Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 964–972 | Cite as

Assessment of the retardation of selected herbicides onto Danube sediment based on small column tests

  • Anita Leovac MaćerakEmail author
  • Ivana Ivančev-Tumbas
  • Hilmar Börnick
  • Gordana Ilić
  • Marijana Kragulj Isakovski
  • Snežana Maletić
Sediments, Sec 1 • Sediment Quality and Impact Assessment • Research Article
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

This study utilizes column tests to investigate the retardation of certain herbicides with different hydrophobicities (atrazine, alachlor and trifluralin) during transport through surface Danube sediment. The influence of water matrix on the retardation factor Rd and Freundlich constant Kf is investigated. The results are compared with batch tests to establish whether different methodologies result in similar or different conclusions.

Materials and methods

A stainless steel column was filled with natural Danube sediment. Three water matrices were investigated: synthetic, Danube surface, and deep groundwater rich in natural organic matter (NOM). The goal was to examine whether different water matrices would result in changes in the Rd and corresponding Kf values. After a tracer experiment, single herbicide solutions were tested in the three water matrices. Herbicides were analyzed by gas chromatography coupled with electron capture detector (GC/ECD). Retardation factors obtained in the column experiments were calculated using Transmod software (version 2.2). The Kf values calculated were compared with the values obtained in previous batch experiments.

Results and discussion

A breakthrough curve (BTC) for trifluralin could not be obtained during the experiment. Atrazine Rd values were almost the same in the natural matrices (54 and 55 for the ground and surface waters, respectively), and lower in the synthetic water (40). Alachlor Rd values in the three water matrices were very similar (30–35). The corresponding Kf values for alachlor (8.47–17.4) were lower than those of atrazine (13.5–27.9). These results differ from those obtained by earlier batch tests, which showed similar Kf values for both atrazine (4.4–9.2) and alachlor (4.43–10.35) in all three matrices. In contrast to the results observed during the batch tests, the column tests exhibited higher Kf values in the natural water matrices than the synthetic water, possibly due to the influence of dissolved organic carbon on herbicide sorption.

Conclusions

Of the three herbicides investigated, the smallest retardation was observed for alachlor. This was unexpected given the relative hydrophobicities of alachlor and atrazine. The potential risk of transport through the sediment may therefore be greater for alachlor than the other two herbicides. This was indicated neither by the batch tests nor from the KocKow estimations. Both herbicides exhibited similar Kd and Kf values in the batch tests, and lower values in the natural water matrices. In comparison, the column tests showed higher Kf values, with higher values in the natural matrices than in the synthetic water matrix.

Keywords

Column experiments Geosorption Herbicides River sediment Transport of organic pollutants 

Notes

Funding information

The research was financed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia within the project OI 172028.

Supplementary material

11368_2018_2084_MOESM1_ESM.docx (32 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 32.2 kb)

References

  1. Amiri F, Börnick H, Worch E (2005) Sorption of phenols onto sandy aquifer material: the effect of dissolved organic matter (DOM). Water Res 39:933–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker JR, Mihelcic JR, Luehrs DC, Hickey JP (1997) Evaluation of estimation methods for organic carbon normalized sorption coefficients. Water Environ Res 69:136–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banzhaf S, Hebig KH (2016) Use of column experiments to investigate the fate of organic micropollutants—a review. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 20:3719–3737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bi E, Zhang L, Schmidt TC, Haderlein SB (2009) Simulation of nonlinear sorption of N-heterocyclic organic contaminates in soil columns. J Contam Hydrol 107:58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bi E, Schmidt TC, Haderlein SB (2010) Practical issues relating to soil column chromatography for sorption parameter determination. Chemosphere 80:787–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chefetz B, Bilkis Y, Polubesova T (2004) Sorption-desorption behavior of triazine and phenylurea herbicides in Kishon river sediments. Water Res 38:4383–4394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EC (2000) Council Directive 2000/60/EC (2000) OJ L327/1, 22.12.2000, European Commission, Luxembourg, pp 1–72Google Scholar
  8. EC (2011) Guidance Document No. 27, Technical Guidance for Deriving Environmental Quality Standards, Technical Report—2011-055, European Commission, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  9. EU (2013) Council Directive 213/39/EU (2013) OJ L 226/1, 12.8.2013, European Commision, Luxembourg, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  10. Fernandez-Ramos C, Rodriguez-Gomez R, Reis MS, Zafra-Gomez A, Verge C, de Ferrer JA, Perez-Pascual M, Vilchez JL (2017) Sorption, degradation and transport phenomena of alcohol ethoxysulfates in agricultural soils. Laboratory studies. Chemosphere 171:661–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerstl Z (1990) Estimation of organic chemical sorption by soils. J Contam Hydrol 6:357–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grünheid S, Amy G, Jekel M (2005) Removal of bulk dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and trace organic compounds by bank filtration and artificial recharge. Water Res 39:3219–3228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hassett JJ, Banwart WL, Griffen RA (1983) Correlation of compound properties with sorption characteristics of nonpolar compounds by soil and sediments: concept and limitations. In: Francis CW, Auerbach SI (eds) Environmental and solid wastes: characterization, treatment and disposal. Butterworth Publishers, Newton, pp 161–178Google Scholar
  14. Hur J, Lee B, Shin H (2011) Microbial degradation of dissolved organic matter (DOM) and its influence on phenanthrene–DOM interactions. Chemosphere 85:1360–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jekel M, Gruenheid S (2006) Bank filration and groundwater recharge for treatment of polluted surface waters. In: Gimbel R, Graham NJD, Collins MR (eds) Recent progress in slow sand and alternative biofiltration processess. IWA Publishing, pp 519–529Google Scholar
  16. Ju D, Young TM (2005) The influence of natural organic matter rigidity on the sorption, desorption, and competitive displacement rates of 1,2-dichlorobenzene. Environ Sci Technol 39:7956–7963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karickhoff SW, Brown DS, Scott TA (1979) Sorption of hydrophobic pollutants on natural sediments. Water Res 13:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kenaga EE, Goring CAI (1980) Relationship between water solubility, soil sorption, octanol–water partitioning, and concentration of chemicals in biota. In: Eaton AC, Parrish JG, Hendricks PR (eds) Aquatic Toxicology ASTM STP 707. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, p 405Google Scholar
  19. Kragulj M, Dalmacija B, Tričković J, Dalmacija M, Maletić S, Krčmar D, Molnar J, Kerkez Đ, Pešić V (2011) Monitoring of priority substances in the water and sediment of protected zones and surface waters in AP Vojvodina. 40th National Conference with international participation „Voda 2011″, Zlatibor, Serbia, pp 109–114Google Scholar
  20. Kragulj M, Tričković J, Dalmacija B, Ivančev-Tumbas I, Leovac A, Molnar J, Krčmar D (2014) Sorption of benzothiazoles onto sandy aquifer material under equilibrium and nonequilibrium conditions. J Serb Chem Soc 79:89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kret E, Kiecak A, Malina G, Nijenhuis I, Postawa A (2015) Identification of TCE and PCE sorption and biodegradation parameters in a sandy aquifer for fate and transport modeling: batch and column studies. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:9877–9888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leovac A, Vasyukova E, Ivancev-Tumbas I, Uhl W, Kragulj M, Tričković J, Kerkez Đ, Dalmacija B (2015) Sorption of atrazine, alachlor and trifluralin from water onto different geosorbents. RSC Adv 25:8122–8133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Löfler D, Römbke J, Meller M, Ternes T (2005) Environmental fate of pharmaceuticals in water/sediment systems. Environ Sci Technol 39:5209–5218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maeng SK, Sharma SK, Lekkerkerker-Teunissen K, Amy GL (2011) Occurence and fate of bulk organic matter and pharmaceuticaly active compounds in managed aquifer recharge: a review. Water Res 45:3015–3033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Murillo-Torres R, Duran-Alvarez JC, Prado B, Jimenez-Cisneros BE (2012) Sorption and mobility of two micropollutants in three agricultural soils: a comparative analysis of their behavior in batch and column experiments. Geoderma 189-190:462–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Radovic T, Grujic S, Petkovic A, Dimkic M, Lausevic M (2015) Determination of pharmaceuticals and pesticides in river sediments and corresponding surface and ground water in the Danube River and tributaries in Serbia. Environ Monit Assess 187:4092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rahman M, Worch E (2005) Nonequilibrium sorption of phenols onto geosorbents: the impact of pH on intraparticle mass transfer. Chemosphere 61:1419–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rahman M, Amiri F, Worch E (2003) Application of the mass transfer model for describing nonequilibrium transport of HOCs through natural geosorbents. Water Res 37:4673–4684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmidt CK, Lange FT, Brauch HJ (2006) Assessing the impact of local boundary conditions on the fate of organic micropollutants during undergo passage. In: Gimbel R, Graham NJD, Collins MR (eds) Recent progress in slow sand and alternative biofiltration processess. IWA Publishing, London, pp 561–569Google Scholar
  30. Schwarzenbach RP, Westall J (1981) Transport of nonpolar organic compounds from surface water to groundwater. Laboratory sorption studies. Environ Sci Technol 15:1360–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schwarzenbach RP, Escher BI, Fenner K, Hofstetter TB, Johnson CA, von Gunten U, Wehrli B (2006) The challenge of micropollutants in aquatic systems. Science 313(5790):1072–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. SEPA (2012) Results of testing the quality of surface and groundwater for 2011. Serbian Environmental Protection Agency, Ministry of Environmental Protection, SerbiaGoogle Scholar
  33. SEPA (2013) Results of testing the quality of surface and groundwater for 2012. Serbian Environmental Protection Agency, Ministry of Environmental Protection, SerbiaGoogle Scholar
  34. SEPA (2014) Results of testing the quality of surface and groundwater for 2013. Serbian Environmental Protection Agency, Ministry of Environmental Protection, SerbiaGoogle Scholar
  35. SEPA (2015) Results of testing the quality of surface and groundwater for 2014. Serbian Environmental Protection Agency, Ministry of Environmental Protection, SerbiaGoogle Scholar
  36. SEPA (2017a) Results of testing the quality of surface and groundwater for 2015. Serbian Environmental Protection Agency, Ministry of Environmental Protection, SerbiaGoogle Scholar
  37. SEPA (2017b) Results of testing the quality of surface and groundwater for 2016. Serbian Environmental Protection Agency, Ministry of Environmental Protection, SerbiaGoogle Scholar
  38. Sun K, Gao B, Zhang Z, Zhang G, Zhao Y, Xing B (2010) Sorption of atrazine and phenanthrene by organic matter fractions in soil and sediment. Environ Pollut 158:3520–3526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Talete srl DRAGON (2011) (Software for Molecular Descriptor Calculation) Version 6.0, 2011 (http://talete.mi.it)
  40. Tan G, Sun W, Xu Y, Wang H, Xu N (2016) Sorption of mercury (II) and atrazine by biochar, modified biochars and biochar based activated carbon in aqueous solution. Bioresour Technol 211:727–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Toxicology Data Network (2003) Hazardous Substances Databank Number: 1003. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD, USA. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/. Assessed 15 March 2018
  42. Tričković J, Kragulj Isakovski M, Watson M, Maletić S, Rončević S, Dalmacija B, Konya Z, Kukovecz A (2016) Sorption behaviour of trichlorobenzenes and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the absence or presence of carbon nanotubes in the aquatic environment. Water Air Soil Pollut 227:374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Worch E (2004) Modeling of the solute transport under nonequilibrium conditions on the basis of mass transfer equations. J Contam Hydrol 68:97–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Worch E (2006) Program TransMod (Version 2.2) Program DocumentationGoogle Scholar
  45. Worch E (2012) Adsorption technology in water treatment—fundamentals, processes and modeling. DE Gruyter, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Worch E, Grischek T, Börnick H, Eppinger P (2002) Laboratory tests for simulating attenuation processes of aromatic amines in riverbank filtration. J Hydrol 266(3–4):259–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anita Leovac Maćerak
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ivana Ivančev-Tumbas
    • 1
  • Hilmar Börnick
    • 2
  • Gordana Ilić
    • 3
  • Marijana Kragulj Isakovski
    • 1
  • Snežana Maletić
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Sciences, Department of Chemistry, Biochemistry and Environmental ProtectionUniversity of Novi SadNovi SadSerbia
  2. 2.Institute of Water ChemistryDresden University of TechnologyDresdenGermany
  3. 3.School of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Division of Chemistry and Biological ChemistryNanyang Technological University21 Nanyang LinkSingapore

Personalised recommendations