The reaction of aqueous Fe(II) with Fe(III) oxides is a complex process, comprising sorption, electron transfer, and in some cases, reductive dissolution and transformation to secondary minerals. To better understand the dynamics of these reactions, we measured the extent and rate of Fe isotope exchange between aqueous Fe(II) and goethite using a 57Fe isotope tracer approach. We observed near-complete exchange of Fe atoms between the aqueous phase and goethite nanorods over a 30-day time period. Despite direct isotopic evidence for extensive mixing between the aqueous and goethite Fe, no phase transformation was observed, nor did the size or shape of the goethite rods change appreciably. High-resolution transmission electron microscopy images, however, appear to indicate that some recrystallization of the goethite particles may have occurred. Near-complete exchange of Fe between aqueous Fe(II) and goethite, coupled with negligible change in the goethite mineralogy and morphology, suggests a mechanism of coupled growth (via sorption and electron transfer) and dissolution at separate crystallographic goethite sites. We propose that sorption and dissolution sites are linked via conduction through the bulk crystal, as was recently demonstrated for hematite. Extensive mixing between aqueous Fe(II) and goethite, a relatively stable iron oxide, has significant implications for heavy metal sequestration and release (e.g., arsenic and uranium), as well as reduction of soil and groundwater contaminants.

Results from enriched (57)Fe isotope tracer experiments have shown that atom exchange can occur between structural Fe in Fe(III) oxides and aqueous Fe(II) with no formation of secondary minerals or change in particle size or shape. Here we derive a mass balance model to quantify the extent of Fe atom exchange between goethite and aqueous Fe(II) that accounts for different Fe pool sizes. We use this model to reinterpret our previous work and to quantify the influence of particle size and pH on extent of goethite exchange with aqueous Fe(II). Consistent with our previous interpretation, substantial exchange of goethite occurred at pH 7.5 (≈ 90%) and we observed little effect of particle size between nanogoethite (average size of 81 × 11 nm; ≈ 110 m(2)/g) and microgoethite (average size of 590 × 42 nm; ≈ 40 m(2)/g). Despite ≈ 90% of the bulk goethite exchanging at pH 7.5, we found no change in mineral phase, average particle size, crystallinity, or reactivity after reaction with aqueous Fe(II). At a lower pH of 5.0, no net sorption of Fe(II) was observed and significantly less exchange occurred accounting for less than the estimated proportion of surface Fe atoms in the particles. Particle size appears to influence the amount of exchange at pH 5.0 and we suggest that aggregation and surface area may play a role. Results from sequential chemical extractions indicate that (57)Fe accumulates in extracted Fe(III) goethite components. Isotopic compositions of the extracts indicate that a gradient of (57)Fe develops within the goethite with more accumulation of (57)Fe occurring in the more easily extracted Fe(III) that may be nearer to the surface.

No abstract

No abstract

The reaction between magnetite and aqueous Fe(2+) has been extensively studied due to its role in contaminant reduction, trace-metal sequestration, and microbial respiration. Previous work has demonstrated that the reaction of Fe(2+) with magnetite (Fe(3)O(4)) results in the structural incorporation of Fe(2+) and an increase in the bulk Fe(2+) content of magnetite. It is unclear, however, whether significant Fe atom exchange occurs between magnetite and aqueous Fe(2+), as has been observed for other Fe oxides. Here, we measured the extent of Fe atom exchange between aqueous Fe(2+) and magnetite by reacting isotopically "normal" magnetite with (57)Fe-enriched aqueous Fe(2+). The extent of Fe atom exchange between magnetite and aqueous Fe(2+) was significant (54-71%), and went well beyond the amount of Fe atoms found at the near surface. Mössbauer spectroscopy of magnetite reacted with (56)Fe(2+) indicate that no preferential exchange of octahedral or tetrahedral sites occurred. Exchange experiments conducted with Co-ferrite (Co(2+)Fe(2)(3+)O(4)) showed little impact of Co substitution on the rate or extent of atom exchange. Bulk electron conduction, as previously invoked to explain Fe atom exchange in goethite, is a possible mechanism, but if it is occurring, conduction does not appear to be the rate-limiting step. The lack of significant impact of Co substitution on the kinetics of Fe atom exchange, and the relatively high diffusion coefficients reported for magnetite suggest that for magnetite, unlike goethite, Fe atom diffusion is a plausible mechanism to explain the rapid rates of Fe atom exchange in magnetite.