Paper · 1991 · Soil Science

REDUCTION IN TOXIC ALUMINUM TO PLANTS BY SULFATE COMPLEXATION

A. K. ALVA; G. L. KERVEN; D. G. EDWARDS; et al.

7
claims
8
verbatim quotes
29
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Excess SO42- in solution has been demonstrated to reduce aluminum (Al) toxicity in several studies, but the mechanism of SO42--induced reduction of Al toxicity was not clearly understood. In this study, Size Exclusion Chromatography (SEC; Sephadex G-25, superfine resin) was employed to investigate the interaction between Al and SO42- in unhydrolyzed Al solutions at pH 3.5. A dual peak elution of Al was observed when Al solution with SO4/Al molar ratio ≥ 2.0 was injected into the SEC column. The first Al peak, which was eluted substantially earlier than the bed volume of the column, where the monomeric Al species are expected, was due to co-elution of Al with SO42- as evident from the position of this peak corresponding to the elution volume for peak elution of SO42-. The elution fraction at the first Al peak contained SO42- and Al at a SO4/Al molar ratio = 2.7. The co-elution of Al and SO42- would appear to be due to outer sphere SO42- complexation which has been referred to as “SO42-complexed Al‘’ in this paper. The Al peak for co-elution of Al and SO42- increased, while the peak at the bed volume decreased with an increase in SO4/Al molar ratio of the injected sample. A nutrient-solution experiment was conducted to evaluate the differential toxicity of SO42--complexed Al (eluted by the SEC column), and monomeric Al in the absence of SO42- [as Al(NO3)3] in the range of 0 to 40 μM total applied Al concentrations. The SO42- complexed Al was less phytotoxic to soybean (Glycine max L.) root growth than the monomeric Al. The shielding effect of SO42- in the outer sphere of Al would appear to be responsible for the reduction in Al toxicity.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 7

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aluminum and sulfate co-eluted in size exclusion chromatography when the injected solution had a sulfate to aluminum molar ratio of at least 2.0.

Outcome
dual peak elution of Ale0
Qualifier
SO4/Al molar ratio ≥ 2.0e0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“A dual peak elution of Al was observed when Al solution with SO4/Al molar ratio ≥ 2.0 was injected into the SEC column.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 376–495 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The first aluminum peak contained sulfate and aluminum at a molar ratio of 2.7.

Outcome
SO42- and Ale0
Value
SO4/Al molar ratio = 2.7e0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“The elution fraction at the first Al peak contained SO42- and Al at a SO4/Al molar ratio = 2.7.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 778–873 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The co-elution of aluminum and sulfate was interpreted as outer sphere sulfate complexation.

Outcome
co-elution of Al and SO42-e0
Qualifier
outer sphere SO42- complexatione0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“The co-elution of Al and SO42- would appear to be due to outer sphere SO42- complexation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 874–962 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

As the sulfate to aluminum ratio increased, the co-elution aluminum peak increased.

Treatment
increase in SO4/Al molar ratioe0
Outcome
Al peak for co-elution of Al and SO42-e0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“The Al peak for co-elution of Al and SO42- increased, while the peak at the bed volume decreased with an increase in SO4/Al molar ratio of the injected sample.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1029–1188 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

As the sulfate to aluminum ratio increased, the aluminum peak at bed volume decreased.

Treatment
increase in SO4/Al molar ratioe0
Outcome
peak at the bed volumee0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“The Al peak for co-elution of Al and SO42- increased, while the peak at the bed volume decreased with an increase in SO4/Al molar ratio of the injected sample.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1029–1188 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulfate-complexed aluminum was less toxic to soybean root growth than monomeric aluminum.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxe0
Treatment
SO42- complexed Ale0
Outcome
root growthe0
Direction
less phytotoxice0
Comparator
monomeric Ale0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The SO42- complexed Al was less phytotoxic to soybean (Glycine max L.) root growth than the monomeric Al.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1437–1542 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors attributed reduced aluminum toxicity to sulfate shielding in its outer sphere.

Taxon
PLANTSViridiplantaet0
Outcome
reduction in Al toxicitye0
Qualifier
shielding effect of SO42- in the outer sphere of Ale0

Verbatim

e0

“The shielding effect of SO42- in the outer sphere of Al would appear to be responsible for the reduction in Al toxicity.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1543–1663 · show in text ↑
t0

“TO PLANTS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–37 · show in text ↑

aluminium atom · growth · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ

44 papers: 16 positive, 28 negative or no effect

15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

40 papers more in this group

See all 44 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.