© by PSP Volume 28 – No.

6/2019 pages 4661-4670 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin

CRITICAL SOLUTION [P] IN DIVERSE CALCAREOUS SOIL

SERIES USING ADSORPTION EQUATIONS
Manzoor Ahmad1, Muhammad Jamal Khan3, Dost Muhammad3, Wajid Ali Shah1, Fahim Ullah Khan4,
Riaz Ahmad Khattak 2, Zafar Hayat Khan5, Amjad Iqbal5, Farooq Shah5,*
1
Department of Agriculture, Bacha Khan University, Charsadda, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
2
CECOS University of IT & Emerging Sciences, Hayatabad Peshawar, Pakistan
3
Department of Soil and Environmental Sciences, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar, Pakistan
4
Department of Agriculture, Hazara University Mansehra Khyber Pakhthunkhwa Pakistan,
5
Department of Agriculture, Garden Campus, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan. Pakistan

ABSTRACT nucleic acids, which are the basic component of

To understand the behaviour of P in calcare-
ous soils, two diverse lime containing soil series of
Peshawar (19 %) and Guliana (4 %), were selected
for P adsorption capacity. A 50 mL solution con-
taining 0, 10, 20, 40, 60, 120, 240 and 360 mg P L-1
(initially applied P, IPA) was applied to 5 g of re-
spective air-dried soils taken in triplicates in conical
flasks and was shaken for 30 h. In strongly calcare-
ous Peshawar soil series, adsorption of P ranged
from 85.7 to 1366 mg kg-1 which was almost dou-
ble of the P adsorbed in low lime Guliana soils se-
ries at the iso-equivalent level of IPA. Both simple
and modified Langmuir and Freundlich models
were best fitted (r2 > 0.95 on average) for the P ad-
sorption pattern in both soils. However, for main-
taining 0.2 mg P L-1 soil solution, the amount of
P2O5 required was 33.51 kg ha-1 for Peshawar and
17.47 kg ha-1 for Guliana on the basis of adsorption
calculation, which is much lower than the amount
of P fertilizer as determined in series of field exper-
iments. To maintain the critical soil solution [P], it
is recommended to add proportionately more P fer-
tilizers to highly calcareous soil.
KEYWORDS:
P adsorption, Calcareous soil series, Critical Soil Solution
[P]
INTRODUCTION
Phosphorus (P) is an essential macro nutrient
required by plant in relatively larger quantities
ranging from 0.2-0.8 % of plant dry matter [1, 2]. It
is the 2nd growth limiting nutrient after N in most
regions of the world [3]. Plants require adequate
amount of P for optimum production from the very
early stage of growth [4]. It plays a vital role in
several physiological processes such as photosyn-
thesis, respiration, energy storage and transfer, and
cell enlargement [5]. In addition, it is an important
structural component of many biochemicals i.e.
gene and chromosomes determining the heredity.
The P supplying capacity of the soils is strong-
ly influenced by the extent of adsorption [6] that
could provide basis for fertilizer recommendations
for different crops [7]. In soils the solid phase of
adsorbed P is considered to be very complex. Due
to the process of adsorption and precipitation in
surface soils, all the applied P to the soils is not
immediately available to plants but subsequently
released into soil solution and absorbed by plants.
Therefore, P use efficiency and its release into soil
solution are closely associated with the P sorption
(adsorption and desorption) capacity of soils [8].
When phosphate is applied to soil either as solid or
liquid fertilizers it leads to series of chemical reac-
tions of orthophosphate (H2PO4-, HPO42-), with
various soil components [9, 10] and is converted to
less soluble phosphates thereby decreasing soil so-
lution [P]. This phenomenon of conversion of solu-
ble into less soluble state is termed as P fixation/P
retention, and has been reviewed by several authors
[11, 12, 13]. To understand the chemical behaviour
of P, adsorption and desorption reactions are con-
sidered as key aspects in soil plant system [10]. The
removal of phosphates ions by soil components
from solution is described as adsorption [14] while
desorption describes the reverse process of removal
of bound soil P to the solution [15]. The amount of
P adsorbed is determined largely by the solution P
concentration in a dynamic equilibrium process
[16]. In a calcareous soil P adsorption largely de-
pends on the CaCO3 level of soil in addition to soil
pH and other mineralogical factors [9], where [P] is
pre-dominantly determined by Ca-P compounds
[17, 18]. This study was undertaken to evaluate the
P adsorption and to estimate the amount of fertilizer
P required to maintain the critical soil solution P in
diverse calcareous high pH soils.

4661
© by PSP Volume 28 – No. 6/2019 pages 4661-4670 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS the P adsorbed in Guliana soils series (4 % lime) at

the iso-equivalent level of IPA (0 to 360 mg P L-1).
Phosphorus Adsorption Capacity in Pesha- Such higher adsorption of P in Peshawar soil series
war and Guliana Soil Series. In both the soil se- resulted in comparatively lower EPC than low lime
ries the adsorption of P (x/m) and equilibrium [P] Guliana soil series at each level of IPA (Table 1).
increased with increase in applied P level (IPA) but Similarly, Xad and Kd, which decreased with in-
with different magnitude (Fig 1. and 2). However, P creasing IPA, were comparatively higher in Pesha-
adsorbed expressed, in percent of IPA (Xad), and the war than Guliana soils series.
ratio of x/m to EPC denoted as distribution coeffi- The graphs (Fig. 1 and 2) further revealed that
cient (Kd) decreased with increases in IPA level adsorbed P (x/m) for high lime containing Peshawar
(Table 1). The decreasing order of Xad and Kd val- soil series was higher and had more sharp/steep
ues with increasing level of IPA and or x/m, indi- slope than Guliana soil series. Both the graphs of
cating the affinity of both soils for P, decreased IPA vs x/m (Fig. 1) and EPC vs x/m (Fig. 2) had
with increasing amount of P in the soil solution. higher slope of 3.81 and 6.02 than 1.97 and 2.43
In strongly calcareous Peshawar soil series calculated for Guliana soil which again indicated
containing 19 % lime, adsorption of P ranged from higher affinity of P in the former soils series.
85.7 to 1366 mg kg-1 which was almost double of

1600 Y (Peshawar) = 89.98 + 3.81 X, r2 = 0.97

2
Y (Guliana) = 65.69 + 1.97 X, r = 0.96
1400 Peshawar (19 % CaCO3)

1200
P sorbed (x/m, mg kg )
-1

1000

800
Guliana (4 % CaCO3)
600

400

200

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

-1
Applied P solution concentrations (mg L )
FIGURE 1
Relationship of applied P solution concentrations (IPA) with P adsorption in
Peshawar and Guliana soil series.

1600

1400 Peshawar (19 % CaCO3)

1200
P sorbed (x/m, mg kg )
-1

1000

800
Guliana (4 % CaCO3)

600

400
2
Y (Peshawar) = 153.37 + 6.019 X, r = 0.94
200 2
Y (Guliana) = 183.69 + 2.427 X, r = 0.95

0 100 200 300 400

-1
Equlibrium P Concentrations (mg L )
FIGURE 2
Adsorption isotherms showing relationship of Equilibrium P solution concentrations (EPC)
with incremental P adsorption in Peshawar and Guliana soil series

4662
© by PSP Volume 28 – No. 6/2019 pages 4661-4670 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin

TABLE 1
Phosphorus adsorption characteristics in the given soils
Initial P applied (IPA) Equilibrium[P] -----P adsorbed--- Xad Kd EPC/x/m
mg L-1 mg kg-1 mg L-1 mg L-1 mg kg-1 % - -
---------------------------- Peshawar soil series-------------------------------
0 0 0.6 Native Native - - Native
10 100 1.4 8.6 85.7 85.7 59.77 0.017
20 200 4.6 15.4 154.0 77.0 33.48 0.030
40 400 13.9 26.1 261.3 65.3 18.85 0.053
60 600 23.5 36.5 364.7 60.8 15.50 0.065
120 1200 55.3 64.7 646.7 53.9 11.69 0.086
240 2400 131.3 108.7 1086.7 45.3 8.27 0.121
360 3600 223.3 136.7 1366.7 38.0 6.12 0.163
----------------------------- Guliana soil series -------------------------------
0 0 0.6 Native Native - - Native
10 100 4.2 5.8 57.6 57.6 13.59 0.074
20 200 10.2 9.8 98.4 49.2 9.68 0.103
40 400 23.4 16.6 166.1 41.5 7.10 0.141
60 600 37.2 22.8 228.0 38.0 6.13 0.163
120 1200 83.7 36.3 363.3 30.3 4.34 0.230
240 2400 183.9 56.1 561.0 23.4 3.05 0.328
360 3600 287.0 73.0 730.0 20.3 2.54 0.393
Xad = ratio of adsorption expressed as percent with applied P level
Kd = ratio of adsorbed P with equilibrium [P]

The difference in the adsorption capacity, val-
ues of Kad and Xad in the high and low lime soil
series is evident from data provided in Table 1. Fig.
1 indicates that as IAP increased, P adsorption also
increased. The adsorption at low IAP was higher in
magnitude than at higher IAP. The higher lime
Peshawar soil adsorbed much high (two fold) P
than low lime (Table 1, Fig. 1).
It is an established criterion that high Xad and
Kd values indicate more efficient removal of P from
the soil solution by soils [19]. The higher Xad and
Kd for Peshawar soil series indicated its compara-
tively higher affinity and more adsorption of P at
any level of IPA which could be associated to its
higher lime content. In a classical study, Cole et al.
(1953) [20] reported that upon application to cal-
careous soils, P rapidly makes monolayer adsorp-
tion on lime (CaCO3) surface and precipitates as di-
calcium phosphates as its concentrations becomes
high. Griffin and Jurinak (1973) [21] concluded that
the interaction of P with lime surface could be de-
scribed as heterogeneous nucleation process. Talor
and Ellis (1978) [22] explained this on the basis of
adsorption initially as two-point attachment of
H2PO4- at low equilibrium [P] in comparison to one
point-attachment as H2PO4- at high equilibrium [P].
Some researchers have reported strong associ-
ation of P adsorption with soil clay content [23, 24].
Hussain et al. (2006) [25] reported that organic mat-
ters exert great influence on P adsorption. However,
in the present study the major difference between
the two soils was lime content that mainly deter-
mined the extent of P adsorption.
As evident from Fig.1 and Fig.2, the shape of
adsorption isotherm in both the soils was curviline-
ar suggesting similar adsorption mechanism. Javid
1999 [26]; Muljadi et al. (1966) [27]; Hussain 2007
[19] and Gunary (1970) [28] reported that curvilin-
ear relationship was possibly associated to variable
energy of adsorption of P in soils, while slopes of
the curves represent the P buffering capacity of the
soil [29, 30, 19].
Langmuir Adsorption Isotherm Equation.
The Langmuir adsorption isotherm equation is ex-
pressed as:
-------------------- Eq. [1]
whereas, x/m is the amount of P adsorbed (mg
P kg-1), ‘KL’ is bonding-energy constant, ‘b’ is
Langmuir adsorption maximum (mg P kg-1), EPC is
the concentration of P in soil solution at equilibrium
(mg L-1). ‘KLb’ is also known as maximum buffer-
ing capacity (MBC) of the soil system. The linear
form of the Eq. [1] is produced below:
)----------- Eq. [2]
By plotting the EPC/(x/m) against EPC gives
the linear form where the 1/KLb represents intercept
and 1/b slope of the linear scatter graph. Such linear
plots were developed for both soils which invaria-
bly showed curvilinear shape rather than the
straight line (Fig. 3 and 4).
The bonding energy (KL), adsorption maxi-
mum (b) and buffering capacity (KLb) which also
known as maximum buffering capacity [3] were
1666.7 mg kg-1, 0.016 L mg-1, and 26.31 mg P kg-1
for Peshawar and 1000 mg kg-1, 0.009 L mg-1 and
9.09 mg P kg-1 for Guliana soil, respectively (Table
2).

4663
© by PSP Volume 28 – No. 6/2019 pages 4661-4670 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin

TABLE 2
Comparative Equilibrium parameters of the Langmuir adsorption isotherm equation
for the given soil series
Parameter Peshawar soil series Guliana soil series
Intercept 0.038 0.11
Slope 0.0006 0.001
r2 0.93 0.98
SE of estimate 0.0148 0.0287
Adsorption maximum (b) mg kg-1 1666.7 1000
Bonding Energy (KL) L mg-1 0.016 0.009
Buffering Capacity (MBC) mg P kg-1 26.31 9.09

0.18
Y (Peshawar) = 0.038 + 0.0006(EPC)
r2 = 0.93
0.16

0.14

0.12
EPC/(x/m)

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250

EPC
FIGURE 3
Langmuir isotherm for Peshawar soil series

0.45

0.40 Y (Guliana) = 0.11 + 0.001(EPC)

2
r = 0.98
0.35

0.30
EPC/(x/m)

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

EPC
FIGURE 4
Langmuir isotherm for Guliana soil series.

The P adsorption data fitted to linear form of
Langmuir Eq. [2] produced curvilinear graph for
Peshawar [Fig. 3] and Guliana soil series [Fig. 4].
The curvilinear behaviour suggested that sites hav-
ing varying bonding energy were available for P
adsorption on both soils. It further indicates that
adsorption capacity of soils decreases with each
additional increment of IPA, whereby a small
amount of P is firmly adsorbed and slightly greater
amount of P less firmly and so on. However, Syers
et al. (1973) [31] were of the opinion that two or
more population of sites in soils having different
affinity for P might be the reason for the curvature.
The assumption of constant energy of adsorp-
tion, adsorption on specific sites and monolayer
adsorption on which the simple Langmuir adsorp-
tion isotherm equation relies [32] was fully (100 %)
satisfied in this study as obvious from the curviline-
ar shape of the relations in both soils. However,
regression in both soils were highly significant with

4664
© by PSP Volume 28 – No. 6/2019 pages 4661-4670 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin

r2 values of 0.93 and 0.98 in Peshawar and Guliana

soil series, respectively (Fig. 3, Fig. 4 & Table 2)
and could be successfully used at least for compari-
son of behaviour of P in the two different soils. The
bonding energy, maximum adsorption and buffer-
ing capacity were higher for high lime Peshawar
indicating stronger P adsorption in this soil than
low lime Guliana soil series. The higher adsorption
maximum and KL values closely determine the
strength of attachment with which P is held by soil
particles [33]. The different KL also indicated that
sites for P adsorption for both soils were different
[34].
Freundlich adsorption isotherm equation.
The Freundlich equation is expressed by the follow-
ing formula for P:
------------------ Eq. [3]
where K and n are empirical constants, x/m is
the adsorption and ECP is the equilibrium concen-
tration of P. The linear model of the equation is:
------- Eq. [4]
The data were plotted (Fig 5) according to the
above linear model which produced linear relation-
ships with r2 values of 0.99 in both soils. It suggest-
ed that like Langmuir model, the Freundlich ad-
sorption isotherm model also fit for the given ad-
sorption study. Values of Log K were 1.819 and
1.394 in Peshawar and Guliana soil series, respec-
tively whereas values of 1/n were 0.56 in Peshawar
and 0.59 L kg-1 in Guliana soil series (Table 3,
Fig.5).
The P adsorbtion data showed perfect fit to
linear form of the Freundlich equation (Fig.5, Table
3). The Freundlich equation implies that the energy
of the adsorption on a uniform surface is independ-
ent of surface coverage and that it decreases loga-
rithmically as the fraction of the covered surface
increases [32]. The decrease in energy of adsorption
with increase in surface coverage is due to surface
heterogeneity. It is usually used in the condition
where the Langmuir equation fails [33].

FIGURE 5
Linear Form of Freundlich isotherm for Peshawar and Guliana soil series

TABLE 3
Equilibrium parameters of the Freundlich adsorption isotherm equations for Peshawar and
Guliana soil series
Soil Extent of Slope/Rate of Co-efficient of
Intercept
Series adsorption adsorption regression
1/n
Log K K r2
L mg-1
Peshawar 1.819 66.0 0.5607 0.996
Guliana 1.394 24.8 0.5999 0.999

4665
© by PSP Volume 28 – No. 6/2019 pages 4661-4670 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin

Javid (1999) [34] reported that K is the ad-
sorbed P that would sustain a unit P concentrations
in equilibrium solution. The slightly higher 1/n val-
ue in Guliana represented more heterogeneity than
high lime Peshawar soil series [35]. This employs
that lower K in Guliana would have lower P adsorp-
tion capacity at low P concentration than higher
lime Peshawar soil series. Furthermore, as reported
by Hussain (2007) [19], this only indicates the
amount of P adsorbed at low [P] because large frac-
tion of P is retained through precipitation process
by soil at higher [P]. The K value for Peshawar soil
series was 66.0 mg P kg-1 which was 2.6 times
higher than 24.8 mg P kg-1 exhibited by low lime
Guliana soil series. This suggested that several fold
higher P was adsorbed in high lime Peshawar soil
series than low lime Guliana. Both the Langmuir
and Freundlich adsorption isotherm models sup-
ported that high lime Peshawar soil had higher P
affinity and adsorption capacity than low lime Guli-
ana soil series. Significant correlation of P adsorp-
tion and lime content of soil have been reported by
several researches [36, 37, 19].
Two surface Langmuir adsorption isotherm
equation. Because of its deviation from the simple
Langmuir equation and curvilinearity in both the
soils, multisite and multilayer adsorption as ex-
pressed by the following modified Langmuir Model
was applied as given by Bohn et al. (1985) [32]:
---- Eq. [5]
where the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to regions
(or mechanism) 1 and 2, respectively.
The graphs in both soils yielded two straight
lines for each soil, one at low equilibrium [P] (EPC)
and the other at higher EPC (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7). Ta-
ble 4 shows results of relevant parameter for both
soils.
Two distinct regions can be seen in Peshawar
(Fig. 6) and Guliana soil series (Fig. 7) with signifi-
cant correlation coefficient between EPC and
EPC/(x/m).

FIGURE 6
Two surface layer adsorption model of Langmuir adsorption isotherm for P adsorption in Peshawar soil
series having 19 % lime

FIGURE 7
Two surface layer adsorption model of Langmuir adsorption isotherm for P adsorption in Guliana soil
series having 4 % lime.

4666
© by PSP Volume 28 – No. 6/2019 pages 4661-4670 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin

TABLE 4
Equilibrium parameters of the two surface Langmuir adsorption isotherm equation for Peshawar and
Guliana soil series
Soil series ------------------ Region I------------- ------------------ Region II-------------
KLb1 KL2
B1 KL1 r2 b2 KLb2 r2
L mg-1 L mg-1
Peshawar soil 357.14 0.192 68.49 0.986 2000 0.009 17.83 0.997
Guliana soil 312.50 0.047 14.81 0.985 1250 0.005 5.86 0.993

TABLE 5
Estimated P fertilizers required for maintaining the desired equilibrium [P] in soil solution (EPS) in the
given soil series based on Langmuir
A B C B/C A*10 -----P Required (x/m+EPS)---
Soil series
EPS KB*EPS 1+K(EPS) x/m EPS P P2O5 P2O5
mg L-1 - - mg L-1 mg kg-1 mg/kg mg/kg kg/ha
Peshawar 0.05 1.33 1.001 1.33 0.5 1.83 4.20 8.39
Guliana 0.05 0.45 1.000 0.45 0.5 0.95 2.19 4.37
Peshawar 0.20 5.33 1.003 5.32 2.0 7.32 16.76 33.51
Guliana 0.20 1.82 1.002 1.81 2.0 3.81 8.74 17.47
Peshawar 0.40 10.67 1.006 10.60 4.0 14.60 33.44 66.87
Guliana 0.40 3.64 1.004 3.62 4.0 7.62 17.46 34.92
Kb and KL values in Peshawar and Guliana soil series are 26.31 and 0.016 and 9.09 and 0.009 L mg-1, respectively.

The region I representing the first straight por-
tion may be associated to P adsorption while at high
EPC precipitation may be responsible for the sec-
ond straight line in region II [38]. Barrow (1980)
[39] also reported that the P is mainly adsorbed on
lime surface in calcareous soil when EPC is low
while precipitation of P takes place as a Ca-P com-
pound when EPC is higher. Values of adsorption
maximum, bonding energy and maximum buffering
capacity were calculated in both regions for both
soils and were represented as 1 and 2, respectively
(Table 4). Adsorption maximum (b2) for both soils
were higher in region II while bonding energy val-
ues KL1 were higher in region I indicating that op-
posite relation existed between the bonding energy
and adsorption maximum in region I and II. It ap-
peared that bonding energy was more important in
region I while in region II the adsorption affinity
was more important as also concluded by [19].
Such higher b values in region II but higher K val-
ues in region I were also reported by Kumar and
Singh (1998) [24].
Cole et al. (1953) [20] and Holford and Mat-
tingly (1976) [40] suggested that at low [P] adsorp-
tion is expected while at higher P the dominant
mechanism is precipitation. Kuo and Lotse (1972)
[41] suggested that P may replace an adsorbed wa-
ter molecule, bicarbonate or hydroxyl ion when it is
adsorbed by calcite. Akinremi and Cho (1991) [42]
described the reaction of P with lime as: (1) adsorp-
tion of P onto active sites of CaCO3, (2) reaction
with exchangeable Ca2+, (3) reaction with Ca2+ re-
leased by the dissolution of CaCO3. The surface
sorption of phosphate at low concentration can in-
clude physical sorption, chemisorption and anion
exchange [43]. On the other hand, Hussain (2007)
[19] reported that both total and active CaCO3
seemed to be less important factors affecting P ad-
sorption. He concluded this contradictory effect
could be either due to parent material or lack of
standard methods. For example, for soils derived
from limestone, there was little or no relationship of
P sorption with total or active lime whereas for soils
derived from calcareous Aeolian dust, there was a
direct relationship between total lime content and P
sorption [44]. Pena and Torrent (1990) [45] at-
tributed this discrepancy to the inability of standard
methods to measure adequately the reactivity of
carbonate towards P sorption.
Estimated Requirement of P fertilizers in
the two soils. Based on Langmuir adsorption iso-
therm model, amount of P required to yield critical
solution [P] in both soils were calculated for
maintenance of 0.05, 0.2 and 0.4 mg P L-1 soil solu-
tion as shown in Table 5. The data showed that to
maintain the desired P level in soil solution the high
lime Peshawar soil series required almost double of
P fertilizer than low lime Guliana soil series. For
example to maintain 0.2 mg P L-1 in soil solution
Peshawar soil series needed 33.5 while Guliana
soils needed 17.1 kg P2O5 ha-1.
Table 5 shows the amount of P needed to
maintain desired soil solution [P]. Roy and DeDatta
(1985) [46] and Memon et al. (1991) [47] estimated
0.2 mg P L-1 soil solution for comparison while
Rajan (1973) [48] and Hassan, (1993) [49] used the
value of 0.2 and 0.32 mg P L-1 at which most plants
attain near maximum growth. While the values es-
timated using adsorption data revealed only 17.47
and 33.51 Kg P2O5 ha-1 for Guliana and Peshawar
soil series for [P] of 0.20 mg L-1. These calculations
show that addition of 66.87 and 33.92 Kg P2O5 ha-1
would yield critical [P] of 0.40 mg L-1, which are
highly optimistic and do not conform to yield data.
The estimated fertilizer quantity for attaining the

4667
© by PSP Volume 28 – No. 6/2019 pages 4661-4670
desired soil solution or equilibrium solution [P] is
underestimated to a great extent. For instance, in
the field the soils maintained the mean value [P]WS
of 0.20 mg L-1 with 90 to 135 kg P2O5 ha-1 as de-
termined in series of experiments conducted on
these soils by this group.
Experimental Materials and Methods. Two
diverse soil series Peshawar, (19 %) and Guliana (4
% CaCO3), which were thoroughly evaluated in a
series of pot and field experiments for their re-
sponse to different fertilizer P levels, were selected
for their P adsorption capacity. The P adsorption
isotherm were determined by the procedure of Fox
and Kamprath (1970) [29] that has been used by
several researchers including Hussain (2007) [19].
In this study, 50 mL solution containing 0, 10, 20,
40, 60, 120, 240 and 360 mg P L-1 (initially applied
P, IPA) were applied to 5 g of respective air-dried
soils taken in 250 mL open mouthed conical flasks.
The soil plus respective P solution taken in tripli-
cates were shaken on horizontal shaker for 30 h
continuously. The suspensions were then filtered
through Whattman No. 42 and analyzed for P which
represented the equilibrium P concentration (EPC).
The difference between the IPA and EPC was as-
sumed to be the adsorbed P mg kg-1denoted by x/m.
The adsorption isotherm models of Langmuir and
Freundlich were applied to investigate P adsorption
capacity in the two soils by comparing the bonding
strength, maximum P adsorption and buffering ca-
pacity.
CONCLUSION
The Adsorption data for soils under study
were fitted to Langmuir and Freundlich adsorption
isotherm models. Based on higher values of maxi-
mum adsorption (b), bonding strength (K) and max-
imum buffering capacity (MBC), the higher lime
Peshawar soil series (19 % lime) adsorbed P from
soil solution more efficiently than Guliana soil se-
ries (4 % lime). The curvilinear shape of Langmuir
model for both soils indicated that bonding energy
was variable and was fitted to two surface layer
Langmuir models which showed that there was
adsorption of P at low IAP and precipitation might
have occurred at higher IAP. An inverse relation-
ship between the adsorption maximum and bonding
energy was noted in region I and II in the two sur-
face Langmuir multilayer model.
The fertilizer requirements were underestimat-
ed from adsorption data for both soils to maintain
soil solution critical [P] when compared to the field
data. Highly calcareous soils must be added with
proportionately more P fertilizer for maintaining
critical [P] in soil solution to support crop produc-
tion on sustainable basis.
4668
Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
REFERENCES
[1] Mengal, K. and Kirkby, E.A. (1987) Principles
of Plant Nutrition. 4th ed. Intl. Potash Inst.Bern.
Switzerland.
[2] Mills, H. and Jones, J.B. (1986) Plant analysis
and book II micro macro publishing athens, GA.
[3] Holford, I.C.R. (1979) Evaluation of soil phos-
phate buffering indices. Aust. J. soil Res. 17,
495-504.
[4] Grant, C., Bittman, S., Montreal, M., Plenchette,
C. and Morel, C. (2005) Soil and fertilizer
phosphorus: Effect on plant P supply and my-
corrhizal development. Can. J. Plant Sci. 85, 3-
14.
[5] Mengal, K. and Kirkby, E.A. (2000) Principles
of Plant Nutrition. 5th ed. Intl. Potash Inst.,
Bern., Switzerland.
[6] Singh, B.R., Krogstad, T., Shivay, Y.S., Shiva-
kumar, B. and Bakkegard, G.M. (2005) Phos-
phorus fractionation and sorption in P-enriched
soils of Norway. Nutri. Cyc. Agro. Eco. 73,
245-256.
[7] Dhillon, N.S., Dhesi, T.S. and Brar, B.S. (2004)
Phosphate sorption desorption characteristics of
some Ustifluvents of Punjab. J. Indian Soc. Soil
Sci. 52, 17-22.
[8] Del Campillo, M.C., Van Der Zee, S.E.A.T.M.
and Torrent, J. (1999) Modelling long-term
phosphorus leaching and changes in phosphorus
fertility in excessively fertilized acid sandy
soils. Europ J. Soil Sci. 50(3), 391-399.
[9] Devau, N., Cadre, E. Le., Hinsinger, P. and
Gerard, F. (2010) A mechanistic model for un-
derstanding root-induced chemical changes con-
trolling phosphorus availability. Annual of Bot.
London. 105, 1183-1197.
[10] Shen, J., Yuan, J., Zhang, H., Bai, Li, H., Bai,
Z., Chen, X., Zhang, W. and Zhang F. (2011).
Phosphorus dynamics from Soil to plant. Plant
Physiol. Amer. Soc. and Plant Biol. 156, 997-
1005.
[11] White, R.E. (1981) Retention and Release of
Phosphate by Soil Constituents. In: Tinker,
P.B. (ed.) Soil and Agriculture. Critical Reports
on Applied Chemistry. Vol. 2. Oxford, Black-
well Scientific Publications. 71-114.
[12] Ayed, I.A. and Coll, J. (1984) Immobilization
of soil and Fertilizer Phosphate in Calcareous
Soils with Special Emphasis on Phosphate
Sorption. J. Coll. Agric. King Saud Uni. 6, 97-
106.
[13] Matar, A., Torrent, J. and Ryan, J. (1992) Soil
and Fertilizer Phosphorus and Crop Responses
in the Dry land Mediterranean Zone. Adv. Soil
Sci. 18, 79-46.
[14] Abedin, M.J. and Saleque, M.A. (1998) Effects
of phosphorus fertilizer management on phos-
phorus sorption characteristics of low land rice
soil. Thai. J. Agri. Sci. 31, 122-129.
© by PSP Volume 28 – No. 6/2019 pages 4661-4670
[15] Kuo, S., Jellum, E.J. and Pam, W.L. (1988)
Influence of phosphate sorption parameters of
soils on desorption of phosphate by various ex-
tractants. Soil Sci. Soc. Ame. J. 52, 974-979.
[16] Syers, J.K. and Lu. R.K. (1990) Inorganic reac-
tions influencing phosphorus cycling in soils.
In Phosphorus Requirements for Sustainable
Agriculture in Asia and Oceania.
[17] Lindsay, W.L., Vlek, P.L.G. and Chien, S.H.
(1989) Phosphate minerals. In: Bixon, J.B and
Weed, S.B. (Eds.) Minerals in Soil Environ-
ment. Ed 2. Soil Science Society of America,
Madison, WI. 1089–1130.
[18] Abolfazli, F., Forghani, A. and Norouzi, M.
(2012) Effects of phosphorus and organic ferti-
lizers on phosphorus fractions in submerged
soil. J. of Soil Sci. and Plant Nutrition. 12, 349-
362.
[19] Hussain, A. (2007) Phosphorus fertilizer re-
quirement of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and
Lentil (Lens culinaris Medic.) on three alluvial
calcareous soils. Ph.D. Dissertation Institute of
Soil and Environmental Sci. Univ. of Agric.
Faisalabad.
[20] Cole, C.V., Olsen, S.R. and Scott. C.O. (1953)
The nature of phosphate sorption by calcium
carbonates. Soil Sci. Soc. Ame. Proc. 17, 352-
356.
[21] Griffin, R.A. and Jurinak, J.J. (1973) The inter-
action of phosphate with calcite. Soil Sci. Soc.
Ame. Proc. 37, 847-850.
[22] Taylor, R.W. and Ellis, B.G. (1978) A Mecha-
nism of phosphorus adsorption on soil and ani-
on exchange resin surface. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
42, 432-436.
[23] Olsen, S.R., Kemper, W.D. and Van Schaik,
J.C. (1965) Self-diffusion coefficients of phos-
phorus in soil measured by transient and
steady-state methods. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 29,
154-158.
[24] Kumar, J. and Singh, R. (1998) Phosphorus
adsorption and release characteristics of some
soils in Tarai and Bhabar regions of Uttar Pra-
desh. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 46, 14-18.
[25] Hussain, A., Ghafoor, A. and Murtaza, G.
(2006) Use of models for phosphorus adsorp-
tion on some sodic soil of Punjab. Int. J. Agri.
Bio. 8, 242-248.
[26] Javid, S. (1999) Residual effect of phosphate
fertilizer measured using the Olsen method in
Pakistani soils. Ph.D. Diss. Uni. Reading, UK.
[27] Muljadi, D., Posner, A.M. and Quirk, A.M.
(1966) The mechanism of phosphate adsorption
by kaolinite, gibbsite, and pseudoboemite, I.
The isotherms and the effect of pH on adsorp-
tion. J. Soil Sci. 17, 212-229.
[28] Gunary, D. (1970) New adsorption isotherm
for phosphate in soil. J. Soil Sci. 21, 72-77.
4669
Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
[29] Fox, R.L. and Kamprath, E.J. (1970) Phosphate
sorption isotherms for evaluating the phosphate
requirements of soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
34, 902-907.
[30] Al-Jabri, M. (1981) Studies on phosphate ad-
sorption isotherms and response to phosphate
fertilization of Kenya soils. Ins. Voor
Bodermvruchtbaarheid Rep. 11-81, 1-22.
[31] Syers, J.K., Browman, M.G., Smillic, G.W.
and Corey, R.B. (1973) Phosphate sorption by
soil by the Langmuir adsorption equation. Soil.
Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 37, 358-363.
[32] Bohn, H.L., McNeal, B.L. and OConnor, G.A.
(1985) Soil Chemistry. 2nd edition. Wiley,
New York.
[33] Bahl, G.S., Singh, N.T. and Vig, A.C. (1986)
Phosphate uptake by maize and wheat in rela-
tion to P adsorption characteristic of soil. J. In-
dian Soc. Soil Sci. 34, 791-798.
[34] Javid, S. (1999) Residual effect of phosphate
fertilizer measured using the Olsen method in
Pakistani soils. Ph.D. Diss. Uni. Reading, UK.
[35] Gregory, T., Chelsey, L.K. and Shimizu. K.D.
(2005) A critical examination of the use of
Freundlich isotherm in characterizing molecu-
larly imprinted polymers (MIPS). Anl. Chim.
Acta. 528, 107-113.
[36] Samadi, A. and Gilkes, R.J. (1999) Phosphorus
transformations and their relationships with
calcareous soil properties of Southern Western
Australia. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63, 809-815.
[37] Samadi, A. (2001) Changes in Added Availa-
ble Phosphorus with Time in Contrasting Cal-
careous Soils with a Mediterranean Type of
Climate. 7th International Meeting on Soils
with a Mediterranean Type of Climate. Bari, It-
aly, 231-234.
[38] Lin, C., Busscher, W.J. and Doouglas, L.A.
(1983) Multifactor kinetics of phosphate reac-
tions with minerals in acidic soils: I Modeling
and simulation. Soil Sci. Soc. Ame. J. 47,
1097-1103.
[39] Barrow, N.J. (1980) Difference among some
North American soils in the rate of reaction
with phosphate. J. Envi. Qual. 9, 644-648.
[40] Holford, I.C.R. and Mattingly, G.E.G. (1976)
Phosphate adsorption and availability plant of
phosphorus. Plant and Soil. 44, 377-389.
[41] Kuo, S. and Lotse, E.G. (1972) Kinetics of
phosphate adsorption and desorption by hema-
tite and gibbsite. Soil Sci. 116, 400-406.
[42] Akinremi, O.O. and Cho, C.M. (1991) Phos-
phate Transport in Calcium-Saturated Systems:
II. Experimental Results in a Model System.
Soil Sci. Socie. Of. Ame. J. 55(5), 1282-1287
[43] Sample, E.C., Soper, R.J. and Racz, G.J.I.
(1980) Reaction of phosphate fertilizers in
soils. In: Khasawneh, F.E. (Ed.) The Role of
phosphorus in agriculture. ASA and Madison,
S.S.S.A. W.I., 263-310.
© by PSP Volume 28 – No. 6/2019 pages 4661-4670 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin

[44] Lajtha, K. and Boower, S.H. (1988) Factors

Affecting Phosphate Sorption and Phosphate
Retention in a Desert Ecosystem. Soil Sci. 146,
160-167.
[45] Pena, F. and Torrent, J. (1990) Predicting
Phosphate Sorption in the Soil of Mediterrane-
an Regions. Fertilizer Res. 23, 173-179.
[46] Roy, A.C. and DeDatta, S.K. (1985) Phosphate
Sorption Isotherms for Evaluating Phosphorus
Requirement of Wetland Rice Soils. Plant soil.
86, 185-197.
[47] Memon, K.S., Puno, H.K. and Fox. R.L. (1991)
Phosphate Sorption Approach for Determining
Phosphorus Requirements of Wheat in Calcar-
eous Soils. Fertilizer Res. 28, 67-72.
[48] Rajan, S.S.S. (1973) Phosphate Adsorption by
Soils. II. Reaction in Tropical Soils. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. Proc. 39, 846-860.
[49] Hassan, M. (1993) Phosphorus requirement of
corn and sunflower grown on calcareous soils
of Pakistan. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Ann. 24,
1529-1541.

Received: 15.12.2018
Accepted: 08.04.2019

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR

Farooq Shah
Department of Agriculture,
Garden Campus,
Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan
Pakistan

e-mail: farooqshah@awkum.edu.pk

4670