Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Chitosan and D-fructose 1,6-bisphosphate differ in their effects on soil acidity and aluminum activation

  • Soils, Sec 1 • Soil Organic Matter Dynamics and Nutrient Cycling • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Soils and Sediments Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to evaluate the effects of chitosan and D-fructose 1,6-bisphosphate (F16BP) trisodium salt on the acidity of selected Ultisols (Ultisol-QY1, Ultisol-QY2, Ultisol-LX, and Ultisol-YT) and their resistance to soil acidification.

Materials and methods

The effect of adsorbed chitosan and F16BP on soil acidity was evaluated by interacting different concentrations of the organic substrates with 4.0 g soil under different agitation times (2 to 264 h, 200 rpm, 25 °C). Also, the soils were amended with the organic substrate and incubated for 14 days to determine their effects on soil physicochemical properties. Afterwards, the soil solid phases from the adsorption studies and incubated soil were acidified with different concentrations of nitric acid to simulate soil acidification and activate soil aluminum (Al).

Results and discussion

The adsorption interactions of chitosan and F16BP with Ultisols demonstrated different potentials in their ability to displace mineral-bound hydroxyl groups and ameliorate soil acidity. The R-PO43− group of F16BP was more effective in displacing the hydroxyl groups through a ligand exchange mechanism and thus showed greater ameliorating effect on soil acidity than chitosan. Compared to lime and F16BP, chitosan-treated soils exhibited the least decrease in pH during soil acidification due to the significant improvement in soil pH buffering capacity (pHBC). Specifically, when amended with chitosan, the pHBC of Ultisol-QY1, Ultisol-QY2, Ultisol-LX, and Ultisol-YT was increased by 262.2%, 88.9%, 337.7%, and 320.6% as opposed to 22.1%, 18.4%, 27.4%, and 83.0% for these Ultisols by F16BP, respectively. Thus, F16BP is a better material to improve soil pH, while chitosan is a better option to improve soil pHBC, inhibit soil acidification, and retard the activation of phytotoxic Al3+. By the nature of their functional groups, we deduced that F16BP ameliorated soil acidity by displacing the hydroxyl groups on soils due to adsorption of R-PO43− group through ligand exchange mechanism, while chitosan directly improved pHBC by providing abundant R-NH2 groups to accommodate excess exogenous H+.

Conclusions

Chitosan is a promising soil amendment material for use in the management of acidic soils due to its high N content and potential to inhibit soil acidification. Given the readily available raw materials and ease of producing chitosan, long-term incubation studies should be carried out to assess the effect of chitosan on soil pH variations, carbon, and N mineralization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aitken RL, Moody PW (1994) The effect of valence and ionic strength on the measurement of pH buffer capacity. Aust J Soil Res 32:975–984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adamczuk A, Kercheva M, Hristova M, Jozefaciuk G (2021) Impact of chitosan on water stability and wettability of soils. Materials 14:7724

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Andreeva DV, Kollath A, Brezhneva N, Sviridov DV, Cafferty BJ, Möhwald H, Skorb EV (2017) Using a chitosan nanolayer as an efficient pH buffer to protect pH-sensitive supramolecular assemblies. Phys Chem Chem Phys 19:23843–23848

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bajić A, Zakrzewska J, Godjevac D, Andjus P, Jones DR, Spasić M, Spasojević I (2011) Relevance of the ability of fructose 1,6-bis(phosphate) to sequester ferrous but not ferric ions. Carbohydr Res 346:416–420

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baquy MAA, Jiang J, Xu RK (2020) Biochars derived from crop straws increased the availability of applied phosphorus fertilizer for maize in Ultisol and Oxisol. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:5511–5522

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barja BC, Tejedor-Tejedor MI, Anderson MA (1999) Complexation of methylphosphonic acid with the surface of goethite particles in aqueous solution. Langmuir 15:2316–2321

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bickler PE, Buck LT (1996) Effects of fructose-1,6-bisphosphate on glutamate release and ATP loss from rat brain slices during hypoxia. J Neurochem 67:1463–1468

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Butterly CR, Baldock JA, Tang C (2013) The contribution of crop residues to changes in soil pH under field conditions. Plant Soil 366:185–198

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cai ZJ, Xu MG, Zhang L, Yang Y, Wang BR, Wen SL, Misselbrook TH, Carswell AM, Duan YH, Gao S (2020) Decarboxylation of organic anions to alleviate acidification of red soils from urea application. J Soils Sediments 20:3124–3135

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Das SK, Ghosh GK, Avasthe R (2020) Ecotoxicological responses of weed biochar on seed germination and seedling growth in acidic soil. Environ Technol Innov 20:101074

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Elzinga EJ, Huang JH, Chorover J, Kretzschmar R (2012) ATR-FTIR spectroscopy study of the influence of ph and contact time on the adhesion of shewanella putrefaciens bacterial cells to the surface of hematite. Environ Sci Technol 46:12848–12855

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fang LC, Cao Y, Huang QY, Walker SL, Cai P (2012) Reactions between bacterial exopolymers and goethite: a combined macroscopic and spectroscopic investigation. Water Res 46:5613–5620

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guo J, Yang J, Yang JX, Zheng GD, Chen TB, Huang J, Bian JL, Meng XF (2020) Water-soluble chitosan enhances phytoremediation efficiency of cadmium by Hylotelephium spectabile in contaminated soils. Carbohydr Polym 246:116559

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hataf N, Ghadir P, Ranjbar N (2018) Investigation of soil stabilization using chitosan biopolymer. J Clean Prod 170:1493–1500

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hidangmayum A, Dwivedi P, Katiyar D, Hemantaranjan A (2019) Application of chitosan on plant responses with special reference to abiotic stress. Physiol Mol Biol Plants 25:313–326

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Higashikawa FS, Conz RF, Colzato M, Cerri CEP, Alleoni LRF (2016) Effects of feedstock type and slow pyrolysis temperature in the production of biochars on the removal of cadmium and nickel from water. J Clean Prod 137:965–972

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim M, Alaam M, El-Haes H, Jalbout AF, De Leon A (2006) Analysis of the structure and vibrational spectra of glucose and fructose. Eclet Quim 31:15–21

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ing LY, Zin NM, Sarwar A, Katas H (2012) Antifungal activity of chitosan nanoparticles and correlation with their physical properties. Int J Biomater 2012:632698

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kamari A, Pulford ID, Hargreaves JSJ (2012) Metal accumulation in Lolium perenne and Brassica napus as affected by application of chitosans. Int J Phytorem 14:894–907

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kopittke PM, Blamey FPC (2016) Theoretical and experimental assessment of nutrient solution composition in short-term studies of aluminium rhizotoxicity. Plant Soil 406:311–326

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kumari S, Rath P, Kumar ASH, Tiwari TN (2015) Extraction and characterization of chitin and chitosan from fishery waste by chemical method. Environ Technol Innov 3:77–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laus R, Costa TG, Szpoganicz B, Fávere VT (2010) Adsorption and desorption of Cu(II), Cd(II) and Pb(II) ions using chitosan crosslinked with epichlorohydrin-triphosphate as the adsorbent. J Hazard Mater 183:233–241

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li JY, Xu RK, Xiao SC, Ji GL (2005) Effect of low-molecular-weight organic anions on exchangeable aluminum capacity of variable charge soils. J Colloid Interface Sci 284:393–399

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li KW, Lu HL, Nkoh JN, Hong ZN, Xu RK (2022) Aluminum mobilization as influenced by soil organic matter during soil and mineral acidification: a constant pH study. Geoderma 418:115853

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liu X, Zhang B, Zhao W, Wang L, Xie D, Huo W, Wu Y, Zhang J (2017) Comparative effects of sulfuric and nitric acid rain on litter decomposition and soil microbial community in subtropical plantation of Yangtze River Delta region. Sci Total Environ 601–602:669–678

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • López-Sánchez M, Ayora-Cañada MJ, Molina-Díaz A, Siam M, Huber W, Quintás G, Armenta S, Lendl B (2009) Determination of enzyme activity inhibition by FTIR spectroscopy on the example of fructose bisphosphatase. Anal Bioanal Chem 394:2137–2144

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ma Z, Wang W, Wu Y, He Y, Wu T (2014) Oxidative degradation of chitosan to the low molecular water-soluble chitosan over peroxotungstate as chemical scissors. PLoS ONE 9:e100743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehmood S, Ahmed W, Ikram M, Imtiaz M, Mahmood S, Tu S, Chen D (2020) Chitosan modified biochar increases soybean (Glycine max L.) resistance to salt-stress by augmenting root morphology, antioxidant defense mechanisms and the expression of stress-responsive genes. Plants 9:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Murinov KY, Kuramshina AR, Khisamutdinov RA, Murinov YI, Kabal’Nova NN, (2010) IR study on chitosan oxidation with sodium chlorite. Russ J Gen Chem 80:23–26

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Naidu R, Syers JK, Tillman RW, Kirkman JH (1990) Effect of liming and added phosphate on charge characteristics of acid soils. J Soil Sci 41:157–164

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nkoh JN, Hong ZN, Xu RK (2022) Laboratory studies on the effect of adsorbed microbial extracellular polymeric substances on the acidity of selected variable–charge soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 86:162–180

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nkoh JN, Yan J, Xu RK, Shi RY, Hong ZN (2020) The mechanism for inhibiting acidification of variable charge soils by adhered Pseudomonas fluorescens. Environ Pollut 260:114049

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Odinga ES, Waigi MG, Gudda FO, Wang J, Yang B, Hu X, Li S, Gao Y (2020) Occurrence, formation, environmental fate and risks of environmentally persistent free radicals in biochars. Environ Int 134:105172

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Omoike A, Chorover J (2006) Adsorption to goethite of extracellular polymeric substances from Bacillus subtilis. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 70:827–838

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pansu M, Gautheyrou J (2006) Handbook of soil analysis: mineralogical, organic and inorganic methods. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Qafoku NP, Van Ranst E, Noble A, Baert G (2004) Variable charge soils: their mineralogy, chemistry and management. Adv Agron 84:159–215

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Qi C, Zhou D, Zhu YJ, Sun TW, Chen F, Zhang CQ (2017) Sonochemical synthesis of fructose 1,6-bisphosphate dicalcium porous microspheres and their application in promotion of osteogenic differentiation. Mater Sci Eng C 77:846–856

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ren J, Tong J, Li P, Huang X, Dong P, Ren M (2021) Chitosan is an effective inhibitor against potato dry rot caused by Fusarium oxysporum. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 113:101601

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ren LY, Hong ZN, Qian W, Li JY, Xu RK (2018) Adsorption mechanism of extracellular polymeric substances from two bacteria on Ultisol and Alfisol. Environ Pollut 237:39–49

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rukshana F, Butterly CR, Baldock JA, Tang C (2011) Model organic compounds differ in their effects on pH changes of two soils differing in initial pH. Biol Fertil Soils 47:51–62

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sapkota A, Sapkota AR, Kucharski M, Burke J, McKenzie S, Walker P, Lawrence R (2008) Aquaculture practices and potential human health risks: current knowledge and future priorities. Environ Int 34:1215–1226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheals J, Sjöberg S, Persson P (2002) Adsorption of glyphosate on goethite: molecular characterization of surface complexes. Environ Sci Technol 36:3090–3095

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shi RY, Hong ZN, Li JY, Jiang J, Kamran MA, Xu RK, Qian W (2018) Peanut straw biochar increases the resistance of two Ultisols derived from different parent materials to acidification: a mechanism study. J Environ Manage 210:171–179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shi RY, Ni N, Nkoh JN, Li JY, Xu RK, Qian W (2019) Beneficial dual role of biochars in inhibiting soil acidification resulting from nitrification. Chemosphere 234:43–51

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shi RY, Ni N, Nkoh JN, Dong Y, Zhao WR, Pan XY, Li JY, Xu RK, Qian W (2020) Biochar retards Al toxicity to maize (Zea mays L.) during soil acidification: the effects and mechanisms. Sci Total Environ 719: 137448

  • von Uexküll HR, Mutert E (1995) Global extent, development and economic impact of acid soils. Plant Soil 171:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Zhang B, Tian Y, Zhang H, Cheng Y, Zhang J (2018) A soil management strategy for ameliorating soil acidification and reducing nitrification in tea plantations. Eur J Soil Biol 88:36–40

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Xu JM, Tang C, Chen ZL (2006) The role of plant residues in pH change of acid soils differing in initial pH. Soil Biol Biochem 38:709–719

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Xu RK, Zhao AZ, Yuan JH, Jiang J (2012) pH buffering capacity of acid soils from tropical and subtropical regions of China as influenced by incorporation of crop straw biochars. J Soils Sediments 12:494–502

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Xu RK, Ji GL (2001) Effects of H2SO4 and HNO3 on soil acidification and aluminum speciation in variable and constant charge soils. Water Air Soil Pollut 129:33–43

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yamamoto Y (2019) Aluminum toxicity in plant cells: mechanisms of cell death and inhibition of cell elongation. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 65:41–55

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yang Y, Wang Y, Peng Y, Cheng P, Li F, Liu T (2020) Acid-base buffering characteristics of non-calcareous soils: correlation with physicochemical properties and surface complexation constants. Geoderma 360:114005

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yu TR (1997) Chemistry of variable charge soils. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao WR, Li JY, Jiang J, Lu HL, Hong ZN, Qian W, Xu RK, Deng KY, Guan P (2020) The mechanisms underlying the reduction in aluminum toxicity and improvements in the yield of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) after organic and inorganic amendment of an acidic Ultisol. Agric Ecosyst Environ 288: 106716

  • Zheng H, Liu X, Liu G, Luo X, Li F, Wang Z (2018) Comparison of the ecotoxicological effects of biochar and activated carbon on a marine clam (Meretrix meretrix). J Clean Prod 180:252–262

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. U19A2046) and the Chinese Academy of Sciences President’s International Fellowship Initiative (PIFI, No. 2021PC0066).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 821, Nanjing, China

    Jackson Nkoh Nkoh, Xian He, Hai-long Lu, Ke-wei Li, Ren-yong Shi, Jiu-yu Li & Ren-kou Xu

  2. College of Advanced Agricultural Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China

    Xian He, Ke-wei Li & Ren-kou Xu

  3. Department of Chemistry, University of Buea, P.O. Box 63, Buea, Cameroon

    Jackson Nkoh Nkoh

Authors
  1. Jackson Nkoh Nkoh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xian He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hai-long Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ke-wei Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ren-yong Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jiu-yu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ren-kou Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ren-kou Xu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest and the research was not involving human participants and animals.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Caixian Tang

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 108 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nkoh, J.N., He, X., Lu, Hl. et al. Chitosan and D-fructose 1,6-bisphosphate differ in their effects on soil acidity and aluminum activation. J Soils Sediments 22, 2129–2145 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-022-03228-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-022-03228-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation