4.4 Article

Comparison of Phosphate Materials for Immobilizing Cadmium in Soil

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00244-009-9363-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. On-Site Cooperative Agriculture Research [20070401-080-100-001-01-00]
  2. RDA
  3. Republic of Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study was conducted to compare the effects of phosphate (P) materials in reducing cadmium extractability. Seven P materials (commercial P fertilizers-fused phosphate (FP), 'fused and superphosphate' [FSP], and rock phosphate [RP]; P chemicals-Ca[H2PO4](2)center dot H2O, [NH4](2)HPO4, KH2PO4, and K2HPO4) were selected for the test. The selected P source was mixed with Cd-contaminated soil at the rate of 0, 200, 400, 800, and 1,600 mg P kg(-1) under controlled moisture conditions at 70% of water holding capacity, then incubated for 8 weeks. FP, Ca(H2PO4)(2) a (TM) H2O, KH2PO4, and K2HPO4 significantly decreased NH4OAc-extractable Cd (plant-available form) concentrations with increasing application rates. Compared to other phosphate materials used, K2HPO4 was found to be the most effective in reducing the plant-available Cd concentration in soil, mainly due to the negative charge increase caused by soil pH and phosphate adsorption. Contrary to the general information, FSP and (NH4)(2)HPO4 increased Cd extractability at low levels of P application (< 400 mg kg(-1)), and thereafter Cd extractability decreased significantly with increasing application rate. RP scarcely had an effect on reducing Cd extractability. Ion activity products of CdHPO4, Cd(OH)(2), and CdCO3 analyzed by the MINTEQ program were significantly increased by K2HPO4 addition, but the effect of Cd-P compound formation on reducing Cd extractability was negligible. Conclusively, the P-induced alleviation of Cd extractability can be attributed primarily to Cd immobilization due to the increase in soil pH and negative charge rather than Cd-P precipitation, and therefore, alkaline P materials such as K2HPO4 are effective for immobilizing soil Cd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据