4.6 Article

Fabrication of Porous Phosphate/Carbonate Composites: Smart Fertilizer with Bimodal Controlled-Release Kinetics and Glyphosate Adsorption Ability

期刊

ACS OMEGA
卷 7, 期 18, 页码 15625-15636

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.2c00425

关键词

-

资金

  1. Science Achievement Scholarship of Thailand (SAST)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A simple method of preparing porous sponge-like phosphate fertilizers with two-stage phosphate release capability was presented. The fertilizers showed effects on plant growth similar to commercial fertilizers and could remove excess glyphosate from the environment.
A simple method to prepare phosphate/carbonate composites for use as porous sponge-like phosphate fertilizers (ps-PO(4)Fs) is presented. The composites ps-PO(4)Fs were prepared by ion-exchange implantation of phosphate onto the surface of vaterite-phase calcium carbonate (CaCO3) microparticles. The ps-PO(4)Fs obtained under the optimized conditions were found to contain a nanoscale porous network of calcium phosphate covering the CaCO3 support. In addition, ps-PO(4)Fs exhibited two distinct phosphate release modes having different kinetics: a fast-release step over the initial 24 h period following a parabolic diffusion model, indicating controlled diffusion from external surfaces/edges, and a second slow-release step over the course of a month following the Ritger-Peppas model, indicating the release and diffusion of phosphate adsorbed at specific sites. The ps-PO(4)Fs also adsorbed glyphosate well because of their porous structure and large surface area. However, glyphosate adsorption prevented phosphate release at concentrations greater than 10 mg L-1. The ps-PO(4)Fs were tested for their effects on plant growth and showed effects similar to commercial fertilizers. In summary, these smart, eco-friendly, and multifunctional fertilizers having two-stage phosphate release could enable the application of lower amounts of fertilizer and remove excess glyphosate from the environment.

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

4.6
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