DOI:
10.1039/C6RA18840K
(Paper)
RSC Adv., 2016,
6, 103012-103025
Novel synthesis of an iron oxalate capped iron oxide nanomaterial: a unique soil conditioner and slow release eco-friendly source of iron sustenance in plants†
Received
25th July 2016
, Accepted 20th October 2016
First published on 25th October 2016
Abstract
Iron (Fe) is a vital plant-derived micronutrient in the human diet. Fe availability in soil largely depends on the pH and leaching behaviour of the soil. Although common salts (FeSO4) and chelates (EDTA) of Fe ensure high availability of the nutrient, they often interfere with P availability in the soil. Considering such disadvantages of the well-known Fe sources, we attempted to evolve efficient Fe3O4 nanomaterials that are independent of soil reaction (i.e. pH) and do not prevent P solubility in soil. The present investigation resulted in a novel, green and an easy pathway of large-scale synthesis of orthorhombic Fe–oxalate capped-Fe-oxide (Fe3O4) (OCIO) nanomaterial with a prolific agricultural applicability. This nanomaterial did not affect the growth of beneficial soil bacteria and had no phytotoxic effects on seed germination. The Fe release profile from the OCIO was uniform at different pH (4 to 9) conditions due to its exceptional H+ ion scavenging quality. Significantly higher P availability was recorded in aqueous and soil media treated with OCIO as compared to FeSO4 and Fe–EDTA. Additionally, application of OCIO@10–20 mg kg−1 considerably increased organic C, N, P, and enzyme activity in soil. Furthermore, the OCIO dramatically recovered Fe deficiency, maintained steady P availability, and stabilized pH in poorly fertile soil which promoted healthy growth and productivity of tomato.
Introduction
A large portion of the world's population suffers from iron deficiency and plants are the prime contributor of iron in the human diet.1 Fe deficiency is one of the most prominent nutritional disorders in many economically important crops.2,3 The most easily detectable symptom of Fe deficiency in plants is the yellowing of leaves, technically known as leaf chlorosis. Although iron is the fourth most abundant element on earth, its bioavailability is noticeably low in the soil. Various factors like high soil pH, ‘iron-insufficient’ plant species, predominance of bicarbonates, and abiotic stress reduce the bioavailability of Fe in the soil. Primarily, Fe is held on the organic inorganic interfaces in soils.4 The solubility of this element in soils is determined by Fe(OH)3, Fe3(OH)8 (ferric hydroxide) or by FeCO3 (siderite) depending on the prevailing oxidation state in the soil.5 The dissolution–precipitation dynamics of ferric oxides in aerated soils largely governs Fe solubility, which is highly pH dependent. For example, the Fe3+ precipitation in soil increases by 1000 folds for each unit increase in soil pH.5 Plants can absorb iron as ferrous iron (Fe2+). However, the Fe2+ iron is readily oxidized in soil and transforms into plant-unavailable ferric (Fe3+) form when soil pH is greater than 5.3.6 Under such situations, if soluble Fe salts (e.g., FeSO4) are applied to correct Fe deficiency, they rapidly precipitate as amorphous Fe(OH)3 and decrease Fe availability over time.4
Various iron complexes conjugated with ligands (EDTA, DTPA and EDDHA) are used as slow releasing iron fertilizer to improve iron availability in the soil. Although these complexes are greener and rather more efficient compared to FeSO4 fertilization, the impending global demand for iron in soil has prompted intense research on the development of various types of sustainable and cost effective iron source.7 Incidentally, the rapidly emerging nanotechnology may render smart and effective Fe fertilizers, although the outcome of their environmental exposure raises several concerns.8 Some studies showed that Fe-NPs released Fe2+/Fe3+ ions and Fe–OH groups are formed on their surfaces in aqueous solutions.9,10 In a more recent study, Zhou et al. demonstrated that although iron oxide nanomaterials enhanced organic C and N availability in soil it substantially affected P availability.8 On the other hand, Fe oxide nanomaterials acidified soils and reduced N availability significantly.8
Herein, we present an efficient, sustainable, cost effective, novel, and green procedure for large scale synthesis of selective orthorhombic iron(oxalate) capped Fe(0) [Fe(ox)–Fe(0)] nanomaterial without the use of high temperature calcination. The novelty of the synthesis and applicability of this nanomaterial has been claimed for intellectual protection under the law (application no. 201631010727). Interestingly, the transformation of Fe(0) to Fe3O4 in the synthesized [Fe(ox)–Fe(0)] nanomaterial was observed in water after stirring the reaction mixture at room temperature for 14 h. The oxidized orthorhombic iron oxalate capped Fe3O4 nanomaterial [hereafter OCIO] was further characterized by different physical methods such as FTIR, XRD, FESEM, and TEM. Owing to the biocompatibility and non-toxic nature, the synthesized material can be potentially used in many in vivo applications (magnetic resonance imaging contrast enhancement, tissue repair, immunoassay, drug delivery, hyperthermia etc.).11 In addition the material has demonstrated a unique dye degrading property.12 Subsequently, the OCIO was applied in soil at various concentrations to evaluate their influences on soil quality. We also conducted a few lab scale mimic experiments to define the underlying mechanism of the nanomaterials induced changes in soil properties. As a final point, we assessed the ability of the synthesized OCIO to overcome Fe deficiency in soil in regard to plant growth.
Results and discussion
Characterization and large scale applicability of the synthesized nanomaterial
Powder XRD and FT-IR analysis. The FTIR spectrum of all the synthesized materials were recorded and plotted in Fig. 1a. The carboxylate coordination mode can be determined from the corresponding position and separation of ν(COO–) bands, Δ, in the 1300–1700 cm−1 region. Generally, Δ > 200 cm−1 signified a unidentate ligand and a bidentate ligand was represented by Δ < 110 cm−1; while an intermediate Δ represented a bridging ligand. The FTIR spectra of Fe(C2O4)·2H2O showed peaks at 1640 and 1362 cm−1 for typical metal carboxylate, in which oxalic acid is acting as a bidentate ligand. The other two peaks at 1320 and 820 cm−1 were due to the C–O and C–C stretching vibration of coordinated oxalic acid in Fe(C2O4)·2H2O. The comparative FTIR spectra of synthesized [Fe(ox)–Fe(0)] and Fe(C2O4)·2H2O clearly showed the occurrence of iron oxalate in synthesized [Fe(ox)–Fe(0)] as both spectra clearly matched with each other. On the other hand, FTIR spectrum of [Fe(ox)–Fe3O4] nanomaterial showed peaks at 1412 and 1655 cm−1 due to the oxalate coordination to metal oxide and two other peaks at 415 and 563 cm−1 were due to Fe–O symmetric bending vibration and Fe–O–Fe stretching. However, [Fe(ox)–Fe(0)] material was competent in the reduction of methylene blue to its corresponding leuco methylene blue13 and on completion of the reaction the black material transformed into brown because of the oxidation of corresponding Fe(0) into its oxide (Fig. 1b). The XRD spectrum of synthesized [Fe(ox)–Fe(0)] confirmed the presence of orthorhombic Fe(C2O4)·2H2O, as the peaks in XRD were in good agreement with the reported XRD pattern of Fe(C2O4)·2H2O (Fig. 1c).12,14 However, we failed to detect the presence of Fe(0) in the synthesized material from the XRD spectrum as the peaks for Fe(ox) and Fe(0) overlapped each other. The XRD pattern of oxidized material showed the co-existence of both orthorhombic iron oxalate and magnetite Fe3O4 because the peak position and intensity were vividly indicating their (orthorhombic Fe(C2O4)·2H2O and Fe3O4) occurrence (JCPDS card 85-1436) (Fig. 1d).15
 |
| Fig. 1 Comparative FT-IR spectrum of Fe(ox)–Fe(0) and Fe(ox)–Fe3O4 (OCIO) with iron oxalate complex (a); Fe(ox)–Fe(0) promoted reversible methylene blue to leuco methylene blue redox reaction (b). XRD spectrum of Fe(ox)–Fe(0) (c) and OCIO (d). | |
Morphology, surface and elemental analysis. The surface morphology of the synthesized nanomaterial was analyzed through HR-SEM (Fig. 2a). The porous morphology of the OCIO was confirmed by the HR-SEM image. In addition, the EDS analysis of the selected region of the OCIO nanomaterial confirmed the presence of carbon, oxygen, and iron in 17.5, 56.1, and 26.4% respectively (Fig. 2b). We were also interested to identify the Fe content in the OCIO and performed the UV-Vis titration method16 with 1,10-phenanthroline after digesting the sample with HCl. The result showed 28.6 wt% of iron content in the material. Moreover, the surface characteristic of the synthesized nanomaterial was analyzed through the nitrogen adsorption–desorption isotherm and the pore size distribution of the synthesized material (Table 1S in the ESI†). We recorded 55.2 m2 g−1 surface area of OCIO and observed porous nature of the nanomaterial from BET analysis (Fig. 1S in the ESI†), which was consistent with the morphology revealed from HR-SEM and HR-TEM images (Fig. 2c). Interestingly, the HR-TEM images (Fig. 2c and d) explained that the synthesized OCIO had ribbon like structure with a size range of 10–100 nm in length and 1–5 nm in breadth. Moreover, the SAED pattern confirmed the 111 and 200 planes of the Fe3O4 (Fig. 2d). Furthermore, the particle size distribution analysis confirmed that the majority of the particles in the OCIO materials were within the range of 2–5 nm (Fig. 2e).
 |
| Fig. 2 HR-SEM image (a); EDAX (b); HR-TEM image (c); HR-TEM image and SAED (d); and particle distribution analysis (e) of OCIO nanomaterial. | |
Oxidation states of iron: X-ray photoelectron spectral analysis. The valance of iron was important to interpret the changes in soil properties. Hence, X-ray photoelectron spectrometry (XPS) was carried out to analyze the chemical composition and status of Fe–C–O in the OCIO. The XPS (ESCALAB 220i) measurement was performed on the sample with Al α X-ray source; the energy calibration was made against the C 1s peak. As shown in Fig. 3a, the XPS scan spectra of Fe–C–O exhibits distinct C1s and O1s peaks at 283.77 eV and 531.9 eV respectively, which confirms the presence of oxalic acid in the synthesised nanomaterial. It has been previously reported that Fe2p3/2 for Fe3O4 does not have a satellite peak, which was also confirmed (Fig. 3b). The peak positions of Fe2p3/2 and Fe2p1/2 are 710.86 eV and 724.74 eV respectively clearly match for Fe3O4. Another peak was observed at 56.1 eV for Fe3p. The Fe2p3/2 peak for Fe3O4 was deconvoluted into Fe2+ and Fe3+ peaks. It is known that stoichiometric Fe3O4 can be expressed to FeOFe2O3, the ratio of Fe2+
:
Fe3+ should be 1
:
2. In our case, the results of the deconvoluted peaks give Fe2+
:
Fe3+ = 0.31
:
0.69.17,18 This value satisfies the stoichiometric values with a negligible analytical error (SD = 0.1).
 |
| Fig. 3 Full scan XPS plot for OCIO (a) and XPS spectra of deconvoluted Fe3 p1/2 and Fe3 p3/2 (b). | |
Large scale synthesis and economical possibility. Here, we report the synthesis of iron(oxalate) capped Fe(0) [Fe(ox)–Fe(0)] nanomaterial from the aqueous phase room temperature reduction of FeSO4·6H2O with sodium borohydride (NaBH4) in the presence of oxalic acid. After the completion of reaction, [Fe(ox)–Fe(0)] the nanomaterial was kept under stirring at 50 °C for 14 h to get the brown oxidized [Fe(ox)–Fe3O4, OCIO] nanomaterial. However, the final processing costs of the catalyst must fall within a reasonable budget to develop the nanomaterial for large scale industrial application. To our delight, OCIO was successfully synthesized up to 500 g scale in a single batch without compromising any reduction in its conversion as compared to the small scale reaction. Generally, market prices of iron chelates (Fe–EDTA or Fe–EDDHA) are considerably high (INR 200–300 or 3.07–4.61 $) which negates their use by farmers in developing nations. Whereas the synthetic cost of 100 g of OCIO nanomaterial is found to be INR 111.0 (1.6 $, 1.5 euro), suggesting a better cost effective synthetic route of material as compared to iron-chelates.
Effect on soil bacterial diversity
The data on effects of OCIO on total bacterial growth along with responses of nitrogen fixing bacteria and phosphate solubilizing bacteria to OCIO exposure are presented in Table 2S,† Fig. 4a and b respectively. Significantly high bacteria count was recorded in OCIO treated soil as compared to the control (Table 2S†) (P = 0.002). This may be due to a steady Fe sustenance contributed by the OCIO material. In addition, antagonistic effect on two well characterized beneficial soil microorganisms (Rhizobium sp. and Serratia marcescens) was tested. The role of Rhizobium in N fixation and S. marcescens in P solubilization has been well documented by other workers.19,20 Moreover, the authenticity of the germplasm of these species have been thoroughly verified in our previous study.21 Therefore, these two species were an easy and dependable choice as models for this experiment. This property is important to evaluate the quality of the synthesized material from an ecological viewpoint.22 Generally, the zone of inhibition in growth medium is the indicator of fatal impact on microbial colonies for any material (Fig. 4a and b). Fascinatingly, no zone of inhibition was noticed even after 72 hours of incubation in the medium. This result ensured the eco-friendly nature of the synthesized OCIO. In addition, the plate count of colony forming units of both NFBs and PSBs was highly encouraging in OCIO treated soil. As such, soluble iron (Fe II) has a significant role in promoting growth of N-fixing bacteria like Bacillus and Klebsiella.23 Our results are in good agreement with previous findings.12
 |
| Fig. 4 Anti-bacterial assay of the synthesized compound on N-fixing (Rhizobium sp.) (a) and P-solubilizing (Serratia marcescens) (b) soil bacteria; the germination index (GI), relative seed germination (RSG), relative root growth (RRG) of V. radiata (c) and V. mungo (d) seeds treated with OCIO, FeSO4, Fe–EDTA and Fe–oxalate. | |
Phytotoxicity: seed germination assay
Fig. 4c and d represent data on the effect of photoactivity sources of Fe on seed germination of two pulse crops. Seed germination and root elongation measurement are widely used in phytotoxicity assay because of simplicity, low cost, sensitivity, and authenticity in regard to reactive chemicals.24,25 Significantly high GI was recorded in OCIO treated seeds of Vigna radiata and V. mungo as compared to the other sources of Fe (FeSO4, Fe–oxalate, and Fe–EDTA) (LSD = 1.33; 1.26) (Fig. 4c and d). Concurrently, RSG and RRG were substantially higher in OCIO treated seeds than Fe–EDTA and FeSO4 (LSD: RSG = 0.82; RRG = 0.93) (Fig. 4d). Contrary to our results, Temsah and Joner reported high phytotoxicity of zero valent iron (Fe0) nanoparticles.26 However, such results were found only at an abnormally high dose (1000 to 5000 mg kg−1) of Fe0 nanoparticles; in fact, 100% seed germination was observed with low dose (100–200 mg kg−1) in their research. Predominance of Fe0 may create anoxic condition through their reductive reactions, which is unhealthy for plants and soil bacteria.26 Hence, such toxic impacts could be avoided using the OCIO in our study. Generally, the inhibitory effects of Fe on root growth and germination of plant seeds is highly pronounced at low pH (2–3) condition.27 In all probability, the unique buffering property of the OCIO (explained in the following section) helped to maintain a neutral pH of the aqueous medium that could minimize the probability of excessive Fe solubility and phytotoxicity.
Influence of the OCIO on pH and Fe release: a unique buffering capacity
We were curious to validate the relationship of pH and Fe release from OCIO through a simple lab-scale experiment with aqueous solutions of different pH (Table 3S† and Fig. 5a–c). The pH change of the solution after treating with all three materials at different pH was monitored. In case of OCIO, strongly acidic solutions (pH 4 and 5) rapidly shifted towards near neutral value (pH – 4 to 6.54; pH – 5 to 6.6), while the pH of both the neutral and alkaline solutions increased marginally (pH – 7 to 7.17, pH – 8 to 8.13; pH – 9 to 8.6) over time (Table 3S† and Fig. 5a). On the other hand, rapid acidification of all the solutions was noted with Fe(EDTA) and Fe(C2O4) treatments. In both the cases, the higher amount of H+ in solution was recorded because of either ionization of the ligand or ionization of water.6 However, contribution of ligand ionization towards enhancing H+ concentration is negligible because both EDTA and oxalate should have protonated into their corresponding weakly dissociating carboxylic acid during the release of iron from their corresponding complexes (Fig. 5c). Therefore, the possible FeII ion promoted ionization of water enhanced the concentration of H+ and thereby decreased the pH of the solution. On the other hand, pH of all the solutions were found to increase over time (72 hours) when OCIO was added to the solutions, which may be ascribed to the abstraction of H+ by both polymeric iron oxalate template and Fe3O4 nanomaterial present in the material.
 |
| Fig. 5 Effect on pH shift (a) and Fe release (b) from OCIO, Fe–EDTA and Fe–oxalate; the proposed mechanism of H+ ion scavenging property of OCIO (c); differences in phosphorous solubility profile from KH2PO4 and its interaction with Fe release from OCIO, FeSO4, Fe–EDTA, and Fe–oxalate (d). | |
The iron release profile for all the three materials was checked after treating the material at different pH (Table 3S† and Fig. 5b). In acidic condition (pH = 4), all the three material showed almost similar Fe release profile. In acidic pH, the H+ ion should bind with the corresponding ligand in all the three materials and protonate the carboxylate into the corresponding carboxylic acid and subsequently release the Fe in a similar fashion. However, in neutral condition (pH = 7), the amount of Fe release from the material was in the order of OCIO > EDTA > oxalate, which indicated different behavior of the materials in absence of H+ ion. While, in alkaline condition (pH = 9), the amount of Fe released from OCIO nanomaterial was significantly higher than the other two complexes, which further suggested the indispensability of H+ ion for release of Fe from EDTA and oxalate complexes. However, the nature of Fe release from OCIO was independent of solution pH and suggested that nano dimension of iron, present in both polymeric iron oxalate and Fe3O4, was loosely bound and thus enhanced the solubility of iron in all the tested conditions (Fig. 5b).
P and Fe release and their interaction with pH in aqueous medium
We conducted a small experiment to investigate the underlying mechanisms of high P availability in presence of OCIO (Fig. 5d). Phosphate release from KH2PO4 in aqueous medium was significantly higher in presence of OCIO as compared to FeSO4, Fe–EDTA, and Fe–oxalate after 24 hours. Phosphate release gradually increased over time with OCIO, while it substantially reduced in presence of FeSO4, Fe–EDTA, and Fe–oxalate after 21 days. Moreover, pH of the medium did not alter in OCIO containing solution, whereas, substantial reduction in pH was observed in presence of FeSO4, Fe–EDTA, and Fe–oxalate (Fig. 5d). Furthermore, the Fe availability dramatically increased from 69.4 mg l−1 to 268.5 mg l−1 after 21 days in the OCIO containing solution. Although the Fe release in OCIO solution was lower than FeSO4 solution, it was substantially higher than Fe–EDTA and Fe–oxalate solutions (Fig. 5d). Hence, the unique pH balancing ability coupled with slow Fe release pattern probably resisted the formation of insoluble Fe3(PO4)2 in OCIO containing solution, which is an obvious phenomenon in an abundance of FeSO4 or Fe–EDTA.
Impact of the OCIO on physico-chemical properties of soil: changes in pH, bulk density (BD), and water holding capacity (WHC), total organic C (TOC), available N, available P, DTPA extractable Fe, and urease and phosphatase activity
A typical alluvial soil was incubated with different levels of the synthesized material (OCIO) for 90 days. The inherent physico-chemical properties of the soil are presented in Table 4S.† Incorporation of OCIO in soil@10 mg kg−1 significantly reduced bulk density (BD) of the soil from 1.38 ± 0.01 g cc−1 to 1.29 ± 0.01 g cc−1 after 90 days (Table 1) (P0.05 = 0.000, LSDday = 0.004, LSDtreatment = 0.01). Concurrently, increment in water holding capacity of soil was significant due to OCIO application in different concentration (Table 1). Such increment was highest in 10 mg kg−1 application of OCIO followed by 20 mg kg−1 and 50 mg kg−1 doses (P0.05 = 0.000; LSDtreatment = 0.22). The pH of the treated soil increased with time due to application of OCIO, while the soil pH substantially reduced due to application of FeSO4 application (Table 1). The soil pH increased by 1.03–1.04 folds to 5.67–5.70 as compared to the initial value (5.5 ± 0.1) under different concentrations of OCIO over 90 days (Table 1). In general, pH change towards “point zero charge” (neutrality), induce agglomeration of nanoparticles due to reduction in electrostatic repulsive forces between particles.28 As such, increase in agglomeration leads to enhanced water retention in soil through enlargement of soil pores.29 Here, the reduction in BD indicates increment in voids in the soil (Table 1). Therefore, the increment in pH probably induced dispersion of the oxalate capped OCIO in soil, which in turn, increased water retention capacity of the soil through enhancement of pore spaces. Interestingly, we detected strong correlation between pH, BD, and WHC of the soil treated with different doses of OCIO during 90 day [r: pH–BD = 0.997 (P0.05 = 0.000); pH–WHC = 0.998 (P0.05 = 0.000); BD–WHC = 0.999 (P0.05 = 0.000)].
Table 1 Impact of the OCIO on changes in pH, bulk density (BD), water holding capacity (WHC), and total organic C (TOC) of soila
Attributes |
Days |
Treatments |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
T4 |
T5 |
T6 |
T7 |
T8 |
T9 |
T10 |
T11 |
T1 = control, T2 = OCIO10 mg kg−1, T3 = OCIO20 mg kg−1, T4 = OCIO50 mg kg−1, T5 = Fe–EDTA10 mg kg−1, T6 = Fe–EDTA20 mg kg−1, T7 = Fe–EDTA50 mg kg−1, T8 = Fe–oxalate10 mg kg−1, T9 = Fe–oxalate20 mg kg−1, T10 = Fe–oxalate50 mg kg−1, T11 = FeSO4. |
pH |
0 d |
5.51 ± 0.02 |
5.52 ± 0.01 |
5.51 ± 0.01 |
5.5 ± 0.01 |
5.45 ± 0.01 |
5.48 ± 0.02 |
5.43 ± 0.02 |
5.43 ± 0.01 |
5.43 ± 0.01 |
5.46 ± 0.01 |
4.5 ± 0.09 |
45 d |
5.48 ± 0.02 |
5.61 ± 0.01 |
5.64 ± 0.01 |
5.62 ± 0.05 |
5.43 ± 0.01 |
5.45 ± 0.02 |
5.44 ± 0.04 |
5.41 ± 0.01 |
5.44 ± 0.03 |
5.45 ± 0.01 |
4.33 ± 0.01 |
90 d |
5.52 ± 0.02 |
5.67 ± 0.01 |
5.7 ± 0.03 |
5.69 ± 0.05 |
5.45 ± 0.01 |
5.55 ± 0.01 |
5.51 ± 0.03 |
5.44 ± 0.02 |
5.49 ± 0.02 |
5.5 ± 0.02 |
4.3 ± 0.02 |
BD (g cc−1) |
0 d |
1.42 ± 0.01 |
1.38 ± 0.01 |
1.41 ± 0.01 |
1.40 ± 0.01 |
1.38 ± 0.01 |
1.41 ± 0.01 |
1.40 ± 0.01 |
1.38 ± 0.01 |
1.41 ± 0.01 |
1.41 ± 0.01 |
1.41 ± 0.01 |
45 d |
1.39 ± 0.01 |
1.35 ± 0.01 |
1.38 ± 0.01 |
1.35 ± 0.01 |
1.36 ± 0.01 |
1.40 ± 0.01 |
1.38 ± 0.01 |
1.39 ± 0.01 |
1.40 ± 0.01 |
1.40 ± 0.01 |
1.40 ± 0.01 |
90 d |
1.42 ± 0.01 |
1.29 ± 0.01 |
1.34 ± 0.01 |
1.33 ± 0.01 |
1.41 ± 0.01 |
1.44 ± 0.01 |
1.45 ± 0.01 |
1.42 ± 0.01 |
1.44 ± 0.01 |
1.45 ± 0.01 |
1.43 ± 0.01 |
WHC (%) |
0 d |
68.02 ± 0.41 |
74.45 ± 0.57 |
73.05 ± 0.67 |
72.05 ± 0.48 |
62.39 ± 0.62 |
62.56 ± 0.4 |
61.94 ± 0.9 |
60.34 ± 0.65 |
60.57 ± 0.8 |
62.04 ± 0.14 |
63.03 ± 0.47 |
45 d |
68.71 ± 0.43 |
75.48 ± 0.36 |
75.31 ± 0.51 |
74.93 ± 0.4 |
58.18 ± 0.34 |
59.72 ± 0.26 |
58.23 ± 0.48 |
57.07 ± 0.46 |
58.49 ± 0.26 |
58.09 ± 0.15 |
54.92 ± 0.3 |
90 d |
71.93 ± 0.5 |
80.18 ± 0.15 |
78.11 ± 0.43 |
77.4 ± 0.21 |
56.27 ± 0.53 |
57.43 ± 0.37 |
56.17 ± 0.63 |
54.11 ± 0.7 |
54.86 ± 0.29 |
55.77 ± 0.25 |
58.94 ± 0.61 |
TOC (%) |
0 d |
0.48 ± 0.01 |
0.5 ± 0.02 |
0.52 ± 0.02 |
0.55 ± 0.01 |
0.43 ± 0.02 |
0.44 ± 0.01 |
0.45 ± 0.01 |
0.44 ± 0.01 |
0.45 ± 0.02 |
0.45 ± 0.01 |
0.48 ± 0.03 |
45 d |
0.64 ± 0.02 |
0.89 ± 0.01 |
0.9 ± 0.01 |
0.84 ± 0.02 |
0.64 ± 0.01 |
0.69 ± 0.02 |
0.62 ± 0.01 |
0.61 ± 0.01 |
0.6 ± 0.02 |
0.58 ± 0.02 |
0.73 ± 0.01 |
90 d |
0.73 ± 0.02 |
1.14 ± 0.02 |
1.12 ± 0.02 |
1.08 ± 0.02 |
0.78 ± 0.04 |
0.76 ± 0.01 |
0.74 ± 0.05 |
0.71 ± 0.02 |
0.64 ± 0.02 |
0.64 ± 0.02 |
0.60 ± 0.01 |
|
pH |
BD |
WHC |
TOC |
P value |
P0.05 = 0.000 |
P0.05 = 0.000 |
P0.05 = 0.000 |
P0.05 = 0.000 |
LSD |
LSD(d) = 0.022 |
LSD(d) = 0.004 |
LSD(d) = 0.12 |
LSD(d) = 0.02 |
LSD(t) = 0.04 |
LSD(t) = 0.01 |
LSD(t) = 0.22 |
LSD(t) = 0.04 |
The inherent TOC in the soil was low (Table 4S†). Overall, the application of OCIO at different concentrations significantly enhanced TOC level in soil. After 90 days the TOC gain in Fe–oxalate treated soil ranged from 1.42 to 1.61 folds as compared to the initial value. Similarly, TOC gain was also marginal due to Fe–EDTA application (1.64–1.81 folds). Whereas TOC increased by 1.96 to 2.28 folds in OCIO treated soils (Table 1). This indicated a synergistic impact of the OCIO on soil organic C, which may be due to the unique oxalate–Fe-oxide combination in our material. At the end of the study period, the TOC level in soil under various treatments was in the order: OCIO10 mg kg−1 > OCIO20 mg kg−1 > OCIO50 mg kg−1 > Fe–EDTA10 mg kg−1 > Fe–EDTA20 mg kg−1 > Fe–EDTA50 mg kg−1 > Fe–oxalate10 mg kg−1 > Fe–oxalate20 mg kg−1 = Fe–oxalate50 mg kg−1 > FeSO4 50 mg kg−1 (P0.05 = 0.000, LSDtreatment = 0.04, LSDday = 0.02). Generally, iron oxide nanoparticles being highly reactive in soil readily release Fe2+ or Fe3+ ions.8,30 Interestingly, such release of Fe ions could enhance C levels in soil through formation of soluble complexes with the soil organic matter molecules.31
The N availability remarkably increased under OCIO application during the study period (Table 2). Significantly, high N availability in soil was recorded for OCIO10 mg kg−1 followed by OCIO20 mg kg−1 and OCIO50 mg kg−1 (P0.05 = 0.000; LSDday = 3.24; LSDtreatment = 6.19). However, such improvement in N availability was not observed with Fe–EDTA, Fe–oxalate, and FeSO4 application in various concentrations (Table 2). Concurrently, we recorded significantly higher urease activity in OCIO10 mg kg−1 followed by OCIO20 mg kg−1 and OCIO50 mg kg−1 as compared to the Fe–EDTA, Fe–oxalate and FeSO4 treatments (P0.05 = 0.000; LSDtreatment = 0.07). Interestingly, there was a strong positive correlation (r = 0.97; P = 0.000) between N availability and urease activity in soil treated with different doses of OCIO. This indicated that the increment in N availability was mainly due to enhancement of urease activity in soil. Generally, iron is an important co-factor for several soil enzymes.32 Although iron-based nanoparticles induce toxicity through generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), chemically stable Fe3O4 have no ecotoxicity.32 On the other hand, predominance of Fe2+ in soil solution generally leads to acceleration in NO3− reduction through activation of N reducing bacteria (Bacillus sp.) which may induce denitrification loss of N in certain conditions.23,33 Such possibilities are highly obvious when FeSO4 is used as fertilizer. Interestingly, the oxalate capping in our material should reduce the pace of NO3− reduction in soil because the Fe release from OCIO was significantly slower than FeSO4 (Fig. 5d) which warrants in-depth research in future for improving bio-compatibility of OCIO. Hence, the highly oxidized crystals in our material render greater stability in the soil environment, which in turn, might have induced urease activity.
Table 2 Impact of the OCIO on changes in available N, available P, DTPA extractable Fe, urease, and phosphatase activity in soila
Attributes |
Days |
Treatments |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
T4 |
T5 |
T6 |
T7 |
T8 |
T9 |
T10 |
T11 |
T1 = control, T2 = OCIO10 mg kg−1, T3 = OCIO20 mg kg−1, T4 = OCIO50 mg kg−1, T5 = Fe–EDTA10 mg kg−1, T6 = Fe–EDTA20 mg kg−1, T7 = Fe–EDTA50 mg kg−1, T8 = Fe–oxalate10 mg kg−1, T9 = Fe–oxalate20 mg kg−1, T10 = Fe–oxalate50 mg kg−1, T11 = FeSO4. |
Avl N (mg kg−1) |
0 d |
282.7 ± 3.3 |
287.6 ± 7.03 |
284.4 ± 5.6 |
282.53 ± 4.3 |
280 ± 5.4 |
284.66 ± 8 |
289.33 ± 6.1 |
275.67 ± 8.6 |
280 ± 4 |
280.67 ± 8 |
283.6 ± 1.6 |
45 d |
291.07 ± 4.7 |
381.27 ± 2.7 |
372.87 ± 6.7 |
374.73 ± 9.1 |
279.53 ± 9.6 |
284.2 ± 7.3 |
284.67 ± 3.4 |
275.35 ± 4.9 |
278.15 ± 3.2 |
279.05 ± 8.4 |
297.27 ± 2.4 |
90 d |
299.47 ± 3.2 |
387.33 ± 3.2 |
384.53 ± 6.5 |
381.73 ± 9 |
290.26 ± 9 |
281.87 ± 1.6 |
287.47 ± 2.9 |
284.7 ± 8.1 |
275.3 ± 8 |
281.9 ± 4 |
280 ± 8 |
Avl P (mg kg−1) |
0 d |
46.05 ± 0.63 |
49.64 ± 0.87 |
46.98 ± 0.79 |
46.23 ± 0.98 |
43 ± 0.85 |
42.16 ± 1.09 |
42.69 ± 0.55 |
40.77 ± 0.63 |
38.37 ± 0.8 |
40.76 ± 0.96 |
44.15 ± 0.54 |
45 d |
51.91 ± 0.47 |
74.92 ± 0.41 |
72.97 ± 0.87 |
78.76 ± 0.94 |
42 ± 0.71 |
41.73 ± 0.77 |
39.79 ± 0.84 |
39.57 ± 0.71 |
37.83 ± 0.35 |
38.76 ± 0.59 |
42.54 ± 0.87 |
90 d |
58.73 ± 0.86 |
105.54 ± 1.3 |
91.77 ± 1.5 |
88.28 ± 0.81 |
45.18 ± 0.89 |
45.24 ± 0.85 |
45.75 ± 0.43 |
42.28 ± 0.82 |
41.94 ± 0.77 |
42.09 ± 0.64 |
40.12 ± 0.93 |
Urease (μg g−1 h−1) |
0 d |
16.08 ± 0.05 |
18.81 ± 0.01 |
17.98 ± 0.01 |
17.65 ± 0.03 |
16.89 ± 0.04 |
16.45 ± 0.23 |
16.61 ± 0.04 |
16.51 ± 0.03 |
16.08 ± 0.7 |
16.23 ± 0.05 |
16.34 ± 0.02 |
45 d |
16.29 ± 0.07 |
29.78 ± 0.07 |
28.15 ± 0.06 |
23.39 ± 0.05 |
16.97 ± 0.07 |
18.03 ± 0.11 |
16.95 ± 0.05 |
16.8 ± 0.06 |
17.13 ± 0.05 |
16.37 ± 0.08 |
16.38 ± 0.06 |
90 d |
18.89 ± 0.02 |
32.36 ± 0.09 |
31.38 ± 0.03 |
30.99 ± 0.07 |
20.71 ± 0.03 |
20.11 ± 0.04 |
19.54 ± 0.11 |
19.11 ± 0.05 |
18.6 ± 0.18 |
17.57 ± 0.14 |
19.41 ± 0.02 |
Phosphatase (μg g−1 h−1) |
0 d |
7.9 ± 0.15 |
12.82 ± 0.5 |
11.89 ± 0.12 |
10.65 ± 0.09 |
8.1 ± 0.04 |
7.96 ± 0.77 |
7.95 ± 0.66 |
7.95 ± 0.14 |
7.75 ± 0.34 |
7.3 ± 0.32 |
8.09 ± 0.06 |
45 d |
7.2 ± 0.39 |
19.8 ± 0.19 |
19.56 ± 0.39 |
17.54 ± 0.27 |
8.18 ± 0.49 |
8.08 ± 0.34 |
8.11 ± 0.35 |
8.08 ± 0.09 |
7.83 ± 0.05 |
7.44 ± 0.06 |
7.8 ± 0.11 |
90 d |
8.86 ± 0.11 |
27.5 ± 0.16 |
24.14 ± 0.41 |
22.85 ± 0.11 |
8.56 ± 0.29 |
8.24 ± 0.05 |
8.32 ± 0.04 |
8.36 ± 0.11 |
7.94 ± 0.04 |
7.62 ± 0.02 |
7.4 ± 0.2 |
Fe (mg kg−1) |
0 d |
124 ± 2.1 |
136.25 ± 1.4 |
134 ± 2.6 |
136.1 ± 2.7 |
119.4 ± 1.8 |
121.5 ± 1.1 |
122.8 ± 1.4 |
123.5 ± 0.9 |
120.8 ± 1.4 |
124.68 ± 0.9 |
168.95 ± 1.8 |
45 d |
126.05 ± 2.04 |
151.5 ± 2.3 |
154.9 ± 1.4 |
138.2 ± 1.9 |
92.05 ± 1.1 |
93.4 ± 1.3 |
95.5 ± 1.01 |
97.2 ± 1.1 |
92.59 ± 1 |
100.14 ± 0.9 |
196.9 ± 1.6 |
90 d |
128.4 ± 1.21 |
173.88 ± 1.07 |
179.1 ± 1.01 |
183.1 ± 5.1 |
69.4 ± 1.2 |
71.5 ± 1.1 |
73.9 ± 1.1 |
74.27 ± 0.9 |
77.05 ± 3.5 |
78.2 ± 1.9 |
174.9 ± 1.3 |
|
Avl N |
Avl P |
Urease |
Phosphatase |
Fe |
P value |
P0.05 = 0.000 |
P0.05 = 0.000 |
P0.05 = 0.000 |
P0.05 = 0.000 |
P0.05 = 0.000 |
LSD |
LSD(d) = 3.24 |
LSD(d) = 0.12 |
LSD(d) = 0.03 |
LSD(d) = 0.07 |
LSD(d) = 0.43 |
LSD(t) = 6.19 |
LSD(t) = 0.20 |
LSD(t) = 0.07 |
LSD(t) = 0.14 |
LSD(t) = 0.83 |
The test soil in our experiment was acidic in nature (Table 4S†). In such condition, Fe availability is generally enhanced and can considerably precipitate P and renders high P deficiency in soil.34 This can be evidenced from the effects of Fe–EDTA, Fe–oxalate, and FeSO4 on soil P (Table 2). In contrast, significant increment in P availability was recorded with OCIO10 mg kg−1 application followed by OCIO20 mg kg−1 and OCIO50 mg kg−1 (P0.05 = 0.000; LSDtreatment = 0.20). Moreover, Fe availability in soil significantly increased after 90 days due to incorporation of OCIO@50, 20 and 10 mg kg−1 respectively. On the other hand, phosphatase activity was highest with 10 mg kg−1 application of OCIO followed by 20 and 50 mg kg−1 application as compared to other treatments (P0.05 = 0.000; LSDtreatment = 0.14).
Thus, the result suggested that there was a dose dependent relationship between P availability, phosphatase activity, and Fe availability in OCIO treated soil. Briefly, higher dose induced Fe richness in soil but reduced P availability and phosphatase activity and vice versa. Interestingly, the correlation statistics also suggested strong positive correlation between available P and phosphatase activity in OCIO treated soil (r = 0.99; P value = 0.000), while Fe availability were negatively correlated with both available P and phosphatase (Fe–P: r = −0.99; P = 0.000 and Fe–phosphatase: r = −0.99; P = 0.000). Previously, Zhou et al. showed reduction in P availability in soil due to incorporation of iron oxide (FeO, Fe2O3, and Fe3O4) which suppressed the acid phosphatase activity.8 However, they did not mention the dose dependency of such a phenomenon. In contrast, He et al. proposed that Fe3O4 nanoparticles provide beneficial nutrients to soil bacteria which, in turn, greatly stimulate enzyme production in soil.32 Moreover, Fe3+ and Fe2+ were in 2
:
1 ratio in our material. Therefore, Fe3+ predominance in soil was likely to be higher than Fe2+ that is known to generate oxidative stress.35 Thus, the chance of inhibition in bacterial proliferation was less and application of OCIO at a low dose (10 mg kg−1) was beneficial with respect to P and Fe nutrition in soil.
In nature, Fenton-like system can be established due to presence of oxalic acid, Fe, and sunlight.36 The use of oxalic acid in the synthesis process ensured the oxalate capping over Fe2O3 in our material. Therefore it can be speculated that sunlight exposure of OCIO in agricultural fields should create a photo-Fe–oxalate system which is highly efficient in degrading toxic organic pollutants like pentachlorophenol.36,37 Interestingly, in this study the OCIO exhibited a slow but steady Fe release profile (Fig. 5) mainly due to the oxalate capping; which presumably should establish a homogenous photo-Fe–oxalate system where Fe exist in a soluble form.36 As a result, the photoactivity of the material is not likely to interact with Fe bioavailability in soil. Such multifarious traits of OCIO can enhance the value of the material in practice.
Fe and P enrichment in nutrient poor soil: deficiency recovery potential
The changes in nutrient levels in the leached soil are presented in Fig. 6a–c. Significant rise in soil pH was observed under OCIO, whereas, slight reduction in soil pH was recorded under Fe–EDTA, Fe–oxalate, and FeSO4 (P0.05 = 0.000; LSD = 0.13). Moreover, remarkable gain in available P, phosphatase, and Fe availability occurred in OCIO treated soil as compared to the initial value (Fig. 6a). Interestingly, we recorded significantly higher uptake of P and Fe in tomato plants treated with OCIO as compared to others (Fig. 6c). Interestingly, the plants under OCIO treatment did not show leaf chlorosis as noted for FeSO4 treated plants (Fig. 6b). Interveinal chlorosis is a definite symptom of Fe deficiency.38 Moreover, we recorded a significantly high tomato yield in OCIO treated plants (Fig. 6c). This signifies that the synthesized material was not only efficient in recovering Fe and P fertility in soil but also greatly facilitated plant growth and productivity. On the whole, the results of soil and plant experiments indicated that the efficiency of OCIO was highest when applied@10 mg kg−1 (i.e. 22 kg ha−1). Therefore, 22 kg ha−1 can be recommended as optimum dose for field application of OCIO. However, long term and in depth confirmatory field experiments are needed to be conducted in future in different soil types before the final recommendation.
 |
| Fig. 6 Changes in pH, avl P, phosphatase activity, Fe content in nutrient poor soil under various treatments (a); Fe-deficiency symptoms (chlorosis) in tomato leaves (b); effects of OCIO, FeSO4, Fe–EDTA, and Fe–oxalate on chlorophyll content, yield and uptake of P and Fe in tomato grown in nutrient poor soil (c). | |
Experimental
Synthesis of the Fe–(ox)–Fe3O4 (OCIO)
In a typical procedure, 34.7 g of FeSO4·6H2O and 9.45 g of oxalic acid was added in 400 ml of distilled water to prepare a solution in a 1 l beaker and stirred for 20 minutes. Thereafter, a solution of 30 g of NaBH4 was prepared in 100 ml distilled water and added drop wise in the former solution under vigorous stirring. While adding NaBH4, the color of the solution slowly turns into yellow then green and finally black iron nanomaterials begin to appear in the solution. After completion of the reaction, the reaction mixture was kept under stirring at 50 °C for 14 h. Consequently, the black solution slowly turns yellow-brown and finally about 42 g of brown material was collected after centrifuging and oven drying at 80 °C for 8 h.
Experimental plan to assess the applicability of OCIO
The impact of the synthesized OCIO on soil health and plant growth was examined through three major experiments. At first, we assessed the impact of the selected concentrations of OCIO on beneficial soil bacteria and germination potential of plant seeds to assess their ecotoxicity. Secondly, we performed lab scale experiments in aqueous medium to understand the behavior of the OCIO with respect to varied chemical status (pH), the Fe release mechanism, and their role in phosphorus solubilization. Thirdly, we evaluated the impact of various levels of OCIO on the physico-chemical properties of soil in comparison with Fe–EDTA, Fe–oxalate, and FeSO4. Moreover, the efficiency of OCIO to sustain plant growth in Fe deficient soil was evaluated. The minute details of these experiments are given in the following sections.
Experiment-I – effects on soil beneficial bacteria and seed germination
The effects of the OCIO on growth of beneficial soil bacteria N-fixing (NFB) and P-solubilizing (PSB) were assessed. The test was conducted by disc diffusion method against one NFB (Rhizobium sp.) and one PSB (Serratia marcescens).39 In addition, colony growth of NFBs and PSBs in treated soil samples was analyzed respectively in Burk's and Pikovskaya's media.40
10 seeds of V. radiata and V. mungo were placed on tissue papers in Petriplates. Concurrently, 2 mg of OCIO, FeSO4, Fe–EDTA, Fe–oxalate were mixed with 10 ml deionizer water in sealed containers and sonicated for 10 minutes. Afterwards, the resultant mixtures were applied to the seeds of both species. Later, the inoculated seeds were maintained in dark at 25 °C. The number of germinated seeds and length of roots and shoots were measured after 48 hours of incubation. The germination index (GI), relative root growth (RRG), and relative seed germination (RSG) were calculated following Karak et al.,41 as below:
Experiment II – Fe release profile of OCIO in aqueous medium of various pH and the effect on P solubility
10 ml solutions of various ranges of pH (pH 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) were prepared with the help of an acid (HCL) and a base medium (NH4OH) respectively in Erlenmeyer flasks and 0.1 g OCIO, Fe–EDTA, Fe–oxalate, and FeSO4 added separately in the flasks. Then, the flasks were kept in a mechanical shaker set at 120 rpm for 72 hours and the change in pH and Fe release of different solutions was recorded at 12, 24, 48, and 72 h by following standard methods.42,43
In a similar study, the mechanistic evidence of the influence of OCIO on time dependent bioavailability of P and Fe was estimated in an aqueous medium. An identical amount (10 g) of the synthesized compounds [OCIO, Fe–EDTA, Fe–oxalate, and FeSO4] and one easily soluble salt of P (KH2PO4) were mixed with de-ionized water (100 ml) in Erlenmeyer flasks and placed in a mechanical shaker at 120 rpm for 21 days. The filtered portion of the suspension were analyzed periodically (24, 48 hours, 7, 14, and 21 days) for pH and available P following standard methods.42 The Fe release profile was estimated in ICP-OES by following APHA.43
Experiment III – changes in soil quality and nutrient recovery potential of OCIO in Fe deficient soil
Representative and composite soil samples were collected from a typical alluvial soil (order: typic endoaquept) from a nearby area (Napaam, Tezpur, Assam). Subsequently, the soil samples were air dried, freed from plant parts, and sieved through a 2 mm sieve. Then, the prepared soil samples were separately poured in uniform quantity (2 kg) in burnt earthen pots and treated with various concentrations of the synthesized compounds, FeSO4, Fe–EDTA, and Fe–oxalate with a control as shown below:
This study was conducted for 90 days with three identical replicates for each of the above treatments and the soil was sampled periodically at 0, 45, and 90 days for analysis.
The temporal changes in the physico-chemical properties (pH, water holding capacity (WHC), bulk density (BD), total organic carbon (TOC), available nitrogen (avl N), and available phosphorus (avl P)) of the soil were analyzed by following Page et al.42 In addition, the activity of vital soil enzymes (urease and phosphatase) was analyzed following standard methods.44,45 Moreover, the DTPA extractable Fe was analyzed in ICP-OES following standard method.46
A pot experiment was carried out to evaluate the competence of the synthesized compound to correct Fe deficiency in a Fe deficient alluvial soil. Such deficiency was created by leaching with deionizer water for 96 h. At this stage, the Fe content was below detection limit and the pH of soil was 6.3. Subsequently, 1 kg of this soil was poured separately into burnt earthen pots and the whole set was replicated thrice; treated with uniform quantity (50 mg kg−1) of OCIO, Fe–EDTA, Fe–oxalate, and FeSO4. Thereafter, tomato (Badshah F1 hybrid) seedlings (3–4 leaf stage) were planted to each pot and the plant response was assessed. The Fe deficiency was monitored on the basis of leaf chlorosis symptoms. The crop was harvested after 60 days; changes in pH, avl P, Fe, and phosphatase activity in soil were analyzed following the methods stated earlier. Finally, the chlorophyll content, tomato yield (g per plant), and P and Fe uptake in plants was measured following established methods.47,48
Statistical analysis
One-way and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for eco-toxicity and soil quality experiments respectively. The least significance test (LSD) was also carried out to detect the relative efficiency between different treatments. Moreover, Pearson's correlation analysis was performed for the soil studies conducted under Experiment-III in addition to one-way and two-way ANOVA.
Conclusion
A novel and easy large-scale synthesis route for iron oxalate capped iron-oxide (OCIO) nanomaterial was developed avoiding high temperature calcination. The material was synthesized with a specific goal to utilize it as a soil conditioner that renders optimum iron nutrition to plants in varied kind of soil reaction and fertility status. The major findings of this work can be summarized as:
(1) The OCIO material did not show any inhibitory effects on growth of beneficial soil bacteria (NFBs and PSBs). Moreover, profuse germination of OCIO treated black gram and green gram seeds not only confirmed the ecofriendly property of OCIO but also showed high promise of the material as a prolific plant growth promoter.
(2) OCIO possesses a unique H+ scavenging property which facilitates to rectify aberrant pH thereby assuring a steady iron release. This quality also indirectly helps to sustain phosphorous solubility in soil.
(3) 10 and 20 mg kg−1 of OCIO significantly improved soil health (N, P, organic C status, and urease and phosphatase activity) as compared to Fe–EDTA and FeSO4. The present results clearly indicated that a dose of 22 kg ha−1 of OCIO should be optimum for field application. Fascinatingly, the material recovered iron and phosphorous availability in a nutrient-starved soil and sustained plant growth potential.
Authors' contribution
PD carried out the field experiments, done the soil and plant analyses, and written the MS. PD and KS prepared and characterized the nanomaterial and KS specifically made some graphics and partly written the MS. NH helped in the microbial study. SD assisted in the germination experiment and prepared the graphics from that experiment. PB did the statistical analyses, discussed the results and made the overall graphics. SAP, HK, and MIK performed the XPS analysis, discussed the results, and partly wrote the MS. SP conceptualized and supervised the work related to chemical synthesis of the nano-material, analyzed the data and discussed the chemical aspects of the nano-material, and wrote the manuscript. SSB conceived the whole study, designed experiments, supervised the study, analyzed data and wrote the manuscript.
References
- N. J. Robinson, C. M. Procter, E. L. Connolly and M. L. Guerinot, Nature, 1999, 397, 694–697 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- J. Abadía, A. Álvarez-Fernández, A. Rombolà, M. Sanz, M. Tagliavini and A. Abadía, Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., 2004, 50, 965–971 CrossRef.
- A. D. Rombolá and M. Tagliavini, in Iron Nutrition in plants and rhizospheric microorganisms, ed. L. L. Barton and J. Abadia, Springer, Dordrecht, 2006, pp. 61–83 Search PubMed.
- N. K. Fageria, V. C. Baligar and R. J. Wright, Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras., 1990, 25, 553–570 Search PubMed.
- W. L. Lindsay and A. P. Schwab, J. Plant Nutr., 1982, 5, 321–340 CrossRef.
- B. Morgan and O. Lahav, Chemosphere, 2007, 68, 2080–2084 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- B. Schaffer, J. H. Crane, C. Li, Y. C. Li and E. A. Evans, J. Plant Nutr., 2011, 34(9), 1341–1359 CrossRef CAS.
- D. M. Zhou, S. Y. Jin, Y. J. Wang, P. Wang, N. Y. Weng and Y. Wang, Soil Sediment Contam., 2012, 21, 101–114 CrossRef CAS.
- E. Illes and E. Tombacz, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2006, 295, 115–123 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- X. Q. Li, D. W. Elliott and W. X. Zhang, Crit. Rev. Solid State Mater. Sci., 2006, 31, 111–122 CrossRef CAS.
- A. K. Gupta and M. Gupta, Biomaterials, 2005, 26, 3995–4021 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- R. Pegu, K. J. Majumdar, D. J. Talukdar and S. Pratihar, RSC Adv., 2014, 4, 33446–33456 RSC.
- S. Pande, S. Jana, A. K. Basu, A. Sinha, A. Dutta and T. Pal, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2008, 112, 3619 CAS.
- M. J. Aragon, B. Leon, C. P. Vicente and J. L. Tirado, Inorg. Chem., 2008, 47, 10366 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- K. Woo, J. Hong, S. Choi, H. W. Lee, J. P. Ahn, C. S. Kim and S. W. Lee, Chem. Mater., 2004, 16, 2814 CrossRef CAS.
- D. A. Skoog and D. M. West, Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry, Holt Rinehart and Winston Publishers, Austin, 2nd edn, 1969 Search PubMed.
- T. Yamashita and P. Hayes, Appl. Surf. Sci., 2008, 254, 2441–2449 CrossRef CAS.
- A. P. Grosvenor, B. A. Kobe, M. C. Biesinger and N. S. McIntyre, Surf. Interface Anal., 2004, 36, 1564–1574 CrossRef CAS.
- C. M. Liba, F. I. Ferrara, G. P. Manfio, F. Fantinatti-Garboggini, R. C. Albuquerque, C. Pavan and H. R. Barbosa, J. Appl. Microbiol., 2006, 101(5), 1076–1086 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- B. Hameeda, G. Harini, O. P. Rupela, S. P. Wani and G. Reddy, Microbiol. Res., 2008, 163(2), 234–242 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- N. Hussain, A. Singh, S. Saha, M. V. Satish Kumar, P. Bhattacharyya and S. S. Bhattacharya, Bioresour. Technol., 2016, 222, 165–174 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- S. Rodriguez-Rojo, A. Visentin, D. Maestri and M. J. Cocero, J. Food Eng., 2012, 109, 98–103 CrossRef CAS.
- T. Liu, X. Li, W. Zhang, M. Hu and F. Li, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2014, 423, 25–32 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- X. D. Wang, C. Sun, S. X. Gao, L. S. Wang and S. K. Han, Chemosphere, 2001, 44, 1711–1721 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- D. Lin and B. Xing, Environ. Pollut., 2007, 150, 243–250 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Y. S. El-Temsah and E. J. Joner, Environ. Toxicol., 2012, 27, 42–49 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- I. Bartakova, M. Kummerova, M. Mandl and M. Pospisil, Plant Soil, 2001, 235, 45–51 CrossRef CAS.
- P. S. Tourinho, C. A. M. Van Gestel, S. Lofts, C. Svendsen, A. M. V. M. Soares and S. Loureiro, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 2012, 31, 1679–1692 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- M. R. Taha and O. M. E. Taha, J. Nanopart. Res., 2012, 14, 1–13 CrossRef.
- T. D. Waite, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 2006, 70, A681 Search PubMed.
- B. Jansen, K. G. J. Nierop and J. M. Verstraten, Anal. Chim. Acta, 2002, 454, 259–270 CrossRef CAS.
- S. He, Y. Feng, H. Ren, Y. Zhang, N. Gu and X. Lin, J. Soils Sediments, 2011, 11, 1408–1417 CrossRef CAS.
- W. Zhang, X. Li, T. Liu and F. Li, J. Soils Sediments, 2012, 12, 354–365 CrossRef CAS.
- K. K. Mathan and A. Amberger, Plant Soil, 1977, 46, 413–422 CrossRef CAS.
- M. Auffan, W. Achouak, J. Rose, M. A. Roncato, C. Chaneac, D. T. Waite, A. Masion, J. C. Woicik, M. R. Wiesner and J. Y. Bottero, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2008, 42, 6730–6735 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Q. Lan, F. Li, C. Sun, C. Liu and X. Li, J. Hazard. Mater., 2010, 174, 64–70 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Q. Lan, F. Li, C. Liu and X. Li, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2008, 42, 7918–7923 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- H. E. Jendoubi, J. C. Melgar, A. A. Fernández, M. Sanz, A. Abadía and J. Abadía, Plant Physiol. Biochem., 2011, 49, 483–488 CrossRef PubMed.
- CLSI, Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk Susceptibility Tests, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, 2012, pp. M02–A11 Search PubMed.
- D. Parmer and E. L. Schmidt, Experimental Soil Microbiology, Burgess Publication, Minneapolis, 1964 Search PubMed.
- T. Karak, R. K. Paul, I. Sonar, S. Sanyal, K. Z. Ahmed, R. K. Boruah, D. K. Das and A. K. Dutta, Food Res. Int., 2014, 64, 114–124 CrossRef CAS.
- A. L. Page, R. H. Miller and D. R. Keeney, Methods of Soil Analysis-Part 2, Soil Society of America, Madison, 1982 Search PubMed.
- APHA, Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater-20th edition, American Public Health Association, Washington DC, 1999 Search PubMed.
- M. A. Tabatabai and J. M. Bremner, Soil Biol. Biochem., 1969, 1, 301–307 CrossRef CAS.
- M. A. Tabatabai and J. M. Bremner, Soil Biol. Biochem., 1972, 4, 479–487 CrossRef CAS.
- W. L. Lindsay and W. A. Norvell, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 1978, 42, 421–428 CrossRef CAS.
- T. Ignat, Z. Schmilovitch, J. Fefoldi, N. Bernstein, B. Steiner, H. Egozi and A. Hoffman, Biosystems Engineering, 2013, 114, 414–425 CrossRef.
- H. L. S. Tandon, Methods of analysis of soils, plants, waters and fertilizers, Fertilizer Development and Consultation Organization, New Delhi, 1995 Search PubMed.
Footnote |
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: 10.1039/c6ra18840k |
|
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 |
Click here to see how this site uses Cookies. View our privacy policy here.