Ke Wu1,2, Xuebin Xu1, Fei Ma1, Changwen Du1,3. 1. The State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Soil Science Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing210008, China. 2. College of Environment and Ecology, Jiangsu Open University, Nanjing210017China. 3. College of Advanced Agricultural Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing100049, China.
Abstract
Due to the controlled-delivery function of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) for gases, drugs, and pesticides, iron-based MOFs (Fe-MOFs) were explored in the laboratory as a novel fertilizer, which showed potential for use in the fertilizer industry; the challenge in the industrial scale application of Fe-MOFs in practical crop production was mainly the impact of scaling-up to energy and heat transfer, as well as the reaction yield. In this study, Fe-MOFs were hydrothermally synthesized both in the laboratory scale and in the pilot scale, their structure and components were characterized using various spectroscopic techniques, and then their nutrient release and degradation behaviors were investigated. The results showed that Fe-MOFs were successfully synthesized in both scales with similar yields around 27%, and the Fe-MOFs showed a similar structure with the molecular formula of C2H15Fe2N2O18P3. The nutrients N, P, and Fe were present in the Fe-MOFs with the average contents of 6.03, 14.48, and 14.69%, respectively. Importantly, the nutrient release rate and pattern of Fe-MOFs well matched with the crop growth, which greatly promoted the rice yield. Therefore, the environmentally friendly compounds of Fe-MOFs could be industrially produced and used as an innovative fertilizer with unique features of varied nutrients and controlled release.
Due to the controlled-delivery function of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) for gases, drugs, and pesticides, iron-based MOFs (Fe-MOFs) were explored in the laboratory as a novel fertilizer, which showed potential for use in the fertilizer industry; the challenge in the industrial scale application of Fe-MOFs in practical crop production was mainly the impact of scaling-up to energy and heat transfer, as well as the reaction yield. In this study, Fe-MOFs were hydrothermally synthesized both in the laboratory scale and in the pilot scale, their structure and components were characterized using various spectroscopic techniques, and then their nutrient release and degradation behaviors were investigated. The results showed that Fe-MOFs were successfully synthesized in both scales with similar yields around 27%, and the Fe-MOFs showed a similar structure with the molecular formula of C2H15Fe2N2O18P3. The nutrients N, P, and Fe were present in the Fe-MOFs with the average contents of 6.03, 14.48, and 14.69%, respectively. Importantly, the nutrient release rate and pattern of Fe-MOFs well matched with the crop growth, which greatly promoted the rice yield. Therefore, the environmentally friendly compounds of Fe-MOFs could be industrially produced and used as an innovative fertilizer with unique features of varied nutrients and controlled release.
The low-nutrient utilization rate of conventional
fertilizers resulted
in serious non-point source pollution, which has inspired extensive
efforts in the research and development of controlled-release fertilizers
over the past 2 decades. Currently, controlled-release fertilizers
using petroleum-based polymers (polyethylene, polyurethane, etc.)
as coating materials have revolutionized agriculture and have become
quite popular. However, the non-renewability and high price of these
coating materials limited its application in a large scale.[1,2] What is more, fertilizer-containing plastic microcapsules with a
diameter of 2–5 mm (“coated fertilizer”) are
not recovered after use of these materials, resulting in the accumulation
and excess of microcapsules in soil, which pose serious environmental
risks.[3] Controlled-release fertilizers
prepared from starch,[4] lignin and cellulose,[5,6] chitosan,[7] alginate,[8] and other bio-based coating materials were environmentally
friendly; however, their release nutrient rates were too fast (<30
d) due to low hydrophobicity of the coating materials, which led to
a problem in the nutrient match with crop growth. Therefore, metal–organic
framework (MOF) compounds provide a novel option for the development
of low-cost, environmental-friendly, controlled-release fertilizers.MOFs are functional materials self-assembled by metal ions or ion
clusters and organic ligands. These materials have realized controllable
design and synthesis at the molecular level. MOF materials with specific
structures and functions are constructed by pre-directional topology
design, making full use of specific organic ligand orientations during
coordination. Compared to traditional inorganic and organic materials,
MOF materials possess advantages such as large specific surface areas,[9] high porosities,[10] diverse configurations,[11] and adjustable
structures.[12] MOF materials have been extensively
used in the fields of gas storage and separation,[13,14] catalysis,[15] fluorescent probes,[16−18] and drug carriers.[19]In agriculture,
there have been reports on utilizing MOF materials
as fertilizers. Abdelhameed et al. investigated the effect of iron-based
MOF (Fe-MOF)–EDTA as an iron fertilizer and found that the
MOF significantly improved the biomass, chlorophyll content, and enzyme
activity of kidney beans.[20] Anstoetz et
al. reported an oxalate-phosphate amine-MOF (OPA-MOF) material that
contained nitrogen, phosphorus, and iron nutrients, and a pot culture
experiment showed this MOF material significantly improved the wheat
yield and nitrogen utilization efficiency, which indicated that the
OPA-MOF had potential as a synergistic nitrogen fertilizer.[21] Wu et al. hydrothermally synthesized an MOF
with a high nitrogen load, and soil culture results showed that this
material exhibited good controlled-release effect on nutrients.[22] In addition, there were also reports on MOF
synthesis under solvent-free conditions and its application as a slow-release
fertilizer.[23] Previous studies have demonstrated
that MOF materials have great potential and broad application prospects
as a slow-/controlled-release fertilizer. However, the investigations
were limited in the laboratory scale, and pilot-scale production of
MOF materials as fertilizers has not been conducted yet. Due to differences
in raw material sources, reactor materials, heat transfer, and stirring
methods, pilot-scale production of MOF materials should differ from
laboratory products, and it is necessary to explore the pilot-scale
production of MOF prior to industrial production as a fertilizer.The objectives of this study were to (1) hydrothermally synthesize
a Fe-MOF rich in nitrogen, phosphorus, and iron using water as the
substrate in the pilot scale, (2) characterize the structure and components
of the synthesized Fe-MOF, (3) explore the nutrient controlled-release
performance and degradation behaviors of the synthesized Fe-MOF and
then evaluate its potential as a controlled-release fertilizer, which
provided support for the industrial production. As a result, by comparing
the similarities and differences in the structure and function of
Fe-MOFs synthesized in the pilot scale and laboratory scale, the synthesis
process conditions were adjusted and optimized.
Experimental Section
Materials
Ferric chloride (FeCl3·6H2O), oxalic
acid (H2C2O4·2H2O),
urea (CO(NH2)2, and phosphoric acid
(H3PO4) were purchased from Nanjing Ronghua
Scientific Equipment Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu, China). All reagents mentioned
above are of both industrial grade and analytical grade. Process water
and deionized water were used throughout the pilot-scale and laboratory-scale
experiments, respectively. Apparatuses for preparing Fe-MOFs were
a hydrothermal reactor (3000L) (Yangzhou Tongyang Chemical Equipment
Co. Ltd., China) and a KCF-2 autoclave (3L) (Beijing Century Senlang
Experimental Apparatus Co., China).
Synthesis of Fe-MOFs
Pilot
Scale (MOF1)
150.16 kg of ferric chloride (FeCl3·6H2O), 70 kg of oxalic acid (H2C2O4·2H2O), 83 kg of urea (CO(NH2)2, 205.5 L of phosphoric acid (H3PO4), and 1000 L of process water were added to a hydrothermal
reactor (3000 L) (Yangzhou Tongyang Chemical Equipment Co. Ltd., China),
stirring constantly until all substrates were mixed evenly. The mixture
was held at 100 °C for 24 h with the stirring speed set to 90
rpm. The resulting product was washed three times with deionized water
and subsequently dried at 60 °C. The yield of Fe-MOFs was calculated
by the following equation
Laboratory Scale (MOF2)
The substrate used consisted
of 67.5 g of ferric chloride, 31.5 g of oxalic acid, 37.3 g of urea,
92.4 mL of phosphoric acid, and 450 mL of deionized water. The dissolved
and mixed substrates were transferred to the reactor KCF-2 autoclave
(3 L) (Beijing Century Senlang Experimental Apparatus Co., China).
The procedure was the same as that for MOF1.For comparison,
the Fe-MOF (MOF0) was synthesized. The synthetic procedure was carried
out as that of MOF1, except that urea [CO(NH2)2] and phosphoric acid (H3PO4) were not added.
Fe-MOF Characterizations
The Fourier transform infrared
attenuated total reflectance spectra
(FTIR-ATR) of MOFs were recorded using a portable FTIR spectrometer
(TurDefender FT, Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) in the range of 4000–400
cm–1 at 4 cm–1 resolution. The
Fourier transform infrared photoacoustic spectra (FTIR-PAS) of MOFs
samples were acquired in the laboratory over the mid-infrared range
(4,000−400 cm–1) at 8 cm-1 resolution using
an infrared spectrophotometer (Nicolet 6700, Themo-Scientific, USA),
equipped with a photoacoustic detector (Model 300, MTEC, USA), the
mirror velocity was set to 0.32 cm s–1 for spectra
collections, and black carbon was used as reference. Powder X-ray
diffraction (XRD) data were collected in the 3–70° range
by an ARL X’TRA diffractometer (Thermo Electron Corporation,
Switzerland) using a CuKα radiation source at 0.02° step
size and 5° min–1 scanning rate, and the powder
XRD data of MOF was compared to the International Centre for Diffraction
Data (ICDD) for phase identification. A regular, transparent, crack-free
crystal was extracted from the precipitate using tweezers under an
optical microscope for single-crystal determination. Single-crystal
XRD data were recorded using a D8Quest diffractometer (Bruker, Billerica,
MA, USA) at 273 K. Data collection was carried out using the BluIce
software suite with processing undertaken in the XDS program. Analyses
and refinements of the crystal structures were carried out using a
direct method with the help of SHELXTL software. The detailed information
for microstructure, morphology, and surface topology of the Fe-MOFs
were observed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (ZEISS Merlin
132 Compact, Germany) on 10 kV accelerating voltage (AV). The surface
elemental compositions and distribution were analyzed using an energy-dispersive
X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) detector attached to a scanning electron
microscope. The contents of C, N, and H of the Fe-MOFs were determined
by an elemental analyzer (Vario EL cube, Elementar, Germany). The
compounds were completely dissolved with HCl (6 mol L–1), and P and Fe were determined by inductively coupled plasma optical
emission spectrometry (ICP–OES) (Thermo Fisher Scientific,
USA). Laser-induced breakdown spectrometry (LIBS) (IVEA, France) utilizing
the AnaLIBS control software was performed to obtain the LIBS spectra
of MOF samples. The laser beam with 532 nm and 5 ns pulse duration
was generated from a fourth-harmonic Nd:YAG laser (Quantel, France).
The frequency of the system was 20 Hz, and the delivery energy was
16 mJ. The laser beam was focused on the soil tablet samples to form
a spot with 50 μm diameter using a lens with 15 cm focal length.
The emission line of the resulting plasma was transmitted from a light
collector to the Mechelle ME5000 Echelle spectrograph (Andor Technology,
Ltd., Northern Ireland). The resolving power of this spectrograph
was λ/Δλ = 4000. An intensified charge-coupled device
camera (iStar, Andor Technology, Ltd., Northern Ireland) collected
the diffracted light to generate the LIBS spectrum. The delay time
and the gate width were controlled and set to be 370 μs and
7.0 ms, respectively. The wavelength range was 200–1000 nm,
and the spectral resolution was 0.116 nm. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy
(XPS) analysis of the samples was conducted (Escalab 250Xi, Thermo
Fisher Scientific, UK) using monochromatized Al-KD radiation (1486.6
eV; energy step size: 0.050 eV). The binding energy scale was calibrated
with respect to the C1s signal at 284.8 eV.
Nutrient Release Behaviors
from Fe-MOFs
Nutrient Release in Water
3 g of
each Fe-MOF sample
was placed in a 250 mL glass bottle containing 200 mL of deionized
water at 25 °C (with three replicates). The nutrient release
rate was measured at 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 56, 70, 84, and
98 d, respectively. The NH4+-N and NO3–-N contents were determined using a SmartChem
200 discrete auto analyzer, while the urea content was determined
by the para-dimethylamino-benzaldehyde colorimetric
method. The total P and Fe contents were analyzed by an ICP-OES system
(iCAP 7000, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). The pH values
of the water solutions were determined using an Orion Star A211 pH
meter. The nutrient release behaviors were estimated via nutrient
cumulative release rates.
Nutrient Release in Soil
Soil incubation
experiments
were conducted to further investigate the nutrient release behaviors
of MOF using paddy soil (air-dried and sieved to 3 mm). The soil physicochemical
properties were as follows: organic matter, 19.76 g kg–1; total N, 1.32 g kg–1; NH4+-N, 11.35 mg kg–1; NO3–-N, 13.21 mg kg–1; available P, 16.88 mg kg–1; available K, 177.5 mg kg–1; and
available Fe, 6.81 g kg–1; pH, 6.43. Three treatments
were prepared: (1) control treatment and (2) MOF1 treatment. 200 g
of soil sample was placed in 8 cm diameter pots, 2.5 g of MOF sample
wrapped in a gauze with an aperture of 74 μm was buried in soil,
and the moisture was adjusted to 38% (w/w). (3) MOF2 treatment. The
procedure was the same as that for MOF1. A total of 117 pots (39 pots
per treatment) were prepared. All the pots were placed in a shade
house and were loosely covered with a plastic wrap to reduce soil
water evaporation. The soil and Fe-MOF samples were collected at 1,
3, 5, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 56, 70, 84, and 98 d. All soil and Fe-MOF
samples were air-dried.The mineral N (NH4+-N and NO3–-N) contents were determined
by a SmartChem 200 discrete auto analyzer. An ICP-OES spectrometer
was used to measure the soil available P and Fe. The soil pH was measured
using an Orion Star A211 pH meter. The N, P, and Fe release rates
from the Fe-MOFs were estimated by the mineral N, available P, and
available Fe in the soil. The calculation formulas were as followsThe cumulative release
data were assessed with the zero-order,
first-order, Higuchi, and Ritger-Peppas models by eqs –8, respectively.[24−26]Zero-order release kinetics modelFirst-order release kinetics modelHiguchi modelRitger-Peppas modelwhere M/M is
the nitrogen release rate (%) at time t, k is the rate constant, and n is the diffusion
parameter. The release mechanism is classified by the diffusion index
(n). If n < 0.43, it is the Fickian
diffusion mechanism; if 0.43 < n < 0.85, it
belongs to the non-Fickian diffusion mechanism; and if n > 0.85, it belongs to Case-II transport.[27]Fe-MOF samples were weighed for calculation of the degradation
rate. A Hitachi SU8200 scanning electron microscope, an FTIR-ATR spectrometer,
and a LIBS system were used to analyze the structural changes of MOF
during the incubation process.
The trial was conducted
at the Tangquan Experimental Base of the Nanjing Institute of Soil
Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences (32°04′ 15″N,
118°28′21″E). Soil physical and chemical properties
are as follows: organic matter, 18.25 g·kg–1; total nitrogen, 1.23 g·kg–1; ammonium nitrogen,
12.15 mg·kg–1; nitrate nitrogen, 14.33 mg·kg–1; available phosphorus, 17.65 mg·kg–1; available iron, 7.95 mg·kg–1; pH, 6.58.
The trial period: June 9, 2020 to November 15, 2020.
Experimental
Treatments
(1) No fertilizer control (CK)
and (2) conventional fertilization (CF). Fertilization levels were
N, 150 kg·hm–2; P2O5,
150 kg·hm–2; and K2O, 120 kg·hm–2. Phosphorus and potassium fertilizers were applied
as the base fertilizer, and the nitrogen fertilizer was applied as
the base fertilizer, tillering fertilizer, and panicle fertilizer
at a ratio of 5:2:3; and (3) Fe-MOF group. Fe-MOFs were used to replace
some conventional fertilizers (20% replacement of conventional nitrogen,
conventional phosphate fertilizer was not applied, and potassium fertilizer
was applied as the base fertilizer at the same fertilization level
as CF). Four replicate plots were set up for each treatment, and each
experimental plot was 20 m2 (4 m × 5 m). On June 9,
2020, rice seedlings with uniform size were artificially transplanted
with a row spacing of 25 cm and a plant spacing of 20 cm. Normal field
management was implemented during the experiment. Harvested on November
15, 2020, and the crop yields were tested.
Determination of Agronomic
Traits of Rice
At the mature
stage, a 1 m2 quadrat was selected from each experimental
plot to determine the agronomic traits of rice, including the 1000
kernel weight, seed setting rate, number of kernels per ear, and number
of effective ears. In addition, 20 plants were randomly selected from
each plot; the plant samples were dried in an oven at 105 °C
for 30 min and 80 °C at least for 72 h to achieve a constant
weight, and the biomass and total nitrogen content of plant straw
and rice ears were determined. The ground plant samples were digested
with the H2SO4–H2O2 mixture, and the total nitrogen content was determined by a SmartChem200
automatic analyzer (Alliance, France). The plant nitrogen accumulation
and nitrogen use efficiency were determined using the following equation
Statistics and Data Analysis
Excel 2010 was used to
organize and count the test data. Statistics and significant differences
were determined using software SPSS 19.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL,
USA).
Results and Discussion
Single
X-ray crystallographic
analysis demonstrated that the crystallizes of MOF1 and MOF2 were
in the monoclinic system with the same P21/c space group (Table S1). It is a symmetric unit composed of two Fe3+ ions, one
C2O42– ligand, three PO43– groups, two lattice water molecules,
and two NH4+ groups (Figure ). Fe was six-coordinated by four oxygen
atoms from four PO43- groups and two
oxygen atoms from one C2O42– ligand. Thus, the coordination geometry of Fe3+ was viewed
as a slightly distorted octahedron. The Fe–O bond lengths ranged
from 1.9159(16) to 2.1513(16) Å (Table S2). C2O42– ligands adopt one
coordination mode: carboxylate coordinated to two Fe3+centers
in a bis-bidentate mode. Each P atom was tetrahedrally coordinated
by four O atoms with P–O bond lengths and O–P–O
bond angles ranging from 1.4999 (18) to 1.5799(18) Å and 101.59(9)
to 113.68(10) Å, respectively. In the Fe-MOFs, adjacent Fe3+ was bridged by two PO4–- groups, forming an infinite ladder-like chain. These ladder-like
chains formed a 2D layer by the linkage of PO43– groups along the bc plane. Furthermore, the 2D
layers were extended into a three-dimensional framework via the linkage
of C2O42– ligands. Two water
molecules and two NH4+ groups were encapsulated
in the cavities of the framework.
Figure 1
Crystal structure of Fe-MOFs. FeO6 units are represented
by red octahedra, PO4 units by purple tetrahedra, NH4+ units by blue spheres, H2O by red
spheres, and C atoms by green spheres.
Crystal structure of Fe-MOFs. FeO6 units are represented
by red octahedra, PO4 units by purple tetrahedra, NH4+ units by blue spheres, H2O by red
spheres, and C atoms by green spheres.Figure A,B shows
that both the MOF1 and MOF2 FTIR spectra were similar. The wide peak
at 3250 cm–1 belongs to the stretching vibration
of N–H/O–H. The characteristic bands at 1650, 1430,
and 1025 cm–1 correspond to the stretching vibrations
of C=O, C–C, and C–O, respectively, which confirmed
the successful incorporation of an oxalic acid group. In the fingerprint
region, the smaller characteristic peak at 900 cm–1 corresponded to the stretching vibration of P–O, while the
peak did not appear in MOF0, which indicated that phosphoric acid
also participated in the thermolysis and became part of MOF1 and MOF2
materials. The MOF elemental composition was studied by LIBS (Figure C). MOF1 and MOF2
showed the same characteristic peaks; the peaks at 274.6, 500.3, 844.8,
777.3, and 655.6 nm corresponded to Fe, P, C, O, and H bands, respectively,
and the peaks at 746.8, 819.2, and 868.3 nm were attributed to N,
which confirmed that the two MOFs took on the same elemental composition
and demonstrated that all substrates were involved in the chemical
reaction to form the MOFs. For MOF0, the characteristic peaks of N
and P were not observed. Figure D shows the MOF PXRD spectrum, and the characteristic
peaks of the three MOFs differed, which indicated some structural
differences in the three crystals. Both MOF1 and MOF2 indicated high
crystallinity (91 and 92%, respectively). A comparison with the International
Centre for Diffraction Data yielded no MOF match; therefore; the synthesized
MOFs were classified as a new material, and the PXRD pattern simulated
using single-crystal data was not completely consistent with the experimental
spectrum, indicating that MOF1 and MOF2 contained other phases in
addition to C2H15Fe2N2O18P3 (Figure S1).
Figure 2
Structural characterizations of three Fe-MOFs by ATR-FTIR spectra
(A), FTIR-PAS spectra (B), LIBS spectra (C), and PXRD (D).
Structural characterizations of three Fe-MOFs by ATR-FTIR spectra
(A), FTIR-PAS spectra (B), LIBS spectra (C), and PXRD (D).The elemental compositions of the three Fe-MOF samples were
determined
using a CHN–O-rapid elemental analyzer and an ICP-OES system.
As shown in Table , the overall parameter indexes of MOF1 and MOF2 were relatively
close, which indicated that all substrates participated in the chemical
reaction of target MOF synthesis.
Table 1
Yields and Nutrient
Contents of MOF0,
MOF1, and MOF2a
%
MOF0 (%)
MOF1
MOF2
yields
23.70
27.53
26.65
N
6.21
5.85
P
14.62
14.33
Fe
21.85
13.85
15.52
C
8.73
5.23
6.87
H
6.32
5.32
4.89
MOF0, MOF synthesized
in the laboratory
scale; MOF1, MOF synthesized in the pilot scale; MOF2, MOF synthesized
in the laboratory scale.
MOF0, MOF synthesized
in the laboratory
scale; MOF1, MOF synthesized in the pilot scale; MOF2, MOF synthesized
in the laboratory scale.The elemental composition of the MOFs was also studied by XPS,
and the peaks at 724, 532, 402, 285, and 134 eV corresponded to the
characteristic peaks of Fe 2p1/2, O 1s, N 1s, C 1s, and
P 2p, respectively, which confirmed that ferric chloride, oxalic acid,
urea, and phosphoric acid all reacted to form MOF1 (Figure A–F). The characteristic
spectrum of MOF1 was deconvoluted to obtain high-resolution characteristic
peaks to study the chemical bond configuration. Fe3+ (712
eV), Fe2+ (709.2 eV), and RO-Fe (533.2 eV) revealed the
chemical bond structure, confirmed the mixed valent state of Fe in
MOF1, and matched with previous reports.[28−30] However, the
mixed valence state of Fe in the MOF lab scale was inconsistent with
the single-crystal structure that contains only Fe3+, which
further indicates that the MOF1 contained substances of other phases.
The peak at 401.98 eV belonged to NH4+, which
indicated the urea decomposition during thermolysis.
Figure 3
Elemental composition
and the corresponding valence state on the
surface of two Fe-MOFs. XPS spectra of MOF1 (A–F) and MOF2
(G–L).
Elemental composition
and the corresponding valence state on the
surface of two Fe-MOFs. XPS spectra of MOF1 (A–F) and MOF2
(G–L).As a structure directing reagent
(SDA), urea played an important
role in the structure and stability of the target product. For most
amine SDAs (diamines, diaminopropane, and piperazines) in MOF syntheses,
their structures usually remain unchanged and are embedded in the
MOF framework as guest molecules. However, previous studies have shown
that, in some cases, SDAs partially or fully decompose into a more
stable secondary structure.[31−33] In addition, the O–C=O
(290.38 eV), C–O (288.78 eV), C–O (286.18 eV), and C–C
(284.68 eV) bonds in the spectrum indicated the successful introduction
of oxalic acid. The peak at 133.7 eV belonged to P–O and confirmed
that phosphoric acid was involved in MOF formation and is part of
its framework. MOF2 has basically the same XPS spectral characteristics
as MOF1 (Figure G–L),
which indicated that the compounds synthesized in the pilot-scale
took on the same elemental composition and valence bond structure
as the laboratory-synthesized MOFs.The surface morphologies
of both MOFs were observed by SEM at different
magnifications. Figure A shows a rough and uneven MOF1 surface, gathered with many massive,
different-sized microcrystals, and similar to the MOF2 structure (Figure B). This indicated
that products with similar surface structures were obtained upon scaling
the hydrothermal reaction up from laboratory conditions. The EDX map
observed the elemental surface composition and distribution of MOFs
(Figure C,D). The
EDX results not only confirmed the elemental composition obtained
by FTIR-ATR, FTIR-PAS, LIBS, and XPS but also showed a better distribution
of these elements. The figures show an even distribution of Fe, P,
N, C, and O on the MOF surface and confirmed the participation of
all reagents during the MOF synthesis.
Figure 4
Microstructure and elemental
distributions of two Fe-MOFs. SEM
images of MOF1 (A) and MOF2 (B). EDX maps corresponding to the SEM
images for surface elemental distributions of MOF1 (C) and MOF2 (D).
Microstructure and elemental
distributions of two Fe-MOFs. SEM
images of MOF1 (A) and MOF2 (B). EDX maps corresponding to the SEM
images for surface elemental distributions of MOF1 (C) and MOF2 (D).
Release Profiles of Nutrients from Fe-MOFs
To study
the controlled-release ability of these materials, we measured the
nutrient release rates in water at 25 °C. As shown in Figure A, MOF1 and MOF2
showed similar N release behaviors. The cumulative release rates of
N within 98 days were 8.3 and 6.9%, respectively, far lower than the
previously reported N release rates of coated slow-release fertilizers.[34,35] Interestingly, we found that almost all N in the aqueous solution
came from urea, while urea and nitrate nitrogen were not detected,
indicating that urea completely decomposed into ammonium nitrogen
during thermolysis in agreement with XPS data. The cumulative release
rates of P and Fe were lower than N (Figure B,C), likely due to the external localization
of P and Fe on the MOF, while N was embedded in the pores inside the
MOF framework in the form of ammonium nitrogen via a hydrogen bond
or van der Waals force.[36] Therefore, the
release of P and Fe may be inhibited by the chemical bonds in the
framework that resulted in a nutrient release lag. In addition, during
the culture process, the pH of the water slowly decreased, possibly
due to ammonium-ion hydrolysis. These results showed that MOF1 and
MOF2 possess similar nutrient release behaviors. As we all know, the
nutrient release characteristics of slow-/controlled-release fertilizers
need to match the nutrient requirements of crops. However, the cumulative
release rates of N, P, and Fe within 98 days of Fe-MOFs were all below
10%, which is far from meeting the growing needs of crops.
Figure 5
Nutrient release
rates of two Fe-MOFs in water at 25 °C. (A)
N cumulative release rate; (B) P cumulative release rate; and (C)
Fe cumulative release rate.
Nutrient release
rates of two Fe-MOFs in water at 25 °C. (A)
N cumulative release rate; (B) P cumulative release rate; and (C)
Fe cumulative release rate.To truly understand the nutrient release law of MOFs, we conducted
soil culture experiments. The nutrient release rates in soil for both
MOFs arose significantly relative to water (Figures and 6). The cumulative
release rates within 98 days of mineral N from MOF1 and MOF2 were
85 and 78%, respectively, while the cumulative release rates of P
were 75 and 68%, respectively, and for Fe they were 34 and 35%, respectively.
Compared to N, the releases of P and Fe showed an obvious hysteresis,
which agreed with their release behavior in water. The results certified
that both MOFs showed similar nutrient release characteristics. Compared
to NH4+ nitrification, Fe2+/Fe3+ had a higher redox potential, so Fe2+ oxidation
resulted in the release of two hydrogen ions from every Fe atom.[37] In this study, XPS results also showed mixed
valent iron in the MOF. In conclusion, MOF favored nutrient release
in soil relative to water, which can be attributed to the decomposition
of the MOF by microorganisms in the soil. The oxalotrophic bacteria
could consume the structurally incorporated oxalate in the MOF material,
indicating that the microbially facilitated degradation of the MOF
in the soil, thus resulting in a faster nutrient release from MOF.[38]
Figure 6
Nutrient release rates of two Fe-MOFs in soil. (A) Mineral
N cumulative
release rate. (B) Available P cumulative release rate. (C) Available
Fe cumulative release rate.
Nutrient release rates of two Fe-MOFs in soil. (A) Mineral
N cumulative
release rate. (B) Available P cumulative release rate. (C) Available
Fe cumulative release rate.The release rates of N and P of MOF1 exceeded those of MOF2 and
showed good features for use as a controlled-release fertilizer. The
release mechanisms of N, P, and Fe from Fe-MOFs were also tested,
and the Higuchi model was selected as the optimal model based on the
high correlation coefficient (Table ). Because the diffusion indexes (n) were in the range
of 0.43–0.85, which indicates that the releases of N, P, and
Fe were controlled by non-Fickian diffusion.[39] In addition, MOF1 benefited the rice production, that is, significantly
increased the rice yield (Table ) as well as the dry matter mass of straw (stem and
leaf), nitrogen accumulation of rice grains, and nitrogen use efficiency
(Table S3).
Table 2
Correlation
Coefficients Obtained
from Fitting Mathematical Models to the Release Data of N, P, and
Fe from Fe-MOFs in Soila
R2
Fe-MOFs
models
N
P
Fe
MOF1
zero-order model
0.753
0.746
0.812
first-order model
0.823
0.805
0.782
Higuchi model
0.955 (n = 0.458)
0.962 (n = 0.492)
0.969 (n = 0.571)
Ritger–Peppas model
0.892
0.935
0.917
zero-order model
0.762
0.767
0.793
first-order model
0.799
0.821
0.807
MOF2
Higuchi model
0.942 (n = 0.446)
0.951(n = 0.476)
0.975 (n = 0.618)
Ritger–Peppas model
0.881
0.912
0.906
n, diffusion indexes.
Table 3
Effects of Fe-MOFs Synthesized in
the Pilot Scale on the Yield and Agronomic Traits of Ricea
agronomic traits
CK
CF
Fe-MOFs
yields (kg·hm–2)
5490 ± 463 b
10231.5 ± 1426 a
10429.5 ± 1022 a
1000 kernel
weight (g)
32.66 ± 0.56 a
32.24 ± 0.36 a
31.80 ± 0.35 a
number of kernels per ear
71.58 ± 8.78 b
92.25 ± 5.41 a
94.25 ± 2.17 a
effective ear number (× 106·hm–2)
7.67 ± 0.67 b
11.44 ± 0.38 a
10.17 ± 0.38 a
seed-setting rate (%)
95.28 ± 0.73 a
95.17 ± 0.33 a
95.74 ± 0.37 a
CK—no fertilizer control;
CF—conventional fertilizer; values followed by different small
letters in the same line mean significant difference among treatments
(p < 0.05).
n, diffusion indexes.CK—no fertilizer control;
CF—conventional fertilizer; values followed by different small
letters in the same line mean significant difference among treatments
(p < 0.05).
Degradation of Fe-MOFs in Soil
The degradation rates
were studied by weighing. Within 98 days, the degradation rates of
MOF 1 and MOF2 were 82 and 72%, respectively (Figure S2). In the presence of soil, the MOF structure changed
significantly. On the 7th day of culture, cracks and faults appeared
on both MOF surfaces. Over time, the MOF surfaces gradually corroded
and decomposed into smaller massive structures (Figure A,B). The infrared spectra showed a gradual
decrease in characteristic MOF peak intensities, indicating a chemical
structure change upon degradation (Figure C,D). At the same time, the characteristic
peaks in the MOF LIBS spectra also decreased gradually with time,
indicating that the MOF elements decrease gradually with degradation
(Figure S3). The PXRD of MOFs showed that
all diffraction peaks gradually weaken and some peaks disappear (Figure S4). In addition, decreases in the crystallinities
of MOF1 and MOF2 were also found through calculations.
Figure 7
Degradation of Fe-MOFs
in soil. SEM images of MOF1 (A) and MOF2
(B) at different degradation times. FTIR-ATR spectra of MOF1 (C) and
MOF2 (D) at different degradation times.
Degradation of Fe-MOFs
in soil. SEM images of MOF1 (A) and MOF2
(B) at different degradation times. FTIR-ATR spectra of MOF1 (C) and
MOF2 (D) at different degradation times.The organic ligand in this study was oxalic acid, and it played
an important role in the soil ecosystem. It is reported that oxalate
increases the available phosphorus in soil.[40,41] Oxalate–carbonate pathway is considered to be an important
part of the geochemical carbon cycle. Its essence is the conversion
of oxalate to carbonate (usually the biological conversion of calcium
oxalate to calcium carbonate). However, due to the high activation
energy required for oxalate oxidation, conversion of oxalate to carbonate
does not occur spontaneously, though microorganisms use oxalate to
drive this pathway. These bacteria use oxalate as a carbon source
and energy. The enriched soil solution was inoculated on the agar
plate modified by calcium oxalate. Due to the low solubility of calcium
oxalate, the appearance of agar was opaque. Therefore, transparent
areas around the calcium oxalate particles indicated the consumption
of calcium oxalate by bacteria growing on agar, which further proved
the existence of oxalate-consuming bacteria in the soil.[42] Therefore, these bacteria might cause MOF degradation
by consuming oxalate (Figure ).
Figure 8
Schematic diagram of MOF degradation.
Schematic diagram of MOF degradation.A comparison of the structures of both MOFs revealed differences
and similarities. Despite scaling the pilot synthesis up based on
laboratory results, the flow, mass transfer, heat transfer, and other
factors may change; this may alter crystal nuclei formation and/or
crystal structures. However, the nutrient release behaviors of MOF1
and MOF2 were consistent, so both have potential for use as controlled-release
fertilizers. Although researchers have made significant progress in
MOF research recently, very little has seen industrial or commercial
adaptation.[43] Different from laboratory-scale
studies, the industrial production of MOF materials must consider
production applicability, production cost, and treatment of “three
wastes” (waste gases, wastewater, and waste residues). The
hydrothermal process utilized in this pilot plant study was mild and
controllable, but the yields were relatively low (<30%). Therefore,
recovering the metal ions and organic ligands in the solution, realizing
the continuous and efficient synthesis of MOFs, and improving the
MOF yields represent the next steps in this important area. Although
many other factors require consideration and solving for the industrial
production of MOF controlled-release fertilizers, the overall synthetic
process developed in this study provides a foundation for additional
studies to support the production of next generation of industrial
MOF materials.
Conclusions
Under hydrothermal reaction
conditions, we developed a pilot-scale
preparation of a new Fe-MOF rich in nitrogen, phosphorus, and iron
nutrients. FTIR, LIBS, XPS, and SEM–EDX characterizations showed
that all substrates were involved in the Fe-MOF synthesis. The Fe-MOFs
had a chemical structure similar to the laboratory-synthesized Fe-MOFs
with the molecular formula of C2H15Fe2N2O18P3. The Fe-MOFs showed better
nutrient release behavior in soil than that in water, which matched
well with the crop growth, thereby effectively improving nitrogen
use efficiency, agronomic indicators, and crop yield. As a result,
the Fe-MOFs had the potential for use as a controlled-release fertilizer.
The successful pilot-scale synthesis of Fe-MOFs confirmed the feasibility
of the synthetic process, provided reference and support for the industrial
production of Fe-MOFs as a new controlled-release fertilizer in the
future, and provided novel ideas for the development of new fertilizers.
Authors: Alistair C McKinlay; Russell E Morris; Patricia Horcajada; Gérard Férey; Ruxandra Gref; Patrick Couvreur; Christian Serre Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2010-08-23 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Gaëtan Martin; Matteo Guggiari; Daniel Bravo; Jakob Zopfi; Guillaume Cailleau; Michel Aragno; Daniel Job; Eric Verrecchia; Pilar Junier Journal: Environ Microbiol Date: 2012-08-29 Impact factor: 5.491
Authors: Omar K Farha; Ibrahim Eryazici; Nak Cheon Jeong; Brad G Hauser; Christopher E Wilmer; Amy A Sarjeant; Randall Q Snurr; SonBinh T Nguyen; A Özgür Yazaydın; Joseph T Hupp Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2012-08-31 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Manuela Anstoetz; Terry J Rose; Malcolm W Clark; Lachlan H Yee; Carolyn A Raymond; Tony Vancov Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 3.240