Warning: file_put_contents(/opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/storage/proxy/cache/323e920f88d8303431a1b4311a5b93a7.html): Failed to open stream: No space left on device in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php on line 36

Warning: http_response_code(): Cannot set response code - headers already sent (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 17

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 20
Coupling of Li–Fe: Li Isotope Fractionation during Sorption onto Fe-Oxides | ACS Earth and Space Chemistry
  • Open Access
Article

Coupling of Li–Fe: Li Isotope Fractionation during Sorption onto Fe-Oxides
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

ACS Earth and Space Chemistry

Cite this: ACS Earth Space Chem. 2025, 9, 1, 49–63
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.4c00205
Published November 25, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Chemical weathering processes play a key role in regulating the global climate over geological time scales. Lithium (Li) isotope compositions have proven to be a robust proxy for tracing weathering processes that produce secondary minerals, such as clays and oxides, with a focus often placed on Li adsorption to, or incorporation into, clay minerals. In addition, the interaction between Li and Fe-oxides has long been assumed and discussed based on field observations, but experimental constraints on this process are lacking. Here, we investigated the geochemical behavior of Li during its sorption onto individual Fe-oxides, including goethite, hematite, wüstite, and magnetite. With a point of zero charge at ∼7.7, poorly crystallized goethite nanoparticles take up ∼20% of dissolved Li over a pH range from ∼4 to ∼10, rising to ∼90% at pH ∼12. In contrast, the sorption of dissolved Li is insignificant for well-crystallized Fe-oxides (hematite, wüstite, magnetite, and goethite). This Li uptake by poorly crystallized goethite is likely attributed to dissolution and reprecipitation reactions at poorly crystalline goethite surfaces. The goethite particles preferentially take up light 6Li isotopes, resulting in an isotope fractionation of Δ7Lioxide-fluid ∼ −16.7 to −20.1‰. Overall, our study provides valuable data to better understand the processes occurring in highly weathered soil and sediment profiles that are rich in Fe-oxides, such as laterites. This research also emphasizes the significance of chemistry at mineral surfaces during mineral–water interactions and illuminates the mechanisms of large-scale Li extraction for future applications.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

Note Added after ASAP Publication

This paper published ASAP on November 25, 2024 with an incomplete author list. The list was updated to add Josephina J.P.A. Mulders, and the revised paper was reposted on December 12, 2024.

1. Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The complex interactions among the lithosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere at the Earth’s surface play a crucial role in shaping landscapes, in facilitating the transfer of matter from the continents to the oceans, and in regulating long-term climate via the consumption of atmospheric carbon dioxide through silicate weathering. (1,2) Using lithium (Li) isotopes to investigate and quantify water–rock interactions has been shown to be a robust approach due to (1) an enrichment of Li in secondary phases such as clays; (2) significant Li isotope fractionation due to the large relative mass difference between the two isotopes (7Li and 6Li); and (3) little involvement of Li in biological processes. (3−8)
In the past three decades, there have been major advances in our understanding of Li isotope geochemistry, which has received considerable attention due to its applications for water–rock interactions and weathering studies. During water–rock interactions, the lighter 6Li is preferentially retained in solid secondary materials, causing an enrichment of heavy 7Li in the fluid phase. (9−12) Therefore, Li isotope compositions in geological materials (expressed as δ7Li values, in permille relative to the 7Li/6Li ratio in the standard reference material L-SVEC: δ7Li (‰) = ((7Li/6Li)/(7Li/6Li)L-SVEC – 1) × 1000) can be used to investigate chemical weathering histories, (5,13−23) seawater-composition evolution, (4,24−26) and authigenic clay formation. (26−28)
A number of experimental approaches have been used to constrain Li isotope fractionation during water–rock interactions under both high-temperature (29−33) and low-temperature (9−12,34−37) conditions. In general, these studies demonstrate that (1) there is little Li isotope fractionation associated with mineral dissolution processes; (2) Li isotope fractionation takes place during the formation of secondary phases; and (3) Li isotope fractionation is inversely related to temperature, with less fractionation at high temperatures.
Despite these significant advancements in Li isotope geochemistry, a few key scientific questions remain under-addressed. In particular, how Li behaves during interactions between Fe-(oxyhydr)oxides and solutions requires further investigation. (38) Iron oxide minerals are the dominant constituents of laterite and lateritic soils, which represent the products of prolonged and/or intense weathering processes. (39,40) Observations on such deposits show a more complex relationship between Li behavior (Li concentrations and δ7Li values) and Fe-oxide-rich materials compared to the Li behavior in systems dominated by silicates. For example, in a laterite profile from Deccan, India, Kısakürek et al. (41) observed a distinct difference in Li behavior between a paleo-watertable sample with highly elevated Fe contents, which had low Li concentrations and low δ7Li values, and other samples from the same depth profile with lower Fe contents that were characterized by a negative relationship between Li concentrations and Li isotopes. The authors attributed the former observation to a weathering signal and the latter observation to an external dust endmember mixing with the laterite materials. In laterite soil profiles from Yunnan, China, Ji et al. (42) reported a negative correlation between Si isotopes and Li isotopes and a positive relationship between Li isotopes and Fe3+/Fe2+ ratios. These observations are intriguing because they also differ from findings for phyllosilicate-rich materials, in which Si isotopes and Li isotopes are positively correlated. (28,43) In addition, the correlation between δ7Li values and Fe3+/Fe2+ ratios in the laterite seemingly implies that redox conditions may play a role in setting Li isotope signatures in oxides, even though Li has only one valence state. Unfortunately, in these studies, no oxides were separated from the bulk soils for analysis. Therefore, the observed relationships between Li and Fe content remain empirical, and the mechanisms driving the coupling between Li and Fe are unclear.
In non-laterite profiles, Fe-oxides have also been proposed to modify fluid Li geochemistry. (21,44,45) For example, in Iceland, ferrihydrite is one of the most common secondary phases formed during the weathering of basalts and is found even in young soils, where interesting relationships between the Fe content and the δ7Li values of both solids and solutions have also been observed. (46,47) On the one hand, it has been suggested that the formation and presence of ferrihydrite could potentially fractionate Li isotopes and generate high δ7Li values in the fluids. (46) However, no correlation is observed between the abundance of ferrihydrite and the δ7Li signature in Icelandic soils. (47)
How Li interacts with Fe-oxides remains insufficiently addressed due to a lack of experimental investigations. For example, experimental work has shown that different Li isotope fractionations can be associated with Li uptake by the various locations (octahedral site, outer-sphere complex, etc.) of clay minerals. (9,10) In contrast, it is unclear if similar mechanisms are in operation during the interaction between Li and Fe-oxides, and the literature presents contradictory suggestions for the association of Li with Fe-oxides during water–rock interactions. (48,49) On the one hand, studies of suspended sediments from Greenland and a catchment observatory in Shale Hills (Pennsylvania, USA) assumed that a significant amount of Li may be taken up by Fe-(oxyhydr)oxides (44,48) and suggested an associated isotope fractionation of ∼−20‰. (48) On the other hand, the Li geochemistry of marine ferromanganese deposits (49) implies that little seawater Li is adsorbed onto the surface of goethite or amorphous FeOOH, which hold a slightly positive charge at seawater pH values.
To date, only one study has directly investigated the effect of Fe-oxides on fluid Li geochemistry. A single experiment conducted by Pistiner and Henderson (34) has shown that a moderate proportion of dissolved Li (32%) can be taken up by ferrihydrite after 24 h, generating a change in fluid δ7Li values of 1.6‰. The associated Li isotope fractionation (Δ7Lisolid–fluid = δ7Lisolid – δ7Lifluid = ∼−3.5‰) is significantly smaller than the fractionation observed during clay formation, which typically ranges from −16 to −22‰, (9−12,50,51) but is close to some fractionations observed for Li adsorption onto exchangeable outer-sphere sites of clay minerals (Δ7Li ∼ 0‰). (9,10,34) In contrast, indirect approaches based on oxide leaching methods suggest a larger Li isotope fractionation by Fe-oxides, ranging from −16 to −27‰, (52) but such leaching methods suffer from potential contamination by other secondary phases because no chemical reagent has absolute selectivity.
Most previous experimental studies of Li isotope fractionation during weathering have focused on Al-rich secondary minerals, such as gibbsite and phyllosilicates. Compared to these minerals, Fe-oxides such as goethite and hematite have no interlayers because Fe-oxide structures are usually close-packed. (53,54) Gibbsite or clay minerals are therefore not suitable as analogues for understanding interactions of Li with Fe-oxides. In contrast to the suggestion that little Li is adsorbed by goethite mineral surfaces, (49) experimental studies (55−57) have used magic angle spinning nuclear magnetic resonance (MAS NMR) to demonstrate that Li can be adsorbed by goethite under pH conditions ranging from 4 to 11. The NMR characterization also suggests that the Li binding sites are different under different pH conditions. (55,57) Given that goethite has a point of zero charge (PZC) value of 8.3 ± 0.9, (55,58) it is intriguing that Li+ can be adsorbed onto goethite surfaces even in acidic environments where the surface should hold a positive charge.
The contrasting observations of Li behavior in Fe-rich geological materials and a lack of experimental work warrant new studies investigating the interaction between Li and Fe-rich minerals such as oxides. Here, we focus on the interaction between dissolved Li+ in aqueous solutions and a range of Fe-oxide minerals (goethite, hematite, wüstite, and magnetite) at pH values between 2 and 12. Through sorption experiments, we address how much Li is taken up by these Fe-oxides across a wide range of initial pH, assess the uptake mechanisms, and determine the Li isotope fractionation associated with sorption.

2. Materials and Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

2.1. Materials

Six samples, including four different Fe-oxides, were employed in this study. Two goethite (FeOOH) and two hematite (Fe2O3) samples were used to represent fully oxidized Fe-oxides, whereas the mixed valence and less oxidized Fe-oxides were represented by magnetite (Fe3O4) and wüstite (FeO). The Fe-oxides were either synthesized (two goethite and one hematite sample) or commercially available (magnetite, wüstite, and one hematite sample). The Fe3O4 powder used as magnetite was iron (II, III) oxide (Aldrich 99.99%, Lot# MKBP9789 V). Iron(II) oxide was used as wüstite (Aldrich 99.9%, Lot# STBF3726 V). Iron(III) oxide powder (Aldrich ≥ 99%, Lot# MKBS6874 V) was used as a hematite sample. The samples synthesized on site (two goethite and one hematite sample) were produced in the laboratory following methods described by Cornell and Schwertmann. (53) Hematite was prepared at high temperature by heating a 0.002 M HCl solution containing 0.02 M FeCl3 for 10 days at 98 °C. Goethite samples were synthesized at both low and high temperatures. Low-temperature goethite synthesis was achieved by bubbling air through a mixture of 110 mL 1 M NaHCO3 and 1 L 0.05 M FeCl2·4H2O solutions for 48 h at room temperature (∼21 °C). High-temperature goethite was synthesized by adding 180 mL 5 M KOH solution into 100 mL 1 M Fe(NO3)3, diluting to 2 L, heating at 70 °C for 60 h, washing with double-deionized water, and finally drying at 50 °C. To distinguish the two hematite samples, hematite synthesized in our laboratory is referred to as hematitesyn, and hematite from a commercial source is referred to as hematitecom. To distinguish the goethite synthesized using different methods, the goethite produced at low temperature is referred to as goethiteLT, and the goethite synthesized at high temperature is referred to as goethiteHT. The synthesized Fe-oxides were washed repeatedly with double-deionized water and freeze-dried. The specific surface area (SSA) of the oxide powders, as determined by nitrogen adsorption using the Brunauer–Emmet–Teller (BET) method at Utrecht University (UU), ranged widely from 0.137 to 146 m2/g (Table 1).
Table 1. Specific Surface Areas (SSA) of Fe-Oxides
oxide sampledescriptionSSA (m2/g)
goethiteLTsynthesized at ∼21 °C145.824 ± 1.196
goethiteHTsynthesized at 70 °C28.292 ± 0.198
hematitesynsynthesized at 98 °C15.547 ± 0.198
hematitecomAldrich3.110 ± 0.233
magnetiteAldrich7.265 ± 0.039
wüstiteAldrich0.137 ± 0.059

2.2. Experiments

Two sets of sorption experiments were performed in the Geolab at UU. The first set of experiments (Experiment 1) investigated the effect of pH on the interaction between dissolved Li and various Fe-oxide particles. The second set of experiments (Experiment 2) studied Li uptake by Fe-oxide particles (goethiteLT) as a function of time. In all of the experiments, a 0.1 M NaCl solution was used as the fluid matrix to minimize potential complex reactions between Fe-oxide particles and other dissolved ions.
In the Experiment 1 series, stock solution was prepared by diluting concentrated LiCl solution, which is made by dissolving LiCl (Carl Roth > 99%, Lot#212309558) in double-deionized water, using 0.1 M NaCl to obtain a Li concentration of ∼175 μM. Then, five substock solutions were prepared by adjusting the pH of each solution using either 0.1 M HCl or 0.1 M NaOH to reach the desired pH values of 1.98, 4.01, 5.96, 8.01, and 11.98. Before the experiment, the Fe-oxide particles (Table 1) were first preconditioned with a 0.1 M NaCl solution, recollected through centrifugation, and freeze-dried. Then, 10 mL of substock solution was added to approximately 0.2 g of Fe-oxide particles in 15 mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes, except for the hematitecom experiments in which less than 0.1 g of particles were used. In the subexperiments that used commercially obtained oxides, trace amounts of Li at the level of μg/g may have been present as impurities. However, their impact on the experiment is considered insignificant due to the high Li background concentration (∼175 μM) of the initial solution. The interaction experiments between fluid and Fe-oxide lasted for 30 days, with the suspension manually shaken twice a week and left at room temperature. Then, the samples were centrifuged at 4000 rpm to separate the aqueous solution from the solid Fe-oxides. An aliquot of the sample solutions (∼2 mL) was collected and filtered with 0.2 μm pore-size syringe filters for Li isotope and chemical analyses, and the remaining solution volumes were used for pH measurements.
In the Experiment 2 series, 2.494 g of goethiteLT particles were allowed to interact with 80 mL of mixed LiCl-NaCl solution. The solution initially had a pH of 12.03, a LiCl concentration of 36 μM, and a NaCl concentration of 0.1 M. The reaction was performed in a precleaned 100 mL borosilicate bottle, which was stirred with a magnetic stir bar at a room temperature of 21 ± 1 °C. The well-mixed solution was sampled after 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 70 days of interaction. At each sampling point, 2 mL of sample mixtures containing both the reacting fluid and solids were pipetted and filtered using a 0.2 μm syringe filter.
Finally, a series of desorption experiments (Experiment 3) were conducted. At the end of Experiment 1, the Fe-oxide particles were carefully rinsed with double-distilled water and ethanol, filtered at 0.2 μm, and freeze-dried. Selected samples were allowed to react with extraction agents to investigate the desorption capacity of adsorbed Li. Two different agents were used to examine the effect of the pH on the extraction. For one experiment, ∼0.01 g reacted Fe-oxide particles were extracted using 2 mL of 1 M NH4Cl solution at a pH of 4.84. In a separate experiment, ∼0.05 g of Fe-oxide particles were extracted using 3 mL of 1 M NH4OAc at a pH of 7.26. The extraction experiments were conducted in 15 mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes, and the samples were shaken for 24 h, with the extracted solutions collected by centrifugation at 4000 rpm and filtration at 0.2 μm. In all of our experiments, no unforeseen or unusually high safety risks were identified.

2.3. Fluid Chemical and Isotopic Analyses

Measurements of Li concentrations were conducted in the Geolab at UU for high-concentration samples ([Li] > 144 μM or 1 μg/mL) and at Institute de Physique du Globe de Paris (France) for samples with lower Li concentrations ([Li] < 144 μM or 1 μg/mL). All samples were redissolved in 0.7 M HNO3. High-concentration samples were measured by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS, NeXION 2000P) and were calibrated using a set of standards with concentrations ranging from 0 to 10.8 μM (or 75 ng/mL). The detection limit ranged from 0.14–1.44 μM (or 1–10 ng/mL), depending on operational conditions. Low-concentration samples were measured by inductively coupled plasma quadrupole mass spectrometry (ICP-Q-MS, Agilent 7900) and were calibrated using a set of standards with concentrations ranging from 0.14 to 28.81 μM (or 1–200 ng/mL). Independent standard solutions with concentrations of 10–100 ng/mL were prepared in-house by diluting certified quality control standards (QCP-QCS-1 and IV-28, Inorganic Ventures) and measured to determine analytical accuracy. Analytical uncertainties for measurements at both laboratories were below 10%. Several samples were measured in both laboratories and had concentration differences that were within 2%. Sodium contents were measured by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES, PerkinElmer Avio 500) in the Geolab at UU with an analytical uncertainty better than 10%.
A double-step separation protocol using AG50W X-12 200–400 mesh cation exchange resin and elution with 0.2 M HCl (11) was followed to purify Li from the sample matrix prior to Li isotope measurements of the aqueous solutions. (46,52,59) The Li isotope composition of the purified samples was measured at the LOGIC laboratories at University College London (United Kingdom) using a Nu Plasma 3 multi-collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (MC-ICP-MS) coupled to a CETAC Aridus III desolvating nebulizer system. An IRMM-016 solution was used as the bracketing standard to correct for instrumental mass fractionation. Atlantic seawater and blanks were processed together with the experimental samples to check the quality of the Li purification and Li isotope measurement. The IRMM-016 standard had an intensity of ∼17 pA for a 1 ng/mL solution (∼1.7 V/ppb), the background solution (2% HNO3 v/v) had an intensity less than 0.02 pA, and the total procedural blank had a signal of 0.09 pA, registering a negligible effect (<0.2% of total Li) on the Li isotope measurements. Two Atlantic seawater samples were measured, with δ7Li values (30.9 ± 0.5 and 30.7 ± 0.1‰) in good agreement with previously reported seawater values. (11,60) Measurement uncertainties are, in general, better than 0.5‰ (2 s.d), and the long-term external error, based on seawater analyzed over a period of several years, is ±0.4‰ (2 s.d., n = 52). (46)

2.4. Characterization of Fe-Oxide Particles

All of the Fe-oxide particles were characterized in the Geolab at UU using a Bruker-AXS D8 ADVANCE X-ray diffractometer (XRD) DAVINCI design with a LYNXEYE XE-T detector (with 192 measuring points) and a θ/θ goniometer. The accuracy was 0.01° 2θ. In brief, ∼1 g of the bulk sample was loaded and scanned from 3 to 80 2θ (°) using Cu Kα X-ray radiation, and ∼0.1 g of samples recovered from the experiment was scanned from 5 to 80 2θ (°). Solid samples were also characterized by attenuated total reflectance–Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR) and Raman spectroscopy. Raman spectra were acquired on a WITEC Alpha 300 system equipped with a 532 nm laser and a grating of 600 grooves/mm. Spectra were acquired for 30 seconds to provide sufficient signal to noise ratios. The ATR-FTIR measurements were performed using a Thermo Fisher Scientific Nicolet 6700 instrument equipped with a GladiATR monolithic diamond crystal ATR accessory. Selected goethite samples were analyzed at the Electron Microscope Centre at UU using a Zeiss Gemini 450 scanning electron microscope (SEM) and a Thermo Fisher Talos F200X (scanning) transmission electron microscope ((S)TEM) to examine the main morphological features and nanostructures of the goethite particles.

3. Results

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The XRD patterns and ATR-FTIR absorbances of the Fe-oxides used for this study are displayed in Figures S1 and S2. Notably, goethiteHT exhibits a higher crystallinity than goethiteLT, as indicated by the smaller width at half-height of the XRD and ATR-FTIR bands for goethiteHT. Imaging by SEM further demonstrates the differences between goethiteLT and goethiteHT (Figure 1a,b). The goethiteHT grains display a well-defined mineral morphology, with clear facets and smooth mineral surfaces (Figure 1b). The grain lengths were >1 μm, and widths generally ranged from ∼100 to ∼200 nm. Less defined surficial features were observed in the goethiteLT particles (Figure 1a). These particles are significantly smaller than those synthesized at high temperatures (goethiteHT particles), and their characteristics can only be observed under TEM, which has a higher spatial resolution. The goethiteLT particles had grain lengths varying from ∼50 to ∼70 nm and widths ranging from 5 to 10 nm (Figure 2a,b).

Figure 1

Figure 1. SEM characterization of (a) goethiteLT and (b) goethiteHT particles. Inset graphs show XRD results (Figure S1).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Solid characterization of goethiteLT particles using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and high-resolution TEM (HRTEM): (a) unreacted goethiteLT particles; (b) particles from (a) observed under HRTEM; (c) goethiteLT particles interacted with a solution of pH ∼ 12; and (d) particles from panel (c) observed under HRTEM.

In the Experiment 1 series, with the exception of the goethiteLT experiments, no significant Li uptake by Fe-oxides was observed across the pHi (i denotes initial) range from 2 to 10 (Figure 3). Although an ∼10% decrease in fluid Li content was observed for the experiments at pHi ∼ 12, this difference is within the margin of uncertainty and therefore not significant. In the experiments where goethiteLT was the sorbing substrate, ∼25% Li was removed from the fluid phase when pHi was between 4 and 10, and ∼90% Li was removed at pHi ∼ 12 (Figure 3 and Table 2).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Lithium sorption onto Fe-oxides at various initial pH values: (a) changes of fluid Li content in percentage under different initial pH conditions with various Fe-oxides from Experiment 1; and (b) δ7Li signatures in fluids at the end of sorption from selected samples, with the initial δ7Li signature of the LiCl stock solution marked by the dashed lines (12.8 ± 0.4‰).

Table 2. Experiment 1: Li Sorption by Fe-Oxide Powders (Goethite, Hematite, Magnetite, and Wüstite) at Various pH Conditions
samplemass of oxides (g)pHipHf[Li]i (μmol/L)a[Li]f (μmol/L)a[Na]i (mmol/L)a[Na]f (mmol/L)aexpected initial surface charge based on PZCbfinal δ7Li in solution2 s.d.
goethiteLT synthesized at 21 °C
GX20.19892.014.15180.70180.07108.01115.31   
GX40.19244.067.68185.55141.41107.02110.47+16.60.4
GX60.19695.987.68181.38139.35108.85110.50+13.70.9
GX80.19738.037.67183.03139.25108.35111.7316.90.7
GX100.191410.017.64185.94141.06106.43112.3616.80.3
GX120.194311.989.72188.1821.12117.46116.82 28.10.5
goethiteHT synthesized at 70 °C
GN20.20712.012.09180.70180.63108.01108.10   
GN40.20504.066.73185.55178.96107.02109.28+  
GN60.20345.986.92181.38188.75108.85110.80+  
GN80.20488.036.99183.03180.38108.35110.43  
GN100.207010.017.21185.94185.80106.43110.97  
GN120.199511.9811.91188.18174.68117.46119.47 12.10.3
synthesized hematitesyn
HX20.20772.011.96180.70179.68108.01104.77   
HX40.22524.063.78185.55184.52107.02110.74  
HX60.19955.984.06181.38178.59108.85108.39  
HX80.20048.034.21183.03181.64108.35108.69  
HX100.200510.014.14185.94177.99106.43105.65  
HX120.201311.9811.85188.18166.12117.46114.99 12.90.8
commercially available hematitecom
HN20.03782.011.97180.70171.73108.01110.23   
HN40.04724.064.33185.55181.75107.02107.47   
HN60.09915.986.07181.38185.55108.85107.53+  
HN80.08968.036.32183.03179.98108.35109.48  
HN100.033410.016.96185.94183.76106.43107.19  
HN120.049311.9812.03188.18182.51117.46115.50   
commercially available magnetite
M20.19202.012.13180.70184.15108.01106.30   
M40.10124.066.85185.55182.84107.02107.12+  
M60.19935.987.03181.38174.80108.85112.07+  
M80.19818.037.06183.03185.44108.35114.24  
M100.216610.017.47185.94189.69106.43110.81  
M120.197711.9811.95188.18166.59117.46117.74 13.50.6
commercially available wüstite
W20.19882.013.91180.70179.94108.01110.27   
W40.22704.0610.08185.55182.42107.02103.57+  
W60.19925.9810.26181.38179.17108.85107.39+  
W80.17298.0310.14183.03179.38108.35108.66+  
W100.175210.0110.15185.94178.53106.43109.03+  
W120.187611.9811.92188.18170.80117.46122.40 13.41.0
a

Analytical uncertainty is ±10%.

b

PZC is reflected in the pHf when this is consistent within 1 pH unit and across several initial pH conditions. Under these conditions, it is expected that charge neutrality is achieved via interaction with solution ions only; therefore, the expected initial charge is not given for the highest and lowest pH experiments, which deviate in their final pH.

A “buffer” effect was observed in the experiments based on the difference between pHi and pHf (f denotes final) when the pHi was between 4 and 10. In these cases, pHf reached very similar values when the same phase was used despite the different initial pH values (Figure 4): 7.67 ± 0.02 for goethiteLT experiments, 6.96 ± 0.17 for goethiteHT, 4.05 ± 0.16 for hematitesyn, 5.92 ± 0.97 for hematitecom, 7.10 ± 0.23 for magnetite, and 10.15 ± 0.06 for wüstite. The experiments conducted at pHi of ∼2 and ∼12 did not follow this trend and instead remained at a similar pH throughout the experiment, except for the experiments with goethiteLT where the pH was shifted by ∼2 units toward neutral in both experiments. A similar shift was observed for wüstite in the experiment at pHi ∼ 2 but not at pHi ∼ 12.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Variations in fluid pH at the beginning (pHi) and the end (pHf) of the Li-sorption experiments.

As most of the experiments showed a similar behavior in their pHf and minimal to no Li uptake, only selected samples were analyzed for their δ7Li signatures, including samples from the goethiteLT experiments and samples from the most alkaline experiments for all Fe-oxide types (pHi ∼ 12). For the goethiteLT experiments, all of the solutions were either slightly or significantly enriched in the heavy Li isotope 7Li compared to their initial LiCl-NaCl solution, which had a δ7Li value of 12.8 ± 0.4‰ (Figure 3b). The solutions from the goethiteLT experiments conducted at pH ranging from 4 to 10 resulted in a similar pHf (∼7.6) and degree of Li sorption (∼25%) and also had relatively similar δ7Li signatures (16.0 ± 1.3‰). The experiment with the highest uptake at pHi ∼ 12 had the highest δ7Li value of 28.1 ± 0.5‰. In contrast, the experiments conducted at pHi ∼ 12 with the other Fe-oxides all produced δ7Li values that were within the error of their initial LiCl-NaCl solution value (Figure 3b).
In the Experiment 2 series, fluid Li was rapidly taken up by goethiteLT, with the dissolved Li content decreasing from ∼36 to ∼3 μM within 1 day, after which the concentration of Li in solution remained stable (Table 3, Figure 5). The fluid samples from Experiment 2 were also analyzed for their δ7Li signatures, revealing a consistent enrichment of 7Li in solution during fluid interaction with goethiteLT. Compared to the initial LiCl-NaCl solution (δ7Li = 12.8‰ ± 0.4), the final solutions of the goethiteLT subexperiments had δ7Li signatures that varied from 29.7 to 32.6‰. This change in the Li isotope composition directly corresponds to the rapid removal of Li from the solution and the change in the pH within the first day of this experiment (Table 3).

Figure 5

Figure 5. Lithium sorption and isotope fractionation by goethiteLT at pHi ∼ 12 from Experiment 2. Changes in fluid Li content are represented in %.

Table 3. Experiment 2: Li Sorption through Time by GoethiteLT Powders with a Starting pH of 12
sampleelapsed time (days)[Li] (μmol/kg)aδ7Li in solution2 s.d.pH[Na] (mmol/kg)a
LiCl-NaCl solution 36.212.80.412.03116.22
D112.832.10.49.73113.56
D222.632.11.0 111.54
D442.232.60.9 115.61
D882.232.10.69.68113.03
D16161.931.80.9 116.95
D30301.931.30.2 115.29
D70702.129.70.99.59114.63
a

Analytical uncertainty is ±10%.

Selected samples of solid goethiteLT recovered from Experiments 1 and 2 were characterized by TEM, ATR-FTIR, XRD, and Raman spectroscopy. No significant difference was observed in the mineral morphology between the reacted and unreacted goethiteLT particles (e.g., Figure 2c,d cf. Figure 2a,b). Shifts of ATR-FTIR absorbance were observed between the unreacted goethiteLT particles and the goethiteLT particles recovered from the sorption experiments. At ca. 630 cm–1, the band positions of reacted goethiteLT particles from Experiments 1 and 2 are shifted to lower wavenumbers compared to those of unreacted goethiteLT particles (Figure S3). For comparison, the peak positions of unreacted goethiteHT particles were also analyzed, and they showed the same bands, but the band close to 630 cm–1 was found to occur at a higher wavenumber than determined for the goethiteLT particles (Figure S3). Minor differences were observed in the XRD patterns (Figure S4) and Raman spectra (Figure S5) between the reacted and unreacted goethiteLT powders.
In the Experiment 3 series, Li taken up by goethiteLT during the Experiment 1 series was extracted from the reacted goethiteLT particles. When NH4OAc was used to extract the Li, less than 3% was released back into solution, whereas significant amounts (50–82%) of Li were liberated when NH4Cl was used as the extracting agent (Table 4).
Table 4. Experiment 3: Li Desorption by Extracting with NH4Cl and NH4OAc
samplemass (g)Li adsorbed from Exp 1 (ng)a[Li] in extraction solution (μg/kg)fraction extracted (%)
Li extraction with 2 mL NH4Cl (pH = 4.84)
GX40.0090143.33 ± 75.6859.08 ± 5.9182.44 ± 44.30
GX120.0075447.59 ± 50.71113.10 ± 11.3150.54 ± 7.64
Li extraction with 3 mL NH4OAc (pH = 7.26)
GX40.0595916.60 ± 493.964.20 ± 0.421.37 ± 0.75
GX120.04902924.26 ± 331.4624.99 ± 2.502.56 ± 0.37
a

Li adsorbed from Experiment 1 is calculated as ([Li]i – [Li]f) × 10 mL × 6.941 g/mol × sample mass (used in Experiment 3)/sample mass (used in Experiment 1); [Li]i, [Li]f, and mass used in Experiment 1 are from Table 2.

4. Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

4.1. Lithium Sorption onto Fe-(Oxyhydr)oxides

In all of the experiments conducted between pH values of 4 and 10, there is a buffering effect of the Fe-oxide on the pH of the solution (Figure 4). This feature has been described previously in the literature for Fe-oxides, including goethite, (61) hematite, (62) and magnetite. (63) The attainment of a consistent pHf across a range of pHi values reflects the electrostatic interaction of negatively or positively charged ions within the solution at the sample surface to achieve charge neutrality. In previous experiments, the pHf value has been demonstrated to reflect the point of zero charge for a material under the chemical conditions of the solution. (61−63) Therefore, we expect that our systems have attained charge neutrality by the end of the experiments. This scenario means that there is no overall attractive force expected to occur in the experiments between the surface of the mineral and the ions in the fluid at equilibrium.
However, when the pHi was above the pHf, and hence the surface was negatively charged (Table 2), the uptake of positively charged ions, such as Li+ or Na+, at the mineral surface could be expected to have occurred during the equilibration process. (61,63) Based on the changing pH observed in Experiment 2 (Table 3) and previous studies, (61,63) such a process can be expected to have occurred quickly, within the first 24 h of the experiments. However, no changes in the Na+ or Li+ concentrations in solution that would reflect attractive forces based on the expected mineral surface charge and PZC were observed with any of the Fe-oxides, except for goethiteLT (Table 2). The goethiteLT samples showed an overall Li uptake over the entire pH range studied (Figure 3a), where the uptake does not correlate with the expected cation exclusion effects in the experiments conducted at pHi values of ∼4 and ∼6, which should have a positively charged surface based on the PZC of this sample at pH 7.67. This finding is consistent with previous experiments, which have shown that positively charged ions only very weakly interact with negatively charged Fe-oxide surfaces in the form of an outer-sphere complex, (64) and hence we conclude that the observed Li uptake by goethiteLT is not driven by outer-sphere electrostatic adsorption.
A lack of inner-sphere adsorption complexes has previously been demonstrated for Li+ on magnetite (63) and hematite (65) using potentiometric methods, even at solution Li concentrations above those expected in the natural environment or used here. However, this lack of direct interaction between Li+ and Fe-oxide surfaces is contradicted by more recent NMR studies focusing on goethite nanoparticles. (55,57) Here, evidence for direct interactions involving Fe–O–Li (inner-sphere complexation) on nanoparticulate goethite synthesized at room temperature was observed after sample drying at pH values above the measured PZC. Direct interaction between the solid phase and Li+ in solution was also present in our experiments with goethiteLT. In contrast to the study of Nielsen et al., (55) our goethiteLT experiments demonstrated Li loss from the solution across the entire pH range. This finding corresponds with an increase in the PZC of 0.71 pH units from that of goethiteHT to that of goethiteLT (Figure 4). Given that no evidence for an additional phase was observed in SEM, TEM, or XRD analyses, the Li uptake by the solid and the change in the PZC imply that a chemical change may have occurred to the goethite surface during the experiments. This chemical change to the goethiteLT is supported by the ATR-FTIR absorbance shift (Figure S3) at peak positions that correspond to the symmetric Fe–O stretching band (ca. 630 cm–1). (66) Decreases in goethite crystallinities result in a shift toward lower wavenumbers of this band. (66) Among the analyzed goethite samples, the frequencies of this band decrease in an order from goethiteHT particles with the highest frequencies (634.2 cm–1) to unreacted goethiteLT particles (629.5 cm–1) and finally to reacted goethiteLT particles with the lowest frequencies (∼610–618 cm–1). This finding suggests that chemical changes of the goethiteLT particles occurred during the sorption experiments. At mineral surfaces, a typical cation uptake reaction can involve dissolution and reprecipitation, which is driven by the neoformation of the solid phase. (67) Hence, our observations could be explained by the reprecipitation at active sites on the poorly crystalline goethiteLT surface. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the Nielsen et al. study (55) whether any pH changes were observed during their experiments. Therefore, we cannot presently evaluate whether the minerals in their system behaved in a similar manner, but their observations of apparent inner-sphere complexes at the surface could potentially reflect the neoformation of a solid phase, with Li occupying sites other than the OH-site within the goethite channels.
The extraction test in Experiment 3 demonstrated that only minimal Li+ could be extracted from the goethiteLT at near-neutral pH values, whereas there was significant extraction in an acidic environment (Table 4). A mineral phase is expected to have minimal solubility close to its PZC, (63) so the goethiteLT sample is expected to have a minimal solubility at pH values close to 7.67. The restricted extraction of Li from the samples using NH4OAc reflects this feature, as this solution has a pH of 7.26, and only a very small fraction of adsorbed Li was released (∼1.4% for goethiteLT reacted at pH ∼ 4, and ∼2.4% for goethiteLT reacted at pH ∼ 12). In contrast, during the extraction in an acidic environment with NH4Cl (pH of 4.84), a significant portion of the originally adsorbed Li was extracted, with release of 82.4% of the Li adsorbed on goethiteLT reacted at pH ∼ 4, and 50.5% of the Li adsorbed on goethiteLT reacted at pH ∼ 12. We note that during the goethiteLT particle recovery through rinsing and filtration, some adsorbed Li may have been removed by rinsing with water. (28) Therefore, these results may provide only a lower limit on the extraction capacity.

4.2. Lithium Sorption onto Poorly Crystalline GoethiteLT Particles and Associated Li Isotope Fractionation

In the Experiment 1 series, the fluid pHf values imply different systematic behavior under the tested pH range, as discussed in Section 4.1. In general, pHf tends to deviate from pHi to reach the PZC when pHi ranges from 4 to 10, whereas at pHi of 2 or 12, the reacted solutions have pHf values close to pHi. Therefore, the Fe-oxides likely underwent different reactions, such as dissolution at pH ∼ 2 and possible reprecipitation at pH ∼ 12. This variation could also have resulted in different interactions between fluid Li and reacted Fe-oxides. Lithium uptake was only observed with goethiteLT, and indeed, this Li uptake was controlled by pHi: at pH ∼ 2, the system likely prefers goethiteLT dissolution, and no Li uptake was observed, whereas at higher pHi values from 4 to 12, Li uptake became significant. Furthermore, the Li uptake capacity of goethiteLT varied with pH, with only ∼25% Li adsorbed for pHi ranges from 4 to 10, increasing to ∼90% uptake of Li at pHi ∼ 12 in both Experiments 1 and 2, whereas the changes in solution Na content were minor (Tables 2 and 3). Hence, the mechanisms driving the Li uptake may have varied, as suggested by differences in pHf (Figure 4) and by previous NMR studies. (55,57)
We suggest that the uptake of Li by goethiteLT can be attributed to Li incorporation on poorly crystalline goethiteLT surfaces through dissolution and reprecipitation at active sites and that two different neoformations of solid phases, for instance, two different materials, may occur at pHi from 4 to 10 and at pHi ∼ 12. Our Li sorption results are in agreement with previously reported Li adsorption behavior traced by 6Li MAS NMR spectra. (55) That study showed an elevated Li adsorption capacity of goethite with increasing pH and suggested that adsorbed Li can be located in different inner-sphere sites. Interestingly, in the NMR characterization, a 6Li peak was detected in their goethite particles (with particle size smaller than goethiteLT used in the current study) when reacted with dissolved Li at pHi ∼ 4, which is much lower than the PZC of goethite. Nielsen et al. (55) suggested that the presence of Li in the goethite particles could be due to (i) a pH change during the experiment or (ii) Li precipitation during the goethite recovery at the end of the adsorption experiment (isolation and drying). (55) At pH > PZC, NMR results suggest that Li can be bound to a bidentate edge site associated with two FeOH groups, or at high pH a pocket site associated with a deprotonated Fe3OH group and FeOH group. (57)
Because we monitored the changes of Li concentration in the fluid, our experimental data demonstrate that Li sorption indeed takes place when the initial solution pH is significantly lower than the PZC (e.g., pH ∼ 4). In addition, the reacting fluids showed an increase in pH from 4.06 to 7.68 at the end of the experiment. If the Li uptake was driven by electrostatic forces, positively charged Li cations would not be taken up under pH conditions lower than those of the PZC. Therefore, our observations support the assumption that Li uptake is caused by a fluid-goethite reaction via neoformation.
We also note that the solubility of goethite varies with pH, with higher solubilities at both acid (pH < 6) and alkaline (pH > 10) conditions. (68−70) Furthermore, we note that the goethiteLT grain surfaces are not well defined, which is indicated by their roughness (Figure 2). A possible mechanism during fluid-goethiteLT interactions could be provoked by the partial dissolution of FeOOH at defect-containing goethite surfaces, thus containing active sites. (71) Various aqueous Fe species could be formed, such as Fe(OH)2+ in acidic pH or Fe(OH)4 at alkaline conditions. (68−70) The reprecipitation or readsorption of this temporarily dissolved Fe back onto the goethite surface could essentially form new molecules, which take up cations such as Li from the ambient solution. A first-order observation can be made from our results that the Li sorption capacity is related to the SSA (Tables 1 and 2), which can be explained by the higher population of active sites in poorly crystalline particles, which in turn would result in both a larger SSA and greater potential for reprecipitation reactions.
Geochemical modeling using PHREEQC (72) suggests the potential formation of hematite throughout the pH range used in Experiment 1, and fluid chemistry modeling using HSC Chemistry software (version 9) suggests the possible presence of LiFe5O8 under alkaline conditions (Figure S6). We note that the modeled results may not be fully indicative because the actual solubility of goethiteLT surficial materials is unknown, and the precipitated phases are likely amorphous and, therefore, not available in the PHREEQC database. For the fluid chemistry modeling, we have opted to use a fluid system with relatively high Fe and Li contents to maximize the potential formation of Li-carrying Fe-oxides. In spite of the limitations, the modeled results support the formation of a new oxide phase incorporating Li and Fe preferentially under alkaline conditions, as suggested by Experiments 1 and 2. Our extraction results (Experiment 3) can therefore be explained by a higher solubility of this neoformed solid phase in an acidic environment.
In the experiments with goethiteLT, the Li uptake was accompanied by Li isotope fractionation, with light 6Li preferentially taken up by the solid phase. The Li isotope fractionation in the fluid system follows the isotope mass balance
δ7Lii×[Li]i×M=δ7Lif×[Li]f×M+δ7Liads×|[Li]i[Li]f|×M
(1)
where M is the fluid mass and δ7Liads is the Li isotope signature of the adsorbed Li on the goethiteLT particles, which can be calculated because values for all of the other terms in eq 1 are available in Tables 2 and 3. Direct measurements of δ7Liads values are not possible due to the challenge associated with isolating the Li taken up by goethite nanoparticles from the Li in the reacting fluids. The Li isotope fractionation during Li uptake by Fe-oxides can then be calculated as
Δ7Lioxidefluid=δ7Liadsδ7Lif
(2)
and the associated Li isotope fractionation factor (α) can be determined based on the processes driving the fractionation. Here, there are two possibilities: either (i) equilibrium fractionation, if the neoformed Li-containing phase forming via surface reactions is in a continuous chemical equilibrium with the fluid, or (ii) Rayleigh fractionation, if the Li precipitated in the newly formed solid phase removes Li from the fluid via fractional distillation.
Under circumstance (i), α can be calculated as
δ7Lit=δ7Lii1000×ln(α)×F
(3)
where t denotes the time of sampling and F is the fraction of Li taken up by the solid phase, which is calculated as
F=1[Li]t/[Li]i
(4)
On the other hand, under circumstance (ii), the α value can be estimated from
δ7Lit=δ7Lii+1000×(α1)×ln(1F)
(5)
In Experiment 1, although the Li uptake mechanisms by goethiteLT may differ between pH conditions (e.g., pHi 4–10 vs pHi ∼ 12), the calculated Δ7Lioxide-fluid values of samples with different pHi values indicate only minor deviations in the isotope fractionation (Table S1). The Li isotope fractionation associated with Li sorption by goethiteLT nanoparticles averages Δ7Lioxide-fluid = −16.7 ± 0.5‰. We excluded a single data point from the experiment performed at a pHi of 5.98 (Table 3), the Li isotope fractionation of which is insignificant. The reasons for this difference are unclear but may potentially be an analytical artifact, such as ineffective isolation of the reacting fluids from the goethite nanoparticles or poor instrumental performance for this sample. The associated fractionation factor in the scenario of equilibrium fractionation is α = 0.9834 ± 0.0005 (n = 4) (Figure 6a). In the scenario of Rayleigh fractionation, two α values were determined (Table S1): Li sorption by goethiteLT at pH values ranging from 4 to 10 has a similar fractionation factor of α = 0.9855 ± 0.0004 (n = 3), whereas at pH ∼ 12, the value becomes 0.9930 (Figure 6b).

Figure 6

Figure 6. Estimation of Li isotope fractionation factors for (a) Experiment 1 in the scenario of equilibrium fractionation; (b) Experiment 1 in the scenario of Rayleigh fractionation; (c) Experiment 2 in the scenario of equilibrium fractionation; and (d) Experiment 2 in the scenario of Rayleigh fractionation.

In Experiment 2, the average fractionation and the fractionation factor were estimated between each sampling point and the initial solution, as the experiment quickly reached dynamic equilibrium in terms of Li concentration (Δ[Li] ∼ 0) in less than 1 day (Figure 5). A fractionation of Δ7Lioxide-fluid = −20.1 ± 1.0‰ (n = 7) was observed (Table S1). In the case of equilibrium fractionation, the associated fractionation factor is α = 0.9801 (Figure 6c), which is slightly different from the α value (0.9829) calculated in Experiment 1 under the same pH conditions. In the case of Rayleigh fractionation, α = 0.9933 (Figure 6d), and this value is close to the one from Experiment 1 under the same scenario (α = 0.9930; Figure 6b).
A difference of ∼3‰ in Δ7Lioxide-fluid (i.e., ∼−17‰ vs ∼−20‰) is observed between the results obtained from Experiments 1 and 2, which essentially leads to the small difference in the Li isotope fractionation factors calculated in the scenario of equilibrium fractionation. With the current data set, we are unable to determine the cause of this difference. However, there were some differences in the design of these two experiments, which could potentially account for such a difference: (1) in Experiment 1, the goethiteLT particles were equilibrated with 0.1 M NaCl before interacting with the mixed NaCl-LiCl solutions at various pH values, whereas in Experiment 2, the goethiteLT particles were not pretreated with a NaCl solution and were directly mixed with NaCl-LiCl at pH ∼ 12; (2) in Experiment 1, all of the samples were manually shaken with the Fe-oxide particles settled at the bottom of the centrifuge tube, whereas the sample in Experiment 2 was rigorously stirred, which ensured the sample mixture remained well mixed; and (3) different initial Li concentrations were used, with [Li]i = 175 μM in Experiment 1 and [Li]i = 36 μM in Experiment 2.
Because Na is typically considered mobile and is not taken up by secondary phases, (47,73,74) as also observed in our experiments (Tables 2 and 3), the evolution of the Li/Na ratio in the fluid reflects the Li uptake by the oxides and varies accordingly with fluid δ7Li values. The coevolution of δ7Li values and Li/Na ratios in Experiment 2 is compared between the measured data (Table 3) and the modeled results calculated with eqs 35 for equilibrium fractionation and Rayleigh fractionation scenarios (Figure S7). The two scenarios remain unresolvable for Experiment 2 with the current data set.
In Experiment 1, under the scenario of equilibrium fractionation, similar fractionation factors are obtained from the subexperiments of goethiteLT at pH values of 4–12 (Figure 6a). This feature could be explained by reprecipitation through Ostwald ripening, which dissolves smaller particles, possibly at surface defects, and reprecipitates solid phases. (75) In this case, Li uptake through reprecipitation during the interaction between fluid Li and goethiteLT has similar α values at different pHi values (Figure 6a), even though the neoformed phase may be different, and the fractionation factors are comparable to those obtained from Li interactions with poorly crystalline kaolinite. (12) On the other hand, in the scenario of Rayleigh fractionation, the two different α values determined with different pHi values (4–10 vs 12) suggest two different isotope fractionation factors, which could be attributed to different solid chemistry during reprecipitation at moderate pHi values (4–10) and high pHi ∼ 12. This latter scenario would agree with the findings of the NMR investigations that the Li sorption on goethite varies as a function of pH. (55,57) Although we cannot completely determine which fractionation process dominates the Li uptake by goethiteLT with our data set, Rayleigh fractionation is favored because in this scenario (Figure 6b), two different α values, which suggest two different types of reactions, are respectively associated with pHi values of 4–10 and pHi ∼ 12. This scenario would be consistent with the observations of different Li uptake in the pH range from 4 to 10 compared to pH ∼ 12, as shown by the pHf (Figure 4), Li uptake capacity (Figure 3), and NMR results. (57) Also, in this case, the results of the goethiteLT experiments conducted at pHi ∼ 12 in both Experiment 1 and 2 are consistent with each other, giving almost identical fractionation factors (Figure 6b,d).
Furthermore, we note that the calculated fractionation factor may be at the higher limits of the true value, as the goethiteLT particles have sizes (<100 nm; Figure 2) that are smaller than the pore size of the filter (0.2 μm), such that centrifugation at 4000 rpm may not be totally efficient at completely isolating the nanoparticles from the fluid. Hence, the fluid chemistry could be partly distorted toward lower δ7Li values (but also higher [Li]) by a potential mixture toward any isotopically light goethiteLT remaining in the analyzed solution. In addition, the magnitude of Li isotope fractionation observed in our experiments (−17 and −20‰) is significantly greater than that derived from the only previous experimental study that examined Li isotope fractionation during interactions with Fe-oxides (−3.5‰ for ferrihydrite, calculated using eqs 1 and 2). (34) Finally, our results are comparable to the estimated values from acid-reductive leaching methods (−17 to −28‰), (52) which implies that carefully operated leaching methods supported by measurements of trace element ratios in the leachates could be a valid approach to target the composition of Fe-oxide phases in natural samples.
In summary, dissolved Li can be taken up by poorly crystalline goethiteLT particles over a wide range of pH values from 4 to 12. This Li uptake is associated with a Li isotope fractionation of Δ7Lioxide-fluid ∼ −17 to −20‰. Previous studies suggested that the Li adsorption is due to adsorption at inner-sphere sites at pH values greater than the PZC of goethite, (55,57) and we further suggest that Li sorption through the dissolution–reprecipitation of active sites may also be an important process, especially under conditions where pH < 8, and should be investigated by future studies.

4.3. Mineral Crystalline State as an Often-Overlooked Factor Affecting Mineral–Water Interactions

An important finding from our study is that a given mineral can show distinctive geochemical behavior when in different crystalline states. Specifically, poorly crystalline goethiteLT can take up ∼90% of dissolved Li with a fractionation Δ7Lioxide-fluid ∼ −20‰ in an alkaline solution at pH ∼ 12, whereas highly crystalline geothiteHT particles are not reactive with dissolved Li at pH ∼ 12 or over a wide range of pH conditions. To date, in the isotope geochemistry community, most fluid–rock interaction studies focus on the effect of mineralogy. Here, we argue that mineral crystallinity can also play an important role. It is well known that Fe-oxide minerals display various crystallinity states and can be relatively quickly recrystallized. (53,68,76,77) In natural systems, it is therefore to be expected that well-aged, and hence more crystalline, Fe-oxides would not actively react with fluid Li. For aluminosilicate clays, this phenomenon of crystallinity affecting water–rock interaction has also been observed for Li adsorption onto laboratory-synthesized smectite. (10) Specifically, Vigier et al. (10) reported that hectorite synthesized at lower temperatures has a greater capacity for Li adsorption due to the presence of more crystal defects, in agreement with the geochemical behavior of Li observed in the present study. Additionally, the previously reported observation of the preferential release of 6Li during the dissolution of poorly crystalline kaolinite at low pH values (12) can be further explained by the dissolution of octahedral structures at active sites.
Therefore, in both the case of clay minerals and Fe-oxides, the effect of the crystalline state needs to be considered, and here, we raise two related concerns. First, in experimental studies of water–rock interactions, mineralogy has often been addressed, whereas mineral crystallinity has rarely been examined. Therefore, directly applying sorption coefficients or isotope fractionation factors obtained from experimental studies to natural settings may introduce biases. Future studies should further investigate this under-addressed issue, potentially by studying secondary phases in both poorly crystallized and well-crystallized secondary phases, as well as studying amorphous phases. Second, mineral crystalline states vary between natural field areas. In kinetically limited weathering regimes (typically characterized by high physical erosion rates), particles have short residence times, so minerals tend to be less crystalline than in supply-limited weathering regimes (typically characterized by low physical erosion rates), where particle residence times are long. For example, goethite particles from Iceland, an example of a kinetically limited setting, are nanocrystalline, (78) whereas goethite particles observed in laterite profiles from the Congo Basin, a typical supply limited environment, are well crystallized and can have lengths greater than 10 μm. (79) According to our experimental results, these goethite particles exhibit different geochemical characteristics. Therefore, not only is it important to analyze the mineralogy using XRD techniques, but complementary observations of sample particles using electron-sourced imaging techniques (such as SEM and TEM) would greatly improve our knowledge of the coupled geochemical and mineralogical behavior, with implications for Li isotope characteristics in natural environments.

5. Implications and Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Our study provides new experimental constraints on the fundamental behavior of Li and Li isotopes during their interaction with Fe-oxides. First, we show that Li can be taken up by poorly crystalline goethite nanoparticles, resulting in Li isotope fractionation Δ7Lioxide-fluid ranging from −17 to −20‰. The fractionation factor calculated from our experiments is important for improving our understanding of highly weathered soil profiles such as laterites, as well as in subsurface water–rock interactions where Fe-oxide formation can be common. (15,21,38,48,80,81) Second, we show that the Li uptake by goethite is controlled by both the fluid pH and the goethite crystallinity. Poorly crystalline goethite can take up ∼90% dissolved Li at pH ∼ 12, likely through reprecipitation reactions occurring at active sites, and a significant fraction of the Li uptake could be released with extraction under lower pH conditions. In contrast, Li adsorption by outer-sphere complexation at the surfaces of well-crystalline Fe-oxides appears to be insignificant.
These results have two significant implications. To an extent, the Li uptake and Li isotope fractionation associated with neoformation at mineral surfaces could be at least partially responsible for Li isotope signals observed in floodplains. (4,73) For example, when poorly crystalline materials formed in upper catchment areas are transported and deposited in lower floodplains, water–rock interactions with these materials can further modify the fluid Li chemistry through adsorption, incorporation, and isotope fractionation. Similarly, at the land–sea interface, where seawater generally has higher pH values than river waters, the interaction of poorly crystalline detrital materials with seawater could occur during sediment transport into the mixing zone or during sea-level rise over longer time scales. (82) These effects could potentially be considered by re-examining observations made in estuaries. (16,83,84) Furthermore, our results point to the potential of poorly crystalline goethite for efficient large-scale industrial extraction of Li, which warrants further investigation because Li is in high demand for the energy transition. (85)
Finally, we demonstrate that constraining sorption behavior during water–rock interactions requires the effects of mineral crystallinity to be evaluated. Hence, we suggest that (1) a better understanding of crystal nucleation, growth, and defect recrystallization should be an important target for future studies; and (2) future studies should prioritize further characterization of nanoparticles in combination with quantification of fluid chemistry with suitable methods.

Data Availability

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a “Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license” to any author accepted manuscript version arising. The original XRD, ATR-FTIR, and Raman results are freely available at Utrecht University Yoda data repository: 10.24416/UU01-MYX8OZ

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.4c00205.

  • Solid characterization of Fe-oxide particles used in the sorption experiments (XRD, ATR-FTIR, and Raman); thermodynamic calculations of fluid chemistry; and calculation of Li isotope fractionation during sorption onto poorly crystalline goethite (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • David J. Wilson - LOGIC, Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, WC1E 6BS London, U.K.
    • Maartje F. Hamers - Department of Earth Sciences, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands
    • Philip A. E. Pogge von Strandmann - MIGHTY, Institute for Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, D-55128 Mainz, Germany
    • Josephina J. P. A. Mulders - Evides Water, Schaardijk 150, 3063 NH Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    • Oliver Plümper - Department of Earth Sciences, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The NetherlandsOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9726-0885
    • Helen E. King - Department of Earth Sciences, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The NetherlandsOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1825-782X
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This research was fully funded by the Dutch Research Council funding OCENW.M20.156. The authors sincerely thank P. Burkel for his assistance in conducting the Li concentration measurements at IPGP. The authors appreciate S. Turner for scientific discussion and N. Kopacz for sample preparation. The authors also thank A. van Leeuwen-Tolboom for her assistance in performing XRD analysis, C. Mulder and H. de Waard for their help in measuring Li and Na concentrations, and other colleagues from Geolab at Utrecht University for their help in this project. P.A.E.P.vS. is funded by ERC grant 682760. D.J.W. is funded by a NERC independent research fellowship (NE/T011440/1).

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 85 other publications.

  1. 1
    Walker, J. C. G.; Hays, P. B.; Kasting, J. F. A Negative Feedback Mechanism for the Long-Term Stabilization of Earth’s Surface Temperature. J. Geophys. Res.: Oceans 1981, 86 (C10), 97769782,  DOI: 10.1029/JC086iC10p09776
  2. 2
    Berner, R. A.; Lasaga, A. C.; Garrels, R. M. The Carbonate-Silicate Geochemical Cycle and Its Effect on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over the Past 100 Million Years. Am. J. Sci. 1983, 283 (7), 641683,  DOI: 10.2475/ajs.283.7.641
  3. 3
    Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Kasemann, S. A.; Wimpenny, J. B. Lithium and Lithium Isotopes in Earth’s Surface Cycles. Elements 2020, 16 (4), 253258,  DOI: 10.2138/gselements.16.4.253
  4. 4
    Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Henderson, G. M. The Li Isotope Response to Mountain Uplift. Geology 2015, 43 (1), 6770,  DOI: 10.1130/G36162.1
  5. 5
    Dellinger, M.; Bouchez, J.; Gaillardet, J.; Faure, L.; Moureau, J. Tracing Weathering Regimes Using the Lithium Isotope Composition of Detrital Sediments. Geology 2017, 45 (5), 411414,  DOI: 10.1130/G38671.1
  6. 6
    Dellinger, M.; Gaillardet, J.; Bouchez, J.; Calmels, D.; Galy, V.; Hilton, R. G.; Louvat, P.; France-Lanord, C. Lithium Isotopes in Large Rivers Reveal the Cannibalistic Nature of Modern Continental Weathering and Erosion. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2014, 401, 359372,  DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2014.05.061
  7. 7
    Penniston-Dorland, S.; Liu, X.-M.; Rudnick, R. L. Lithium Isotope Geochemistry. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2017, 82 (1), 165217,  DOI: 10.2138/rmg.2017.82.6
  8. 8
    Tomascak, P. B.; Magna, T.; Dohmen, R. Advances in Lithium Isotope Geochemistry; Springer International Publishing: Switzerland, 2016.
  9. 9
    Hindshaw, R. S.; Tosca, R.; Goût, T. L.; Farnan, I.; Tosca, N. J.; Tipper, E. T. Experimental Constraints on Li Isotope Fractionation during Clay Formation. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2019, 250, 219237,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2019.02.015
  10. 10
    Vigier, N.; Decarreau, A.; Millot, R.; Carignan, J.; Petit, S.; France-Lanord, C. Quantifying Li Isotope Fractionation during Smectite Formation and Implications for the Li Cycle. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2008, 72 (3), 780792,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2007.11.011
  11. 11
    Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Fraser, W. T.; Hammond, S. J.; Tarbuck, G.; Wood, I. G.; Oelkers, E. H.; Murphy, M. J. Experimental Determination of Li Isotope Behaviour during Basalt Weathering. Chem. Geol. 2019, 517, 3443,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2019.04.020
  12. 12
    Zhang, X. Y.; Saldi, G. D.; Schott, J.; Bouchez, J.; Kuessner, M.; Montouillout, V.; Henehan, M.; Gaillardet, J. Experimental Constraints on Li Isotope Fractionation during the Interaction between Kaolinite and Seawater. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2021, 292, 333347,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2020.09.029
  13. 13
    Huh, Y.; Chan, L.-H.; Zhang, L.; Edmond, J. M. Lithium and Its Isotopes in Major World Rivers: Implications for Weathering and the Oceanic Budget. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1998, 62 (12), 20392051,  DOI: 10.1016/S0016-7037(98)00126-4
  14. 14
    Rudnick, R. L.; Tomascak, P. B.; Njo, H. B.; Gardner, L. R. Extreme Lithium Isotopic Fractionation during Continental Weathering Revealed in Saprolites from South Carolina. Chem. Geol. 2004, 212 (1), 4557,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2004.08.008
  15. 15
    Henchiri, S.; Gaillardet, J.; Dellinger, M.; Bouchez, J.; Spencer, R. G. M. Riverine Dissolved Lithium Isotopic Signatures in Low-Relief Central Africa and Their Link to Weathering Regimes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2016, 43 (9), 43914399,  DOI: 10.1002/2016GL067711
  16. 16
    Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; James, R. H.; van Calsteren, P.; Gíslason, S. R.; Burton, K. W. Lithium, Magnesium and Uranium Isotope Behaviour in the Estuarine Environment of Basaltic Islands. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2008, 274 (3–4), 462471,  DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2008.07.041
  17. 17
    Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Desrochers, A.; Murphy, M.; Finlay, A. J.; Selby, D.; Lenton, T. M. Global Climate Stabilisation by Chemical Weathering during the Hirnantian Glaciation Geochem. Perspect. Lett. 2017, 3 230 237 DOI: 10.7185/geochemlet.1726 .
  18. 18
    Wimpenny, J.; Gíslason, S. R.; James, R. H.; Gannoun, A.; Pogge Von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Burton, K. W. The Behaviour of Li and Mg Isotopes during Primary Phase Dissolution and Secondary Mineral Formation in Basalt. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2010, 74 (18), 52595279,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2010.06.028
  19. 19
    Song, Y.; Zhang, X.; Bouchez, J.; Chetelat, B.; Gaillardet, J.; Chen, J.; Zhang, T.; Cai, H.; Yuan, W.; Wang, Z. Deciphering the Signatures of Weathering and Erosion Processes and the Effects of River Management on Li Isotopes in the Subtropical Pearl River Basin. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2021, 313, 340358,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2021.08.015
  20. 20
    Bastian, L.; Revel, M.; Bayon, G.; Dufour, A.; Vigier, N. Abrupt Response of Chemical Weathering to Late Quaternary Hydroclimate Changes in Northeast Africa. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 44231,  DOI: 10.1038/srep44231
  21. 21
    Lemarchand, E.; Chabaux, F.; Vigier, N.; Millot, R.; Pierret, M.-C. Lithium Isotope Systematics in a Forested Granitic Catchment (Strengbach, Vosges Mountains, France). Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2010, 74, 46124628,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2010.04.057
  22. 22
    Zhang, X.; Bajard, M.; Bouchez, J.; Sabatier, P.; Poulenard, J.; Arnaud, F.; Crouzet, C.; Kuessner, M.; Dellinger, M.; Gaillardet, J. Evolution of the Alpine Critical Zone since the Last Glacial Period Using Li Isotopes from Lake Sediments. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2023, 624, 118463  DOI: 10.1016/J.EPSL.2023.118463
  23. 23
    Cai, D.; Henehan, M. J.; Uhlig, D.; von Blanckenburg, F. Lithium Isotopes in Water and Regolith in a Deep Weathering Profile Reveal Imbalances in Critical Zone Fluxes. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2024, 369, 213226,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2024.01.012
  24. 24
    Hathorne, E. C.; James, R. H. Temporal Record of Lithium in Seawater: A Tracer for Silicate Weathering?. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2006, 246 (3–4), 393406,  DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2006.04.020
  25. 25
    Misra, S.; Froelich, P. N. Lithium Isotope History of Cenozoic Seawater: Changes in Silicate Weathering and Reverse Weathering. Science 2012, 335, 818823,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1214697
  26. 26
    Li, G.; West, A. J. Evolution of Cenozoic Seawater Lithium Isotopes: Coupling of Global Denudation Regime and Shifting Seawater Sinks. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2014, 401, 284293,  DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2014.06.011
  27. 27
    Andrews, E.; Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Fantle, M. S. Exploring the Importance of Authigenic Clay Formation in the Global Li Cycle. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2020, 289, 4768,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2020.08.018
  28. 28
    Zhang, X.; Gaillardet, J.; Barrier, L.; Bouchez, J. Li and Si Isotopes Reveal Authigenic Clay Formation in a Palaeo-Delta. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2022, 578, 117339  DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2021.117339
  29. 29
    James, R. H.; Allen, D. E.; Seyfried, W. E. An Experimental Study of Alteration of Oceanic Crust and Terrigenous Sediments at Moderate Temperatures (51 to 350 C): Insights as to Chemical Processes in near-Shore Ridge-Flank Hydrothermal Systems. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2003, 67 (4), 681691,  DOI: 10.1016/S0016-7037(02)01113-4
  30. 30
    Berger, G.; Schott, J.; Guy, C. Behavior of Li, Rb and Cs during Basalt Glass and Olivine Dissolution and Chlorite, Smectite and Zeolite Precipitation from Seawater: Experimental Investigations and Modelization between 50 and 300 C. Chem. Geol. 1988, 71 (4), 297312,  DOI: 10.1016/0009-2541(88)90056-3
  31. 31
    Berger, G.; Schott, J.; Loubet, M. Fundamental Processes Controlling the First Stage of Alteration of a Basalt Glass by Seawater: An Experimental Study between 200 and 320 C. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1987, 84 (4), 431445,  DOI: 10.1016/0012-821X(87)90008-2
  32. 32
    Seyfried, W. E.; Janecky, D. R.; Mottl, M. J. Alteration of the Oceanic Crust: Implications for Geochemical Cycles of Lithium and Boron. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1984, 48 (3), 557569,  DOI: 10.1016/0016-7037(84)90284-9
  33. 33
    Millot, R.; Scaillet, B.; Sanjuan, B. Lithium Isotopes in Island Arc Geothermal Systems: Guadeloupe, Martinique (French West Indies) and Experimental Approach. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2010, 74 (6), 18521871,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2009.12.007
  34. 34
    Pistiner, J. S.; Henderson, G. M. Lithium-Isotope Fractionation during Continental Weathering Processes. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2003, 214 (1), 327339,  DOI: 10.1016/S0012-821X(03)00348-0
  35. 35
    Verney-Carron, A.; Vigier, N.; Millot, R. Experimental Determination of the Role of Diffusion on Li Isotope Fractionation during Basaltic Glass Weathering. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2011, 75 (12), 34523468,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2011.03.019
  36. 36
    Zhang, L.; Chan, L.-H.; Gieskes, J. M. Lithium Isotope Geochemistry of Pore Waters from Ocean Drilling Program Sites 918 and 919, Irminger Basin. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1998, 62 (14), 24372450,  DOI: 10.1016/S0016-7037(98)00178-1
  37. 37
    Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Liu, X.; Liu, C.-Y.; Wilson, D. J.; Hammond, S. J.; Tarbuck, G.; Aristilde, L.; Krause, A. J.; Fraser, W. T. Lithium Isotope Behaviour during Basalt Weathering Experiments Amended with Organic Acids. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2022, 328, 3757,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2022.04.032
  38. 38
    Chapela Lara, M.; Buss, H. L.; Henehan, M. J.; Schuessler, J. A.; McDowell, W. H. Secondary Minerals Drive Extreme Lithium Isotope Fractionation During Tropical Weathering. J. Geophys. Res.: Earth Surf. 2022, 127 (2), e2021JF006366  DOI: 10.1029/2021JF006366
  39. 39
    Schellmann, W. A New Definition of Laterite. Memoirs Geol. Survey India 1986, 120, 17
  40. 40
    Babechuk, M. G.; Widdowson, M.; Kamber, B. S. Quantifying Chemical Weathering Intensity and Trace Element Release from Two Contrasting Basalt Profiles, Deccan Traps, India. Chem. Geol. 2014, 363, 5675,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2013.10.027
  41. 41
    Kısakürek, B.; Widdowson, M.; James, R. H. Behaviour of Li Isotopes during Continental Weathering: The Bidar Laterite Profile, India. Chem. Geol. 2004, 212 (1–2), 2744,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2004.08.027
  42. 42
    Ji, H.; Chang, C.; Beckford, H. O.; Song, C.; Blake, R. E. New Perspectives on Lateritic Weathering Process over Karst Area – Geochemistry and Si-Li Isotopic Evidence. Catena 2021, 198, 105022  DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2020.105022
  43. 43
    Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Frings, P. J.; Murphy, M. J. Lithium Isotope Behaviour during Weathering in the Ganges Alluvial Plain. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2017, 198, 1731,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2016.11.017
  44. 44
    Wimpenny, J.; James, R. H.; Burton, K. W.; Gannoun, A.; Mokadem, F.; Gíslason, S. R. Glacial Effects on Weathering Processes: New Insights from the Elemental and Lithium Isotopic Composition of West Greenland Rivers. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2010, 290 (3), 427437,  DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2009.12.042
  45. 45
    Millot, R.; Vigier, N.; Gaillardet, J. Behaviour of Lithium and Its Isotopes during Weathering in the Mackenzie Basin, Canada. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2010, 74, 38973912,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2010.04.025
  46. 46
    Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Cosford, L. R.; Liu, C.-Y.; Liu, X.; Krause, A. J.; Wilson, D. J.; He, X.; McCoy-West, A. J.; Gislason, S. R.; Burton, K. W. Assessing Hydrological Controls on the Lithium Isotope Weathering Tracer. Chem. Geol. 2023, 642, 121801  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2023.121801
  47. 47
    Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Burton, K. W.; Opfergelt, S.; Genson, B.; Guicharnaud, R. A.; Gislason, S. R. The Lithium Isotope Response to the Variable Weathering of Soils in Iceland. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2021, 313, 5573,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2021.08.020
  48. 48
    Steinhoefel, G.; Brantley, S. L.; Fantle, M. S. Lithium Isotopic Fractionation during Weathering and Erosion of Shale. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2021, 295, 155177,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2020.12.006
  49. 49
    Chan, L.-H. H.; Hein, J. R. Lithium Contents and Isotopic Compositions of Ferromanganese Deposits from the Global Ocean. Deep Sea Res., Part II 2007, 54 (11), 11471162,  DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2007.04.003
  50. 50
    Taylor, T. I.; Urey, H. C. Fractionation of the Lithium and Potassium Isotopes by Chemical Exchange with Zeolites. J. Chem. Phys. 1938, 6 (8), 429438,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1750288
  51. 51
    Wimpenny, J.; Colla, C. A.; Yu, P.; Yin, Q.-Z.; Rustad, J. R.; Casey, W. H. Lithium Isotope Fractionation during Uptake by Gibbsite. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2015, 168, 133150,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2015.07.011
  52. 52
    Liu, C.-Y.; Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Tarbuck, G.; Wilson, D. J. Experimental Investigation of Oxide Leaching Methods for Li Isotopes. Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 2022, 46 (3), 493518,  DOI: 10.1111/ggr.12441
  53. 53
    Cornell, R. M.; Schwertmann, U. The Iron Oxides: Structure, Properties, Reactions, Occurrences and Uses; Wiley Online Library; Wiley, 2003.
  54. 54
    Schwertmann, U.; Cornell, R. M. Iron Oxides in the Laboratory: Preparation and Characterization; John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
  55. 55
    Nielsen, U. G.; Paik, Y.; Julmis, K.; Schoonen, M. A. A.; Reeder, R. J.; Grey, C. P. Investigating Sorption on Iron–Oxyhydroxide Soil Minerals by Solid-State NMR Spectroscopy: A 6Li MAS NMR Study of Adsorption and Absorption on Goethite. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109 (39), 1831018315,  DOI: 10.1021/jp051433x
  56. 56
    Kim, J.; Grey, C. P. 2H and 7Li Solid-State MAS NMR Study of Local Environments and Lithium Adsorption on the Iron(III) Oxyhydroxide, Akaganeite (β-FeOOH). Chem. Mater. 2010, 22 (19), 54535462,  DOI: 10.1021/cm100816h
  57. 57
    Kim, J.; Nielsen, U. G.; Grey, C. P. Local Environments and Lithium Adsorption on the Iron Oxyhydroxides Lepidocrocite (γ-FeOOH) and Goethite (α-FeOOH): A 2H and 7Li Solid-State MAS NMR Study. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130 (4), 12851295,  DOI: 10.1021/ja0761028
  58. 58
    Kosmulski, M.; Durand-Vidal, S.; Maczka, E.; Rosenholm, J. B. Morphology of Synthetic Goethite Particles. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2004, 271 (2), 261269,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2003.10.032
  59. 59
    Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Renforth, P.; West, A. J.; Murphy, M. J.; Luu, T. H.; Henderson, G. M. The Lithium and Magnesium Isotope Signature of Olivine Dissolution in Soil Experiments. Chem. Geol. 2021, 560, 120008  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2020.120008
  60. 60
    Kuessner, M. L.; Gourgiotis, A.; Manhès, G.; Bouchez, J.; Zhang, X.; Gaillardet, J. Automated Analyte Separation by Ion Chromatography Using a Cobot Applied to Geological Reference Materials for Li Isotope Composition. Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 2020, 44, 5767,  DOI: 10.1111/ggr.12295
  61. 61
    Cristiano, E.; Hu, Y.-J.; Sigfried, M.; Kaplan, D.; Nitsche, H. A Comparison of Point of Zero Charge Measurement Methodology. Clays Clay Miner. 2011, 59 (2), 107115,  DOI: 10.1346/CCMN.2011.0590201
  62. 62
    Čerović, L.; Fédoroff, M.; Jaubertie, A.; Lefèvre, G. Deposition of Hematite from Flowing Suspensions onto Aluminum and Polypropylene Pipe Walls. Mater. Manuf. Processes 2009, 24 (10–11), 10901095,  DOI: 10.1080/10426910903022296
  63. 63
    Milonjić, S. K.; Kopečni, M. M.; Ilić, Z. E. The Point of Zero Charge and Adsorption Properties of Natural Magnetite. J. Radioanal. Chem. 1983, 78 (1), 1524,  DOI: 10.1007/BF02519745
  64. 64
    Rundberg, R. S.; Albinsson, Y.; Vannerberg, K. Sodium adsorption onto goethite as a function of pH and ionic strength. Radiochimca Acta 1994, 66–67 (Supplement), 333340,  DOI: 10.1524/ract.1994.6667.special-issue.333
  65. 65
    Breeuwsma, A.; Lyklema, J. Interfacial Electrochemistry of Haematite (α-Fe2O3). Discuss. Faraday Soc. 1971, 52 (0), 324333,  DOI: 10.1039/DF9715200324
  66. 66
    Cornell, R. M.; Schwertmann, U. Characterization. Iron Oxides 2003, 139183,  DOI: 10.1002/3527602097.ch7
  67. 67
    Regalbuto, J. R. Electrostatic Adsorption. Synth. Solid Catal. 2009, 3358,  DOI: 10.1002/9783527626854.ch3
  68. 68
    Furcas, F. E.; Lothenbach, B.; Mundra, S.; Borca, C. N.; Albert, C. C.; Isgor, O. B.; Huthwelker, T.; Angst, U. M. Transformation of 2-Line Ferrihydrite to Goethite at Alkaline PH. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57 (42), 1609716108,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.3c05260
  69. 69
    Schwertmann, U. Solubility and Dissolution of Iron Oxides. Plant Soil 1991, 130 (1), 125,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00011851
  70. 70
    Diakonov, I. I.; Schott, J.; Martin, F.; Harrichourry, J. C.; Escalier, J. Iron(III) Solubility and Speciation in Aqueous Solutions. Experimental Study and Modelling: Part 1. Hematite Solubility from 60 to 300 °C in NaOH–NaCl Solutions and Thermodynamic Properties of Fe(OH)4–(Aq). Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1999, 63 (15), 22472261,  DOI: 10.1016/S0016-7037(99)00070-8
  71. 71
    Samson, S. D.; Eggleston, C. M. Nonsteady-State Dissolution of Goethite and Hematite in Response to PH Jumps: The Role of Adsorbed Fe (III). Water–Rock Interactions, Ore Deposits, and Environmental Geochemistry: A Tribute to David A. Crerar 2002, 7, 6173
  72. 72
    Parkhurst, D. L.; Appelo, C. A. J. User’s Guide to PHREEQC (Version 2): A Computer Program for Speciation, Batch-Reaction, One-Dimensional Transport, and Inverse Geochemical Calculations; US Geological Survey, 1999.
  73. 73
    Dellinger, M.; Gaillardet, J.; Bouchez, J.; Calmels, D.; Louvat, P.; Dosseto, A.; Gorge, C.; Alanoca, L.; Maurice, L. Riverine Li Isotope Fractionation in the Amazon River Basin Controlled by the Weathering Regimes. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2015, 164, 7193,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2015.04.042
  74. 74
    Gaillardet, J.; Viers, J.; Dupré, B. Trace Elements in River Waters. Treatise Geochem. 2003, 5, 605
  75. 75
    Li, W.; Beard, B. L.; Johnson, C. M. Exchange and Fractionation of Mg Isotopes between Epsomite and Saturated MgSO4 Solution. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2011, 75 (7), 18141828,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2011.01.023
  76. 76
    Kühnel, R. A.; Roorda, H. J.; Steensma, J. J. The Crystallinity of Minerals─A New Variable in Pedogenetic Processes: A Study of Goethite and Associated Silicates in Laterites. Clays Clay Miner. 1975, 23 (5), 349354,  DOI: 10.1346/CCMN.1975.0230503
  77. 77
    Burleson, D. J.; Penn, R. L. Two-Step Growth of Goethite from Ferrihydrite. Langmuir 2006, 22 (1), 402409,  DOI: 10.1021/la051883g
  78. 78
    ThomasArrigo, L. K.; Notini, L.; Shuster, J.; Nydegger, T.; Vontobel, S.; Fischer, S.; Kappler, A.; Kretzschmar, R. Mineral Characterization and Composition of Fe-Rich Flocs from Wetlands of Iceland: Implications for Fe, C and Trace Element Export. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 816, 151567  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151567
  79. 79
    Stoops, G.; Marcelino, V. Lateritic and Bauxitic Materials. Interpret. Micromorphol. Features Soils Regoliths 2010, 329350,  DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53156-8.00015-5
  80. 80
    Anovitz, L. M.; Cheshire, M. C.; Hermann, R. P.; Gu, X.; Sheets, J. M.; Brantley, S. L.; Cole, D. R.; Ilton, E. S.; Mildner, D. F. R.; Gagnon, C.; Allard, L. F.; Littrell, K. C. Oxidation and Associated Pore Structure Modification during Experimental Alteration of Granite. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2021, 292, 532556,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2020.08.016
  81. 81
    Sanchez-Roa, C.; Saldi, G. D.; Mitchell, T. M.; Iacoviello, F.; Bailey, J.; Shearing, P. R.; Oelkers, E. H.; Meredith, P. G.; Jones, A. P.; Striolo, A. The Role of Fluid Chemistry on Permeability Evolution in Granite: Applications to Natural and Anthropogenic Systems. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2020, 553, 116641  DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2020.116641
  82. 82
    Zhang, X. Sedimentary Recycling and Chemical Weathering: A Silicon and Lithium Isotopes Perspective; Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 2018.
  83. 83
    Yang, C.; Yang, S.; Vigier, N. Li Isotopic Variations of Particulate Non-Silicate Phases during Estuarine Water Mixing. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2023, 354, 229239,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2023.06.020
  84. 84
    Liu, C.-Y.; Wilson, D. J.; Hathorne, E. C.; Xu, A.; Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E. The Influence of River-Derived Particles on Estuarine and Marine Elemental Cycles: Evidence from Lithium Isotopes. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2023, 361, 183199,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2023.08.015
  85. 85
    European Commission. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Progress on Competitiveness of Clean Energy Technologies; Brussels 2023 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52023DC0652. (accessed June 8, 2024).

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 4 publications.

  1. Wenxian Gou, Wei Li, Zhengrong Wang, Dong-Xing Guan, Bo Xia, Yi Huang. Sorption-induced metal isotope fractionation: Two decades of advances in methodologies, mechanisms, and kinetics. Earth-Science Reviews 2025, 269 , 105186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2025.105186
  2. Chengfan Yang, Jiacheng Peng, Junjie Guo, Qiang Hao, Jinniu Chen, Shouye Yang. Lithium isotope fractionation in the mid-lower Changjiang basin: Insights from riverine geochemistry and the role of authigenic oxyhydroxides. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 2025, 407 , 121-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2025.09.007
  3. Philip A.E. Pogge von Strandmann, Xiaoqing He, Ying Zhou, David J. Wilson. Comparing open versus closed system weathering experiments using lithium isotopes. Applied Geochemistry 2025, 189 , 106458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2025.106458
  4. Venkata Sailaja Pappala, Carli A. Arendt, Xiao‐Ming Liu. Elemental and Li Isotopic Investigation of a Proglacial River System: Insights to Modern Chemical Weathering Processes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 2025, 130 (4) https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JF007856

ACS Earth and Space Chemistry

Cite this: ACS Earth Space Chem. 2025, 9, 1, 49–63
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.4c00205
Published November 25, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Article Views

2198

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. SEM characterization of (a) goethiteLT and (b) goethiteHT particles. Inset graphs show XRD results (Figure S1).

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Solid characterization of goethiteLT particles using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and high-resolution TEM (HRTEM): (a) unreacted goethiteLT particles; (b) particles from (a) observed under HRTEM; (c) goethiteLT particles interacted with a solution of pH ∼ 12; and (d) particles from panel (c) observed under HRTEM.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Lithium sorption onto Fe-oxides at various initial pH values: (a) changes of fluid Li content in percentage under different initial pH conditions with various Fe-oxides from Experiment 1; and (b) δ7Li signatures in fluids at the end of sorption from selected samples, with the initial δ7Li signature of the LiCl stock solution marked by the dashed lines (12.8 ± 0.4‰).

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Variations in fluid pH at the beginning (pHi) and the end (pHf) of the Li-sorption experiments.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Lithium sorption and isotope fractionation by goethiteLT at pHi ∼ 12 from Experiment 2. Changes in fluid Li content are represented in %.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. Estimation of Li isotope fractionation factors for (a) Experiment 1 in the scenario of equilibrium fractionation; (b) Experiment 1 in the scenario of Rayleigh fractionation; (c) Experiment 2 in the scenario of equilibrium fractionation; and (d) Experiment 2 in the scenario of Rayleigh fractionation.

  • References


    This article references 85 other publications.

    1. 1
      Walker, J. C. G.; Hays, P. B.; Kasting, J. F. A Negative Feedback Mechanism for the Long-Term Stabilization of Earth’s Surface Temperature. J. Geophys. Res.: Oceans 1981, 86 (C10), 97769782,  DOI: 10.1029/JC086iC10p09776
    2. 2
      Berner, R. A.; Lasaga, A. C.; Garrels, R. M. The Carbonate-Silicate Geochemical Cycle and Its Effect on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over the Past 100 Million Years. Am. J. Sci. 1983, 283 (7), 641683,  DOI: 10.2475/ajs.283.7.641
    3. 3
      Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Kasemann, S. A.; Wimpenny, J. B. Lithium and Lithium Isotopes in Earth’s Surface Cycles. Elements 2020, 16 (4), 253258,  DOI: 10.2138/gselements.16.4.253
    4. 4
      Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Henderson, G. M. The Li Isotope Response to Mountain Uplift. Geology 2015, 43 (1), 6770,  DOI: 10.1130/G36162.1
    5. 5
      Dellinger, M.; Bouchez, J.; Gaillardet, J.; Faure, L.; Moureau, J. Tracing Weathering Regimes Using the Lithium Isotope Composition of Detrital Sediments. Geology 2017, 45 (5), 411414,  DOI: 10.1130/G38671.1
    6. 6
      Dellinger, M.; Gaillardet, J.; Bouchez, J.; Calmels, D.; Galy, V.; Hilton, R. G.; Louvat, P.; France-Lanord, C. Lithium Isotopes in Large Rivers Reveal the Cannibalistic Nature of Modern Continental Weathering and Erosion. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2014, 401, 359372,  DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2014.05.061
    7. 7
      Penniston-Dorland, S.; Liu, X.-M.; Rudnick, R. L. Lithium Isotope Geochemistry. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2017, 82 (1), 165217,  DOI: 10.2138/rmg.2017.82.6
    8. 8
      Tomascak, P. B.; Magna, T.; Dohmen, R. Advances in Lithium Isotope Geochemistry; Springer International Publishing: Switzerland, 2016.
    9. 9
      Hindshaw, R. S.; Tosca, R.; Goût, T. L.; Farnan, I.; Tosca, N. J.; Tipper, E. T. Experimental Constraints on Li Isotope Fractionation during Clay Formation. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2019, 250, 219237,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2019.02.015
    10. 10
      Vigier, N.; Decarreau, A.; Millot, R.; Carignan, J.; Petit, S.; France-Lanord, C. Quantifying Li Isotope Fractionation during Smectite Formation and Implications for the Li Cycle. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2008, 72 (3), 780792,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2007.11.011
    11. 11
      Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Fraser, W. T.; Hammond, S. J.; Tarbuck, G.; Wood, I. G.; Oelkers, E. H.; Murphy, M. J. Experimental Determination of Li Isotope Behaviour during Basalt Weathering. Chem. Geol. 2019, 517, 3443,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2019.04.020
    12. 12
      Zhang, X. Y.; Saldi, G. D.; Schott, J.; Bouchez, J.; Kuessner, M.; Montouillout, V.; Henehan, M.; Gaillardet, J. Experimental Constraints on Li Isotope Fractionation during the Interaction between Kaolinite and Seawater. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2021, 292, 333347,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2020.09.029
    13. 13
      Huh, Y.; Chan, L.-H.; Zhang, L.; Edmond, J. M. Lithium and Its Isotopes in Major World Rivers: Implications for Weathering and the Oceanic Budget. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1998, 62 (12), 20392051,  DOI: 10.1016/S0016-7037(98)00126-4
    14. 14
      Rudnick, R. L.; Tomascak, P. B.; Njo, H. B.; Gardner, L. R. Extreme Lithium Isotopic Fractionation during Continental Weathering Revealed in Saprolites from South Carolina. Chem. Geol. 2004, 212 (1), 4557,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2004.08.008
    15. 15
      Henchiri, S.; Gaillardet, J.; Dellinger, M.; Bouchez, J.; Spencer, R. G. M. Riverine Dissolved Lithium Isotopic Signatures in Low-Relief Central Africa and Their Link to Weathering Regimes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2016, 43 (9), 43914399,  DOI: 10.1002/2016GL067711
    16. 16
      Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; James, R. H.; van Calsteren, P.; Gíslason, S. R.; Burton, K. W. Lithium, Magnesium and Uranium Isotope Behaviour in the Estuarine Environment of Basaltic Islands. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2008, 274 (3–4), 462471,  DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2008.07.041
    17. 17
      Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Desrochers, A.; Murphy, M.; Finlay, A. J.; Selby, D.; Lenton, T. M. Global Climate Stabilisation by Chemical Weathering during the Hirnantian Glaciation Geochem. Perspect. Lett. 2017, 3 230 237 DOI: 10.7185/geochemlet.1726 .
    18. 18
      Wimpenny, J.; Gíslason, S. R.; James, R. H.; Gannoun, A.; Pogge Von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Burton, K. W. The Behaviour of Li and Mg Isotopes during Primary Phase Dissolution and Secondary Mineral Formation in Basalt. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2010, 74 (18), 52595279,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2010.06.028
    19. 19
      Song, Y.; Zhang, X.; Bouchez, J.; Chetelat, B.; Gaillardet, J.; Chen, J.; Zhang, T.; Cai, H.; Yuan, W.; Wang, Z. Deciphering the Signatures of Weathering and Erosion Processes and the Effects of River Management on Li Isotopes in the Subtropical Pearl River Basin. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2021, 313, 340358,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2021.08.015
    20. 20
      Bastian, L.; Revel, M.; Bayon, G.; Dufour, A.; Vigier, N. Abrupt Response of Chemical Weathering to Late Quaternary Hydroclimate Changes in Northeast Africa. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 44231,  DOI: 10.1038/srep44231
    21. 21
      Lemarchand, E.; Chabaux, F.; Vigier, N.; Millot, R.; Pierret, M.-C. Lithium Isotope Systematics in a Forested Granitic Catchment (Strengbach, Vosges Mountains, France). Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2010, 74, 46124628,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2010.04.057
    22. 22
      Zhang, X.; Bajard, M.; Bouchez, J.; Sabatier, P.; Poulenard, J.; Arnaud, F.; Crouzet, C.; Kuessner, M.; Dellinger, M.; Gaillardet, J. Evolution of the Alpine Critical Zone since the Last Glacial Period Using Li Isotopes from Lake Sediments. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2023, 624, 118463  DOI: 10.1016/J.EPSL.2023.118463
    23. 23
      Cai, D.; Henehan, M. J.; Uhlig, D.; von Blanckenburg, F. Lithium Isotopes in Water and Regolith in a Deep Weathering Profile Reveal Imbalances in Critical Zone Fluxes. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2024, 369, 213226,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2024.01.012
    24. 24
      Hathorne, E. C.; James, R. H. Temporal Record of Lithium in Seawater: A Tracer for Silicate Weathering?. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2006, 246 (3–4), 393406,  DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2006.04.020
    25. 25
      Misra, S.; Froelich, P. N. Lithium Isotope History of Cenozoic Seawater: Changes in Silicate Weathering and Reverse Weathering. Science 2012, 335, 818823,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1214697
    26. 26
      Li, G.; West, A. J. Evolution of Cenozoic Seawater Lithium Isotopes: Coupling of Global Denudation Regime and Shifting Seawater Sinks. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2014, 401, 284293,  DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2014.06.011
    27. 27
      Andrews, E.; Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Fantle, M. S. Exploring the Importance of Authigenic Clay Formation in the Global Li Cycle. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2020, 289, 4768,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2020.08.018
    28. 28
      Zhang, X.; Gaillardet, J.; Barrier, L.; Bouchez, J. Li and Si Isotopes Reveal Authigenic Clay Formation in a Palaeo-Delta. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2022, 578, 117339  DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2021.117339
    29. 29
      James, R. H.; Allen, D. E.; Seyfried, W. E. An Experimental Study of Alteration of Oceanic Crust and Terrigenous Sediments at Moderate Temperatures (51 to 350 C): Insights as to Chemical Processes in near-Shore Ridge-Flank Hydrothermal Systems. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2003, 67 (4), 681691,  DOI: 10.1016/S0016-7037(02)01113-4
    30. 30
      Berger, G.; Schott, J.; Guy, C. Behavior of Li, Rb and Cs during Basalt Glass and Olivine Dissolution and Chlorite, Smectite and Zeolite Precipitation from Seawater: Experimental Investigations and Modelization between 50 and 300 C. Chem. Geol. 1988, 71 (4), 297312,  DOI: 10.1016/0009-2541(88)90056-3
    31. 31
      Berger, G.; Schott, J.; Loubet, M. Fundamental Processes Controlling the First Stage of Alteration of a Basalt Glass by Seawater: An Experimental Study between 200 and 320 C. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1987, 84 (4), 431445,  DOI: 10.1016/0012-821X(87)90008-2
    32. 32
      Seyfried, W. E.; Janecky, D. R.; Mottl, M. J. Alteration of the Oceanic Crust: Implications for Geochemical Cycles of Lithium and Boron. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1984, 48 (3), 557569,  DOI: 10.1016/0016-7037(84)90284-9
    33. 33
      Millot, R.; Scaillet, B.; Sanjuan, B. Lithium Isotopes in Island Arc Geothermal Systems: Guadeloupe, Martinique (French West Indies) and Experimental Approach. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2010, 74 (6), 18521871,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2009.12.007
    34. 34
      Pistiner, J. S.; Henderson, G. M. Lithium-Isotope Fractionation during Continental Weathering Processes. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2003, 214 (1), 327339,  DOI: 10.1016/S0012-821X(03)00348-0
    35. 35
      Verney-Carron, A.; Vigier, N.; Millot, R. Experimental Determination of the Role of Diffusion on Li Isotope Fractionation during Basaltic Glass Weathering. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2011, 75 (12), 34523468,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2011.03.019
    36. 36
      Zhang, L.; Chan, L.-H.; Gieskes, J. M. Lithium Isotope Geochemistry of Pore Waters from Ocean Drilling Program Sites 918 and 919, Irminger Basin. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1998, 62 (14), 24372450,  DOI: 10.1016/S0016-7037(98)00178-1
    37. 37
      Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Liu, X.; Liu, C.-Y.; Wilson, D. J.; Hammond, S. J.; Tarbuck, G.; Aristilde, L.; Krause, A. J.; Fraser, W. T. Lithium Isotope Behaviour during Basalt Weathering Experiments Amended with Organic Acids. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2022, 328, 3757,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2022.04.032
    38. 38
      Chapela Lara, M.; Buss, H. L.; Henehan, M. J.; Schuessler, J. A.; McDowell, W. H. Secondary Minerals Drive Extreme Lithium Isotope Fractionation During Tropical Weathering. J. Geophys. Res.: Earth Surf. 2022, 127 (2), e2021JF006366  DOI: 10.1029/2021JF006366
    39. 39
      Schellmann, W. A New Definition of Laterite. Memoirs Geol. Survey India 1986, 120, 17
    40. 40
      Babechuk, M. G.; Widdowson, M.; Kamber, B. S. Quantifying Chemical Weathering Intensity and Trace Element Release from Two Contrasting Basalt Profiles, Deccan Traps, India. Chem. Geol. 2014, 363, 5675,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2013.10.027
    41. 41
      Kısakürek, B.; Widdowson, M.; James, R. H. Behaviour of Li Isotopes during Continental Weathering: The Bidar Laterite Profile, India. Chem. Geol. 2004, 212 (1–2), 2744,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2004.08.027
    42. 42
      Ji, H.; Chang, C.; Beckford, H. O.; Song, C.; Blake, R. E. New Perspectives on Lateritic Weathering Process over Karst Area – Geochemistry and Si-Li Isotopic Evidence. Catena 2021, 198, 105022  DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2020.105022
    43. 43
      Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Frings, P. J.; Murphy, M. J. Lithium Isotope Behaviour during Weathering in the Ganges Alluvial Plain. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2017, 198, 1731,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2016.11.017
    44. 44
      Wimpenny, J.; James, R. H.; Burton, K. W.; Gannoun, A.; Mokadem, F.; Gíslason, S. R. Glacial Effects on Weathering Processes: New Insights from the Elemental and Lithium Isotopic Composition of West Greenland Rivers. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2010, 290 (3), 427437,  DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2009.12.042
    45. 45
      Millot, R.; Vigier, N.; Gaillardet, J. Behaviour of Lithium and Its Isotopes during Weathering in the Mackenzie Basin, Canada. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2010, 74, 38973912,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2010.04.025
    46. 46
      Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Cosford, L. R.; Liu, C.-Y.; Liu, X.; Krause, A. J.; Wilson, D. J.; He, X.; McCoy-West, A. J.; Gislason, S. R.; Burton, K. W. Assessing Hydrological Controls on the Lithium Isotope Weathering Tracer. Chem. Geol. 2023, 642, 121801  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2023.121801
    47. 47
      Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Burton, K. W.; Opfergelt, S.; Genson, B.; Guicharnaud, R. A.; Gislason, S. R. The Lithium Isotope Response to the Variable Weathering of Soils in Iceland. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2021, 313, 5573,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2021.08.020
    48. 48
      Steinhoefel, G.; Brantley, S. L.; Fantle, M. S. Lithium Isotopic Fractionation during Weathering and Erosion of Shale. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2021, 295, 155177,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2020.12.006
    49. 49
      Chan, L.-H. H.; Hein, J. R. Lithium Contents and Isotopic Compositions of Ferromanganese Deposits from the Global Ocean. Deep Sea Res., Part II 2007, 54 (11), 11471162,  DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2007.04.003
    50. 50
      Taylor, T. I.; Urey, H. C. Fractionation of the Lithium and Potassium Isotopes by Chemical Exchange with Zeolites. J. Chem. Phys. 1938, 6 (8), 429438,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1750288
    51. 51
      Wimpenny, J.; Colla, C. A.; Yu, P.; Yin, Q.-Z.; Rustad, J. R.; Casey, W. H. Lithium Isotope Fractionation during Uptake by Gibbsite. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2015, 168, 133150,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2015.07.011
    52. 52
      Liu, C.-Y.; Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Tarbuck, G.; Wilson, D. J. Experimental Investigation of Oxide Leaching Methods for Li Isotopes. Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 2022, 46 (3), 493518,  DOI: 10.1111/ggr.12441
    53. 53
      Cornell, R. M.; Schwertmann, U. The Iron Oxides: Structure, Properties, Reactions, Occurrences and Uses; Wiley Online Library; Wiley, 2003.
    54. 54
      Schwertmann, U.; Cornell, R. M. Iron Oxides in the Laboratory: Preparation and Characterization; John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
    55. 55
      Nielsen, U. G.; Paik, Y.; Julmis, K.; Schoonen, M. A. A.; Reeder, R. J.; Grey, C. P. Investigating Sorption on Iron–Oxyhydroxide Soil Minerals by Solid-State NMR Spectroscopy: A 6Li MAS NMR Study of Adsorption and Absorption on Goethite. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109 (39), 1831018315,  DOI: 10.1021/jp051433x
    56. 56
      Kim, J.; Grey, C. P. 2H and 7Li Solid-State MAS NMR Study of Local Environments and Lithium Adsorption on the Iron(III) Oxyhydroxide, Akaganeite (β-FeOOH). Chem. Mater. 2010, 22 (19), 54535462,  DOI: 10.1021/cm100816h
    57. 57
      Kim, J.; Nielsen, U. G.; Grey, C. P. Local Environments and Lithium Adsorption on the Iron Oxyhydroxides Lepidocrocite (γ-FeOOH) and Goethite (α-FeOOH): A 2H and 7Li Solid-State MAS NMR Study. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130 (4), 12851295,  DOI: 10.1021/ja0761028
    58. 58
      Kosmulski, M.; Durand-Vidal, S.; Maczka, E.; Rosenholm, J. B. Morphology of Synthetic Goethite Particles. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2004, 271 (2), 261269,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2003.10.032
    59. 59
      Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E.; Renforth, P.; West, A. J.; Murphy, M. J.; Luu, T. H.; Henderson, G. M. The Lithium and Magnesium Isotope Signature of Olivine Dissolution in Soil Experiments. Chem. Geol. 2021, 560, 120008  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2020.120008
    60. 60
      Kuessner, M. L.; Gourgiotis, A.; Manhès, G.; Bouchez, J.; Zhang, X.; Gaillardet, J. Automated Analyte Separation by Ion Chromatography Using a Cobot Applied to Geological Reference Materials for Li Isotope Composition. Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 2020, 44, 5767,  DOI: 10.1111/ggr.12295
    61. 61
      Cristiano, E.; Hu, Y.-J.; Sigfried, M.; Kaplan, D.; Nitsche, H. A Comparison of Point of Zero Charge Measurement Methodology. Clays Clay Miner. 2011, 59 (2), 107115,  DOI: 10.1346/CCMN.2011.0590201
    62. 62
      Čerović, L.; Fédoroff, M.; Jaubertie, A.; Lefèvre, G. Deposition of Hematite from Flowing Suspensions onto Aluminum and Polypropylene Pipe Walls. Mater. Manuf. Processes 2009, 24 (10–11), 10901095,  DOI: 10.1080/10426910903022296
    63. 63
      Milonjić, S. K.; Kopečni, M. M.; Ilić, Z. E. The Point of Zero Charge and Adsorption Properties of Natural Magnetite. J. Radioanal. Chem. 1983, 78 (1), 1524,  DOI: 10.1007/BF02519745
    64. 64
      Rundberg, R. S.; Albinsson, Y.; Vannerberg, K. Sodium adsorption onto goethite as a function of pH and ionic strength. Radiochimca Acta 1994, 66–67 (Supplement), 333340,  DOI: 10.1524/ract.1994.6667.special-issue.333
    65. 65
      Breeuwsma, A.; Lyklema, J. Interfacial Electrochemistry of Haematite (α-Fe2O3). Discuss. Faraday Soc. 1971, 52 (0), 324333,  DOI: 10.1039/DF9715200324
    66. 66
      Cornell, R. M.; Schwertmann, U. Characterization. Iron Oxides 2003, 139183,  DOI: 10.1002/3527602097.ch7
    67. 67
      Regalbuto, J. R. Electrostatic Adsorption. Synth. Solid Catal. 2009, 3358,  DOI: 10.1002/9783527626854.ch3
    68. 68
      Furcas, F. E.; Lothenbach, B.; Mundra, S.; Borca, C. N.; Albert, C. C.; Isgor, O. B.; Huthwelker, T.; Angst, U. M. Transformation of 2-Line Ferrihydrite to Goethite at Alkaline PH. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57 (42), 1609716108,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.3c05260
    69. 69
      Schwertmann, U. Solubility and Dissolution of Iron Oxides. Plant Soil 1991, 130 (1), 125,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00011851
    70. 70
      Diakonov, I. I.; Schott, J.; Martin, F.; Harrichourry, J. C.; Escalier, J. Iron(III) Solubility and Speciation in Aqueous Solutions. Experimental Study and Modelling: Part 1. Hematite Solubility from 60 to 300 °C in NaOH–NaCl Solutions and Thermodynamic Properties of Fe(OH)4–(Aq). Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1999, 63 (15), 22472261,  DOI: 10.1016/S0016-7037(99)00070-8
    71. 71
      Samson, S. D.; Eggleston, C. M. Nonsteady-State Dissolution of Goethite and Hematite in Response to PH Jumps: The Role of Adsorbed Fe (III). Water–Rock Interactions, Ore Deposits, and Environmental Geochemistry: A Tribute to David A. Crerar 2002, 7, 6173
    72. 72
      Parkhurst, D. L.; Appelo, C. A. J. User’s Guide to PHREEQC (Version 2): A Computer Program for Speciation, Batch-Reaction, One-Dimensional Transport, and Inverse Geochemical Calculations; US Geological Survey, 1999.
    73. 73
      Dellinger, M.; Gaillardet, J.; Bouchez, J.; Calmels, D.; Louvat, P.; Dosseto, A.; Gorge, C.; Alanoca, L.; Maurice, L. Riverine Li Isotope Fractionation in the Amazon River Basin Controlled by the Weathering Regimes. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2015, 164, 7193,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2015.04.042
    74. 74
      Gaillardet, J.; Viers, J.; Dupré, B. Trace Elements in River Waters. Treatise Geochem. 2003, 5, 605
    75. 75
      Li, W.; Beard, B. L.; Johnson, C. M. Exchange and Fractionation of Mg Isotopes between Epsomite and Saturated MgSO4 Solution. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2011, 75 (7), 18141828,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2011.01.023
    76. 76
      Kühnel, R. A.; Roorda, H. J.; Steensma, J. J. The Crystallinity of Minerals─A New Variable in Pedogenetic Processes: A Study of Goethite and Associated Silicates in Laterites. Clays Clay Miner. 1975, 23 (5), 349354,  DOI: 10.1346/CCMN.1975.0230503
    77. 77
      Burleson, D. J.; Penn, R. L. Two-Step Growth of Goethite from Ferrihydrite. Langmuir 2006, 22 (1), 402409,  DOI: 10.1021/la051883g
    78. 78
      ThomasArrigo, L. K.; Notini, L.; Shuster, J.; Nydegger, T.; Vontobel, S.; Fischer, S.; Kappler, A.; Kretzschmar, R. Mineral Characterization and Composition of Fe-Rich Flocs from Wetlands of Iceland: Implications for Fe, C and Trace Element Export. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 816, 151567  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151567
    79. 79
      Stoops, G.; Marcelino, V. Lateritic and Bauxitic Materials. Interpret. Micromorphol. Features Soils Regoliths 2010, 329350,  DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53156-8.00015-5
    80. 80
      Anovitz, L. M.; Cheshire, M. C.; Hermann, R. P.; Gu, X.; Sheets, J. M.; Brantley, S. L.; Cole, D. R.; Ilton, E. S.; Mildner, D. F. R.; Gagnon, C.; Allard, L. F.; Littrell, K. C. Oxidation and Associated Pore Structure Modification during Experimental Alteration of Granite. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2021, 292, 532556,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2020.08.016
    81. 81
      Sanchez-Roa, C.; Saldi, G. D.; Mitchell, T. M.; Iacoviello, F.; Bailey, J.; Shearing, P. R.; Oelkers, E. H.; Meredith, P. G.; Jones, A. P.; Striolo, A. The Role of Fluid Chemistry on Permeability Evolution in Granite: Applications to Natural and Anthropogenic Systems. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2020, 553, 116641  DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2020.116641
    82. 82
      Zhang, X. Sedimentary Recycling and Chemical Weathering: A Silicon and Lithium Isotopes Perspective; Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 2018.
    83. 83
      Yang, C.; Yang, S.; Vigier, N. Li Isotopic Variations of Particulate Non-Silicate Phases during Estuarine Water Mixing. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2023, 354, 229239,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2023.06.020
    84. 84
      Liu, C.-Y.; Wilson, D. J.; Hathorne, E. C.; Xu, A.; Pogge von Strandmann, P. A. E. The Influence of River-Derived Particles on Estuarine and Marine Elemental Cycles: Evidence from Lithium Isotopes. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2023, 361, 183199,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2023.08.015
    85. 85
      European Commission. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Progress on Competitiveness of Clean Energy Technologies; Brussels 2023 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52023DC0652. (accessed June 8, 2024).
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.4c00205.

    • Solid characterization of Fe-oxide particles used in the sorption experiments (XRD, ATR-FTIR, and Raman); thermodynamic calculations of fluid chemistry; and calculation of Li isotope fractionation during sorption onto poorly crystalline goethite (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.