COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF SORPTION-DESORPTION KINETICS OF

PHOSPHORUS IN A HIGHLY VARIABLE CHARGE TROPICAL SOIL USING

VARIOUS KINETIC MODELS TO EXPLAIN THE PHENOMENON

BY

GONI MAKINTA
SPS/20/PSS/00006

COURSE TITLE
ADVANCED SOIL CHEMISTRY
SSC 9302

A PhD ASSIGNMENT PAPER SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT OF SOIL

SCIENCE, FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE, BAYERO UNIVERSITY, KANO

FEBRUARY, 2022
INTRODUCTION

Phosphorus undergoes several geo-chemical processes in soils such as solubilization,

complexation, adsorption and precipitation that determine its mobility and fate. Those

chemical processes are a complex function of several soil particles including iron and

aluminum oxide forms and content, the amount of silicate clays and calcium carbonate

content (Afif, et al, 1993). The impact of these properties on phosphorus retention and

release depends on soil acidity and alkalinity. Phosphorus is an essential plant nutrients

relatively less available in the soil than nitrogen and potassium (Juo et al., 2007). An

understanding of phosphorus retention and release mechanism provides crucial

information for effective management of phosphorus to enhance crop production and

sanitize system water quality. therefore, sorption is one of the key mechanisms that

determine bioavailability of phosphorus in the soil (MacDowell and Condron, 2001).

The recovery of phosphorus by plant from applied fertilizer is limited in acidic and

calcareous soils due to phosphorus fixation. Phosphorus is fixed by high energy sorption

surfaces such as oxides and hydroxides of ion and aluminum resulting in the formation of

insoluble iron and aluminum phosphates by ligand exchange and precipitation reactions.

Similarly, high base status and pH of calcareous soils makes phosphorus sparingly

soluble due to formation of metal complexes such as Ca-P and Mg-P (Marschner, 1995).

In Agricultural soils, large quantities of phosphate applied every year are not utilized due

to strong sorption and fixation processes (Queseda, et al., 2011). Although, other factors

influence phosphorus availability in the soil, however, sorption and desorption to

constituents of variable surface charges are considered the most important (Weng et al,

2011). In tropical alfisols, which have undergone high degree of weathering, there are

1
high levels of iron and aluminum oxides and clay minerals of 1:1 type and these

constituents are of critical importance to phosphorus availability due to peculiar

mineralogy of these soils (Wei, et al, 2014).

Strong adsorption of inorganic phosphate anions to mineral soils exerts a key control on

the availability of phosphorus to plants and microbes (lioyd et al., 2001). Phosphate

anions at first attach to the highest energy binding sites and then fill lower energy sites

(McGechan and Lewis, 2002). As phosphate anions accumulate at binding sites, the soil

particles surfaces become increasingly negative, decreasing the affinity for P anions as P

Concentrations increase(Barrow, 1978). The affinity for high energy binding sites before

lower energy sites and a decreasing binding strength with increasing concentrations

results in a non linear Isotherm where P mineral is very strong at low concentrations

(Brenner, et al., 2018).

Sorption of Phosphorus and its availability is influenced by soil solution pH, metal oxides

and carbonates (Harell and Wang, 2006). In a batch experiment, the acidic soil showed

higher sorption and lower availability of sorped p than calcareous soil due to its low pH

and larger concentration of Fe, Al, and Mn oxides which can fix P and reduce its

availability (Greelhoed, et al, 2007). Biochar addition decreased p sorption and increased

available p in the acidic soil attributed to a decrease in point of zero net charge (PZNC),

and increase in the negative charge potential. The soil pH also increase with biochar

addition during incubation which might be due to proton consumption reaction such as

ligand exchange between functional group of biochar and anions of p on aluminol (Al-

OH) and Ferrol (Fe – OH) surfaces (McBridge, 1994).

2
Perez et al (2014)and Wang et al (2011) considered oxides as components that contribute

most to p adsorption. Phosphorus Sorption-desorption in the soil is an important nutrient

cycle related soil fertility problem as well as environmental fate of phosphorus (P)

determinant. Soil organic phosphorus as well as inorganic P constitute quantity and

intensity factors respectively which have been identified as P availability indices in

tropical soils. The effect of these factors on tropical Alfisols were being evaluated by

Morris et al (1992). Phosphorus availability of soils was widely evaluated through P

sorption studies.

Rapid disappearance of Phosphate from an equilibrium soil solution is related to

adsorption reactions on to active iron and aluminum oxide and allophane microstructure.

Consequently phosphate get adsorbed into the interior of the particle by solid-state

diffusion (Fonds and Weed, 1996), which is often enhanced by rates and frequency of P

fertilizers application. The capacity of the soil to adsorb-desorb P has been expressed by

adsorption isotherms, mainly evaluated by researchers using Langmuir and Freundlich

equations.

The relationship between the labile P sorped to the soil surface can be described by

quantity-intensity relationship which shows P sorption and desorption as a function of P

in the equilibrium solution. The shape of the curve reflects the sorption capacity for

freshly added P, the shape and the placement of the Q/I plot depends on P fertilization

history and the inherent soil properties.

Hartikainen (1991) observed that sorption-desorption isotherm is similar to Q/I are

normally obtained by equilibrating, soil and solution separated by centrifugation and

filtration.

3
Barrow, (2015) observed that the concentration of P transported by diffusion is dependent

on the concentration of P in the soil solution (intensity factor), the ability of the soil to

replenish solution P (buttering capacity) and the diffusion coefficient of P in the soil.

Therefore, an increase in buffer capacity affect the ease of P desorption thereby affecting

P availability. The decrease in P concentration in the presence of Fe – OH and Al – OH is

due to P retention by the highly reactive surfaces of the hydroxides of iron and aluminum

(Pardo and Gandalix, 1990).

Factors affecting Phosphorus Sorption Kinetics

The phosphorus sorption capacity of a soil depends on mineralogy, soil pH, application

of fertilizer P and manure. Soils of tropical alfisols and ultisols are rich in oxides of iron

and aluminum and 1:1 layer kaolinite clays. These soil constituents have high reactive

surfaces with high P retentive capacities. These soils may reduce P availability, due to

reaction with phosphate ions resulting in P deficiency.

Soil pH is another important determinant of P sorption, Rupa et al (2001)studied the

effect of pH and background electrolytes on phosphorus sorption desorption kinetics on

three benchmark soil series of India and observed that phosphate sorption was minimum

in pH range of 5.5 – 6.75. The desorption rate as well as quantity desorbed in six

extractions was maximum at pH 5.0 followed by 6.75,4.25 and 8.0 in that order. This

behaviour of P suggested that the amount of tightly held P was greater at low pH

probably due to high concentration of soluble iron and aluminum which react-with

phosphate irons resulting in precipitate leading to low P availability.

4
A study was conducted on the effect of organic residues addition on P sorption capacity

of an Alfisol. Reddy et al (2005) found that addition of soybean and wheat residues

resulted in net increase in labile inorganic P and organic P including microbial P during

the period of incubation. The addition of the crop residues effectively decreased p

sorption capacity and therefore the standard p requirement of the soil (i.e. the amount of

P required to maintain optimum solution P concentration by 24 – 43%). The result

generally showed that these crop residues have the potential to improve p fertility of the

Alfisols by decreasing p sorption capacity and promoting accretion of organic P. On a

similar vein, Yang et al (2016) observed that maximum adsorption capacity of P

increased with increase in soil organic matter. However, the bonding energy and

maximum buffering capacity later decreased, probably due to organic ligands competing

for absorption sites leading to P desorption. They concluded that organic matter enhance

p availability by reducing the strength of p adsorption and increase soil buffering capacity

Kinetic Models used to Determine Phosphorus Adsorption Isotherms

Adsorption Isotherms conveniently describe the adsorption of solutes (adsorbates) by

solid (adsorbent) at constant temperature. In quantitative terms, an adsorption isotherms

shows the amount of adsorbate sorbed as a function of in equilibrium solution

concentration. The best known adsorption equations are Langmuir and Freundlich

equations. Others includes Tomkin equation, Von’t Hoff equation and Brunauer-Emmett-

Teller equation. An advantage of using the Langmuir equation for describing adsorption

is that it defines a limit to adsorption on a given array of sites that meet the Langmuir

model criteria. This apparent limit has been used by many researchers to evaluate the

adsorption capacity of soils for phosphate and various herbicides. Comparing such

5
capacities can only suggest adsorption mechanisms. On the other hand Freundlich

equation has the following limitations; It does not predict a maximum adsorption

capacity; It has little theoretical foundation and constants of the equation have only

empirical significance but are useful for comparing different adsorbent/adsorbate

systems.

The P adsorption Isotherms determination by the Langmuir equation is expressed as

follows:
X βL
=K L ……………………………………………..1
m 1+ K L C
Where C is the concentration of P in solution at equilibrium (mgL -1). x/m is the adsorped

P per gramme at equilibrium (mg g-1), βL(MPAC) is the maximum P adsorption capacity

(mg k-1) of the soil.

Freundlich adsorption/desorption isotherm is expressed by the following equation:

x 1/ n
=K F C …………………………………………………2
m
Where x/m is the quantity of P adsorbed in mg g -1 of soil. C is the concentration of P in

solution at equilibrium (M L-1), KF is the Freundlich adsorption coefficient in (LM g -1)

and n is the parameter reflecting the intensity of sorption. The parameters of the

Langmaur and Freundlich Isotherms were estimated by linearization of the hyperbolic

model (Alveez and Fonseca, 1990)

Another application of P isotherms is the one developed by Yin et al, (1997) under the

stirred flow method. The procedure under the stirred flow is different from the batch

method in that P adsorption and desorption are measured sequentially. Immediately the

adsorption process is completed, desorption process immediately commences. The p

adsorption isotherm is calculated by the following equation (Yin et al, 1997) for

adsorption:

6
 [ ]
j
Ve
qa ( t )= ∑ C1 ( i )−C 2 ( i ) tj+C1 ( i+ 1 )−C 2 ( i+ 1 ) m
J=1

Where: C1(j) and C2(j) are concentrations of P in the J-th output solution in the absence

and presence of soil C1(i) and C2(i) are the p concentration in the chamber in the presence

and absence of soil respective. Ve is the effective volume of solution in the reactor: m is

the mass of soil sample. The desorbed amount can be determined by the equation.

[∑ C 2 ( i )−C 1 (i ) tjw
]
j
Ve
qd ( t ) = + C2 ( i+1 ) −C1 ( i+1 )
J =1 Ve m

Where qd(t) is the cumulative desorbed amount at time (t1).

Dual model Langmuir- Freundlich model. The dual model was proposed by Constantino

et al (2017) expressed by using the equation below

¿
j
( k i C eq )
C sorb =∑ bi ¿
J=1 1+ ( k i +eq )

The fitting coefficient and the model adequacy were evaluated based on the kinetic

analysis data. The adjustable parameters are b1 ki and n representing the maximum

sorption capacity, the sorbate-sorbent affinity and the site heterogeneity respectively. J

sets the type of sorption sites.

Guedes et al, 2016) usedthe Langmuir Model to determine sorption/desorption isotherm

of four Amazonian soils; xanthic ferrosol -1 (FR – 1), Xantic ferrosol -2 (FR – 2; Rhodic

Ferrosol (FR – 3) and Anthrosol (AT) which have varying degrees of crystalline oxide

and kaolinite clays in composition.

7
The Langmuir model evaluated the Maximum Phosphorus Adsorption Capacity (MPAC)

which ranged from 785 mg K-1 in AT (Curve 1) to 1838 mg Kg -1 in FR – 2 (Curve 2).

Being considered soils with low to medium sorption capacity (Guedes et al, 2016). By

Langmuir model the follow order of P adsorption capacity is as thus: AT < FR -1 < FR –

3 < FR – 2 was observed (Fig.1).

The result of adsorption/desorption cumulated as a function of contact time, with solution

in stirred flow are shown in Fig. 2. The FR – 3 soil showed higher P adsorption capacity

followed by FR – 2, FR – 3, FR – 1 and AT, whose qmax values ranged from 67 to 295 mg

kg-1 (Table 1). In FR – 2 and FR – 3 most of the P has been adsorbed within the 100

minutes of evaluation (Figure 3B and C), while for FR–1 and AT soil the process

occurred mainly within the first 50 minutes of contact with solution indicating different

levels of affinity and adsorption capacity (Fig. 3A and D). in all the soils, the amount of P

desorped was smaller than that adsorbed and followed the order qmax for adsorption: FR –

1 < AT < FR -2 < FR – 3 (Fig. 2, Table 1). The difference between the adsorbed and

desorbed amount is hysteresis which characterized the irreversibility of the adsorption

observed at a greater proportion in FR – 2 and FR – 3 where in 71 – 72 percent adsorbed

P was not desorbed.

Phosphorus Sorption Kinetics and Hysteresis

To describe the adsorption and desorption kinetics of P, the pseudo first-order equation

was used considering the two types of negative sites (slow and fast) as described by

Fernandez-Calvino et al (2015), through the following equation.

dq
=K 1 ( Fqmax −q ) for q < qF
dt
dq
=K 2 [ ( 1−F ) qmax −q ] for q > qF
dt

8
Where dq/dt is the adsorption/desorption rate (mg Kg-1max)-1; K1 is the adsorption

/desorption rate constant for rapid sites (min -1); K2 is adsorption/desorption rate constant

related to the slow site (min-1), F is the fraction of fast site, qmax is the maximum

adsorption/desorption capacity for the experimental condition (mg Kg-1); q is the

concentration of P adsorbed/desorbed and qF is the concentration of p adsorbed/desorbed

at the transition from fast to slow sites, obtained for two lines adjusted to q a and dq/dt for

adsorption or q and dq
/dt for desorption, where dF corresponds to the intercept. F is

calculated as ratio qF/qmax, so that if only one site is present, F= 1 and the model

coincides with the pseudo first-order equation for one site (Perez-novo, et al, 2011).

Phosphorus hysteresis index(H) was also calculated according to the principle proposed

by Deng et al (2010), based on the differences between the areas above the isotherms of

adsorption and desorption but using the areas below the isotherms as defined in the

equation below.

H= ( As−AsAd ) ×100
Where As is the area below the adsorption isotherms d for the time variation 0 to t; and

Ad in the area below the desorption isotherm at the same time variation O to t; and Ad in

the area below the desorption isotherm at the same time variation (mg2 Kg-1 L-1).

The high hysteresis index in FR-2 and FR-3and the lowest in AT indicate that AT soil is

more prone to release adsorbed P.The inverse correlation between hysteresis and

available P (r2-0.85, P < 0.01) indicate considerable contribution to the irreversibility of

P adsorption. Hysteresis is also correlated with clay content (r = 0.75, P < 0.01) which is

associated with the presence of crystalline and poorly crystalline oxides, representing a

factor of greater importance and controlling the P hysteresis in the soils. This probably

occurs because Kaolinite can mix or associate with Fe oxide substantially increasing the

9
soil adsorption capacity (Wei, et al, 2014). Moreover, in mineral structure of goethite, the

adsorption can occur through monodentate and bidentate bonds in the inner sphere

complex (Abdala, et al, 2015), where as in low crystalline oxides as ferrihydrite it can

occur in bidentate and binucleateded inner sphere complex with high binding energy

(Arai and Sparks, 2000).

The effect of hysteresis has been reported in disruption of metals, organic substances and

phosphorus based herbicides in which this phenomenon is controlled by the retension

forces of soil matrix of oxides, clays and organic matter with ions and molecules of the

soil solution (Rampoldi et al, 2014). On the other hand, organic matter may affect

adsorption by limiting the formation of high stability complexes which result in lower

hysteresis as presented by AT, thus accounting for low correlation between hysteresis and

organic matter (4 = -0.86, P< 0.01).

Conclusion

Phosphorus sorption in the soil is an important nutrient cycle related to soil fertility

problem as well as a determinant for environmental fate of P. soil organic and inorganic

phosphorus constitute the quantity and intensity factors which control P availability in the

soil. Rapid disappearance of phosphorus from an equilibrating soil solution is attributed

to adsorption reactions of P onto iron and aluminum oxides and 1:1 Kaolinite clay

prevalent in tropical alfisols. The capacity of the soil to adsorb and desorb P has been

expressed by P adsorption isotherms using Langmuir and Freundlich equations widely

used by researchers. Phosphorus sorption studies is critical tool for P management in

tropical soils which have unique soil properties that encourage P adsorption and retention

which affect bioavailability of P.

10
Fig. 1. Phosphorus sorption isotherms adjusted to the Langmuir model for soils (A) Xanthic Ferralsol-1
(FR-1), (B) Xanthic Ferralsol-2 (FR-2), (C) Rhodic Ferralsol (FR-3) and (D) Hortic Anthrosol (AT).
Source: Guedes e al, (2016)

11
Fig. 2. Accumulated adsorption and desorption in (A) Xanthic Ferralsol-1 (FR-1), (B) Xanthic Ferralsol-2
(FR-2), (C) Rhodic Ferralsol (FR-3) and (D) Hortic Anthrosol (AT).
Source: Guedes e al, (2016)

12
 Table 1: Adsorption and desorption kinetic parameters and phosphorus
hysteresis for four highly weathered soils: (A) Xanthic Ferralsol-1 (FR-1),
(B) Xanthic Ferralsol-2 (FR- 2), (C) Rhodic Ferralsol (FR-3) and (D)
Hortic Anthrosol (AT).
Adsorption qF F qmax K1 K2 R12 R22
FR-1 36.87c 0.55a 67.1c 0.034 0.016 0.99 0.99
FR-2 74.78b 0.45c 165.5b 0.018 0.007 0.99 0.97
FR-3 141.06a 0.48b 295.0a 0.011 0.004 0.99 0.97
AT 16.08d 0.33d 49.0d 0.041 0.006 0.99 0.9
Source: Guedes e al, (2016)

Desorption qF F qmax H K1 K2 R12 R22

FR-1 13.92c 0.37a 37.9d 63.5b 0.034 0.016 0.96 0.97
FR-2 15.07b 0.24b 62.7b 71.2a 0.028 0.005 0.97 0.95
FR-3 16.56a 0.18c 93.0a 72.1a 0.025 0.004 0.99 0.94
AT 12.25d 0.24b 51.5c 11.1c 0.033 0.005 0.99 0.91
Source: Guedes e al, (2016)
QF: Concentration of P adsorbed/desorbed at the transition from fast to slow sites (mg Kg -
1
);F: Fraction of fast sites; qmax: Minimum concentration adsorbed/desorbed (mg Kg-1); K1
and K2: Constant related to fast and slow sites, respectively (min -1): R12 and R22:
Determination coefficients for K1 and K2 respectively: H: Hysteresis Index (%): Within
each attribute means followed by different letters in a horizontal differ statistically at
5%level of significance.

13
 REFERENCES

Abdala, D.B., Northrup, P.A., Vincentin, F.C., Spark, D.L. (2015). Residence Time and
pH effect on the bonding Configuration of Orthophosphate Surface Complex at
the Goethite/Water Interface as examined by Extended X-ray Absorption Fine
Structure (EXAS) Spectroscopy J. Colloid Interface Sci. 442, 15-21.

Afif, E., Barron, V. Torrent, 1995. Organic Matter Delays but does not prevent phosphate
surption by Cerrado Soil from Bazil. Soil Sci, 159, 207-211.

Almeda, J.A. Torrent, J. Barron, V. (2003).Soil Colour, Phosphorus Pools and Phosphate
adsorption in Latosols developed from basalt in South Brazil R.Bras.Ci. solo. 27,
985-1002.

Almeida, R.F., Sousa, Q., Isabel, D., Martins, F.P., Machado, H.A., Mikhaeel, J.E.R.,
Borges, E.N., Wendling, B. (2014). Cation Availability and Electrochemical
Conditions in Oxisols Modified by Land Use and Management Systems in the
Region of Triangulo Mineiro, Brazil, Afr. J. Agric.Res.9, 1124-1129.
https://dio.org./10/5897/AJAR2014.8482

Alveez, V.V.H., Fauseca,D.M.(1990). Definition of Doses of Phosphorus to determine

the maximum adsorption capacity for Phosphate in Greenhouse Trids. R.Bras.
CI.Solo. 14, 49 – 55.

Arai, Y., Sparks, D.L., 2001. ATR-FTIR spectroscopic investigation on phosphate

adsorption mechanisms at the ferrihydrite-water interface. J. Colloid Interf. Sci.]
241, 317–326.

Atif E., Mater,E.A.,Torrent, J. (1993). Availability of Phosphate applied to calcareous

soil of West Africa and North Africa, Soil Soc. Amj 57, 756 – 760.

Azeez, J.O.,Van Averbeke, W. (2011). Effect of Manure Type and Period of Incubation
on Phosphorus-Sorption Indices of a weathered Tropical Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 42,
2200 – 2218.

Condell,D., Neset,T.SS., (2014). Phosphorus Vulnerability: A Quantitative Framework

for assessing the vulnerability of national and regional food systems to the multi-
dimensional stressors of phosphorus scarcity. Glob. Environ. chang. Human
Policy Dimens 24,108 – 122.

14
Constantino, L.V., Quirino, J.N., Monteiro,A.M.,Abrea,O.T., Parreira, P., Urbano,A.,
Santos,M.J.(2017).Sorption and Desorption of Silver Ions by Bentonite Clays.
Environ.sci.pollut. R.24.,11349-11359.

Deng, J. Jang, X, Hu, W., Hu., L. (2010).Quantifying Hysteresis of Atrazine Desorption

from a Sandy Loan Soil. J. Environ Sci, 22, 1923 -1929.

Fernandez-Calvino, D. Berimude-Couso, A.Arias – Estevez, M. Novea – Munoz, J.C.,

Fernandex, Sanjurjo, M, J. Alvarez-Rodrigues, E., nunez-Delgado, A. (2005).
Competitive Adsorption/desorption of Tetracycline, Oxytetracycline and
Chlortetracycline on two acid soils: stirred flow chamber experiments.
Chemosphere 134:361-366

Fink, J.R., Inda, A.V., Bavaresco, J.Barron, V., Torrent, J., Bayer, C. (2016a) Adsorption
and desorption of Phosphorous in Subtropical soils as affected by management
system and mineralogy. Soil Till Res. 115: 62-68.

Galunim, E., Ferreti, J., Zapelline,I., Viera, I., Tarley, C.,Abrao, Santos, M.J.
(2014).Cadmium Mobility in Sediments and Soils from a coal mining area on
Tibagi River Mater. 265, 280-287.

Geelhoed, J.S., Hiemstra, T. Van Riemsdijk, W.H. (1997). Phosphate and Sulfate
Absorption on Geothite: Single Amino and Competitive Adsorption, Geochion.
Cosmodion Acta61, 2389 – 2396.

Gracetz, D.A., Nair, V.D. (2009). Phosphorus Sorption Isotherm Determination, InL
Hovar, J.I., Pierzynski, G.M(Eds). Methods of Phosphorus Analysis for Soils, ,
Sediments, Residuals and Waters, Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No.408.
North Carolina State University, Releigh, N.C.

Guedes, R.S., Melo,L.C.A., Vergutz,L.Rodriguez – Villa, A., Corelo, R.D>, Fernandes,

A.R. (2016).Adsorption and Kinetics and Phosphorus Hysteresis in highly
weathered Soil by Stirred Flow Chamber Experiments. Soil and Tillage Research,
162, 46-54.

Harrell, D.L.,Wang J.J. (2006). Fractional and Sorption of Inorganic Phosphorus in

Louisiana Calcareous Soils. Soil Sci. 2006, 171, 39-51.

Langmuir, D. (1997).Aqueous Environmental Geochemistry Practice Hall,Upper Saddle

Rive,N.J.

MacDowell, R., Condron,L. (2001).Influence of Soil COnstitutents on soil Phosphorus

Sorption and Disorption Comm. Soil. Sci. Plant. 32,2531-2547.

Marschner, H. (1995). Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. Academic Press, London.

15
McBridge, M.B. (1994). Environmental Chemistry of Soils, Oxford University Press,
New York, U.S.A.

Morales, M.M. Comerford, N., Guerrini, I.A., Falcao, N.P.S., Leeves, J.B. (2013).
Sorption and Desorption of Phosphate on Biochar and Biochar-Soil Mixture. Soil
Use and Management.

Murphy, J., Riley, J.P., (1962). A Modified Single Solution Method for the
Determination of Phosphate in Natural Waters, Anal Chim Acta. 27, 31-36.

Onishi, B.S.D., Ferreita, C.S.D., Urbano, A., Santos,M.J. (2020). Modified Hydrotalite
for Phosphorus Slow-Release, Kinetic and Sorption-desorption processes in Clay
and Sandy Soils for North of Parana State (Brazil).

Perez-Bovo, C., Fernandex-Calvino, D., Bermudez, M. (2011a). Influence of Phosphorus

on Cu Sorption Kinetic: Stirred Flow Chamer Experiments.J. Hozard Mater 185,
220 – 226.

Quesada, C.A., Lloyd, J., Anderson, L.O., Fyllas, N.M., Schwarz, M. Czimczik, C.J.
(2011). Soil of Amazoma with Particular Reference to the Rainfor
Sites.Biogeoscience 8, 11415 – 11440.

Rampoldi, E.A., Hang, S., Barriuso, E., 2014. Carbon-14-Glyphosate behavior in

relationship to pedoclimatic conditions and crop sequence. J. Envir. Qual. 43,
558–567

Rupa, T.P., Tomar, K.P., Srinivasa, C.H. Subba Rao, A. (2001). Kinetics of Phosphate
Sorption-Desorption as influenced by Soil pH and Electrolyte, Agrochimica, A.5,
124 – 133.

Wei, S., Tan,W. Liu, F. Zlao, W., Weng, L. (2014). Surface Properties and Phosphate
adsorption of binary system containing goethite and Kaolinte Geoderma 213, 478
– 484.

Weng,L.P., Vega F.A., Van Riemdijk, W.H.(2011).Competitive and Synergistic Effects

mpH Dependent Phosphate Adsorption in Soils: ICD Modelling. Environ Sci.
Technol, 45, 8420 – 8428.

Yang, X., Chen, X., Yang, X., (2019). Effect of Organic Matter on Phosphorus
Adsorption and desorption in a Black Soil from Northeast China. Soil Tillage
Res., 187, 85-91

16