Cr(VI) sorption/desorption on untreated and mussel-shell-treated soil materials: fractionation and effects of pH and chromium concentration

M. Otero, L. Cutillas-Barreiro, J. C. Nóvoa-Muñoz, M. Arias-Estévez, M. J. Fernández-Sanjurjo, E. Álvarez-Rodríguez, A. Núñez-Delgado
2015 Solid Earth  
<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> We used batch-type experiments to study Cr(VI) sorption/desorption on granitic material, forest soil, pyritic material, mussel shell, and on forest soil and granitic material amended with 12 t ha<sup>−1</sup> (1.2 kg m<sup> &amp;minus;2</sup>) shell, considering the effects of varying Cr(VI) concentration and pH. Sequential extractions were carried out to fractionate adsorbed Cr(VI) and to determine the stability of Cr(VI) retention. The pyritic material had the
more » ... material had the highest Cr(VI) retention capacity, whereas the granitic material showed the lowest retention potential. When high Cr concentrations were added, some saturation of the adsorbent surfaces became apparent, but Cr release remained low. The highest Cr retention was achieved at a very acid pH value, with release progressively increasing as a function of increasing pH. The amendment with 12 t ha<sup>−1</sup> mussel shell did not cause marked changes in Cr(VI) retention. Sorption data were satisfactory adjusted to the Freundlich model. Regarding Cr(VI) fractionation, the soluble fraction (weakly bound) was dominant in mussel shell and in the unamended and amended granitic material, whereas more stable fractions dominated in the pyritic material (residual fraction) and in the forest soil (oxidizable fraction). In conclusion, the pyritic material presented the highest Cr(VI) retention capacity, while the retention was low and weak on the granitic material; mussel shell was not characterized by a marked Cr(VI) retention potential, and it did not cause remarkable increase in Cr(VI) retention when used to amend the granitic material or the forest soil.</p>
doi:10.5194/se-6-373-2015 fatcat:nxromq7f7nbkjdnpeyptnozk64