 |
| Titel |
Cr(VI) sorption/desorption on untreated and mussel-shell-treated soil materials: fractionation and effects of pH and chromium concentration |
| VerfasserIn |
M. Otero, L. Cutillas-Barreiro, J. C. Nóvoa-Muñoz, M. Arias-Estévez, M. J. Fernández-Sanjurjo, E. Alvarez-Rodríguez, A. Núñez-Delgado |
| Medientyp |
Artikel
|
| Sprache |
Englisch
|
| ISSN |
1869-9510
|
| Digitales Dokument |
URL |
| Erschienen |
In: Solid Earth ; 6, no. 2 ; Nr. 6, no. 2 (2015-04-02), S.373-382 |
| Datensatznummer |
250115436
|
| Publikation (Nr.) |
 copernicus.org/se-6-373-2015.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
| Zusammenfassung |
| We used batch-type experiments to study Cr(VI) sorption/desorption on
granitic material, forest soil, pyritic material, mussel shell, and on
forest soil and granitic material amended with 12 t ha−1 (1.2 kg m −2)
shell, considering the effects of varying Cr(VI) concentration and
pH. Sequential extractions were carried out to fractionate adsorbed Cr(VI)
and to determine the stability of Cr(VI) retention. The pyritic material had
the highest Cr(VI) retention capacity, whereas the granitic material showed
the lowest retention potential. When high Cr concentrations were added, some
saturation of the adsorbent surfaces became apparent, but Cr release
remained low. The highest Cr retention was achieved at a very acid pH value,
with release progressively increasing as a function of increasing pH. The
amendment with 12 t ha−1 mussel shell did not cause marked changes in
Cr(VI) retention. Sorption data were satisfactory adjusted to the Freundlich
model. Regarding Cr(VI) fractionation, the soluble fraction (weakly bound)
was dominant in mussel shell and in the unamended and amended granitic
material, whereas more stable fractions dominated in the pyritic material
(residual fraction) and in the forest soil (oxidizable fraction). In
conclusion, the pyritic material presented the highest Cr(VI) retention
capacity, while the retention was low and weak on the granitic material;
mussel shell was not characterized by a marked Cr(VI) retention potential, and
it did not cause remarkable increase in Cr(VI) retention when used to amend
the granitic material or the forest soil. |
| |
|
| Teil von |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|