Encapsulated sustained release urea fertilizer

Abstract

The encapsulated sustained release urea fertilizer is a urea fertilizer and a stabilizer encapsulated in fumed silica. The stabilizer may be a gellan gum hydrogel or biochar. The encapsulated sustained release urea fertilizer allows for both immediate and sustained nitrogen release over time and displays reduced nitrogen volatilization and increased water holding capacity.

Claims

1. An encapsulated sustained release urea fertilizer, comprising a composition including: an aqueous solution of urea fertilizer, wherein the aqueous solution of urea fertilizer includes a stabilizer comprising gellan gum hydrogels thereby forming a stabilized urea solution; and fumed silica encapsulating the stabilized urea fertilizer solution.

2. The encapsulated sustained release urea fertilizer according to claim 1, wherein said fumed silica comprises hydrophobic nanoparticles of fumed silica.

3. The encapsulated sustained release urea fertilizer according to claim 1, wherein said urea fertilizer comprises 46% nitrogen by weight.

4. The encapsulated sustained release urea fertilizer according to claim 1, wherein said fumed silica comprises 5% wt/vol of said composition.

5. The encapsulated sustained release urea fertilizer according to claim 1, wherein said fumed silica comprises 10% wt/vol of said composition.

6. The encapsulated sustained release urea fertilizer according to claim 1, wherein said stabilizer comprises up to 1% wt/vol of said composition.

7. The encapsulated sustained release urea fertilizer according to claim 6, wherein said fumed silica comprises up to 10% wt/vol of said composition.

8. A process of making an encapsulated sustained release urea fertilizer, comprising the steps of: dissolving urea fertilizer in water to form a urea solution; adding a stabilizer to the urea solution, wherein the stabilizer comprises gellan gum hydrogels; adding fumed silica to the urea solution to form a pre-mix solution, wherein the stabilizer comprises 1% wt/vol of the pre-mix solution; and mixing the fumed silica and the stabilized urea solution for a period of time sufficient to encapsulate the urea solution in the fumed silica, thereby converting the urea solution into dry water form.

9. The process of making an encapsulated sustained release urea fertilizer according to claim 8, wherein said mixing step comprises mixing the fumed silica and the urea solution at 14,000 rpm for ten seconds.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

(1) FIG. 1 is a graph of NH.sub.4.sup.+ released from a variety of formulations of encapsulated sustained release urea fertilizer over time.

(2) FIG. 2A is a graph of a pseudo second order model applied to the nitrogen release capability of urea fertilizer encapsulated in 5% fumed silica (UFFS1).

(3) FIG. 2B is a graph of a pseudo second order model applied to the nitrogen release capability of urea fertilizer encapsulated in 10% fumed silica (UFFS2).

(4) FIG. 2C is a graph of a pseudo second order model applied to the nitrogen release capability of urea fertilizer encapsulated in 10% fumed silica and 1% gellan gum hydrogels (UFFSG).

(5) FIG. 2D is a graph of a pseudo second order model applied to the nitrogen release capability of the urea fertilizer (control) sample (UF).

(6) FIG. 3A is a graph of the NH.sub.4.sup.+ concentration in leachates from soil samples supplemented with regular soil (CK), urea fertilizer (UF), and urea fertilizer encapsulated in 10% fumed silica and 1% gellan gum hydrogels (UFFSG).

(7) FIG. 3B is a chart of the NH.sub.4.sup.+ concentration in leachates from the upper column and the lower column of soil samples supplemented with regular soil (CK), urea fertilizer (UF), and urea fertilizer encapsulated in 10% fumed silica and 1% gellan gum hydrogels (UFFSG).

(8) FIG. 4A is a graph of the NO.sub.3.sup. concentration in leachates of soil samples supplemented with regular soil (CK), urea fertilizer (UF), and urea fertilizer encapsulated in 10% fumed silica and 1% gellan gum hydrogels (UFFSG).

(9) FIG. 4B is a graph of the NO.sub.2.sup. concentration in leachates of soil samples supplemented with regular soil (CK), urea fertilizer (UF), and urea fertilizer encapsulated in 10% fumed silica and 1% gellan gum hydrogels (UFFSG).

(10) FIG. 5A is a chart of the NO.sub.3.sup. concentration in leachates from the upper column and the lower column of soil samples supplemented with regular soil (CK), urea fertilizer (UF), and urea fertilizer encapsulated in 10% fumed silica and 1% gellan gum hydrogels (UFFSG).

(11) FIG. 5B is a chart of the NO.sub.2.sup. concentration in leachates from the upper column and the lower column of soil samples supplemented with regular soil (CK), urea fertilizer (UF), and urea fertilizer encapsulated in 10% fumed silica and 1% gellan gum hydrogels (UFFSG).

(12) FIG. 6 is a chart of the percent water-holding capacity in leachates from the upper column and the lower column of soil samples supplemented with regular soil (CK), urea fertilizer (UF), and urea fertilizer encapsulated in 10% fumed silica and 1% gellan gum hydrogels (UFFSG).

(13) FIG. 7 is a chart of the saturated hydraulic conductivity in leachates of soil samples supplemented with regular soil (CK), urea fertilizer (UF), and urea fertilizer encapsulated in 10% fumed silica and 1% gellan gum hydrogels (UFFSG).

(14) FIG. 8A is a graph of the NH.sub.3 volatilization rate in leachates soil samples supplemented with regular soil (CK), urea fertilizer (UF), urea fertilizer encapsulated in 5% fumed silica (UFFS1), urea fertilizer encapsulated in 10% fumed silica (UFFS2), urea fertilizer encapsulated in 10% fumed silica and 1% gellan gum hydrogels (UFFSG), and urea fertilizer encapsulated in 10% fumed silica and 1% biochar (UFFSB).

(15) FIG. 8B is a graph of the cumulative NH.sub.3 volatilization in leachates soil samples supplemented with regular soil (CK), urea fertilizer (UF), urea fertilizer encapsulated in 5% fumed silica (UFFS1), urea fertilizer encapsulated in 10% fumed silica (UFFS2), urea fertilizer encapsulated in 10% fumed silica and 1% gellan gum hydrogels (UFFSG), and urea fertilizer encapsulated in 10% fumed silica and 1% biochar (UFFSB).

(16) Similar reference characters denote corresponding features consistently throughout the attached drawings.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

(17) The encapsulated sustained release urea fertilizer includes a urea fertilizer encapsulated in fumed silica and a stabilizer. The stabilizer may be a gellan gum hydrogel or biochar.

(18) Many factors may contribute to the breakdown and release of ammonia from urea in soil fertilizers. Soil enzymes, such as urease, may contribute, as may thermolysis and hydrolysis. Encapsulation of urea fertilizer in fumed silica in the presence of a stabilizer, as described herein, results in an encapsulated nitrogen fertilizer capable of both immediate and sustained release of nitrogen over a period of at least a month. This encapsulated sustained release urea fertilizer further impairs nitrogen loss through volatilization or run off effects, at least in part through increased water holding capacity.

(19) The stabilizer may be gellan gum or biochar. The gellan gum may be formed into a gellan gum hydrogel prior to addition to the fertilizer.

(20) The encapsulated sustained release urea fertilizer may be produced by mixing the urea fertilizer with the fumed silica in order to encapsulate the urea fertilizer. Different concentrations of fumed silica may be used to alter the nitrogen release kinetics of the final composition. Further details of the method of making an encapsulated sustained release urea fertilizer may be found in the examples below.

Example 1

Preparation of Encapsulated Gel-Forming Urea

(21) Hydrophobic nano-fumed silica (AEROSIL R812), with a surface area of 26030 m.sup.2/g, a pH of 5.5, and a carbon content of 2-3% was sourced from Sigma-Aldrich Co. LLC. A Waring Pro MX1000R blender was used to mix 90 mL of deionized water and 10 g of nano-fumed silica particles at 14,000 rpm for 10 seconds at room temperature. The resulting mixture (dry water, i.e., a powder-like substance formed by mixing water and silica at high speeds for storage or transport of aqueous solutions) was transferred into glass bottles. This test confirmed the appropriate speed and time for this blender to convert an aqueous solution and fumed silica in a volume of approximately 100 mL to dry water form, i.e., to encapsulate micro-sized droplets of water in a shell of silica. A 46-0-0 urea fertilizer was sourced from SABIC (see Table 1). A urea solution was formed by 200 g of the urea fertilizer dissolved in 1000 ml deionized water. The following sample solutions were prepared: (1) 50% (w/v) urea solution (UF); (2) 95 ml of urea solution and 5 g fumed silica (UFFS1); (3) 90 ml of urea solution and 10 g fumed silica (UFFS2); (4) 1 g gellan gum and 10 g fumed silica dissolved in 90 ml urea solution (UFFSG); and (5) 9 g fumed silica and 1 g biochar dissolved in 90 ml urea solution (UFFSB). The Waring Pro MX1000R blender was then used to mix the sample solutions, and additional deionized water was added to bring each sample solution up to a total volume of 100 mL. Thus, the UFFS1 sample solution contained 5% fumed silica wt/vol ((5 g/100 mL)100=5%), the UFFS2 sample solution contained 10% fumed silica wt/vol, etc. These solutions were encapsulated in dry water form by mixing at 14,000 rpm for 10 seconds at room temperature using the Waring Pro MX1000R.

(22) TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 SABIC Urea Fertilizer Data Sheet Properties Units Typical Value Total Nitrogen % Min 46 Biuret % Max 1.0 Moisture % Max 0.5 Formaldehyde % Min 0.45 Crushing Strength Kg Min 2 Friability % 100 Drying N/A Free Ammonia ppm 60-100 Particle Size Distribution Granular 2-4 MM % Min 90 Prills 1-2.8 MM % Min 90 Melting Point C. ~132 Color White Radiation Free from radioactive material Free Flowing % 100 Safety Aspects Free from harmful substances Anti-Caking Treated with anti-caking agent

Example 2

Kinetic Release Experiment

(23) This study considered the release of NH.sub.4.sup.+ by the UF, UFFS1, UFFS2, and UFFSG samples prepared as described in Example 1. FIG. 1 shows the amount, in mg/kg.sup.1, of NH4.sup.+ released from each tested fertilizer over time. These results demonstrate that NH4.sup.+ release was rapid in the initial stage, and the increased rate of NH4.sup.+ release declined upon reaching equilibrium. The UFFSG sample (which included urea, gellan gum hydrogel and fumed silica) resulted in significantly higher NH4.sup.+ release throughout the entire experimental period. This formulation released 49.1% of NH4.sup.+ during the first 1,440 minutes, increasing to 67% after 4,320 minutes. Thus, the encapsulated gel-forming urea demonstrated improved NH4.sup.+ release efficiency and slower continuous release as time progressed. This may be attributed to the dynamic viscoelasticity and rheological properties of gellan gum hydrogels in aqueous solution.

(24) Four different kinetic models were applied to interpret the experimental data (see Table 2). The cumulative NH.sub.4.sup.+ released from the different formulations was well predicted by the pseudo-second order model (R.sup.2=0.9437-0.9658). The plot of t/qt versus t for the pseudo-second order model resulted in very good straight lines, as shown in FIGS. 2A-2D. The pseudo-second order kinetic model showed that the value of the initial release rates (h) decreased in the following order: UFFSG (0.88)>UFFS1 (0.74)>urea [sample UF] (0.26)>UFFS2 (0.18). Meanwhile, the value of q.sub.e decreased in the following order: UFFSG (2000)>UFFS1 (227)>UFFS2 (121)>urea (97.1). The best prediction for the NH.sub.4.sup.+ release data by pseudo-second order model confirms chemical release of NH.sub.4.sup.+ in aqueous solution, which is a rate limiting step and is likely primarily due to urea dissolution. Parabolic diffusion was the best model to describe NH.sub.4.sup.+ release from UFFSG (R.sup.2=0.9558), indicating diffusion-controlled phenomena via intra-particle diffusion or surface diffusion. The k.sub.p values in the parabolic diffusion model for NH.sub.4.sup.+ release were higher with the application of UFFSG than with other tested fertilizers in the order of UFFSG>UFFS1>UFFS2>urea. It was also found that the NH.sub.4.sup.+ release from UFFSG was well described by the power function model with R.sup.2=0.9724. The k.sub.f values in the power function model and value in the Elvoich function model were also higher for NH.sub.4.sup.+ release from UFFSG than the corresponding values of the other fertilizers. It appears that the diffusion process influenced NH.sub.4.sup.+ release from UFFSG to a higher extent than it did for the other tested fertilizers, as indicated by significantly higher k.sub.f values for UFFSG. These findings suggest that encapsulated fertilizers based on hydrogels and fumed silica exhibit excellent sorption properties, slow release of urea fertilizer and biodegradation properties, and may be applied in environmentally friendly agriculture.

(25) TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Kinetic Models of NH.sub.4.sup.+ Release from Encapsulated Fertilizer and Urea Control Pseudo-second Order Power Function Elvoich model Intra-particle diffusion Sample h k.sub.2 q.sub.e R.sup.2 k.sub.f b R.sup.2 R.sup.2 k.sub.i a R.sup.2 UF 0.262 0.0000278 97.09 0.944 0.1805 18.94 0.517 28.17 0.086 0.569 0.867 37.217 0.606 UFFS1 0.737 0.0000143 227.27 0.964 0.4062 9.62 0.714 496.96 0.025 0.652 2.387 81.909 0.442 UFFS2 0.178 0.0000119 121.95 0.966 0.5403 1.49 0.872 908.94 0.044 0.825 1.548 14.455 0.721 UFFSG 0.881 0.00000022 2000.00 0.953 0.8066 2.10 0.972 27472 0.003 0.893 23.454 121.18 0.956 h = initial release rate (mg/kg/min); k.sub.2 = second order rate constant ((mg/kg)/0.5); q.sub.e = release quantity of element time t (min); k.sub.f = rate coefficient value (mg/kg/min); = release constant (mg/kg); = initial release rate (mg/kg/min); k.sub.i = intra-particle diffusion rate (mg/kg/min); a and b = constants.

Example 3

Column Experiments

(26) Column experiments were conducted to compare the downward movement of nitrogen forms (NH.sub.4.sup.+.fwdarw.NO.sub.3.sup..fwdarw.NO.sub.2) through soil columns treated with urea or with an encapsulated gel-forming urea. FIG. 3A shows the changes in NH.sub.4.sup.+ concentrations in collected leachates, which increased slightly over the first few days of column incubation (0-3 days). Thereafter, NH.sub.4.sup.+ concentrations increased to a maximum of up to 212.8 mg/L at 14 days after UFFSG treatment. Control soil (CK) showed 16.7 mg/L at day 14, while UF treated soil showed 78.8 mg/L. At day 28, the NH.sub.4.sup.+ concentrations in the UFFSG treated column were still 57.6 and 174.9 times higher than the UF and control-treated columns, respectively. The changes in water-extractable NH.sub.4.sup.+ cations from the upper layer (0-17.5 cm) and lower layer (17.5-35 cm) of soil samples in the columns were also investigated (see FIG. 3B).

(27) These experiments demonstrate that water-extractable NH.sub.4.sup.+ was very low in the upper and lower sections of the columns treated with the control soil or with UF, which may be due to NH.sub.4.sup.+ loss through volatilization or by leaching. However, the water extractable NH.sub.4.sup.+ in soil treated with UFFSG was higher overall, and was higher in subsurface layers than in surface layers. This may be the result of subsurface soil becoming rich in clay (which is negatively charged), or residues of gellan gum hydrogels and of fumed silica accumulating over the course of the experiment.

(28) Gellan gum hydrogels and fumed silica residues may also decrease soil porosity and increase water-holding capacity. In this experiment, adding UFFSG increased water retention of the soil by up to 47.1%, suggesting enhanced levels of NH4.sup.+ in the soil solution.

(29) Changes in NO.sub.3.sup. and NO.sub.2.sup. concentration in leachates and soil extracted by water are shown in FIGS. 4A-B and FIGS. 5A-B. The NO.sub.3.sup. concentration after one hour of column incubation accounted for 1,500 mg/L and 500 mg/L in soil treated with UF and UFFSG, respectively. NO.sub.3.sup. concentration reduced to a minimum in all treatments between day one and day seven. However, NO.sub.3.sup. concentration increased dramatically in leachates of soil treated with UF after 14 days of column incubation until the end of the experiment at day 28. NO.sub.2.sup. concentrations in leachates of soil treated with UF and UFFSG increased significantly only after 14 and/or 28 days. At the conclusion of this experiment, the soil NO.sub.3.sup. concentrations extracted by water in control, UF, and UFFSG were 55.4 mg/L, 83.3 mg/L, and 112.1 mg/L, in the upper layer, respectively. In the lower layer, they were 93.7 mg/L, 429.3 mg/L, and 79.4 mg/L, respectively.

Example 4

Water Holding Capacity and Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity

(30) FIG. 6 and FIG. 7 show the effect of control soil, UF, and UFFSG treatments on water holding capacity and saturated hydraulic conductivity. Applying UFFSG increased the water holding capacity in the upper layer of soil from 17.6% in the control treatment and 16.8% in the UF treatment, to 26.1%. The water holding capacity in the lower section of the soil also increased from 19.8% in the control and 18.5% in the UF treatment to 20.6% in soil treated with UFFSG. These increases could be due to viscoelastic and high water retention characteristics of gellan gum hydrogels, or to decreases in soil porosity due to addition of fumed silica.

(31) The saturated hydraulic conductivity was slightly increased from 0.00352 cm/s in the control treatment to 0.00383 cm/s in the UF treatment. These increases could result from increased soil salinity resulting from urea application. Saturated hydraulic conductivity was significantly decreased in soil treated with UFFSG, to 0.00163 cm/s. These changes likely resulted from the same factors discussed above for water holding capacity.

Example 5

Incubation Experiments

(32) Nitrogen loss through volatilization was tested over a 30-day period, comparing values for UFFS1, UFFS2, UFFSG, and UFFSB. FIG. 8A and FIG. 8B show the recorded NH.sub.3.sup. volatilization rate and cumulative total NH.sub.3.sup. volatilization, respectively. NH.sub.3.sup. volatilization rates were highest during the first three days, but tended to decline sharply as incubation progressed. The initial NH.sub.3.sup. rates were 6.38-16.29 g/g soil/day, declining to 3.54-6.26 g/g soil/day at day seven to day ten, and 0.28-7.93 g/g soil/day at day fifteen to day thirty. Overall, the lowest rates of NH.sub.3.sup. volatilization were during the final incubation period. This may be due to higher amounts of biodegradable organic compounds at the outset, which could enhance the native bacteria in the soil, increasing urease activity. As incubation proceeded the easily biodegradable organic compounds may be consumed, resulting in lower microbial activity and lower NH.sub.3.sup. volatilization.

(33) Overall, there were no significant differences in rate of volatilization between day fifteen and day thirty. However, cumulative NH.sub.3.sup. volatilization differed significantly between test groups. Over the period of the experiment, cumulative volatilization increased from 5.7 to 45.3 mg/kg soil for the control, from 15.6 to 188.4 mg/kg soil for UF, from 14.2 to 209.7 mg/kg soil for UFFS1, from 8.5 to 94.1 mg/kg soil for UFFS2, from 8.5 to 68 mg/kg soil for UFFSG and from 17 to 174.3 mg/kg soil for UFFSB. These results indicate that treatment with UF, UFFS1, and UFFSB significantly increased NH.sub.3.sup. volatilization. However, treatment with UFFS2 and UFFSG was not significantly different from the control treatment, suggesting no contribution to increased NH.sub.3.sup. volatilization. This confirms that modified urea fertilizers using 10% fumed silica, or 10% fumed silica and 1% gellan gum, could reduce NH.sub.3.sup. volatilization, preserving the urea and thereby extending the effective lifespan of the fertilizer. This effect may result from the higher concentration of fumed silica creating a thick outer shell around the fertilizer, thereby protecting the urea from volatilization. The thickness of this outer fumed silica shell and solubility of the contained urea could be further controlled by varying the amount of fumed silica and gellan gum hydrogel used.

(34) It is to be understood that the encapsulated sustained release urea fertilizer is not limited to the specific embodiments described above, but encompasses any and all embodiments within the scope of the generic language of the following claims enabled by the embodiments described herein, or otherwise shown in the drawings or described above in terms sufficient to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed subject matter.