Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T19:49:31.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of pH, Ca- and SO4-concentration on surface charge and colloidal stability of goethite and hematite – consequences for the adsorption of anionic organic substances

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2018

J. Walsch  and
S. Dultz
J. Walsch*
Affiliation:
Institute of Soil Science, Leibniz University of Hannover, Herrenhäuser Str. 2, D-30419 Hannover, Germany
S. Dultz
Affiliation:
Institute of Soil Science, Leibniz University of Hannover, Herrenhäuser Str. 2, D-30419 Hannover, Germany
*
*E-mail: walsch@ifbk.uni-hannover.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Soil solution chemistry, especially pH and the presence of multivalent ions, affects the surface charge (SC) of Fe oxides and accordingly colloidal stability and sorption properties. The SC of synthetic goethite and hematite was quantified in the presence of different electrolytes (NaCl, CaCl2, Na2SO4 and CaSO4) by combining the streaming potential with polyelectrolyte titration. The point of zero charge (PZC) for goethite was observed at pH 8.2 and the stability field around the PZC, where colloids are flocculated, is more extended (±1 pH unit) than that of hematite with a PZC at pH 7.1 (±0.5 pH unit). The SC decreases with increasing SO4 concentration, indicating adsorption of SO4 on the oxide, whereas the presence of Ca increases the SC. At pH 4, the addition of 0.1 mmol l–1 Na2SO4 induced a decrease in SC from 1.5 to 0.380 μmolc m–2 for goethite and from 0.85 to 0.42 μmolc m–2 for hematite. In a suspension with 0.1 mmol l–1 Na2SO4, the number of colloids is already reduced, and both oxides flocculate rapidly and completely at >0.5 mmol l–1 Na2SO4. While the addition of SO4 did not affect charge titrations with the cationic polyelectrolyte, the anionic polyelectrolyte formed complexes with Ca, resulting in an overestimation of positive SC. The electrolyte CaSO4 is most efficient at keeping goethite and hematite in the pH range 4–10 in the flocculated state. Besides pH, the presence of multivalent ions should also be considered when predicting colloid mediated transport and adsorption properties of anionic substances by Fe oxides in soil systems.

Keywords

Fe oxidesstreaming potentialpolyelectrolyte titrationflocculationion adsorptiongoethitehematite
Type
Research Article
Information
Clay Minerals , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 1 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ali, M.A. & Dzombak, D.A. (1996) Effects of simple organic acids on sorption of Cu2+ and Ca2+ on goethite. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Ada, 60, 291–304.Google Scholar
Antelo, J., Arce, F., Avena, M., Fiol, S., Lopez, R. & Macias, F. (2007) Adsorption of a soil humic acid at the surface of goethite and its competitive interaction with phosphate. Geoderma, 138, 12–19.Google Scholar
Atkinson, R.J., Posner, A.M. & Quirk, J.E. (1967) Adsorption of potential-determining ions at the ferric oxide-aqueous electrolyte interface. Journal of Physical Chemistry, 71, 550–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böckenhoff, K. & Fischer, W.R. (2001) Determination of electrokinetic charge with a particle-charge detector, and its relationship to the total charge. Fresenius Journal Analytical Chemistry, 371, 670–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borkovec, M., Koper Ger, J.M. & Piguet, C. (2006) Ion binding to polyelectrolytes. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science, 11, 280–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J., Hubbe, M.A., Heitmann, J.A., Argyropoulos, D.S. & Rojas, O.J. (2004) Dependency of polyelectrolyte complex stoichiometry on the order of addition 2. Aluminium chloride and poly-vinylsulfate. Colloids and Surfaces A, 246, 71–79.Google Scholar
Clausen, L. & Fabricius, I. (2001) Atrazine, isoproturon, mecoprop, 2,4D, and bentazone adsorption onto iron oxides. Journal of Environmental Quality, 30, 858–869.Google Scholar
Cornell, R.M. & Schwertmann, U. (2003) The Iron Oxides — Structure, Properties, Reactions, Occurrences and Uses. 2nd edition, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J.A. (1982) Adsorption of natural dissolved organic matter at the oxide/water interface. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Ada, 46, 2381–2393.Google Scholar
DeJonge, H. & Wollesen de Jonge, L. (1999) Influence of pH and solution composition on the sorption of glyphosate and prochloraz to a sandy loam silt. Chemosphere, 39, 753–763.Google Scholar
Filius, J.D., Lumsdon, D.G., Meeussen, J.C.L, Hiemstra, T. & Van Riemsdijk, W.H. (2000) Adsorption of fulvic acid on goethite. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Ada, 64, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukushi, K. & Sverjensky, D.A. (2007) A predictive model (ETLM) for arsenate adsorption and surface speciation on oxides consistent with spectroscopic and theoretical molecular evidence. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Ada, 71, 3717–3745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grasso, D., Subramaniam, K., Butkus, M., Strevett, K. & Bergendahl, J. (2002) A review of non-DLVO interactions in environmental colloidal systems. Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology, 1, 17–38.Google Scholar
Gu, B., Schmitt, J., Chen, Z., Liang, L. & MacCarthy, J.G. (1994) Adsorption and desorption of natural organic matter on iron oxide. Mechanisms and Models. Environmental Science & Technology, 28, 38–46.Google Scholar
Herrera Ramos, A.C. & McBride, M.B. (1996) Goethite dispersibility in solutions of variable ionic strength and soluble organic matter content. Clays and Clay Minerals, 44, 286–296.Google Scholar
Illes, E. & Tombacz, E. (2006) The effect of humic acid adsorption on pH-dependent surface charging and aggregation of magnetite nanoparticles. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 295, 115–123.Google Scholar
Kaiser, K. & Zech, W. (1998) Soil dissolved organic matter sorption as influenced by organic and sesquioxide coatings and sorbed sulfate. Soil Science Society American Journal, 62, 129–136.Google Scholar
Kosmulski, M. (2003) A literature survey of differences between the reported isoelectric points and their discussion. Colloids and Surfaces A, 111, 113-118.Google Scholar
Kosmulski, M. (2006) pH-dependent surface charging and points of zero charge III. Update. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 298, 730–741.Google Scholar
Kumpulainen, S., von der Kammer, F. & Hofmann, T. (2008) Humic acid adsorption and surface charge effects on schwertmannite and goethite in acid sulphate waters. Water Research, 42, 2051–2060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, J.A. (2000) Colloid processing of ceramics. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 83, 2341–2359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, L. & Morgan, J.J. (1990) Chemical aspects of iron oxide coagulation in water: Laboratory studies and implications for natural systems. Aquatic Sciences, 52, 32–55.Google Scholar
Lichtenfeld, H., Knapschinsky, L., Sonntag, H. & Shilov, V. (1995) Fast coagulation of nearly spherical ferric oxide (haematite) particles Part 1. Formation and decomposition of aggregates: experimental estimation of velocity constants. Colloids and Surfaces A, 104, 313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, F., He, J., Colombo, C. & Violante, A. (1999) Competitive adsorption of sulfate and oxalate on goethite in the absence or presence of phosphate. Soil Science, 164, 180–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikutta, R., Mikutta, C., Kalbitz, K., Scheel, T., Kaiser, K. & Jahn, R. (2007) Biodegradation of forest floor organic matter bound to minerals via different binding mechanisms. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Ada, 71, 2569–2590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, H.M. (1996) Zetapotential in der Laborpraxis. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
Nguyen Ngoc, M., Dultz, S., Kasbohm, J. & Le, D. (2009) Clay dispersion and its relation to surface charge in a paddy soil of the Red River Delta, Vietnam. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 172, 477–486.Google Scholar
Nylander, T., Samoshina, Y. & Lindman, B. (2006) Formation of polyelectrolyte—surfactant complexes on surfaces. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 123-126, 105–123.Google Scholar
Radeva, T., Milkova, I. & Petkanchin, I. (2002) Structure of polyelectrolyte layers on colloidal particles at different ionic strength. Colloids and Surfaces A, 209, 227–233.Google Scholar
Ren, J. & Packman, A.I. (2005) Coupled stream-sub surface exchange of colloidal hematite and dissolved zinc, copper and phosphate. Environmental Science and Technology, 39, 6387–6394.Google Scholar
Rietra, R.P.J.J., Hiemstra, T. & van Riemsdijk, W.H. (2001) Comparison of selenate and sulphate adsorption on goethite. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 240, 384–390.Google Scholar
Schlautman, M.A. & Morgan, J.J. (1994) Adsorption of aquatic humic substances on colloidal-size aluminum oxide particles: Influence of solution chemistry. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Ada, 58, 4293–4303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwertmann, U. & Cornell, R.M. (2000) Iron Oxides in the Laboratory. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 204 pp.Google Scholar
Tan, W.F., Koopal, L.K., Weng, L.P., van Riemsdijk, W.H. & Norde, W. (2008) Humic acid protein complexation. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Ada, 72, 2090–2099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Geen, A., Robertson, A.P. & Leckie, J.O. (1994) Complexation of carbonate species at the goethite surface: Implications for adsorption of metal ions in natural waters. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Ada, 58, 2073–2086.Google Scholar
Varadachari, C., Chattopadhyay, T. & Ghosh, K. (2000) The crystallo-chemistry of oxide—humus complexes. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 38, 789–806.Google Scholar
Vermohlen, K., Lewandowski, H., Narres, H.-D. & Schwuger, M.J. (2000). Adsorption of polyelectrolytes onto oxides — the influence of ionic strength, molar mass, and Ca2+ ions. Colloids and Surfaces A, 163, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villalobos, M., Trotz, M.A. & Leckie, J.O. (2003) Variability in goethite surface site density: evidence from proton and carbonate sorption. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 268, 273–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wauchope, R.D., Yeh, S., Linders, J.B., Kolskowski, R., Tanaka, K., Rubin, B., Katayama, A., Kördel, W., Gerstel, Z., Lane, M. & Unsworth, J.B. (2002) Pesticide soil sorption parameters: theory, measurement, uses, limitations and reliability. Pest Management Science, 58, 419–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, M., Valera, F.S. & Frimmel, F.H. (1989) Streaming current detection for determination of metal complexation capacities of aquatic humic substances. Zeitschrift für Wasser- und Abwasser- Forschung, 22, 253–257.Google Scholar
Weng, L., Koopal, L.K., Hiemstra, T., Meeussen, J.C.L. & van Riemsdijk, W.H. (2005) Interactions of calcium and fulvic acid at the goethite-water interface. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 69, 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weng, L., van Riemsdijk, W.H. & Hiemstra, T. (2007) Adsorption of humic acids onto goethite: Effects of molar mass, pH and ionic strength. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 314, 107–118.Google Scholar
Weng, L., van Riemsdijk, W.H. & Hiemstra, T. (2009) Effects of fulvic and humic acids on arsenate adsorption to goethite: Experiments and modeling. Environmental Science & Technology, 43, 7198–7204.Google Scholar