4.3 Article

Morphological characteristics of fulvic acid fractions observed by atomic force microscopy

Journal

JOURNAL OF MICROSCOPY
Volume 252, Issue 1, Pages 71-78

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jmi.12072

Keywords

Atomic force microscopy (AFM); vertical profile; fulvic acid; fraction; hydrophilic; hydrophobic

Categories

Funding

  1. CAS/SAFEA International Partnership Program for Creative Research Teams [KZCX2-YW-T06]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [DL12DA02]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Summary Structural studies on fulvic acids (FAs) are significantly important since they are believed to be involved in many environmentally important processes, such as adsorption and transportation of organic and inorganic pollutants. In this research, morphology characteristics of FAs were studied by atomic force microscopy (AFM). FAs that were isolated from three soil layers (A1, B and C) of the same vertical profile in a Korean pine forest were divided into four fractions (FA-1, FA-2, FA-3 and FA-4) by a sequence of successive elution processes. Most of FAs appeared as a platy particle in the AFM topographic and phase images. Among these platy particles, some have a regular shape, such as round flake and oblong flake; others have irregular structures, such as sand heaps. Particle morphologies of different FA fractions, including hydrophilic and hydrophobic FAs fractions, were similar. However, particle sizes and distributions of FA fractions from different soil layers at the same vertical profile did differ. Particle sizes of hydrophobic FAs were relevant with respect to the soil depth. They were increased with the increasing of the soil depth. FAs from C layers were more heterogeneous with respect to the A1 and B. Our results may foster a better understanding for the relevance between the morphology of FA particles with the soil layers and the soil depth.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available