4.4 Article

Overestimation of phosphorus adsorption capacity in reduced soils: An artifact of typical batch adsorption experiments

Journal

SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL
Volume 71, Issue 4, Pages 1128-1136

Publisher

SOIL SCI SOC AMER
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2006.0222

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although soil reduction often results in P release to soil solutions, many researchers have observed an increased maximum P adsorption (S-max) following soil reduction. We hypothesized that this result is an experimental artifact caused by exposure of the reduced soils to aerobic conditions and by the use of high P additions, which may result in precipitation. Four semiarid altered wetland soils were incubated under reduced conditions, followed by reoxidation, and their P-adsorption characteristics were measured under atmospheric and N-2-atmosphere conditions. During the reductive incubation, soluble P and Fe concentrations increased. In one of the soils, P and Fe were monitored after reoxidation and both were found to decrease. The reduction-reoxidation cycle has led to increased S-max values. Under an N-2 atmosphere, the equilibrium P concentrations at zero adsorption (EPC0) of all soils were higher than those determined under atmospheric conditions, whereas no significant changes were observed in S-max values. Oversaturation of the equilibrating solutions with respect to P minerals suggested P precipitation and overestimation of S-max at high added P concentrations under both aerobic and N-2-atmosphere conditions. We conclude that aerobic batch experiments of reduced soils are affected by P adsorption to newly in-tube-formed ferric oxides. In accordance, we stress the importance of the EPCo rather than the S-max as an informative measure of P adsorption, and the need for using low-P experiments and maintaining anaerobic conditions in evaluating P adsorption of reduced soils.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available