1992
DOI: 10.1007/bf00475619
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Irreversibility of sulfate sorption on goethite and hematite

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0
1

Year Published

1993
1993
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
1
9
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Trends observed in adsorption and desorption behavior align well with the observed isotherm characteristics for our experimental conditions (Figure S5 and Table S4). Overall, these isotherms represent strong association of SO 4 2– with hematite under all conditions studied, in agreement with previous studies, demonstrating high affinity binding between hematite and SO 4 2– . , For both ionic strengths used, the identity of background cations present does not seem to influence adsorption affinity, with similar affinities observed for isotherms in KCl and CaCl 2 backgrounds at respective ionic strengths. Ionic strength, on the other hand, has a notable influence on sulfate adsorption affinity, with ionic strength reducing binding constants by more than an order of magnitude.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Trends observed in adsorption and desorption behavior align well with the observed isotherm characteristics for our experimental conditions (Figure S5 and Table S4). Overall, these isotherms represent strong association of SO 4 2– with hematite under all conditions studied, in agreement with previous studies, demonstrating high affinity binding between hematite and SO 4 2– . , For both ionic strengths used, the identity of background cations present does not seem to influence adsorption affinity, with similar affinities observed for isotherms in KCl and CaCl 2 backgrounds at respective ionic strengths. Ionic strength, on the other hand, has a notable influence on sulfate adsorption affinity, with ionic strength reducing binding constants by more than an order of magnitude.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%
“…For example, the distribution coefficient (Kd) for the linear parts of AQDS/AH2DS sorption isotherms was calculated (Kd ) ST/b) to be 18-20 L/kg at pH 4.5 and 4-10 L/kg at pH 6.9. The calculated Kd values for the linear parts of SO4 2sorption isotherms were 680 and 160 L/kg at pH 3 and 7, respectively (16). The weak AQDS/AH2DS sorption was expected because sulfonate (17,18) and quinone groups (19) react with mineral surfaces through outer sphere complexation.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…They also found that sulfate retained from desorption results were significantly different in comparison with results based on adsorption data. Such behavior is commonly referred to as hysteresis and may be a result of irreversible reactions as suggested by Hodges and Johnson (1987) Lack of irreversible retention of sulfate has been observed by Gobran et al (1998b) This observation has also been noted in soils by Harrison et al (1989) and on oxide mineral surfaces by Turner and Kramer (1992) It should also be noted that deviations between sorption and desorption could be related to kinetic retention behavior (Gobran et al, 1998a, 1998b). Irreversible sorption–desorption and the extent of kinetic reactions has also been quantified using the pressure‐jump relaxation method on goethite by Zhang and Sparks (1990) They found that sulfate adsorption occurs rapidly at initial reaction stages whereas desorption is slower and may be considered as a limiting step.…”
mentioning
confidence: 86%