Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 1400–1408 | Cite as

Slow nitrogen release from humic substances modified with aminoorganosilanes

  • Natalia A. Kulikova
  • Olga I. Filippova
  • Alexander B. Volikov
  • Irina V. Perminova
Natural Organic Matter: Chemistry, Function and Fate in the Environment

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the present study is to evaluate slow-release nitrogen capabilities of soil amendments obtained by modification of humic materials from peat and lignite with alkoxyorganosilanes carrying different amine substituents.

Materials and methods

The humates from lignite and peat were modified using (3-aminopropyltriethoxy)-silane (APTES) and (1-aminohexamethylenene, 6-aminomethylene)-triethoxysilane (AHATES). The obtained derivatives were characterized using elemental analysis and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Nitrogen release in the form of ammonia or nitrate was evaluated using dissolution tests under sterile aqueous conditions as well as long-term soil experiments. Ammonium and nitrate were determined using ion-selective electrodes. Activity index (AI) was calculated from the dissolution tests. For soil trials, arable Retisol was sampled from 0- to 5-cm layer in Yaroslavl region (Russia). The soil experiments were conducted over 78 days using (NH4)2SO4 as an activator of nitrification and 3-amino-1,2,4-triazole as an inhibitor of autotrophic nitrifying bacteria.

Results and discussion

Modification of lignite and peat humates leads to an increase in nitrogen content up to 2 and 4.3 %, respectively, in case of APTES, and up to 3 and 6 %, respectively, in case of AHATES. All humic derivatives gradually released N upon dissolution in water over 6 days up to 51 % of the total N. The AI values ranged from 4 to 13 %. Amendment of soil with the modified humic materials induced an increase in nitrate content resulting from nitrification of released ammonia by soil microflora. This was confirmed by aminotriasole experiments. The nitrogen release occurred slowly: over the first week of incubation, it did not exceed 36–69 % of the total N content. The higher release rate of ammonium nitrogen was observed for CHS-AHATES versus CHS-APTES derivative, whereas no difference was seen between the two peat derivatives, which showed release rate on the level of CHS-AHATES derivative. Positive effect of all modified humic materials lasted over 78 days.

Conclusions

Modification of lignite and peat humates with two aminoorganosilanes carrying one and two nitrogen atoms in the amine substituent brought about twofold to threefold enrichment of the parent humic materials with nitrogen, which was capable of slow release upon incubation in soils. It was released in the form of ammonia and transformed to nitrates by autotrophic nitrifying soil microflora. There was no clear relationship established between structure of amine substituent of organosilane and slow-release properties of the corresponding humic derivatives. The conclusion was met that principal application of aminoorganosilane derivatives of humic substances (HS) is soil structuring, whereas nitrogen-fertilizing capabilities might be considered as beneficial added-value feature of these humic products.

Keywords

Aminoorganosilanes Humic substances Modification Slow nitrogen release fertilizers Soil amendments 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (grant no. 16-14-00167).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Canellas LP, Olivares FL, Aguiar NO, Jones DL, Nebbioso A, Mazzei P, Piccolo A (2015) Humic and fulvic acids as biostimulants in horticulture. Sci Hortic 196:15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Canellas LP, Piccolo A, Dobbss LB, Spaccini R, Olivares FL, Zandonadi DB, Facanha AR (2010) Chemical composition and bioactivity properties of size-fractions separated from a vermicompost humic acid. Chemosphere 78:457–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlson AB, Banks CV (1952) Spectrophotometric determination of silicon. Anal Chem 24:472–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen Y, Aviad T (1990) Effects of humic substances on plant growth. In: MacCarthy P, Clapp CE, Malcolm RL, Bloom PR (ed) Humic substances in soil and crop sciences: selected readings. Am Soc Agron, Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, Wisconsin, pp 161–186Google Scholar
  5. Clapp CE, Hayes MHB, Swift RS (1993) Isolation, fractionation, functionalities, and concepts of structure of soil organic macromolecules. In: Beck AJ, Jones KC, Hayes MBH, Mingelgrin U (eds) Organic substances in soil and water. Royal Society of Chemistry, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Clapp CE, Hayes MHB, Ciavatta C (2007) Organic wastes in soils: biogeochemical and environmental aspects. Soil Biol Biochem 39(6):1239–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kaempffe GC, Lunt OR (1967) Availability of various fractions of urea-formaldehyde. J Agric Food Chem 15:967–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Karpiouk LA, Ponomarenko SA, Mourran A, Bochkariov D, Muzafarov AM, Hatfield K, Perminova IV (2012) Self assembly of alkoxysilanized humic substances into multidomain adlayers at water-solid interface: linking surface morphology to molecular structures of adsorbate. Soft Matter 8:2452–2459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mikkelsen RL (1994) Using hydrophillic polymers to control nutrient release. Fertil Res 38:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mineev VG (2001) Handbook on agricultural chemistry. A tutorial. MSU Publishing, Moscow 689 pGoogle Scholar
  11. Naz MY, Sulaiman SA (2014) Testing of starch-based carbohydrate polymer coatings for enhanced urea performance. J Coat Technol Res 11:747–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Niu Y, Li H (2012) Controlled release of urea encapsulated by starch-g-poly(vinyl acetate). Ind Eng Chem Res 51(38):12173–12177Google Scholar
  13. Orlov DS (1990) Soil humic acids and general theory of humification. Moscow State University Publisher, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  14. Pereira EI, da Cruz CCT, Solomon A, Le A, Cavigelli MA, Ribeiro C (2015) Novel slow-release nanocomposite nitrogen fertilizers: the impact of polymers on nanocomposite properties and function. Ind Eng Chem Res 54(14):3717–3725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Perminova IV, Karpiouk LA, Ponomarenko SA, Konstantinov AI, Hertkorn N, Hatfield K (2012) Controlling aqueous sorption of humic substances on silica gel by directed alkoxysilyl-derivatization of their functionalities. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 396:224–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stevenson FJ (1994) Humus chemistry: genesis, composition, reactions. Wiley & Sons, New York 496 ppGoogle Scholar
  17. Swift RS (1996) Organic matter characterization (chap 35). Methods of soil analysis. Madison, WI, Soil Science Society of America. Part 3, pp 1018–1020Google Scholar
  18. Thurman EM (1985) Organic geochemistry of natural waters. Martinus Nijhof/Dr W. Junk Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Trenkel МЕ (1997) Controlled-release and stabilized fertilizers in agriculture/М.Е. Trenkel//IFA, Paris: International Fertilizer Industry Association 1997, 150 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Trevisan S, Francioso O, Quaggiotti S, Nardi S (2010) Humic substances biological activity at the plant-soil interface. From environmental aspects to molecular factors. Plant Signal Behav 5:635–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Volikov AB, Kholodov VA, Kulikova NA, Philippova OI, Ponomarenko SA, Lasareva EV, Parfyonova AM, Hatfield K, Perminova IV (2016a) Silanized humic substances act as hydrophobic modifiers of soil separates inducing formation of water-stable aggregates in soils. Catena 137:229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Volikov AB, Ponomarenko SA, Gutsche A, Nirschl H, Hatfield K, Perminova IV (2016b) Targeted design of water-based humic substances-silsesquioxane soft materials for nature-inspired remedial applications. RSC Adv 6:48222–48230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Volikov AB, Ponomarenko SA, Konstantinov AI, Hatfield K, Perminova IV (2016c) Nature-like solution for removal of direct brown 1 azo dye from aqueous phase using humics-modified silica gel. Chemosphere 145:83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. World reference base for soil resources (WRB) (2014) A framework for international classification, correlation and communication, Word Soil Resourse Report 106. FAO, Rome, 181 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natalia A. Kulikova
    • 1
    • 2
  • Olga I. Filippova
    • 1
  • Alexander B. Volikov
    • 3
  • Irina V. Perminova
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Soil ScienceLomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Bach Institute of Biochemistry, Research Center of Biotechnology of the Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Department of ChemistryLomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations