土壤 (Soils), 2017, 49(2): 248 255 DOI: 10.13758/j.cnki.tr.2017.02.006 1 模拟硝田土壤铁和硫的形态转化特征及其影响因素 1 2 1* 1 1 1 1 (1 611130 2 625000) / (Fet) (Fed) / (Feo) (Fep) (Fe(II)) (Fea) Fe(II) Fea (Eh) (TARM) / S153 A (CaSO 4 Na 2 SO 4 ) 72.15% [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] SO 4 Na + [6 7] (Na 2 SO 4 ) [8] [9] [10 12] [13] Fe(II) [14] ( ) [15] Fe(III)/Fe(II) [16] (Eh) ph [17] (sulfate reducing bacteria, SRB) [18 19] [20] SRB [21 22] [23] Fe(II) Fe(II) [24] Fe(II) [25] 1 1.1 103 29 08.72 E 29 53 11.11 N (2014FY110200A12) (41371230) * (gangday@sohu.com) (1994 ) E-mail: youngxun87@163.com
2 249 1 435.5 mm 16.6 1 006.1 h 307 d 5 cm 5 ~ 20 cm 2 mm (Na 2 SO 4 99%) 1.2 1.2.1 Na 2 SO 4 150.00 g 0 0.2 1 5 25 125 g/kg [26] Na 2 SO 4 150 ml CO 2 150.00 g 25 30 d (EC) 3 Na 2 SO 4 1.2.2 / 150.00 g 1.2.1 Na 2 SO 4 ( ) 3 ( CK1) ( CO 2 Drying condition DC) ( CO 2 1.. 1 Submergence condition SC) CK1 DC SC 25 30 d (Fet) (Fed) (Feo) (Fep) Fe(II) (Fea) (St) (Sab) (SO 4 ) (Sav) Eh (TARM) 3 1.2.3 0 10 20 40 g/kg( CK2 T1 T2 T3 4 ) 1.. 1 CO 2 150.00 g 1.2.2 1.3 EC DDS-608 DJS-1C [26] Fet HF-HNO 3 -HClO 4 [28] Fed DCB Feo Fep [27] Fe(II) [28] Fea DTPA [26] [27] St HF-HNO 3 - HClO 4 Sab [29] SO 4 5.. 1 Sav [26] Eh TARM [28] 1.4 Excel2010 SPSS19.0 2 2.1 Na 2 SO 4 EC 0.8 ~ 1.6 S/m [26] Na 2 SO 4 Na 2 SO 4 1 25 g/kg Na 2 SO 4 EC 0.96 S/m Na 2 SO 4 25 g/kg ( P<0.05 ) 图 1 加入不同数量的 Na 2 SO 4 对土壤电导率的影响 Fig. 1 Effects of different additive Na 2 SO 4 contents on soil EC 2.2 / 2.2.1 / 2 Fet>Fed>Feo>Fe(II)>Fep>Fea DC SC Fed Fet DC CK1 CK1 DC SC Fe(II) CK1 14 40 Fe(II) Feo Fep Fea
250 49 Fe(II) Feo CK1 0.80 g/kg DC SC CK1 1.1 1.2 Fep CK1 0.03 g/kg DC SC CK1 3.1 3.6 Fea CK1 1.5 mg/kg DC SC CK1 2.4 3.6 [30] [31] Feo Fea [32] [33] Feo Fep Fig. 2 图 2 落干 / 淹水对模拟硝田土壤铁转化特征的影响 Effects of drying-submergence on Fe transformation in the simulated mirabilite soil 2.2.2 3 Fet Fed Fet Fed Fe(II) Fea Feo Fep Fe(II) Fea ( ) [33] Feo Fep [34] Fed Feo Fep [35 36] [30,37] Fea [31] [38] 2.3 / 2.3.1 / 4 St>Sav SO 4 >Sab St Sab SO 4 DC CK1 SC Sav SC DC SC CK1 St Sab SO 4 19.90 0.56 5.66 g/kg 15.10 0.30 4.55 g/kg 24% 47% 20% /
2 251 ( P<0.05 P<0.05 ) 图 3 有机物质种类与数量对模拟硝田土壤铁转化特征的影响 Fig. 3 Effect of different kinds and quantities of organic substances on Fe transformation Fe in the simulated mirabilite soil SRB [22] FeS MnS 60% [39] SO 4 Sav DC 2.3.2 5 SO 4 St Sab Sav Sab St Sav SO 4 St [40] Fe( ) Fe( ) Fe( ) Fe( ) Sav SO 4 [41] T2 T3 Sav [40] [42] [43] Sav
252 49 Sav [41] [22] 图 4 Fig. 4 落干 / 淹水对模拟硝田土壤硫转化特征的影响 Effects of drying/submergence on S transformation S in simulated mirabilite soil 2.4 / 2.4.1 Eh 6 Eh Eh Eh 20 g/kg Eh 316 502 mv CK1 42% 8% 40 g/kg Eh 74 330 mv CK1 85% 40% Eh [40] Eh Eh [33 44] 2.4.2 TARM ( Eh) ( TARM) [26] 7 TARM Eh Fig. 5 图 5 有机物质种类与数量对模拟硝田土壤硫转化特征的影响 Effects of different kinds and quantities of organic substances on S transformation in simulated mirabilite soil
2 253 Fig. 6 图 6 不同处理对模拟硝田土壤氧化还原电位的影响 Effects of different organic substance treatments on Eh in simulated mirabilite soil 图 7 不同处理对模拟硝田土壤还原性物质总量的影响 Fig. 7 Effect of different treatments on TARM in the simulate mirabilite soil 表 1 落干 / 淹水状况下土壤铁硫转化与氧化还原状况的相关关系 (n=9) Table 1 Correlation coefficients between Fe and S transformation in soil with redox regime in drying/submergence Fet Fed Feo Fep Fe(II) Fea St Sab SO 4 Sav Eh 0.065 0.336 0.360 0.540 0.480 0.480 0.347 0.499 0.219 0.182 TARM 0.056 0.288 0.795 * 0.874 ** 0.928 ** 0.890 ** 0.739 * 0.790 ** 0.620 0.098 * P<0.05 ** P<0.01 2.5 / 2.5.1 / ( 1) Eh Fet Fed Feo Fep Fe( ) Fea TARM SO 4 Sav St Sab TARM 2.5.2 ( 2) Fet Fed Feo Fep Fe( ) Fea Fe( ) [41] SO 4 Eh TARM St Sab Sav SO 4 2.6 ( 3) St Sab SO 4 Feo Fep Fe( ) Fea Fet Fed Sav Feo Fe( ) Table 2 表 2 不同种类与数量的有机物质状况下土壤铁硫转化与氧化还原状况相关关系 (n=21) Correlation coefficients between Fe and S transformation in soil with redox regime under different kinds and quantities of organic substances Fet Fed Feo Fep Fe(II) Fea St Sab SO 4 Sav Eh 0.162 0.102 0.75 ** 0.460 * 0.84 ** 0.72 ** 0.284 0.029 0.694 ** 0.272 TARM 0.020 0.174 0.557 ** 0.516 * 0.518 * 0.506 * 0.171 0.196 0.458 * 0.346
254 49 表 3 不同种类与数量的有机物质状况下铁与硫形态含量的相关关系 (n=30) Table 3 Correlation coefficients between contents of different forms of Fe and S under different kinds and quantities of organic substances Fet Fed Feo Fep Fe(II) Fea St 0.278 0.175 0.066 0.314 0.084 0.054 Sab 0.337 0.289 0.172 0.298 0.212 0.209 SO 4 0.099 0.222 0.585 ** 0.483 * 0.506 * 0.485 * Sav 0.129 0.143 0.421 * 0.365 0.454 * 0.274 Fet Fed Fep Fea SO 4 Fe( ) Fe(II) SO 4 [25] SO 4 Fe( ) [25] Sav Fe( ) Sav SO 4 Fe( ) FeS Sav 3 Feo Fep Fe(II) Fea Fe( ) Fea Fet Fed SRB / Eh Eh Eh TARM Eh TARM [1],,,. [M]. :, 2015: 97 107 [2]. [J]., 2001, 23(2): 75 82 [3]. [J]., 1977, 4(1): 6 12 [4],,,. (K 2 g) [J]., 1999, 17(1): 28 33 [5]. [J]., 1992, 12(3): 201 208 [6],. [J]., 1960, 4(3): 225 [7]. [J]., 2008, 28(3): 225 229 [8],. [M]. :, 1995: 635 636 [9],,,. [J]., 2011, 17(6): 1521530 [10] Lovley D R, Holmes D E, Nevin K P. DissimilatoryFe(III) and Mn(IV) reduction[j]. Advances in Microbal Physiology, 2004, 49(3): 219 286 [11],,,. [J]., 2006, 37(1): 159 163 [12] Scott G J, Bree M, Edward D B. Legacy impacts of acid sulfate soil runoff on mangrove sediments: Reactive iron accumulation, altered sulfur cycling and trace metal enrichment[j]. Chemical Geology, 2016, 42(7): 43 53 [13],,,. ph [J]., 2011(5): 65 68 [14],,,. [J]., 2011, 15(5): 1050 1057 [15],,,. [J]. ( ), 2009, 37(4): 121 127 [16],,,. [J]., 2014, 33(4): 687 694 [17],,. [J]., 2004, 35(3): 331 335 [18],,. [J]., 1993, 21(4): 9 17 [19],,,. [J]., 2014, 25(7): 2141 2148 [20],. [J]., 1996, 27(1): 16 18 [21]. [J]., 1995, 28(6): 58 67 [22],. [J]., 1991, 10(5): 43 50
2 255 [23] Gonzalez-Silva B M, Briones-Gallardo R, Razo-Flores E, et al. Inhibition of sulfate reduction by iron, cadmium and sulfide in granular sludge[j]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2009, 172(1): 400 407 [24],,. [J]., 2009, 28(5): 908 913 [25],,,. [J]., 2013, 50(4): 71719 [26]. [M]. :, 2008: 64 226 [27],. [M]. :, 2012: 156 176 [28]. [M]. :, 1999: 74 225 [29],,,. [J]., 1991, 11(2): 17177 [30],,,. [J]., 2011, 34(1): 100 104 [31],,,. [J]., 2012, 25(3): 977 981 [32],,,. [J]., 2016, 48(2): 225 234 [33],. [M]. :, 1988: 344 [34],,,. [J].,2007, 25(3): 359 363 [35],,. [J]., 1984, 15(2): 53 56 [36],. [J]., 1983, 15(6): 24244 [37],,,. [J]., 2016, 48(2): 270 277 [38],,. [J]., 2014, 51(2): 270 277 [39] McLachlan K D. Sulphur in Australasian agriculture[m]. Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1975: 31 37 [40]. [M]. :, 1995: 162 [41]. [M]. :, 1983: 51 243 [42],,,. [J]., 2015, 46(1): 153 156 [43],,,. [J]., 2003, 23(S1): 27 33 [44],,,. [J]., 2014, 51(2): 335 341 Fe and S Transformation Characteristics and Their Influential Factors in Simulated Mirabilite Soil YANG Xun 1, LI Yan 2, YUAN Dagang 1*, LI Xiaoying 1, CHEN Na 1, WANG Yiyan 1, CHEN Guanhua 1 (1 College of Resources, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China; 2 Forestry Bureau of Yucheng District, Ya an, Sichuan 625000, China) Abstract: In an indoor incubation experiment, Na 2 SO 4 contents of simulated mirabilite soil were determined, and then the effects of drying-submergence and different kinds and quantities of organic substances on Fe and S transformation in the soil were observed and discussed. The results showed that drying/submergence and organic substances had no significant effect on Fet and Fed. However, submergence and the quantities of organic substances had significant effects on Feo, Fep, Fe( ) and Fea. Moreover, Fe( ) and Fea were significantly affected by organic substances as well. Submergence and organic substance both could promote S transformation in the soil. Fe and S transformation was realized by direct reaction of organic substance, on the other hand, by changing the conditions of soil redox regime including Eh and TARM. Besides, there was a coupling relationship between the transformation of different forms of Fe and S in the soil. Key words: Simulated mirabilite soil; Fe; S; Drying/Submergence; Organic substance