Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access

Review of interactions between phosphorus and arsenic in soils from four case studies

Geochemical Transactions201819:10

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12932-018-0055-6

Received: 8 January 2018

Accepted: 15 March 2018

Published: 2 April 2018

Abstract

Arsenic is a non-essential element that poses risks in many environments, including soil, groundwater, and surface water. Insights into the environmental biogeochemistry of As can be gained by comparing As and P reaction processes. Arsenic and P are chemical analogues, and it is proposed that they have similar chemical behaviors in environmental systems. However some chemical properties of As and P are distinct, such as redox reactions, causing the biogeochemical behavior of the two elements to differ. In the environment, As occurs as either As(V) or As(III) oxyanions (e.g., AsO43− or AsO33−). In contrast, P occurs predominantly as oxidation state five plus; most commonly as the orthophosphate ion (PO43−). In this paper, data from four published case studies are presented with a focus on P and As distribution and speciation in soil. The goal is show how analyzing P chemistry in soils can provide greater insights into As reaction processes in soils. The case studies discussed include: (1) soil developed from shale parent material, (2) mine-waste impacted wetland soils, (3) phosphate-amended contaminated soil, and (4) plants grown in biochar-amended, mine-contaminated soil. Data show that while P and As have competitive reactions in soils, in most natural systems they have distinct biogeochemical processes that create differing mobility and bioavailability. These processes include redox reactions and rhizosphere processes that affect As bioavailability. Results from these case studies are used as examples to illustrate how studying P and As together allows for enhanced interpretation of As biogeochemical processes in soils.

Introduction

Arsenic is a naturally occurring element in soils, sediments, and the subsurface. It occurs in surface water, plants, and groundwater. In many environments, As poses risks to humans or animals because of elevated concentrations in water or plant samples [1]. Elevated arsenic concentrations are especially prevalent in mine-impacted environments. The environmental risks are influenced by management of soils, sediments, groundwater, surface water, and ecosystems. Due to the active biogeochemical cycle of As, knowledge of its species and reactions in natural and managed systems is required to reduce contamination risks.

In the environment, As occurs as organic and inorganic compounds. The two most prevalent oxidation states in the environment are As(III) and As(V), which occur as oxyanions arsenite (AsO33−) or arsenate (AsO43−) [2]. Figure 1 shows thermodynamic modeling of the redox predominance diagram for As and compares this to soil moisture status. The diagram shows that in most unsaturated soils, As should exist as arsenate, but in inundated soils, arsenite may become the predominant species if the system becomes reducing enough. The measured Eh–pH domain observed for 414 soils from around the world is shown in Fig. 1 [3], which shows that arsenite is thermodynamically stable in soils that undergo seasonal flooding (wet) and soils that are permanently flooded. While instructive, redox predominance diagrams are based on equilibrium, and do not consider kinetics, nor other chemical species that occur in natural environments that affect As reaction processes. These factors make quantitative predictions of As species using thermodynamics and pure systems inaccurate.
Fig. 1

Thermodynamic prediction of arsenic and phosphorus speciation (red marks) in aqueous systems (T = 25 °C, 1 atm.) with overlay of domain of 414 soil Eh and pH measurement reported in Becking et al. [3]. Dash lines designate soil water status reported by Becking et al. [3]. Wet soils refer to soils that are seasonally flooded. Upper and lower redox boundaries delineate stability lines for water. Arsenic predominance diagram adapted from Smedley [2]

Arsenite has been observed in water saturated soil environments, groundwater, and in river, lake and marine sediments [47]. In rice paddies, arsenite is an important species controlling As bioavailability [8, 9]. At low to neutral pH, arsenite has less adsorption affinity on soil mineral surfaces than arsenate, and thus greater biological availability [1012]. Rukh et al. [13] measured arsenite and arsenate adsorption capacity of four soils (pH 7–8.4) and observed that two to five times more arsenate was adsorbed on the soils than arsenite. Manning and Goldberg [12] observed that more arsenate than arsenite was adsorbed on three California soils (pH 5.7–7.1); but they noted that if the soils were incubated in alkaline pH solutions, arsenite adsorption predominated. Surface complexation modeling by Gustaffson and Bhattacharya [14] suggests that arsenate forms stronger surface complexes on oxide surfaces compared to arsenite. As a result of the differing adsorption behavior of arsenite and arsenate on soils, the solubility of arsenic in soil pore water is dependent on its oxidation state. Because arsenic undergoes redox transitions in low oxygen environments, redox driven solubility is a major factor affecting the fate of arsenic in wetlands, sediments and inundated soils.

Arsenic belongs to periodic group 15. Arsenate (As(V)) has an empty outer electron shell, missing five valence electrons ([Ar]3d104s04p0). Phosphorus (P) also belongs to periodic group 15, and, like As(V), P predominantly occurs as oxidation state five plus species in the environment, with an electron configuration of [Ne]3s03p0. In aqueous environments, As(V) and P(V) exist as the oxyanions arsenate (AsO43−) and phosphate (PO43−), surrounded by four oxygen atoms in tetrahedral coordination; one oxygen attached to As or P via a double bonded atom and three acidic oxygens attached via single bonds. Because of their similar chemical speciation, phosphate and arsenate are considered chemical analogues, implying that they can substitute for each other in chemical reactions. In biogeochemical reactions, this is often observed, including adsorption/desorption reactions [1520], precipitation/dissolution reactions [21, 22], and competitive absorption in plant and microbial systems [2327]. O’Reilly et al. [28] measured arsenate desorption using phosphate solutions and observed that only 35% of the adsorbed arsenate was desorbed from goethite, suggesting that arsenate bonds on iron oxide are stronger than phosphate bonds. In organisms, the metabolic substitution of arsenate for phosphate may be a toxicity mechanism [29, 30]. In aqueous solution, arsenate and phosphate occur as triprotic arsenic and phosphoric acids that have similar deprotonation constants (Table 1 and Fig. 1).
Table 1

Chemical properties of phosphorus and arsenic

 

Stable oxidation states in environment

Acidity constants

Crystal radiusa

Phosphorus

P5+ ([Ne]3s03p0)

H3PO4: 10−2.15, 10−7.2, 10−12.35

Phosphate 31 pm

Arsenic

As3+ ([Ar]3d104s24p0)

As5+ ([Ar]3d104s04p0)

H3AsO3: 10−9.2

H3AsO4: 10−2.19, 10−6.94, 10−11.5

Arsenate 47.5 pm

a[112]

Competitive biogeochemical reaction processes between phosphate and arsenate control the fate and bioavailability of arsenic in the environment. However, redox reactions of arsenic in the environment create distinct biogeochemical reactions that do not occur for P. For example, under reducing conditions, such as in rice paddies, arsenate is reduced to arsenite [8, 9], which does not adsorb as strongly to soil particles as arsenate (especially at low to neutral pH), and thus is more soluble and mobile. The redox driven mobility creates distinct distributions of arsenic in soils and sediments that undergo redox fluctuations. Phosphorus, on the other hand, is not directly affected by redox changes.

Numerous studies have investigated the effects of redox on As distributions in wetland and sediment environments [3133]. Studies on competitive reactions between phosphate and arsenate for uptake by plants are also numerous [27, 34, 35]. However, few studies have done a comparative analysis of As and P biogeochemical cycling in soils. In this paper, data from four papers are presented to investigate As and P interactions in soils. A new, enhanced interpretation of the data is done to infer interactions between P and As in the soils. It is shown that by evaluating P distribution and availability in soils, greater insight into the biogeochemical processes controlling As mobility and distribution in natural systems can be deduced.

Methods

Data presented in this paper were gleaned from four published papers. Detailed methods are published in the corresponding papers. A summary of the methods used in the four different experimental systems investigated is provided below.

As and P in soil formed from shale parent material

Strawn et al. [36] studied the distribution of As in soil in the Panoche Hills on the Eastern side of the California Coast Range. The parent material for the soil is a shale rock. Due to mass wasting, partially weathered shale parent material was present in the A horizon. This soil is classified as an Ultic Haploxeralf. The soils have a relatively high salt content and low pH (pH = 4.0), indicative of the oxidation of pyritic mineral inclusions in the shale materials (sulfuricization) [37]. Thin sections of the soils were prepared from intact cores of the A horizon. Elemental distribution of Fe, S, Ca, K, As, P and Se were collected on an X-ray microprobe beamline (Beamline 10.3.2 Advanced Light Source, Berkeley, California). After mapping, As K-edge X-ray absorption near edge structure (XANES) spectra were collected from points of interest to determine the As oxidation state.

As and P distribution in a mine-waste contaminated wetland soil

Strawn et al. [38] studied the distribution of As and P in a mine-waste contaminated wetland in Black Rock Slough in the Coeur d’Alene River (CdA) floodplain located in Northern Idaho. The wetland soils in the CdA River Basin have elevated concentrations of As, Cd, Pb and Zn due to more than a century of mining activities in the watershed that has redistributed the mining and milling materials throughout the floodplain [3941]. The soils in the floodplain wetlands are classified as Fluvaquents in Soil Taxonomy [42]. A full profile description at this sampling site is reported in Hickey et al. [43]. Four sampling points along an 80-m long transect were sampled. The elevation change of the transect is 1 m. Elemental content of bulk soils and redox masses were measured by digesting the samples in aqua regia and HF solution (EPA Method 3052 [44]). The samples were then analyzed for As, Cd, Fe, Mn, P, Pb, and Zn on a ICP-AES standardized using certified standards.

Effects of P remediation of Pb contaminated soil on As availability

Soil samples for the phosphate amendment remediation trials were collected from the Black Rock Slough located on the floodplain adjacent to the CdA River in Kootenai County, Idaho [45]. Four samples were collected and composited. The soils at the sites are floodplain soils heavily influenced by mine tailing and ore processing runoff that was transported and deposited in the lower CDA floodplain (described above).

Phosphorus sorption isotherm experiments were carried out on the composite soil sample using spiked P concentrations from 0.098 to 198 mg L−1 P. The suspensions were placed on a reciprocal shaker for 24 h and subsequently centrifuged and filtered through a 0.45 µm PES filter membrane (Millipore Inc., Ann Arbor, MI). Following application of the phosphate amendments, Bray extractions [46] and TCLP extractions [47] were performed on the soil paste from the isotherm experiment to assess potentially leachable P, As and Pb after amendment of the soil with the P. All solutions were analyzed on an ICP-AES spectrometer using certified standards.

Use of biochar amendment in contaminated soils to reduce bioavailability of As to plants

Strawn et al. [48] investigated the effects of biochar on As bioavailability using Mountain Brome (Bromus marginatus) plants grown in greenhouse trials with soil from the Stibnite Mine site in central Idaho (14 miles east of the town of Yellow Pine, Idaho). The goal of the study was to see how biochar affected As bioavailability in the soils. Using plant uptake is a direct indicator of As bioavailability. Mountain Brome is an important native grass species in North America that is included in many reclamation seed mixes. A composite soil sample was collected from thee points on a tailings pile at the Stibnite Mine. X-ray absorption near-edge structure (XANES) spectra were measured to provide a molecular scale interpretation of As in the soils, and determine if biochar amendment caused changes in the As oxidation state. Biochar used in this experiment is a byproduct of a boiler with lumber milling waste feedstock that uses variable incineration temperatures.

Biochar was applied to the soils at a rate of 10% by mass. Mountain Brome grass seed (Granite Seed Company, Lehi, UT) was grown for ~ 12 weeks. The experimental design included five replicates of biochar and non-biochar amended soils. At harvest, above ground plant material was cut, and roots were isolated from the soil and carefully washed in DI water to remove all visible soil. Replicate subsamples of dried biomass were digested in hot aqua regia using the EPA 3050B digestion method [49], and analyzed on an ICP-AES to determine As and P content.

Arsenic K-edge XANES spectra from soils collected from the greenhouse pots were collected on a bending magnet beamline (Sector 20) at the Advanced Photon Source (Chicago, IL) in fluorescence detection mode. The samples were scanned in the energy range of 11,800–11,950 eV.

Results and discussion

As and P in soil derived from shale

Within the soil thin section, submillimeter regions containing red or orange iron oxides (Fig. 2), and bright yellow jarosite were observed. Elemental mapping suggest that these domains are iron oxide and jarosite (Fig. 2). XAFS spectral analysis of the regions of interest confirmed that the mineral species are ferrihydrite and jarosite [50]. The elemental distribution of P in the soil thin section shows the highest P concentrations in the jarosite and iron oxide aggregates, with a direct correlation between Fe and P (Fig. 2). In contrast to P, As is associated only with the iron oxide aggregates and not the jarosite aggregates. XANES analysis of the As in the iron oxide regions indicated it was present as As(V) oxidation state species. Kendall et al. [51] conducted dissolution experiments of synthetic arsenic-substituted jarosite and observed that secondary reaction products were arsenic adsorbed on iron oxides instead of jarosite. They proposed that the bond between arsenate and iron is stronger than the iron-sulfate bond that typically occurs in jarosite, and thus the arsenate destabilizes the jarosite, favoring formation of an iron oxide with arsenate adsorbed. In contrast, Kato et al. [52] proposed that the bond length between P and oxygen is within the crystal lattice dimensions of the tetrahedral positions in jarosite, although it likely creates some strain because it is greater than the ideal sulfur to oxygen bond length. The larger ionic radius of As compared to P (Table 1) apparently causes greater strain in the jarosite structure than P, thus making As-substituted jarosite less stable and less likely to occur in nature.
Fig. 2

Arsenic XANES spectra and elemental distribution of Fe, S, As, K and P in a soil thin section made from the A horizon of a soil that developed on a pyrite-containing shale in the Panoche Hills of California

(Data are from Strawn et al. [36])

Arsenic and P are both known to adsorb onto iron oxides through inner-sphere bonds [53, 54], and ferrihydrite has relatively high surface adsorption sites compared to other iron oxides. Thus both As and P can adsorb on the surfaces of the ferrihydrite minerals in the Panoche Hill’s soils. In a natural system at low pH, such as the soil in this study (soil pH = 4.0), there are excess number of binding sites on ferrihydrite minerals for both As and P (molar Fe:P:As = 550:20:0.19), thus competitive adsorption between As and P may not be significant. Dudas et al. [55] determined that the total As in mineral separates from the B and C horizons of an acid-sulfate soil that formed from shale materials in a forest in Alberta, Canada were concentrated in the iron oxide fraction by 10–20 times the concentrations occurring in the jarosite minerals separated from the soils, and at least 10 times the bulk soil concentration. In weathered pyritic mine tailings, Foster et al. [56] observed that As occurred in either scorodite or adsorbed on the surfaces of iron and aluminum oxides. Savage et al. [57] observed that in weathered pyritic mine tailings, As was either adsorbed on the surfaces of iron oxides, or coprecipitated with iron sulfate minerals. Lumsdon et al. [58] measured arsenopyrite/pyrite particle weathering in laboratory simulations and observed that dissolved As concentrations in solutions were the lowest when the weathering products had advanced past jarosite to amorphous iron oxides, suggesting a greater degree of As adsorption on the iron oxides than jarosite.

Results from the Panoche Hills soil show microscale evidence that iron oxides preferentially accumulate As compared to jarosite. By comparing the micro-scale P distribution in the soil, insights into reaction processes occurring during soil weathering were made. Such results provide new knowledge of the fate of As during soil formation.

As and P distribution in a mine-waste contaminated wetland soil

The soils in the Black Rock Slough wetland in CdA have elevated concentrations of As (Fig. 3). Surface horizons of the upslope soils have greater As concentrations than surface horizons of the lowland soils. This elevation-dependent trend is also observed for Fe (Fig. 3) and Mn concentrations [43]. Phosphorus does not show a concentration gradient in the soils (Fig. 2). Baker et al. [59] also reported an enrichment of As and Fe in the surface of soils from the Black Rock Slough, and a lack of concentration gradient for P. The enrichment of As and Fe in the surface horizons in the Black Rock Slough soils suggests that in the upland soils, where soil redox potentials undergo the most dramatic changes due to the seasonal water table, As is undergoing redox-controlled dissolution or desorption reactions. The reactions are driven by biogeochemical processes that reduce both As and Fe in the soils. Reactions include reduction of arsenate to the more soluble arsenite, and reductive-dissolution of iron oxides \( \left( {{\text{FeIII-oxide}}\,\left( {\text{s}} \right) \to {\text{Fe}}^{ 2+ } \left( {\text{aq}} \right)} \right). \) Haus et al. [60] and Toevs et al. [61] also observed As concentration gradients in CdA River Basin lateral lake sediments that were subject to large fluctuations in water levels (i.e., redox changes), while As concentration profiles were not affected by redox promoted translocation in sediments without redox fluctuations.
Fig. 3

Total As, P and Fe content in wetland soils as a function of depth in soils at a mine-contaminated site in Coeur d’Alene River Basin, Idaho. Four sites were sampled along an 80-m long transect with an elevation change of 1.1 m

(Data are from Strawn et al. [38])

Iron-enriched redoximorphic masses in the soils had up to 1.5 times the As concentrations compared to non-iron enriched (gray) masses (Fig. 4). The masses range in size from a few millimeters to several centimeters [43]. Their occurrence is a direct result of reductive dissolution and translocation of Fe to zones within the soil that are more oxidizing. Phosphorus concentrations were less in the iron enriched soil redox masses than in the gray redox masses, which is the opposite trend compared to As; in fact, the iron rich masses are also depleted in P compared to the bulk soils.
Fig. 4

Average total As, P and Fe content in wetland soil (n = 4) isolates from a mine-contaminated site in Coeur d’Alene River Basin, Idaho. Red masses refer to soil fractions isolated from the soil that are elevated in iron oxides. Gray masses refer to soil fractions isolated from the soil that are depleted in iron oxides. Error bars are standard deviations

(Data are from Strawn et al. [38])

Comparison of As and P data suggests that there are distinct biogeochemical process separating the elements in the soils. Although P does not get reduced in flooded soils, reductive dissolution of the Fe minerals that P is associated with may release it to the soil solution. Some research has shown increased P solubilization in reduced soils, while other research shows that reducing conditions promote decreased P solubilization [6264]. An important factor in As and P release under reducing conditions is that some ferric iron is not reduced. This may be because the Fe(III) is located in microsites that are small oxic zones within the soil [65, 66], or because of slow redox dissolution reactions [32], or because of excess Fe(III) reactant. The presence of Fe(III) oxides in reduced soils will adsorb phosphate, even when they are present in small amounts because they have high surface area and high adsorption capacities at the low pH of the Black Rock Slough soils (pH = 3.9–5.1). In contrast to P, under reducing conditions, arsenate is reduced to arsenite, which is more soluble and mobile, and thus, at low pH conditions, not as likely to adsorb to iron oxides that persist under reducing conditions.

Distributions of As and P concentrations in the soil at the Black Rock Slough wetland are influenced by the distinct redox behaviors of these two elements. Specifically, As is translocated with Fe during redox-driven fluxes, whereas phosphate is not affected by redox. Thus, in soils where redox is constantly changing, a depth gradient and redoximorphic concentrations with Fe and As are created, while P concentrations in the soil matrix do not change, likely because they are adsorbed onto non-reduced iron oxides. An illustration of this process is shown in Fig. 5. Redox controlled As movement and P distribution process have important implications on the distribution and availability of As in the environment, and should be included in designing best management strategies of contaminated environments. For example, managing contaminated wetland soils to minimize cyclic redox conditions will prevent redox-driven translocation of As from the lower profile to the surface.
Fig. 5

Proposed biogeochemical processes affecting Fe, As, and P distributions in wetland soils

(Adapted from Strawn et al. [38])

Effects of P remediation of Pb contaminated soil on As availability

Contamination of soil by mine tailings often results in occurrence of multiple contaminants being present. In soils in the Bunker Hill Superfund site located in the Coeur d’Alene River watershed, Zn, Pb, As, and Cd have contaminated thousands of acres of soil and sediment [40, 67, 68]. To remediate the soils in the CdA Basin, in situ remediation strategies using phosphate application are being considered. Amendment with phosphate decreases Pb solubility in soils by promoting the formation of lead phosphate minerals such as pyromorphite (Pb5(PO4)3Cl) that have low solubility [6973]. However, use of phosphate as a remediation amendment for soils may pose risks for off-site transport of the P to surface waters, creating an increased risk of eutrophication in lakes and rivers [7476]. In addition, phosphate amendment may cause an increase in As mobility and bioavailability through competitive adsorption reactions. In this study, the effects of phosphate amendment of mine-waste contaminated soils on Pb immobilization and As mobilization were investigated [45].

At the lowest concentrations of P amendment, nearly all of the P added to the soil suspensions adsorbed onto the soil surfaces. With increasing concentrations of added P, adsorption sites became saturated; maximum P adsorption was ~ 1400 mg kg−1 (Fig. 6). Phosphorus extractability increased as the amount of P added to the soil suspensions increased.
Fig. 6

Effect of phosphate amendment on extractable As and P concentrations using Bray extraction solution, and extractable Pb concentrations using TCLP extraction solution. Soils are mine-contaminated wetland soils from Coeur d’Alene River Basin, Idaho

(Data are from Osborne et al. [45])

TCLP extraction of Pb from soils provides a relative measure of the Pb availability for leaching or uptake by an organism, and thus can be used to assess the amount of Pb immobilized by P amendment [70, 77, 78]. For soils, TCLP extractable Pb decreased with increasing initial P added to the soil suspension (Fig. 6). TCLP extractable Pb appears to become asymptotic as P amendment rate increases, suggesting that there is a maximum immobilization potential of P amendment under the conditions of these experiments, and that higher P amendment rates will not decrease TCLP extractable Pb.

Increasing the amount of phosphate amendment caused Bray extractable As to increase (Fig. 6). Increases in extractable As after P remediation of soils have been reported in other studies [7981]. In the contaminated soil sample, at the highest phosphate amendment rate (198 mg P L−1), Bray extractable As was approximately three times greater than in the non-phosphate amended soil (Fig. 6). The CdA soils contain high concentrations of iron oxides (total Fe 6% by weight), which is a sink for added P and As, especially at the low soil pH of the CdA soils (pH = 4.8). However, despite the high concentrations of iron oxides, the Olsen bicarbonate extractable As increased, suggesting that the P is saturating the adsorption capacity. Potential solubilized organic matter from the phosphate amendment may also be competing for the adsorption sites and increasing the As extractability.

Results show that use of phosphate to immobilize Pb in contaminated soils is effective. However, a negative side effect is the increased availability of As due to the competitive adsorption reactions between phosphate and arsenate. Because of the increased As solubilization from phosphate amendment, this remediation strategy may not be feasible for soils contaminated with both Pb and As. The feasibility of the remediation needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis because differing soil properties will affect the competitive nature of P and As adsorption and release.

Use of biochar amendment in contaminated soils to reduce bioavailability of As to plants

Biochar amendment of contaminated soils has been shown to reduce contaminant mobility and bioavailability, while increasing success of revegetation [8288]. In this study, the effects of biochar amendment on availability of As from soils for plant uptake were studied [48]. The soils are from the Stibnite mining area in central Idaho. After more than a century of mining activity for antimony, gold, silver, and tungsten, large waste piles containing high concentrations of As occur throughout the site [8991]. To reduce As transport and leaching, and improve soil properties for plant growth, biochar amendment is being investigated as a possible remediation technology.

The average As concentration of the soil is 3541 mg kg−1. Average P concentration is 1310 mg kg−1. Soil pH is 8.25, which promotes less arsenate adsorption on iron oxides in soils than would occur if the soils had lower pH conditions.

Arsenic concentrations in the plant tissue grown in both the biochar-amended and unamended Stibnite mine soils were more than 100 times greater (11.8–659 mg kg−1) than in typical plants grown in non-contaminated soils (0.1 mg kg−1, d.w. [92]). Bioaccumulation factors (BAF) for As and P were calculated by dividing element concentrations in plant tissue by total soil concentrations. In both amended and unamended soils, the root As BAFs were much greater than the shoot As BAFs (Fig. 7). Plant root As BAFs in the unamended soils were much greater than As concentrations in the plant roots grown in the biochar-amended soils. A similar trend occurred in the shoots, although, due to one outlier, the difference was not significant at 0.05 level.
Fig. 7

Arsenic and P concentrations in plant tissue grown in mine-waste contaminated soils amended with biochar (BC) and unamended soils. Soils are from the Stibnite mine near Yellow Pine, Idaho. Error bars are one standard error

(Adapted from Strawn et al. [48])

Beesley et al. [93] observed that the addition of biochar increased the water leachable fraction of As. But in another study, Beesley et al. [94] observed that biochar amendment of an As contaminated soil increased pore water As concentrations and decreased tomato plant tissue As concentrations. Hartley et al. [95] observed that the addition of biochar to As contaminated soils had little effect on As uptake by Miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus). Gregory et al. [96] observed that biochar amendment to an As contaminated soil increased arsenic concentration in ryegrass. Namgay et al. [97] observed that biochar amendment decreased As uptake in maize shoots. The varying and contrasting As uptake behavior by plants from these studies when the soils were amended with biochar suggests that the biochemistry between biochar, soil, and plants are specific to the types of these components in the system being studied.

Phosphorus BAFs in roots were less than in the shoots (Fig. 7), which is opposite the As trend. Biochar amendment did not affect the P availability from soils for uptake in the plant tissues. Plant tissue As concentrations were ~ 100 times less than P, despite the much greater As concentrations in the soil compared to P concentrations (~ 3×). This suggests that Mountain Brome selectively absorbs P compared to As, possibly because either, (1) As is less soluble in the soils than P, (2) microbial and rhizosphere processes in the soils alter the As and P bioavailability [98, 99]; (3) specific plant protection mechanisms to resist As absorption [100, 101]; or (4) plant [102, 103] or soil microorganisms [104] volatilization of As make it less bioavailable (these processes are reviewed in Zhao et al. [105]). In most soil environments, except in flooded soils [106], volatilization is not a major process [107]. This study was not designed to assess plant rhizosphere biochemistry, but only evaluate how biochar affects bioavailability of soil As.

XANES spectra in all soils have peaks at 11,875 eV, (Fig. 8), indicating that the As oxidation state in the soils is As(V), which occurs as the oxyanion arsenate. Arsenate adsorbs strongly to soil mineral surfaces, such as iron oxides. There are no differences in the As XANES spectra between the biochar-amended and unamended soils, suggesting no change in As oxidation state in the soils.
Fig. 8

X-ray absorption near edge structure (XANES) spectra of As K-edge from samples incubated with and without biochar in greenhouse soils and field soils (unamended). K-edge XANES spectra for sodium arsenate (As(V)) and sodium arsenite (As(III)) standards are also included as oxidation state edge-energy references

(Adapted from Strawn et al. [48])

Biochar amendment of the soil decreased bioavailability of As from the soils as assessed by Mt. Brome plants, but did not change phosphate uptake (Fig. 7). This suggests that biochar is changing arsenate speciation in the soils, but is not affecting the phosphate. Biochar amendment can change As plant bioavailability by changes in soil pH, increase in reactive surfaces to adsorb As, stimulating microbiological activity that can change As speciation, or by introducing available phosphate that competes for adsorption sites with arsenate. There was only a small change in pH from biochar amendment (~ 0.4 pH units), thus this is not a factor affecting As bioavailability. The lack of change in As oxidation state upon biochar amendment (Fig. 8), suggests that As reduction was not a factor affecting bioavailability.

Mountain Brome may have mycorrhizae that affects As uptake [108, 109]. Mycorrhizal roots take up P either directly through the root, or mediated pathways involving the mycorrhizae. The direct P pathway can take up As and P, while the mediated pathway downregulates the As uptake pathway and facilitates increased P uptake [110]. Biochar may facilitate mycorrhizal colonization of the plant roots [111], thus causing increased selectivity for P in the mediated P uptake pathway. This study was not designed to assess these factors, however, the results of decreased As bioavailability in the biochar-amended soils suggest that biochar is either changing As and P availability in the rhizosphere, or causing a change in the plant biochemistry, such as mycorrhizal associations. Additional research should be done to link plant biochemistry with As bioavailability in biochar-amended soils.

Based on the findings of this study, arsenate in the Stibnite soil does not behave the same as phosphate with respect to plant availability and biochar amendment. Biochar amendment did not impact P uptake from the contaminated soils, but did significantly decreases As uptake by Mountain Brome. By comparing bioavailability of As and P in biochar and non-biochar amended soils, important relations between soil and plant roots have been revealed.

Integration of As and P biogeochemical processes in soils from case studies

In this paper, a comparative analysis of As and P in several different environmental systems was used to gain insight into how biogeochemical processes affect As mobility and bioavailability. Although As and P are chemical analogues, in the environment they have distinct biogeochemical reactions. In soils formed from weathered shale, As preferentially associates with iron oxides, while P associates with both iron oxides and jarosite minerals. This may be explained by differences in the ionic radius of As and P that lead to different adsorption strengths of arsenate vs phosphate. In wetland soil environments, comparison of As and P suggested that reduction of arsenate to arsenite facilitated translocation of As to the surface horizons of soils, while P was not impacted by redox cycling occurring in the wetland soils. In Pb-contaminated soils with As present as a co-contaminant, it was shown that phosphate amendment immobilizes the Pb, but via competitive adsorption reactions, increases As availability. In As-contaminated soils, biochar amendment decreased As bioavailability but not P; possibly by some biologically-mediated processes promoted by the biochar that allowed for selective uptake P over As by Mountain Brome plants.

The examples of As and P distribution and speciation in soils and changes in bioavailability from the four case studies show that, although As and P are chemically similar, they have unique biogeochemistry that can be leveraged to provide added knowledge of processes controlling the fate of As in the environment.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

DGS is the sole author on this review paper. The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Co-authors on the papers used for the four case studies contributed to the experiments for the data reported in this paper.

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The data used in this paper are available in the literature cited in the table and figure captions.

Funding

This work was supported by the University of Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station, and USDA Hatch Program.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Soil and Water Systems, University of Idaho, Moscow, USA

References

  1. ATSDR (2012) Detailed data for 2011 priority list of hazardous substances. ASTDR-Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  2. Smedley P (2008) Sources and distribution of arsenic in groundwater and aquifers. In: Appelo T (ed) Arsenic in groundwater—a world problem. Netherlands National Committee of the International Association of Hydrologist, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  3. Baas Becking LGM, Kaplan IR, Moore D (1960) Limits of the natural environment in terms of pH and oxidation–reduction potentials. J Geol 68(3):243–284View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Huang J-H, Kretzschmar R (2010) Sequential extraction method for speciation of arsenate and arsenite in mineral soils. Anal Chem 82(13):5534–5540View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Aurilio AC, Mason R, Hemond HF (1994) Speciation and fate of arsenic in three lakes of the Aberjona watershed. Environ Sci Technol 28:577–585View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Andreae MO (1978) Distribution and speciation of arsenic in natural waters and some marine algae. Deep Sea Res 25(4):391–402View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Duan Y, Gan Y, Wang Y, Liu C, Yu K, Deng Y et al (2017) Arsenic speciation in aquifer sediment under varying groundwater regime and redox conditions at Jianghan Plain of Central China. Sci Total Environ 607–608(Supplement C):992–1000View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Takahashi Y, Minamikawa R, Hattori KH, Kurishima K, Kihou N, Yuita K (2004) Arsenic behavior in paddy fields during the cycle of flooded and non-flooded periods. Environ Sci Technol 38(4):1038–1044View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Sanz E, Muñoz-Olivas R, Cámara C, Sengupta MK, Ahamed S (2007) Arsenic speciation in rice, straw, soil, hair and nails samples from the arsenic-affected areas of Middle and Lower Ganga plain. J Environ Sci Health Part A 42(12):1695–1705View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Masue Y, Loeppert RH, Kramer TA (2007) Arsenate and arsenite adsorption and desorption behavior on coprecipitated aluminum: iron hydroxides. Environ Sci Technol 41(3):837–842View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldberg S (2002) Competitive adsorption of arsenate and arsenite on oxides and clay minerals. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66(2):413–421View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Manning BA, Goldberg S (1997) Arsenic(III) and arsenic(V) absorption on three California soils. Soil Sci 162(12):886–895View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Rukh S, Akhtar MS, Mehmood A, Hassan S, Khan KS, Naqvi SMS et al (2017) Arsenate and arsenite adsorption in relation with chemical properties of alluvial and loess soils. J Serbian Chem Soc 82(7–8):943–954View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Gustafsson JP, Bhattacharya P (2007) Geochemical modelling of arsenic adsorption to oxide surfaces. Trace Met Other 9:159–206View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Rivas-Perez IM, Paradelo-Nunez R, Novoa-Munoz JC, Arias-Estevez M, Fernandez-Sanjurjo MJ, Alvarez-Rodriguez E et al (2015) As(V) and P competitive sorption on soils, by-products and waste materials. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12(12):15706–15715View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Arco-Lazaro E, Agudo I, Clemente R, Bernal MP (2016) Arsenic(V) adsorption–desorption in agricultural and mine soils: effects of organic matter addition and phosphate competition. Environ Pollut 216:71–79View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Zhao HS, Stanforth R (2001) Competitive adsorption of phosphate and arsenate on goethite. Environ Sci Technol 35(24):4753–4757View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Hartland A, Larsen JR, Andersen MS, Baalousha M, O’Carroll D (2015) Association of arsenic and phosphorus with iron nanoparticles between streams and aquifers: implications for arsenic mobility. Environ Sci Technol 49(24):14101–14109View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Antelo J, Arce F, Fiol S (2015) Arsenate and phosphate adsorption on ferrihydrite nanoparticles. Synergetic interaction with calcium ions. Chem Geol 410:53–62View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Neupane G, Donahoe RJ, Arai Y (2014) Kinetics of competitive adsorption/desorption of arsenate and phosphate at the ferrihydrite-water interface. Chem Geol 368:31–38View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Xu YF, Dai YC, Zhou JZ, Xu ZP, Qian GR, Lu GQM (2010) Removal efficiency of arsenate and phosphate from aqueous solution using layered double hydroxide materials: intercalation vs. precipitation. J Mater Chem 20(22):4684–4691View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Senn A-C, Hug SJ, Kaegi R, Hering JG, Voegelin A (2018) Arsenate co-precipitation with Fe(II) oxidation products and retention or release during precipitate aging. Water Res 131:334–345View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Anawar HM, Rengel Z, Damon P, Tibbett M (2017) Arsenic–phosphorus interactions in the soil–plant–microbe system: dynamics of uptake, suppression and toxicity to plants. Environ Pollut 233:1003–1012View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Pigna M, Cozzolino V, Violante A, Meharg AA (2009) Influence of phosphate on the arsenic uptake by wheat (Triticum durum L.) irrigated with arsenic solutions at three different concentrations. Water Air Soil Pollut 197(1–4):371–380View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Zvobgo G, LwalabaWaLwalaba J, Sagonda T, Mapodzeke JM, Muhammad N, Shamsi IH et al (2018) Phosphate alleviates arsenate toxicity by altering expression of phosphate transporters in the tolerant barley genotypes. Ecotoxicol Environ Safe 147:832–839View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Li NN, Wang JC, Song WY (2016) Arsenic uptake and translocation in plants. Plant Cell Physiol 57(1):4–13View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhang ZY, Moon HS, Myneni SCB, Jaffe PR (2017) Phosphate enhanced abiotic and biotic arsenic mobilization in the wetland rhizosphere. Chemosphere 187:130–139View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Reilly SE, Strawn DG, Sparks DL (2001) Residence time effects on arsenate adsorption/desorption mechanisms on goethite. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:67–77View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Tripathi RD, Tripathi P, Dwivedi S, Dubey S, Chakrabarty D, Trivedi P (2012) Arsenomics: omics of arsenic metabolism in plants. Front Physiol 3(275):275Google Scholar
  30. Shi HL, Shi XL, Liu KJ (2004) Oxidative mechanism of arsenic toxicity and carcinogenesis. Mol Cell Biochem 255(1–2):67–78View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhang S-Y, Williams PN, Luo J, Zhu Y-G (2016) Microbial mediated arsenic biotransformation in wetlands. Front Environ Sci Eng 11(1):1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Stuckey Jason W, Schaefer Michael V, Kocar Benjamin D, Benner Shawn G, Fendorf S (2015) Arsenic release metabolically limited to permanently water-saturated soil in Mekong Delta. Nat Geosci 9:70View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith E, Naidu R, Alston AM (1998) Arsenic in the soil environment: a review. Adv Agron 64:149–195View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Meharg AA, Hartley-Whitaker J (2002) Arsenic uptake and metabolism in arsenic resistant and nonresistant plant species. New Phytol 154(1):29–43View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Hettick BE, Cañas-Carrell JE, French AD, Klein DM (2015) Arsenic: a review of the element’s toxicity, plant interactions, and potential methods of remediation. J Agric Food Chem 63(32):7097–7107View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Strawn DG, Doner H, Zavarin M, McHugo S (2002) Microscale investigation into the geochemistry of arsenic, selenium, and iron in soil developed in pyritic shale materials. Geoderma 108:237–257View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Fanning DS, Fanning MCB (1989) Soil morphology, genesis, and classification. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Strawn DG, Hickey PJ, McDaniel PA, Baker LL (2012) Distribution of As, Cd, Pb, and Zn in redox features of mine-waste impacted wetland soils. J Soil Sediment 12(7):1100–1110View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Box SE, Bookstrom AA, Ikramuddin M, Lindsay J (2001) Geochemical analyses of soils and sediments, Coeur d’Alene drainage basin, Idaho: sampling, analytical methods, and results. Open file report. U.S. Geological Survey. Report no.: 01-139Google Scholar
  40. Box SE, Bookstrom AA, Ikramuddin M (2005) Stream-sediment geochemistry in mining-impacted streams: sediment mobilized by floods in the Coeur d’Alene-Spokane River System, Idaho and Washington. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO. Report No.: Scientific investigations report 2005–5011Google Scholar
  41. Bookstrom A, Box S, Fousek R, Wallis J, Kayser H, Jackson B (2004) Baseline and historic depositional rates and lead concentrations, floodplains sediments, lower Coeur d’Alene River, Idaho. U.S. Geological Survey. Report no.: Open-file report 2004–1211Google Scholar
  42. Soil Survey Staff (1996) Soil Survey Laboratory Methods Manual. Version 3.0. US Govt. Print. Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. Hickey PJ, McDaniel PA, Strawn DG (2008) Characterization of iron- and manganese-cemented redoximorphic aggregates in wetland soils contaminated with mine wastes. J Environ Qual 37:2375–2385View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. U.S. EPA (1995) EPA method 3052: microwave assisted acid digestion of siliceous and organically based matrices. Test methods for evaluating solid waste. SW-846. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  45. Osborne LR, Baker LL, Strawn DG (2015) Lead immobilization and phosphorus availability in phosphate-amended. Mine-contaminated soils. J Environ Qual 44(1):183–190View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Bray RH, Kurtz L (1945) Determination of total, organic, and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Sci 59(1):39–46View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. USEPA (1992) Test methods for evaluating solid waste, physical/chemical methods, SW-846. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  48. Strawn DG, Rigby AC, Baker LL, Coleman MD, Koch I (2015) Biochar soil amendment effects on arsenic availability to mountain brome (Bromus marginatus). J Environ Qual 44(4):1315–1320View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. U.S. EPA (2001) SW-846 test method for evaluating solid waste, 3rd edn. U.S, EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  50. Strawn D, Doner H, Zavarin M, McHugo S (2002) Microscale investigation into the geochemistry of arsenic and selenium in soil developed in pyritic shale materials. Geoderma 108:237–257View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Kendall MR, Madden AS, Madden MEE, Hu QH (2013) Effects of arsenic incorporation on jarosite dissolution rates and reaction products. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 112:192–207View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Kato T, Miura Y (1977) The crystal structures of jarosite and svanbergite. Mineral J 8(8):419–430View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Weng LP, Van Riemsdijk WH, Hiemstra T (2012) Factors controlling phosphate interaction with iron oxides. J Environ Qual 41(3):628–635View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Watts HD, Tribe L, Kubicki JD (2014) Arsenic adsorption onto minerals: connecting experimental observations with density functional theory calculations. Minerals Basel 4(2):208–240View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Dudas MJ, Warren CJ, Spiers GA (1988) Chemistry of arsenic in acid sulphate soils of northern Alberta. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 19:887–895View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Foster AL, Brown GE Jr, Tingle TN, Parks GA (1998) Quantitative arsenic speciation in mine tailings using X-ray absorption spectroscopy. Am Mineral 83:553–568View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Savage KS, Tingle TN, O’Day PA, Waychunas GA, Bird DK (2000) Arsenic speciation in pyrite and secondary weathering phases, Mother Lode District, Tuolumne County, California. Appl Geochem 15:1219–1244View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Lumsdon DG, Meeussen JCL, Paterson E, Garden LM, Anderson P (2001) Use of solid phase characterisation and chemical modelling for assessing the behaviour of arsenic in contaminated soils. Appl Geochem 16(6):571–581View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Baker LL, Strawn DG, Rember WC, Sprenke KF (2011) Metal content of charcoal in mining-impacted wetland sediments. Sci Total Environ 409(3):588–594View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Haus KL, Hooper RL, Strumness LA, Mahoney JB (2008) Analysis of arsenic speciation in mine contaminated lacustrine sediment using selective sequential extraction, HR-ICPMS and TEM. Appl Geochem 23(4):692–704View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Toevs G, Morra MJ, Winowiecki L, Strawn D, Polizzotto ML, Fendorf S (2008) Depositional influences on porewater arsenic in sediments of a mining-contaminated freshwater lake. Environ Sci Technol 42(18):6823–6829View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Vadas PA, Sims JT (1998) Redox status, poultry litter, and phosphorus solubility in atlantic coastal plain soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 62:1025–1034View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Murray GC, Hesterberg D (2006) Iron and phosphate dissolution during abiotic reduction of ferrihydrite–boehmite mixtures. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1318–1327View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Young EO, Ross DS (2001) Phosphate release from seasonally flooded soils: a laboratory microcosm study. J Environ Qual 30:91–101View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Pett-Ridge J, Firestone MK (2005) Redox fluctuation structures microbial communities in a wet tropical soil. Appl Environ Microbiol 71(11):6998–7007View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Zausig J, Stepniewski W, Horn R (1993) Oxygen concentration and redox potential gradients in unsaturated model soil aggregates. Soil Sci Soc Am J 57(4):908–916View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Sprenke KF, Rember WC, Bender SF, Hoffman ML, Rabbi F, Chamberlain VE (2000) Toxic metal contamination in the lateral lakes of the Coeur d’Alene River Valley, Idaho. Environ Geol 39(6):575–586View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Strawn DG, Hickey P, Knudsen A, Baker L (2007) Geochemistry of lead contaminated wetland soils amended with phosphorus. Environ Geol 52:109–122View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Brown S, Chaney R, Hallfrisch J, Ryan JA, Berti WR (2004) In situ soil treatments to reduce the phyto-and bioavailability of lead, zinc, and cadmium. J Environ Qual 33(2):522–531View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Hettiarachchi GM, Pierzynski GM (2000) The use of phosphorus and other soil amendments for in situ stabilization of soil lead. J Environ Qual 30:1214–1221View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Ma QY, Logan TJ, Traina SJ (1995) Lead immobilization from aqueous solutions and contaminated soils using phosphate rocks. Environ Sci Technol 29(4):1118–1126View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Ryan JA, Zhang P, Hesterberg D, Chou J, Sayers DE (2001) Formation of chloropyromorphite in a lead-contaminated soil amended with hydroxypyromorphite. Environ Sci Technol 35(18):3798–3803View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Scheckel KG, Williams AG, Mc Dermott G, Gratson D, Neptune D, Ryan JA (2010) Lead speciation and bioavailability in apatite-amended sediments. Appl Environ Soil Sci 2011:1–8View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Miretzky P, Fernandez-Cirelli A (2008) Phosphates for Pb immobilization in soils: a review. Environ Chem Lett 6(3):121–133View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Park JH, Bolan N, Megharaj M, Naidu R (2011) Comparative value of phosphate sources on the immobilization of lead, and leaching of lead and phosphorus in lead contaminated soils. Sci Total Environ 409(4):853–860View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  76. Scheckel KG, Ryan JA (2004) Spectroscopic speciation and quantification of lead in phosphate-amended soils. J Environ Qual 33(4):1288–1295View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  77. Berti WR, Cunningham SD (1993) Remediating soil Pb with green plants. New OrleansGoogle Scholar
  78. Sonmez O, Pierzynski GM (2005) Phosphorus and manganese oxides effects on soil lead bioaccessibility: PBET and TCLP. Water Air Soil Pollut 166(1–4):3–16View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Boisson J, Mench M, Vangronsveld J, Ruttens A, Kopponen P, De Koe T (1999) Immobilization of trace metals and arsenic by different soil additives: evaluation by means of chemical extractions. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 30(3–4):365–387View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  80. Kilgour DW, Moseley RB, Barnett MO, Savage KS, Jardine PM (2008) Potential negative consequences of adding phosphorus-based fertilizers to immobilize lead in soil. J Environ Qual 37(5):1733–1740View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  81. Munksgaard NC, Lottermoser BG, Blake K (2012) Prolonged testing of metal mobility in mining-impacted soils amended with phosphate fertilisers. Water Air Soil Pollut 223(5):2237–2255View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  82. Cao XD, Harris W (2010) Properties of dairy-manure-derived biochar pertinent to its potential use in remediation. Bioresour Technol 101(14):5222–5228View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  83. Fellet G, Marchiol L, Delle Vedove G, Peressotti A (2011) Application of biochar on mine tailings: effects and perspectives for land reclamation. Chemosphere 83(9):1262–1267View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  84. Glaser B, Lehmann J, Zech W (2002) Ameliorating physical and chemical properties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal—a review. Biol Fertil Soils 35(4):219–230View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  85. Novak JM, Busscher WJ, Laird DL, Ahmedna M, Watts DW, Niandou MAS (2009) Impact of biochar amendment on fertility of a southeastern coastal plain soil. Soil Sci 174(2):105–112View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  86. Park JH, Choppala GK, Bolan NS, Chung JW, Chuasavathi T (2011) Biochar reduces the bioavailability and phytotoxicity of heavy metals. Plant Soil 348(1–2):439–451View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  87. Oh S-Y, Yoon H-S (2016) Biochar amendment for reducing leachability of nitro explosives and metals from contaminated soils and mine tailings. J Environ Qual 45(3):993–1002View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  88. Ippolito JA, Berry CM, Strawn DG, Novak JM, Levine J, Harley A (2017) Biochars reduce mine land soil bioavailable metals. J Environ Qual 46(2):411–419View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  89. Dovick MA, Kulp TR, Arkle RS, Pilliod DS (2016) Bioaccumulation trends of arsenic and antimony in a freshwater ecosystem affected by mine drainage. Environ Chem 13(1):149–159View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  90. Etheridge AB (2015) Occurrence and transport of selected constituents in streams near the Stibnite mining area, Central Idaho, 2012–2014. Report. Reston, VA. Report no.: 2015-5166Google Scholar
  91. Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (2003) Public health assessment: stibnite/yellow pine mining area. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/pha.asp?docid=1060&pg=0. Accessed 23 Mar 2018
  92. Markert B (1992) Establishing of reference plant for inorganic characterization of different plant-species by chemical fingerprinting. Water Air Soil Pollut 64(3–4):533–538View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  93. Beesley L, Moreno-Jiménez E, Gomez-Eyles JL (2010) Effects of biochar and greenwaste compost amendments on mobility, bioavailability and toxicity of inorganic and organic contaminants in a multi-element polluted soil. Environ Pollut 158(6):2282–2287View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  94. Beesley L, Marmiroli M, Pagano L, Pigoni V, Fellet G, Fresno T et al (2013) Biochar addition to an arsenic contaminated soil increases arsenic concentrations in the pore water but reduces uptake to tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Sci Total Environ 454:598–603View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  95. Hartley W, Dickinson NM, Riby P, Lepp NW (2009) Arsenic mobility in brownfield soils amended with green waste compost or biochar and planted with Miscanthus. Environ Pollut 157(10):2654–2662View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  96. Gregory SJ, Anderson CWN, Arbestain MC, McManus MT (2014) Response of plant and soil microbes to biochar amendment of an arsenic-contaminated soil. Agric Ecosyst Environ 191:133–141View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  97. Namgay T, Singh B, Singh BP (2010) Influence of biochar application to soil on the availability of As, Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn to maize (Zea mays L.). Aust J Soil Res 48(6–7):638–647View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  98. Fitz WJ, Wenzel WW (2002) Arsenic transformations in the soil–rhizosphere–plant system: fundamentals and potential application to phytoremediation. J Biotechnol 99(3):259–278View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  99. Pan WS, Wu C, Xue SG, Hartley W (2014) Arsenic dynamics in the rhizosphere and its sequestration on rice roots as affected by root oxidation. J Environ Sci-China 26(4):892–899View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  100. Tripathi RD, Srivastava S, Mishra S, Singh N, Tuli R, Gupta DK et al (2007) Arsenic hazards: strategies for tolerance and remediation by plants. Trends Biotechnol 25(4):158–165View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  101. Verbruggen N, Hermans C, Schat H (2009) Mechanisms to cope with arsenic or cadmium excess in plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol 12(3):364–372View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  102. Meng XY, Qin J, Wang LH, Duan GL, Sun GX, Wu HL et al (2011) Arsenic biotransformation and volatilization in transgenic rice. New Phytol 191(1):49–56View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  103. Mestrot A, Planer-Friedrich B, Feldmann J (2013) Biovolatilisation: a poorly studied pathway of the arsenic biogeochemical cycle. Environ Sci Process Impacts 15(9):1639–1651View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  104. Ye J, Rensing C, Rosen BP, Zhu Y-G (2012) Arsenic biomethylation by photosynthetic organisms. Trends Plant Sci 17(3):155–162View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  105. Zhao FJ, McGrath SP, Meharg AA (2010) Arsenic as a food chain contaminant: mechanisms of plant uptake and metabolism and mitigation strategies. Annu Rev Plant Biol 61:535–559View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  106. Jia Y, Huang H, Sun G-X, Zhao F-J, Zhu Y-G (2012) Pathways and relative contributions to arsenic volatilization from rice plants and paddy soil. Environ Sci Technol 46(15):8090–8096View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  107. Chen J, Sun G-X, Wang X-X, Lorenzo VD, Rosen BP, Zhu Y-G (2014) Volatilization of arsenic from polluted soil by Pseudomonas putida engineered for expression of the arsM arsenic(III) S-adenosine methyltransferase gene. Environ Sci Technol 48(17):10337–10344View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  108. Moreno-Jimenez E, Esteban E, Penalosa JM (2012) The fate of arsenic in soil–plant systems. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 215:1–37Google Scholar
  109. Smith S, Christophersen H, Pope S, Smith FA (2010) Arsenic uptake and toxicity in plants: integrating mycorrhizal influences. Plant Soil 327(1–2):1–21View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  110. Christophersen HM, Smith FA, Smith SE (2009) Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization reduces arsenate uptake in barley via downregulation of transporters in the direct epidermal phosphate uptake pathway. New Phytol 184(4):962–974View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  111. Lehmann J, Rillig MC, Thies J, Masiello CA, Hockaday WC, Crowley D (2011) Biochar effects on soil biota—a review. Soil Biol Biochem 43(9):1812–1836View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  112. Shannon RD (1976) Revised effective ionic-radii and systematic studies of interatomic distances in halides and chalcogenides. Acta Crystallogr A 32(Sep1):751–767View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2018