Adsorption of anionic and nonionic surfactant mixtures from synthetic detergents on soils

Rao, Pinhua; He, Ming

doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.08.067

Cited by 71 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since in our experiment, plant parts (leaf or root) did not come in direct contact with surfactant solutions or greywater except via soil, no toxic responses were observed. The anionic surfactant used in our experiment is known to have a lower capacity to remain adsorbed in soil than various mixed types of surfactants commonly used in the formulation of detergents (Rao and He, 2006). Anionic surfactants also tend to degrade rapidly in soil (Küchler and Schnaak 1997) with little or no risk to soil biota (Scott and Jones, 2000).…”

Section: Plant Growth Response To Nutrients and Surfactants In Irrigamentioning

confidence: 99%

Reuse potential of laundry greywater for irrigation based on growth, water and nutrient use of tomato

Misra

Patel

Baxi

2010

Journal of Hydrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYGreywater is considered as a valuable resource with a high reuse potential for irrigation of household lawns and gardens. However, there are possibilities of surfactant and sodium accumulation in soil from reuse of greywater which may affect agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability adversely. We conducted a glasshouse experiment to examine variation in growth, water and nutrient use of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. cv. Grosse Lisse) using tap water (TW), laundry greywater (GW) and solutions of low and high concentration of a detergent surfactant (LC and HC, respectively) as irrigation treatments. Each treatment was replicated five times using a randomised block design. Measurements throughout the experiment showed greywater to be significantly more alkaline and saline than the other types of irrigation water. Although all plants received sixteen irrigations over a period of nine weeks until flowering, there were little or no significant effects of irrigation treatments on plant growth. Soil water retention following irrigation reduced significantly when plants were irrigated with GW or surfactant solutions on only three of twelve occasions. On one occasion, water use measured as evapotranspiration (ET) with GW irrigation was similar to TW, but it was significantly higher than the plants receiving HC irrigation. At harvest, various components of plant biomass and leaf area for GW irrigated plants were found to be similar or significantly higher than the TW irrigated plants with a common trend of GW ≥ TW > LC ≥ HC. Whole-plant concentration was measured for twelve essential plant nutrients (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn, Mo and B) and Na (often considered as a beneficial nutrient). Irrigation treatments affected the concentration of four nutrients (P, Fe, Zn and Na) and uptake of seven nutrients (P, K, Ca, Mg, Na, Fe and B) significantly. Uptake of these seven nutrients by tomato was generally in the order GW ≥ TW > HC ≥ LC. GW irrigated plants had the highest concentration of P, Na and Fe which were 39-85% higher than the TW irrigated plants. Compared with tap water irrigated plants, greywater irrigated plants removed only 6% excess B, but substantially greater quantity of Na (83%) and Fe (86%). These results suggest that laundry greywater has a promising potential for reuse as irrigation water to grow tomato.

show abstract

Section: Plant Growth Response To Nutrients and Surfactants In Irrigamentioning

confidence: 99%

Reuse potential of laundry greywater for irrigation based on growth, water and nutrient use of tomato

Misra

Patel

Baxi

2010

Journal of Hydrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For acid soils, liming reduced water repellency (Karnok et al, 1993;van't Woudt, 1959). Rao and He (2006) reported that surfactant sorption onto soil also increased as solution ionic strength increased. In addition, Haigh (1996) noted that electrolytes in solution increased the solubility and mobilization of hydrophobic compounds in soils treated with anionic and cationic surfactants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water quality and surfactant effects on the water repellency of a sandy soil

Lehrsch

Sojka

2011

Journal of Hydrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

s u m m a r y Differences in irrigation water quality may affect the water repellency of soils treated or untreated with surfactants. Using simulated irrigations, we evaluated water quality and surfactant application rate effects upon the water repellency of a Quincy sand (Xeric Torripsamment). We used a split plot design with two irrigation water qualities, three surfactant application rates, two irrigations, and 12 sampling depths as fixed effects, with four replications. Each water quality Â rate Â irrigation combination was a main plot and depth was a repeated-measures subplot. A slightly water repellent Quincy soil (average water drop penetration time, WDPT, of 2.5 s) was packed in 25-mm lifts (or layers) to a bulk density of 1.6 Mg m À3 into 0.15-m-high Â 0.105-m-diameter plastic columns. We studied a nonionic surfactant, a blend of an ethylene oxide/propylene oxide block copolymer and an alkyl polyglycoside. We sprayed the surfactant at rates of 0, 9.4, and 46.8 L ha À1 , diluted with reverse osmosis water (RW) to apply 187 L ha À1 of solution, onto the soil surface of each packed column. About 1 and 5 days after surfactant application, columns were sprinkler irrigated with either RW or well water (WW). The WDPT was then measured with depth on soil air-dried after the first and after the second irrigation. After the first irrigation, WDPT at depths from 97 to 117 mm averaged across surfactant rates reached a maximum of 28 s, regardless of irrigation water quality. WDPT was greatest at 117 mm with RW but only at 97 mm with WW. After the second irrigation, maximum WDPT was 1202 s at 139 mm with RW but only 161 s at 117 mm with WW, nearly 7.5 fold less than with RW. WDPT was greatest near the wetting front, irrespective of water quality. We conclude that irrigation water containing modest amounts of electrolytes or salts, in this case mostly salts of Ca 2+, reduces water repellency in the presence or absence of surfactant. Our experimental results may also help explain erratic surfactant performance under rainfed conditions where neither water quality nor depth of infiltration can be fully controlled.Published by Elsevier B.V.

show abstract

“…PFOS ion was monitored using selected reaction monitoring for ion 499 for quantitative determination of PFOS. SDBS concentration was determined by UV absorption at 223.6 nm (Rao and He, 2006). CTAB concentration was determined as described in the reference (Simon et al, 1990) using methyl orange at 418 nm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of cationic and anionic surfactants on the sorption and desorption of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) on natural sediments

Pan

Jia

Zhao

et al. 2009

Environmental Pollution

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tSorption and desorption of PFOS at water-sediment interfaces were investigated in the presence of a cationic surfactant, cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB), and an anionic surfactant, sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (SDBS). CTAB remarkably enhanced the sorption of PFOS on the sediment. In contrast, the influence of SDBS to the sorption of PFOS was concentration dependent. Two contrasting factors were responsible for the phenomenon. One was the sorption of the surfactant itself to the sediment, which enhanced the sorption of PFOS. The other was the increase in solubility of PFOS caused by the adding of surfactants, which decreased the sorption of PFOS. SDBS had a much lower sorption capacity, but rather strong ability to increase the solubility of PFOS. High levels of SDBS remarkably reduced the sorption of PFOS on the sediment. These results imply that cationic and anionic surfactants may have contrast impacts on the distribution and transport of PFOS in the environment.

show abstract

Adsorption of anionic and nonionic surfactant mixtures from synthetic detergents on soils

Cited by 71 publications

References 33 publications

Reuse potential of laundry greywater for irrigation based on growth, water and nutrient use of tomato

Reuse potential of laundry greywater for irrigation based on growth, water and nutrient use of tomato

Water quality and surfactant effects on the water repellency of a sandy soil

Effect of cationic and anionic surfactants on the sorption and desorption of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) on natural sediments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About