2016
DOI: 10.1007/s12205-016-1867-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of potential CO2 leakage from carbon capture and storage sites on soil and leachate chemistry

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Reduced HWC in mineral soil of the CG treatment could be related to the high soil CO 2 concentration (Table 5). Moonis et al (2017) reported that soil CO 2 injection increased exchangeable Al 3+ of mineral soil, which would be strong bound with dissolved C molecules. The resulting Al 3+ -C complexes could be absorbed on the soil surface, producing reduced water-extractable C. Reduced soil microbial enzyme activity of AP in the CG and NG (Table 5), which is involved in cleaving phosphoester bonds, could be related to the decreased TP contents of the leaves in those treatments (Table 4).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Reduced HWC in mineral soil of the CG treatment could be related to the high soil CO 2 concentration (Table 5). Moonis et al (2017) reported that soil CO 2 injection increased exchangeable Al 3+ of mineral soil, which would be strong bound with dissolved C molecules. The resulting Al 3+ -C complexes could be absorbed on the soil surface, producing reduced water-extractable C. Reduced soil microbial enzyme activity of AP in the CG and NG (Table 5), which is involved in cleaving phosphoester bonds, could be related to the decreased TP contents of the leaves in those treatments (Table 4).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this experiment, soil pH in the CG treatment (7.0) was lower than in BG and NG (pH = 7.4 on average) (Table 2), but the difference was only 0.4, which is within the optimal range for grape growth. The possible reason for such a slight change in soil pH despite CO 2 gassing, which could lead to formation of weak acid (H 2 CO 3 ) and release of H + (Wei, Maroto-Valer & Steven, 2011; Moonis et al, 2017; Zhao et al, 2017), could be the high buffering capacity of the potting soil and plants’ indirect effects. Our results were consistent with those of Lake et al (2013), who reported that beetroots were not significantly affected by N 2 gas treatment at O 2 concentration of 8.7%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reduced HWC in mineral soil of the CG treatment could be related to the high soil CO 2 concentration (Table 5). Moonis et al (2017) reported that soil CO 2 injection increased exchangeable Al 3+ of mineral soil, which would be strong bound with dissolved C molecules. The resulting Al 3+ -C complexes could be absorbed on the soil surface, producing reduced waterextractable C. Reduced soil microbial enzyme activity of AP in the CG and NG (Table 5), which is involved in cleaving phosphoester bonds, could be related to the decreased TP contents of the leaves in those treatments (Table 4).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%