Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 186–197 | Cite as

Influence of soil variability on single and competitive interaction of ammonium and potassium: experimental study on seven different soils

  • Poly Buragohain
  • S. Sreedeep
  • Peng Lin
  • Junjun Ni
  • Ankit Garg
Soils, Sec 3 • Remediation and Management of Contaminated or Degraded Lands • Research Article
  • 62 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Ammonium and potassium are nutrients that generally co-exist together in soils in municipal wasteland. The main objective of this study is to investigate the interactive effects of NH4+ and K+ on their sorption characteristics in seven different soils.

Materials and methods

The adsorption parameters (Freundlich partition coefficient KF and maximum contaminant adsorbed by solid Qm) of both the isotherms for single and competitive interactions were correlated with soil-specific parameters (total specific surface area (SSA) and cation exchange capacity (CEC)). To depict the significant variation of the ions in the presence of other ions, percentage reduction of the isotherm parameters was calculated.

Results and discussion

Both the ions exhibited a competitive mode of inhibition in the presence of one another. However, the effects varied with soils and the range of concentration. The study demonstrated that at lower concentration, the NH4+ and K+ ion competed equally in all the soils. However, after a certain range of concentration unique for each soil, NH4+ retention was found to be marginally higher than K+. The study also signified some analogous values of the Freundlich and Langmuir isotherm parameters for soils like F Bent and Kao, which contradicted other experimental findings.

Conclusions

This study can be useful for predicting fate of potassium and ammonium for risk assessment of contaminated sites and hence, in design or analysis of certain waste contaminant barrier under concept of sponge city.

Keywords

Ammonium Different soils Interaction Isotherms Potassium 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Shantou University Scientific Research Fund (NTF17007) for the project.

References

  1. Agbenin JO, Modisaemang L (2014) Potassium→ ammonium exchange of two benchmark soils from Botswana and its implication for nitrogen economy of the soils. Arch Agron Soil Sci 60(6):827–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alloway BJ, Jackson AP (1991) The behaviour of heavy metals in sewage sludge-amended soils. Sci Total Environ 100:151–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASTM Standard D 422 (2007) Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  4. ASTM Standard D 4318 (2005) Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils, ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  5. ASTM Standard D 4646 (2003) Standard test method for 24-h batch-type measurement of contaminant sorption by soils and sediments. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  6. ASTM Standard D 854 (2006) Standard test method for specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernal MP, Lopez-Real JM (1993) Natural zeolites and sepiolite as ammonium and ammonia adsorbent materials. Bioresour Technol 43(1):27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buragohain P, Garg A, Lin P, Hong M, Yi Z, Sreedeep S (2018) Exploring potential of fly ash-bentonite mix as a liner material in waste containment systems under concept of sponge city. Adv Civil Eng Mater 7(1):46–70Google Scholar
  9. Buss SR, Herbert AW, Morgan P, Thornton SF, Smith JWN (2004) A review of ammonium attenuation in soil and groundwater. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 37(4):347–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carski TH, Sparks DL (1987) Differentiation of soil nitrogen fractions using a kinetic approach. Soil Sci Soc Am J 51(2):314–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter DL, Mortland MM, Kemper WD (1982) Specific surfaces. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of soil analysis. Part I-Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, pp 413–423Google Scholar
  12. Ceazan ML, Thurman EM, Smith RL (1989) Retardation of ammonium and potassium transport through a contaminated sand and gravel aquifer: the role of cation exchange. Environ Sci Technol 23(11):1402–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cerato AB, Lutenegger AJ (2002) Determination of surface area of fine-grained soils by the ethylene glycol monoethyl ether (EGME) method. Geotech Test J 25(3):210–219Google Scholar
  14. Chung JB, Zasoski RJ (1994) Ammonium-potassium and ammonium-calcium exchange equilibria in bulk and rhizosphere soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58(5):1368–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deka A, Sekharan S (2017) Contaminant retention characteristics of fly ash–bentonite mixes. Waste Manag Res 35(1):40–46Google Scholar
  16. Evangelou VP, Karathanasis AD, Blevins RL (1986) Effect of soil organic matter accumulation on potassium and ammonium quantity-intensity relationships. Soil Sci Soc Am J 50(2):378–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garg A, Vijayaraghavan V, Zhang J, Lam JSL (2017a) Robust model design for evaluation of power characteristics of the cleaner energy system. Renew Energy 112:302–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garg A, Vijayaraghavan V, Zhang J, Li S, Liang X (2017b) Design of robust battery capacity model for electric vehicle by incorporation of uncertainties. Int J Energy Res 41:1436–1451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Georgiev P, Groudev S, Spasova I, Nicolova M (2016) Remediation of a grey forest soil contaminated with heavy metals by means of leaching at acidic pH. J Soils Sediments 16(4):1288–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hagemann N, Kammann CI, Schmidt HP, Kappler A, Behrens S (2017) Nitrate capture and slow release in biochar amended compost and soil. PloS one 12(2):e0171214Google Scholar
  21. Jiang Y, Huang R, Jiang S, Qin Z, Yan X (2018) Adsorption of Cd (II) by rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soil originating from mulberry field under laboratory condition. Int J Phytoremediation 20(4):378–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kadiri M, Spencer KL, Heppell CM (2012) Potential contaminant release from agricultural soil and dredged sediment following managed realignment. J Soils Sediments 12(10):1581–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kithome M, Paul JW, Lavkulich LM, Bomke AA (1998) Kinetics of ammonium adsorption and desorption by the natural zeolite clinoptilolite. Soil Sci Soc Am J 62(3):622–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kjeldsen P, Barlaz MA, Rooker AP, Baun A, Ledin A, Christensen TH (2002) Present and long-term composition of MSW landfill leachate: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 32(4):297–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lair GJ, Gerzabek MH, Haberhauer G (2007) Sorption of heavy metals on organic and inorganic soil constituents. Environ Chem Lett 5(1):23–27Google Scholar
  26. Lair GJ, Graf M, Zehetner F, Gerzabek MH (2008) Distribution of cadmium among geochemical fractions in floodplain soils of progressing development. Environ Pollut 156(1):207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee JF, Crum JR, Boyd SA (1989) Enhanced retention of organic contaminants by soils exchanged with organic cations. Environ Sci Technol 23(11):1365–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee CSL, Li X, Shi W, Cheung SCN, Thornton I (2006) Metal contamination in urban, suburban, and country park soils of Hong Kong: a study based on GIS and multivariate statistics. Sci Total Environ 356(1):45–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Li XN, Li JQ, Fang X, Gong YW, Wang WL (2016) Case studies of the sponge city program in China. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, pp 295–308Google Scholar
  30. Lumbanraja J, Evangelou VP (1990) Binary and ternary exchange behavior of potassium and ammonium on Kentucky subsoils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 54(3):698–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marschner H (1995) Adaptation of plants to adverse chemical soil Conditions-16. In: Mineral nutrition of higher plants. Academic Press, New York, pp 477–542Google Scholar
  32. Martins T, Leitão TE, Carvalho MR (2017) Assessment of wastewater contaminants retention for a soil-aquifer treatment system using soil-column experiments. Prog Earth Planet Sci 17:332–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matschonat G, Matzner E (1996) Soil chemical properties affecting NH4+ sorption in forest soils. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 159(5):505–511Google Scholar
  34. Mikolajków J (2003) Laboratory methods of estimating the retardation factor of migrating mineral nitrogen compounds in shallow groundwater. Geol Quart 47(1):91–96Google Scholar
  35. Mojiri A (2012) Phytoremediation of heavy metals from municipal wastewater by typhadomingensis. Afr J Microbiol Res 6(3):643–647Google Scholar
  36. Murali V, Aylmore LAG (1983) Competitive adsorption during solute transport in soils: 1. Mathematical models. Soil Sci 135(3):143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nommik H (1965) Ammonium fixation and other reactions involving a nonenzymatic immobilization of mineral nitrogen in soil. Soil Nitrogen, pp 198–258Google Scholar
  38. Pan GX, Li LQ, Liu XY, Cheng K, Bian RJ, Ji CY, Zheng JF, Zhang XH, Zheng JW (2015) Industrialization of biochar from biomass pyrolysis: a new option for straw burning ban and green agriculture of China. Sci. Technol Rev 33(13):92–101Google Scholar
  39. Peng C, Wang M, Chen W (2016) Modelling cadmium contamination in paddy soils under long-term remediation measures: model development and stochastic simulations. Environ Pollut 216:146–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Phillips IR (1999) Copper, lead, cadmium, and zinc sorption by waterlogged and air-dry soil. J Soil Contam 8(3):343–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pivato A, Raga R (2006) Tests for the evaluation of ammonium attenuation in MSW landfill leachate by adsorption into bentonite in a landfill liner. Waste Manag 26(2):123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Poly B, Sreedeep S (2010) Influence of soil–multiple contaminant retention parameters on contaminant fate prediction. J Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste 15(3):180–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rahman WA, Rowell DL (1979) The influence of magnesium in saline and sodic soils: a specific effect or a problem of cation exchange? Eur J Soil Sci 30(3):535–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rezaei M, Naeini SAR (2009a) Kinetics of potassium desorption from the loess soil, soil mixed with zeolite and the clinoptilolite zeolite as influenced by calcium and ammonium. J Appl Sci 9(18):3335–3342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rezaei M, Naeini SM (2009b) Effects of ammonium and Iranian natural zeolite on potassium adsorption and desorption kinetics in the loess soil. Int J Soil Sci 4(2):27–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sepaskhah AR, Yousefi F (2007) Effects of zeolite application on nitrate and ammonium retention of a loamy soil under saturated conditions. Soil Res 45(5):368–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sridharan A, Rao SN (1972) Hyperbolic representation of strength, pore pressures, and volume changes with axial strain in triaxial tests. In: Proceedings, the symposium on strength and deformation behaviour of soils, Bangalore, India, pp 33–42Google Scholar
  48. Srivastava P, Singh B, Angove M (2005) Competitive adsorption behavior of heavy metals on kaolinite. J Colloid Interface Sci 290(1):28–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Talibudeen O (1981) Cation exchange in soils. The chemistry of soil processes, pp 115–177Google Scholar
  50. Tengrui L, Al-Harbawi A, Jun Z, Bo LM (2007) The effect and its influence factors of the Fenton process on the old landfill leachate. J Appl Sci 7(5):724–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Bladel R, Laudelout H (1967) Apparent irreversibility of ion-exchange reactions in clay suspensions. Soil Sci 104(2):134–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vrba J, Romijn E (1986) Impact of agricultural activities on ground water. Int Contrib Hydrogeol 5:89–129Google Scholar
  53. Wan Yaacob WZ, Samsudin AR, Ramziemran M, Loon CY (2004) Natural sorption capability of heavy metals: Granitic residual soil from broga and Marine Clay from Sg. Besar Selangor. Bull Geol Soc Malaysia 48:13–16Google Scholar
  54. Wang FL, Alva AK (2000) Ammonium adsorption and desorption in sandy soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64(5):1669–1674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wang XS, Yong QIN (2005) Correlation between magnetic susceptibility and heavy metals in urban topsoil: a case study from the city of Xuzhou, China. Environ Geol 49(1):10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. White Jr PM, Wolf DC, Thoma GJ, Reynolds CM (2003) Influence of organic and inorganic soil amendments on plant growth in crude oil-contaminated soil. Int J Phytoremediation 5(4):381–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wilson BA, Addo-Mensah AK, Mendez MO (2015) In situ impacts of a flooding event on contaminant deposition and fate in a riparian ecosystem. J Soils Sediments 15(11):2244–2256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Xia J, Zhang YY, Xiong LH, He S, Wang LF, Yu ZB (2017) Opportunities and challenges of the sponge city construction related to urban water issues in China. Sci China Earth Sci 60(4):652–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Poly Buragohain
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Sreedeep
    • 2
  • Peng Lin
    • 3
  • Junjun Ni
    • 4
  • Ankit Garg
    • 3
  1. 1.Mahindra Ecole Polytechnic InstituteHyderabadIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyGuwahatiIndia
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringShantou UniversityShantouChina
  4. 4.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineeringthe Hong Kong University of Science and TechnologyHong KongHong Kong SAR

Personalised recommendations