Insights into the mercury(II) adsorption and binding mechanism onto several typical soils in China
- 346 Downloads
To better understand the Hg(II) adsorption by some typical soils and explore the insights about the binding between Hg(II) and soils, a batch of adsorption and characteristic experiments was conducted. Results showed that Hg(II) adsorption was well fitted by the Langmuir and Freundlich. The maximum adsorption amount of cinnamon soil (2094.73 mg kg−1) was nearly tenfold as much as that of saline soil (229.49 mg kg−1). The specific adsorption of Hg(II) on four soil surface was confirmed by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) owing to the change of elemental bonding energy after adsorption. However, the specific adsorption is mainly derived from some substances in the soil. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) demonstrated that multiple oxygen-containing functional groups (O–H, C=O, and C–O) were involved in the Hg(II) adsorption, and the content of oxygen functional groups determined the adsorption capacity of the soil. Meanwhile, scanning electron microscopy combined with X-ray energy dispersive spectrometer (SEM–EDS) more intuitive revealed the binding of mercury to organic matter, metal oxides, and clay minerals in the soil and fundamentally confirmed the results of XPS and FTIR to further elucidate adsorptive phenomena. The complexation with oxygen-containing functional groups and the precipitation with minerals were likely the primary mechanisms for Hg(II) adsorption on several typical soils. This study is critical in understanding the transportation of Hg(II) in different soils and discovering potential preventative measures.
KeywordsHg(II) Adsorption isotherms Adsorption characterization Binding mechanism Multiple spectral analyses Typical soils
This research was supported by the Shandong Provincial Key Research and Development Program (no. 2016CYJS05A02), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (no. SQ2017YFNC0601), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (no. 2015M572016), and the Fundamental Research Funds of Shandong University (no. 2014JC048).
- Jiang GB, Shi JB, Feng XB (2006) Mercury pollution in China. An overview of the past and current sources of the toxic metal. Environ Sci Technol 40:3673–3678Google Scholar
- Liu H, Wang LH, Zhang J, Li GX, Dai JL (2015) Distribution characteristics, bioaccumulation, and sources of mercury in rice at Nansi Lake area, Shandong Province, China. J Anim Plant Sci 25:114–121Google Scholar
- Lu RK (2000) Analysis methods of soil agricultural chemistry. Agricultural Science and Technology Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
- Orlov DS (1985) Humus acids of soils. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
- Risch MR, Gay DA, Fowler KK, Keeler GJ, Backus SM, Blanchard P, Barres JA, Dvonch JT (2012) Spatial patterns and temporal trends in mercury concentrations, precipitation depths, and mercury wet deposition in the North American Great Lakes region, 2002–2008. Environ Pollut 161:261–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sawhney BL, Isaacson PJ (1983) Humus chemistry: genesis, composition, reaction. Soil Sci 135:129–130Google Scholar
- U.S. EPA (1997) Mercury study report to congress. Volume III. Fate and transport of mercury in the environmnet. U.S. Environ. Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Wang GY, Zhang SR, Yao P, Chen Y, Xu XX, Li T, Gong GS (2015) Removal of Pb(II) from aqueous solutions by Phytolacca americana L. biomass as a low cost biosorbent. Arab J Chem. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2015.06.011
- Ye WP (2015) Origin 9.1 science and technology drawing and data analysis. China Machine Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar