mercury (II) by model associations of soil colloids. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67:1378–1387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ghosh S, Zhen-Yu W, Kang S, Bhowmik PC, Xing BS (2009) Sorption and fractionation of a peat derived humic acid by kaolinite, montmorillonite, and goethite. Pedosphere 19(1):21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giljean S, Bigerelle M, Anselme K, Haidara H (2011) New insights on contact angle/roughness dependence on high surface energy materials. Appl Surf Sci 257(22):9631–9638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geckeis H (2004) Colloid influence on the radionuclide migration from a nuclear waste repository. Geol Soc Lond, Spec Publ 236:529–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goebel MO, Woche SK, Bachmann J, Lamparter A, Fischer WR (2007) Significance of wettability-induced changes in microscopic water distribution for soil organic matter decomposition. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71:1593–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hertkorn N, Permin AB, Perminova IV, Kovalevskii DV, Yudov MV, Kettrup A (2002) Comparative analysis of partial structures of a peat humic and fulvic acid using one and two dimensional nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. J Environ Qual 31:375–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jouany C (1991) Surface free energy components of clay-synthetic humic acid complexes from contact-angle measurements. Clay Clay Miner 39(1):43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Khalaf M, Kohl SD, Klumpp E, Rice JA, Tombacz E (2003) Comparison of sorption domains in molecular weight fractions of a soil humic acid using solid state 19F NMR. Environ Sci Technol 37:2855–2860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kholodov VA, Yaroslavtseva NV, Konstantinov AI, Perminova IV (2015) Preparative yield and properties of humic acids obtained by sequential alkaline extractions. Eurasian Soil Sci 48(10):1101–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kholodov VA, Konstantinov AI, Kudryavtsev AV, Perminova IV (2011) Structure of humic acids in zonal soils from 13C NMR data. Eurasian Soil Sci 44(9):976–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kovalevskii DV, Permin AB, Perminova IV, Petrosyan VS (2000) Conditions for acquiring quantitative 13C NMR spectra of humic substances. Mosc Univ Chem Bull 41:39–42Google Scholar
  18. Kononova MM (1966) Soil organic matter its nature, its role in soil formation and in soil fertility, 2nd ed.; Pergamon Press, Ltd: Oxford, London, Edinburgh, New York, Toronto, Sydney, Paris, BraunschweigGoogle Scholar
  19. Kulikova NA, Perminova IV, Badun GA, Chernysheva MG, Koroleva OV, Tsvetkova EA (2010) Estimation of uptake of humic substances from different sources by Escherichia coli cells under optimum and salt stress conditions by use of tritium-labeled humic materials. Appl Environ Microbiol 76(18):6223–6230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laird D (2001) Nature of clay–humic complexes in an agricultural soil: II. Scanning electron microscopy analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:1419–1425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mylotte R, Verheyen V, Reynolds A, Dalton C, Patti AF, Chang RR, Burdon J, Hayes MHB (2015) Isolation and characterisation of recalcitrant organic components from an estuarine sediment core. J Soils Sediments 15(1):211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Murphy EM, Zachara JM (1995) The role of sorbed humic substances on the distribution of organic and inorganic contaminants in groundwater. Geoderma 67:103–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nachtegaal M, Sparks DL (2003) Nickel sequestration in a kaolinite-humic acid complex. Environ Sci Technol 37:529–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Perminova IV, Frimmel FH, Kudryavtsev AV, Kulikova NA, Abbt-Braun G, Hesse S, Petrosyan VS (2003) Molecular weight characteristics of humic substances from different environments as determined by size exclusion chromatography and their statistical evaluation. Environ Sci Technol 37:2477–2485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Piccolo A, Mbagwu JSC (1999) Role of hydrophobic components of soil organic matter in soil aggregate stability. Soil Sci Soc Am J 63:1801–1810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Specht CH, Kumke MU, Frimmel FH (2000) Characterization of NOM adsorption to clay minerals by size exclusion chromatography. Water Res 34:4063–4069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shang J, Flurya M, Harsha JB, Zollars RL (2008) Comparison of different methods to measure contact angles of soil colloids. J Colloidal Interface Science 328:299–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Swift RS (1996) Organic matter characterization (chap 35). Methods of soil analysis. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America, Part 3. 1018–1020Google Scholar
  29. Stevenson FJ (1994) Humus chemistry: genesis, composition, and reactions, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Tikhova VD, Fadeeva VP, Dergacheva MI, Shakirov MM (2008) Analysis of humic acids from various soils using acid hydrolysis. Russian. J Appl Chem 81(11):1957–1962Google Scholar
  31. Übner M, Treuman M, Viitak A, Lopp M (2004) Properties of humic substances from the Baltic Sea and Lake Ermistu mud. J Soils Sediments 4(1):24–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Velde B, Meunier A (2008) The origin of clay minerals in soils and weathered rocks. Publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-75634-7. 406 pp
  33. Volikov AB, Kholodov VA, Kulikova NA, Philippova OI, Ponomarenko SA, Lasareva EV, Parfyonova AM, Hatfield K, Perminova IV (2016) Silanized humic substances act as hydrophobic modifiers of soil separates inducing formation of water-stable aggregates in soils. Catena 137:229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang H-W, Dong R-X, Chu H-C, Chang K-C, Lee W-C (2005) Improvements on the synthesis and properties of fluorinated polyimide-clay nanocomposites by using double swelling agents. Mater Chem Phys 94:42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wu W (2001) Baseline studies of the clay minerals society source clays: colloid and surface phenomena. Clays Clays Min 49(5):446–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Xu D, Wang XK, Chen CL, Zhou X, Tan XL (2006) Influence of soil humic acid and fulvic acid on sorption of thorium(IV) on MX-80 bentonite. Radiochim Acta 94:429–434Google Scholar
  37. World reference base for soil resources (2014) A framework for international classification, correlation and communication, Word Soil Resourse Report 106. FAO. Rome. 2014. 181 ppGoogle Scholar
  38. Young T (1805) An essay on the cohesion of fluids. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 95:65–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yuan Y, Zhou S, Yuan T, Zhuang L, Li F (2013) Molecular weight-dependent electron transfer capacities of dissolved organic matter derived from sewage sludge compost. J Soils Sediments 13(1):56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vladimir A. Kholodov
    • 1
    • 3
  • Evgeny Y. Milanovskiy
    • 2
  • Andrey I. Konstantinov
    • 3
  • Zemfira N. Tyugai
    • 2
  • Nadezhda V. Yaroslavtseva
    • 1
  • Irina V. Perminova
    • 3
  1. 1.Dokuchaev Soil Science InstituteMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Department of Soil ScienceLomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Department of ChemistryLomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations