JEQ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Related articles in JEQ
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (17)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hettiarachchi, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by La Fleur, C. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hettiarachchi, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by La Fleur, C. M.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Hettiarachchi, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by La Fleur, C. M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Municipal Waste
Right arrow Sorption/Exchange
Right arrow Heavy Metals
Right arrow Soil Pollution

Sorption and Desorption of Cadmium by Different Fractions of Biosolids-Amended Soils

Ganga M. Hettiarachchi*,a,c, James A. Ryana, Rufus L. Chaneyb and Cherie M. La Fleura

a Remediation and Containment Branch, Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, USEPA, 26 West Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268
b Animal Manure and Byproducts Lab, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, USDA-ARS-ANRI, Beltsville, MD 20705
c Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka



View larger version (28K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Fractionation scheme used to evaluate the relative contribution of different soil fractions on Cd sorption–desorption.

 


View larger version (21K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Effects of biosolids on Cd sorption at pH 5.5 in 0.01 M Ca(NO3)2 solution.

 


View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Effects of biosolids and organic carbon removal on Cd sorption at pH 5.5 in 0.01 M Ca(NO3)2 solution. LC, limed digested; OC, organic carbon.

 


View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Effects of biosolids and easily reducible Fe/Mn removal on Cd sorption at pH 5.5 in 0.01 M Ca(NO3)2 solution. LC, limed digested.

 


View larger version (23K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. Effects of biosolids, easily reducible Fe/Mn, organic carbon, and Fe oxide removal on Cd sorption at pH 5.5 in 0.01 M Ca(NO3)2 solution. LC, limed digested; OC, organic carbon.

 


View larger version (33K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 6. Effects of removal of different fractions from soils with or without biosolids on Cd desorption at pH 5.5 in 0.01 M Ca(NO3)2 solution.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education		 Vadose Zone Journal
Soil Science Society of America Journal Journal of Plant Registrations The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2003 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.