Next Article in Journal
Experimental and Numerical Study on Vortical Structures and Their Dynamics in a Pump Sump
Next Article in Special Issue
High-Precision Calculation of the Proportions of Water with δ2H and δ18O, the Cumulative Effect of Evaporation in the Vertical Direction and Depleted δ2H and δ18O of the Shallow Soil Water Caused by Evaporation
Previous Article in Journal
Bioretention Systems Optimization and Design Characterization Model Using Fuzzy Rough Set Theory
Previous Article in Special Issue
Scaling Up from Leaf to Whole-Plant Level for Water Use Efficiency Estimates Based on Stomatal and Mesophyll Behaviour in Platycladus orientalis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 14
Issue 13
10.3390/w14132038
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Geochemical and Seasonal Characteristics of Dissolved Iron Isotopes in the Mun River, Northeast Thailand

by
Xuhuan Xiao
,
Guilin Han
*,
Jie Zeng
,
Man Liu
and
Xiaoqiang Li
Institute of Earth Sciences, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2022, 14(13), 2038; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14132038
Submission received: 30 May 2022 / Revised: 21 June 2022 / Accepted: 23 June 2022 / Published: 25 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Stable Isotope in Soil, Plant and Water: Ecohydrological Process from Ecosystem to Watershed)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Dissolved iron (Fe) isotopes in river water have a pivotal role in understanding the Fe cycle in the surficial environment. A total of 13 samples of river water were collected from the Mun River to analyze the Fe isotopes and their controlling factors in river water, such as dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and different supply sources. The results showed that dissolved Fe (DFe) concentrations ranged from 21.49 μg/L to 232.34 μg/L in the dry season and ranged from 10.48 μg/L to 135.27 μg/L in the wet season, which might be ascribed to the dilution effect. The δ56Fe of the dry season (−0.34 to 0.57‰, with an average 0.09‰) was lower than that of the wet season (−0.15 to 0.48‰, with an average 0.14‰). Combined with the δ56Fe and DFe/DAl ratios, the end-members of DFe were identified, including rock weathering (high δ56Fe and low DFe/DAl ratio), anthropogenic inputs (high δ56Fe and high DFe/DAl ratio) and groundwater inputs (low δ56Fe and low DFe/DAl ratio). The relationship between δ56Fe and DOC concentrations suggested that the chelation of organic matter with heavy Fe isotopes was one of the important sources of heavy Fe isotopes in river water.

1. Introduction

Iron (Fe) is abundant in the continental crust [1,2] and is an essential trace element for biology [3,4]. In freshwater systems, the availability of Fe is also an important factor for the survival of cyanobacterial [5]. Moreover, Fe might be important to climate change by influencing biological productivity and carbon sequestration rates [6,7,8]. Rivers are important channels for the continent to transport Fe to the ocean, and the filtrable Fe (<0.45 μm) from riverine flux to the marine is approximately 140 Gg/yr [9]. Fe occurs as Fe(0), Fe(II) and Fe(III), and Fe’s valence state mainly depends on environmental conditions [10]. The most stable state is the oxidation state, Fe(III), because the atmosphere is mainly in an oxidizing state [11]. Combined with the redox chemistry of Fe and the abundance of this element in the river, further investigation of Fe in rivers is crucial to understanding continental erosional/weathering mechanisms [12,13].
In modern oxidizing Earth surface conditions, continental weathering preferentially releases light Fe isotope compositions, which is transported in rivers to marine areas [14,15,16,17]. According to the study on the Seine River, dissolved Fe is derived from anthropogenic inputs (δ56Fe = −0.60‰) and natural inputs (δ56Fe > 0.00‰) [18]. Based on the study of estuaries, particulate Fe sources were determined by Fe isotopes [19]. Hence, Fe isotopes can be used to trace Fe sources in hydrologic environments. Because of the strong complexation capacity of Fe, Fe(III) organic complexation is an important form of Fe [20]. The coordination bond Fe-O-C of the organic Fe complex is stronger than the Fe-O-Fe bond of Fe hydroxide, and the enrichment of heavy Fe isotopes in the Fe(III) organic complex is stronger than that of Fe oxyhydroxides [21,22]. In addition, the dissolved Fe isotope compositions have seasonal variations in the rivers. In the Amazon River Basin, the Fe isotope compositions of bulk water vary little throughout the year [12], but the Fe isotope compositions of particulate matter in organic-rich rivers show seasonal effects [23,24,25]. Hence, the results may be canceled out by the variations in the dissolved Fe isotopes’ compositions. The dissolved Fe isotope compositions in small organic-rich streams change significantly with time in the Arctic and subarctic regions [26].
The dissolved Fe and its isotopes in the Mun River (MR) were investigated in this study. The MR has important significance to the ecosystems of the Mekong River Basin, which is the largest tributary on the right bank of Mekong River [27], because local industrial development and intensive agricultural activities may bring environmental issues in the MR [28,29,30]. In addition, the seasonal variation and the influence of organic matter on dissolved Fe isotopes are unclear in the MR. The aims of this study are to explore (1) the seasonal characteristics and comparison of Fe isotopes in the dry and wet seasons of the MR, (2) the sources of dissolved Fe and (3) the influence of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentrations on Fe isotopes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Region

The Mun River Basin (MRB) (14°00′–16°00′ N, 101°30′–105°30′ E) is located on the Korat Plateau, Northeast Thailand (Figure 1). According to Akter and Babel [31], the MR is divided into upper (101°30′–102°30′ E), middle (102°30′–104°30′ E) and lower (104°30′–105°30′ E) reaches. The total length of the MR is 673 km, with a landmass of 82,000 km2 [32]. The MRB has a tropical savannah climate, which is mainly controlled by the southwest monsoon (March to October) and the northeast monsoon (October to February) [33,34]. The average annual temperature is 24–30 °C, and the perennial temperature is no less than 18 °C. During the dry season, the rainfall variation is 40 to 120 mm. On the contrary, the rainfall in the wet season is from 800 mm to 1800 mm [35]. The average annual precipitation in MRB is 1300 to 1500 mm [36]. Thailand has a large population and its economy dependents on agriculture. The main type of land use is arable land [37], most of which is paddy fields [38,39]. The main rock types of the MRB are clastic rocks and clastic rocks with evaporite, and sporadic igneous rocks existed only in the southern of the MRB [37].

2.2. Sampling and Analytical Methods

2.2.1. Field Sampling

In March 2018 (dry season), 13 samples were collected at a depth of approximately 10 cm in the MR [29]. The samples in the wet season (August 2017) were analyzed in a previous study [40]. Among them, four sampling sites were located in the upper stream (S1, S2, S3 and S4), four sampling sites were in the middle stream (S5, S6, S7 and S8) and five samples were collected in the lower stream (S9, S10, S11, S12 and S13). Water samples were collected by LDPE bottles, which were retouched three times with the water samples at the sampling point. After that, the samples were filtered by 0.22 μm cellulose acetate filter membrane and were then collected in pre-cleaned HDPE bottles [41]. In order to prevent metal cations from adhering to the inner wall of the bottle, it is necessary to acidify the water samples with ultrapure concentrated nitric acid (HNO3) to pH < 2. Before analysis, they were stored in a dark refrigerator.

2.2.2. Water Parameter and Elemental Analysis

The pH and dissolved oxygen (DO) were determined by a YSI multi-parameter before filtration, according to previous studies [26,28,35]. The concentrations of Fe and aluminum (Al) were measured by ICP-MS (Elan 9000, Perkin Elmer Optima, Waltham, MA, USA) in the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Nature Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). The standard reference (GSB 04-1767-2004) was used for quality control and method validation. The uncertainty was below 0.7%, and the percentage recoveries ranged from 97.21% to 109.80%.

2.3. Iron Isotope Analyses

2.3.1. Pretreatment of Iron

The iron isotope pretreatment was conducted in a class 100 fume hood in a class 1000 metal-free ultra clean laboratory at the Surficial Environment and Hydrological Geochemistry Laboratory (SEHGL), China University of Geosciences Beijing (CUGB). In this study, the reagents (HNO3 and HCl, BVIII grade) were purchased from the Beijing Institute of Chemical Reagents. The experimental labware was cleaned with double distilled ultrapure acid and ultrapure water (18.2 MΩ∙cm, Pall, New York, NY, USA) [42]. For Fe separation, the AG MP-1M resin (1.6 mL, 100–200 mesh, Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) was filled in the polypropylene column to obtain an anion-exchange chromatography. The column was cleaned three times with 10 mL 0.5N HNO3 and 2 mL water. After this, 5 mL 7N HCl + 0.001% H2O2 and 5 mL water were used to further clean the column alternately. Then, 2 mL 7N HCl + 0.001%H2O2 was used to complete the acidification of the resin. The sample loading amount was typically 25 μg Fe. According to Fe concentrations in the samples, a certain amount of the samples were taken into Teflon beakers and dried on the heating plate. After that, the residue was treated with 1 mL concentrated HNO3 to remove organic matter. Finally, the solutions were dried at 80 °C and re-dissolved three times in 7 N HCl + 0.001% H2O2 before separation. Following this, 1 ml solution (sample which had been dried and re-dissolved) was loaded onto the column until it was fully absorbed by the resin. The 40 mL 7N HCl + 0.001% H2O2 were used to eliminate the interference of the matrix. After that, 20 mL 2N HCl + 0.001% H2O2 were used to elute the eluent of Fe, which was collected with a 30 mL Teflon container. All samples were purified twice to separate Fe from the matrix completely. After purification process, the Teflon container containing the eluent of Fe was evaporated on the heating plate (80 °C) until they were moist. In order to convert HCl medium into HNO3 medium, concentrated HNO3 (0.1 mL) was added into all samples; then, they were evaporated until dry (repeated three times) [43]. Afterwards, the purified Fe was re-dissolved in 2% HNO3 solution to be analyzed on the instrument. The specific experimental details can be found in our previous studies [40,44].

2.3.2. Mass Spectrometry Analysis

The Fe isotope compositions were completed on MC-ICP-MS (Nu Plasma III) at the SEHGL. Before Fe isotopes analysis, the Fe concentration in solution was calculated through the intensity of ion beams to ensure that the loss of Fe was less than 1% in the chemical separation and purification. The average Fe content of the procedural blank was < 10 ng. During the analysis, the wet plasma method was used to measure the Fe isotopes value. In order to eliminate the interference of spectral peaks of other plasmas, such as 40Ar14N to 54Fe, 40Ar16O to 56Fe and 40Ar16O1H to 57Fe, medium-resolution mode was adopted. In addition, the potential interference of 54Cr still existed, the interference of 40Ar12C+ was eliminated by measuring the left shoulder of 52Cr+ spectral peak to monitor the interference of 54Cr+. In order to redress the error caused by the instrument itself, the “standard-sample bracketing” (SSB) was used for the analysis of Fe isotopes. In addition, the analysis results were affected by the concentration effect, so the standard-sample concentrations matched within 5% to reduce the effect. IRMM-014 was used in this analysis as the standard, which is a metallic Fe standard distributed by the IRMM (Institute for Reference Materials and Methods). For specific details of Fe isotope measurement, refer to our previous research [40,44].
In this study, all the δ56Fe and δ57Fe values obtained followed the theoretical mass-dependent fractionation line, so only the δ56Fe were discussed. δ56Fe was defined by micrometer deviation relative to the Fe standard IRMM-014, as the following relationship:
δ56Fe = [(56Fe/54Fe) sample/(56Fe/54Fe) IRMM-014 − 1] × 1000
The long-term external reproducibility of Fe isotopes analysis was better than 0.07‰. The δ56Fe IRMM-014 of reference standard BCR-2 was 0.08 ± 0.04 ‰ (n = 2), within the range reported in previous studies [40].

2.4. Software

The map of sampling sites and rock types of the MR was drawn by CorelDRAW 2021. Other figures were made by Adobe Illustrator 2015 and Origin 2018. In order to determine the influencing factors of dissolved Fe concentrations and Fe isotopes, all data were performed using SPSS 26.0 for Pearson correlation analysis, with two-tailed detection and the level of significance below 0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Variations in Iron Concentrations in River Water

3.1.1. Temporal and Spatial Variations in pH, DO and DOC

The pH in the dry season ranged from 6.1 to 7.7, with an average of 7.0 [45], and the pH in the midstream (6.6) was lower than upstream (7.1) and downstream (7.1). The pH in the wet season varied from 6.4 to 7.7, with an average of 6.9 [29], and the pH in the midstream (6.6) was lower than upstream (7.4) and downstream (6.7). The DO in the dry season displayed a uniform variation of 3.3–10.3 mg/L, and the mean DO in the upstream, midstream and downstream showed no significant change, approximately 6.6 mg/L. The DO also displayed a uniform variation of 3.0–7.1 mg/L in the wet season, which was lower than that in the dry season. The DO in the upstream (5.8 mg/L) and downstream (5.3 mg/L) was higher than that in midstream (4.4 mg/L) (Figure 2). The DOC in the dry season varied from 5.7 to 12.6 mg/L (average 8.8 mg/L). In the dry season, The DOC in upstream (9.5 mg/L) was higher than that in the midstream (8.7 mg/L) and downstream (8.3 mg/L). The DOC varied from 1.7 to 35.8 mg/L in the wet season (average 12.5 mg/L). The DOC of the wet season in the upstream (3.5 mg/L) was lower than that in the midstream (14.6 mg/L) and downstream (18.1 mg/L). The rainfall in the wet season accounted for about 85% of the annual rainfall [34]. However, rainfall shows no dilution effects on the DOC because the DOC in the dry season was lower than that in the wet season. Intensive agricultural activities in the middle and lower reaches might increase DOC concentrations [29]. Furthermore, the increase in riverine DOC in the wet season might be ascribed to the vast humic substance from high rainfall in the forest area [40,46].

3.1.2. Variations in Dissolved Iron and Aluminum

The dissolved iron (DFe) concentration in the dry season varied from 21.49 to 232.34 μg/L (Figure 3 and Table S1), with an average 94.70 μg/L. Compared with the Fe concentration of the marine area of 5.6 to 56 ng/L [18,47], the DFe concentration in MR was particularly high, and this may be related to anthropogenic input and rock weathering. The mean DFe concentrations in the dry season from the upstream to the downstream were 118.64, 67.09 and 97.64 μg/L. The DFe concentration in the middle reaches was the lowest. From upstream to downstream, there was a downward and then upward trend (Figure 3). The concentration of DFe during the wet season was from 10.48 to 135.27 μg/L (mean concentration 36.54 μg/L). Compared with DFe concentration in the wet and dry seasons, the DFe concentration in the wet season was lower than that in the dry season. It indicated that DFe concentration was diluted by river water. The trend of DFe concentration in the wet season was opposite to that in the dry season. The DFe concentration in the midstream was highest in the wet season (Figure 3).
Aluminum is often used as a tracer due to its high content and relative immobility in the crust [48,49,50]. Based on the ratio of DFe/DAl, the dilution effect of DFe concentrations was eliminated. The concentration of dissolved aluminum (DAl) in the dry season varied from 1.77 to 167.42 μg/L (average 41.97 μg/L). The average concentrations of DAl from the upstream to the downstream were 45.08, 44.69 and 20.26 μg/L. The DAl concentration in the wet season was 0–177.77 μg/L, with a mean of 44.05 μg/L [30]. The average DAl concentrations from upstream to downstream were 2.84, 82.07 and 28.67 μg/L, which was highest in the middle reach. In the dry and wet seasons, the DAl concentrations showed a significant increase, which was probably attributed to humic-type colloids [51].

3.1.3. Influence Factors of DFe Concentration

The Fe in natural water was mainly soluble Fe (ionic Fe, Fe complexes and colloidal Fe) and insoluble Fe (suspended Fe, biological Fe and terrigenous clastic Fe). The solubility of Fe in water was affected by various factors (pH, DO, DOC, etc.) [52]. The relationship between dissolved aluminum (DAl) and dissolved Fe (DFe) concentrations (Figure 4a) (r = 0.66, p < 0.05 in the dry season and r = 0.9, p < 0.01 in the wet season) indicated that there was little correlation between DFe concentrations and DAl concentrations in the dry season and strong correlation between DFe concentrations and DAl concentrations in the wet season. In the dry season, there was an apparent correlation between DFe and DFe/DOC (r = 0.95, p < 0.01), but in the wet season, there was no correlation between DFe and Dfe/DOC (Figure 4b). Therefore, the DOC concentrations were more associated with the DFe concentrations in the dry season than those in the wet season. In the dry season, the DFe concentrations correlated with Si/Al ratio in the MR (Figure 5), indicating higher DFe concentrations in congruent weathering systems and lower DFe concentrations in incongruent weathering systems. In incongruent weathering systems, the Fe may be fixed in secondary mineral phases.

3.2. Iron Isotope Compositions of River Water

3.2.1. Variation in Iron Isotopes

The δ56Fe of MR varied from −0.34‰ to 0.57‰ (Table S1 and Figure 3 and Figure 6), with an average of 0.09‰. The average δ56Fe of the upper, middle and lower reaches in the MR were 0.17‰, 0.12‰ and 0.00‰, respectively. The δ56Fe in the continental crust was 0.06 ± 0.03‰ [54,55]. The δ56Fe in sedimentary clastic rocks and igneous rocks were similar to the continental crust [19]. The bedrocks of the MRB are mainly clastic rocks and sporadic igneous rocks in the south of the MRB, and the δ56Fe of the MR is consistent with that of bedrocks. Compared to Arctic rivers (e.g., Copper River, average δ56Fe = −0.01‰; Lena River, average δ56Fe = −0.11‰; and Ob’ River, average δ56Fe = −0.11‰) (Figure 6) [26] and the tropical river (Amazon River, δ56Fe = −0.17‰) (Figure 6) [56], the δ56Fe in the MR was higher. However, compared to the Negro River, an organic-rich river (average δ56Fe = 0.28‰), the δ56Fe in the Mun River was lower.

3.2.2. Seasonal Variation in the DFe Isotope

In the Arctic and sub-arctic regions, the DFe isotope of a small organic-rich river varied significantly with time (−1.7–1.6‰); in the wet season, low molecular weight organic colloids preferentially complexed heavy DFe isotopes, while light DFe isotopes were enriched in the dry season [26]. The δ56Fe of the subglacial fluvial iron from the same site in Greenland varied slightly [57]. However, for a typical tropical river—such as the Mun River—the Fe isotope was different across different seasons. The average δ56Fe of the MR in the dry season (0.09‰) was lower than that in the wet season (0.14‰) (Figure 3).
The main recharge source of the MR in the wet season was precipitation, and that in the dry season was groundwater [58]. A previous study reported δ56Fe of atmospheric aerosols (0.08–0.12‰) [59], which were approximate to δ56Fe of continental crust (0.06 ± 0.03‰). However, the Fe isotopes in groundwater were lighter than that in the continental crust [60,61]. Furthermore, the groundwater usually had low oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) and high concentrations of Fe (II) [61], which will slowly oxidize and settle, resulting in lighter dissolved Fe isotopes in river water and heavier Fe isotopes in suspended particulate matter (SPM) [16,23,24]. This process made the DFe isotopes of rivers lighter in the dry season. Therefore, precipitation and groundwater were the recharge sources of MR in the wet and dry seasons, respectively, resulting in the difference in the dissolved Fe isotopes in the MR.

3.2.3. The Source of Dissolved Fe

Dissolved Fe in river water had different sources, mainly including rock weathering, anthropogenic sources (agriculture and industry activities) and other potential sources (groundwater and precipitation, etc.) [59,62,63,64]. According to Han, Yang, Zeng and Zhao [40], the end-member of rock weathering had the highest Fe isotopes and a lower DFe/DAl ratio, the end-member of the anthropogenic source had a moderate Fe isotopes value (δ56Fe > 0) and the highest DFe/DAl ratio (anthropogenic input introduces extra Fe in river water) and the end-member of other potential sources had the lowest Fe isotopes value and a low DFe/DAl ratio (Chi River). However, in this study, only the end-members of rock weathering and anthropogenic inputs in Han, Yang, Zeng and Zhao [40] were used. Groundwater and precipitation were regard as the third end-member. As mentioned above, the δ56Fe of atmospheric aerosols was similar to that of the continental crust, so the end-member of precipitation was summarized as that of rock weathering. For the end-member of groundwater, the δ56Fe of groundwater of the basin whose lithology was mainly sandstone and Quaternary sediments was used to approximate (median δ56Fe = −1.14‰) [61]. For the DFe/DAl ratio in groundwater, the DFe and DAl concentrations in the groundwater in northeast Thailand were used (DFe/DAl = 10.74) [65]. In Figure 7, sample points in dry and wet seasons were near the end-member of rock weathering, indicating that the DFe mainly came from rock weathering. However, compared with the wet season, DFe in the dry season was more influenced by anthropogenic source. During the dry season, some samples in the midstream and downstream were obviously located between the end-members of natural sources and anthropogenic sources (Figure 7). The δ56Fe of S2 was lowest in the dry season. This may be related to bedrock and external inputs. The bedrock of S2 was limestone, which had a low δ56Fe (−0.95–−0.21‰) [66]. The S2 was located in the forest area, where rivers in the forest took away the light Fe from the forest to reduce δ56Fe, and this process also increased the concentration of DFe in the river compared to natural rivers [67]. Therefore, the DFe of S2 may be mainly from forest and rock weathering. In general, in the dry season, the DFe of the upstream was mainly from rock weathering, while the DFe of the midstream and downstream was obviously influenced by anthropogenic activities.

3.3. Influence of DOC on the DFe Isotopes

The Dfe isotopes were mainly affected by redox conditions, organic matter and biological activities. Experimental research showed that Fe3+ organic complexes were enriched with heavier Fe isotopes than Fe hydroxide or Fe2+ [21]. The study of Arctic rivers indicated that heavy Fe isotopes was enriched by the combination of Fe and organic ligands [26]. Ilina, Poitrasson, Lapitskiy, Alekhin, Viers and Pokrovsky [22] found that Dfe was more enriched heavy Fe isotopes than Fe of suspended particulate matter in the organic rich rivers. These finds were consistent with the quantum mechanical calculations, which suggested that the heavier isotope concentrates in the most tightly bound species [68]. The complexation of other metals with organic matter also proved this point [69,70].
In order to determine the influence of organic matter on DFe isotopes in rivers, the relationships between δ56Fe and DOC concentrations of frigid rivers (Severnaya Dvina and Gulf of Alaska Basin) [26,67], a temperate river (Seine River) [18] and a tropical river (Mun River) were compared. The strong positive correlation between δ56Fe and DOC concentrations of the MR in the dry season suggested that the chelation of Fe and organic matter results in the enrichment of heavy Fe isotopes (Figure 8). A previous study showed that the DOC in the MR was influenced by human activities [29]; thus, the anthropogenic end-member of heavy Fe isotopes was carried by DOC in the MR. However, there was no correlation between the δ56Fe and DOC concentrations of the MR in the wet season (Figure 8). It was possible that the uptake of plants caused the decomposition of organic matter in soil and then release light Fe isotopes to rivers [71]. As mentioned above, heavy precipitation will cause the increase in DOC concentration in the wet season (Section 3.1.1). The relationship between the δ56Fe and DOC concentrations in boreal forested rivers and glacierized rivers also suggest that forested rivers may carry light Fe isotopes (Figure 8). For the Seine River, whose DOC concentrations were similar to the world riverine average (5.35 mg/L) [72], there was a strong positive correlation between δ56Fe and DOC concentrations (Figure 8). The natural end-member of Fe had heavy Fe isotopes in the Seine River [18]; hence, according to the relationship between δ56Fe and DOC concentrations, it can be determined that natural Fe was carried by organic matter. Similar to the above rivers, there was also a positive correlation between δ56Fe and DOC concentrations in the organic-rich Severnaya Dvina (Figure 8). In summary, the chelation of organic matter with heavy Fe isotopes was one of the important sources of heavy Fe isotopes in river water in different climate zones.

4. Conclusions

This study reported the DFe isotope compositions of the tropical river MR in the dry season. The δ56Fe of the MR was similar to those of the continental upper crust. The δ56Fe ranged from −0.34 to 0.57‰, and the average δ56Fe of the upstream, midstream and downstream of the MR were 0.17‰, 0.12‰ and 0.00‰. From upstream to downstream, the δ56Fe showed a downward trend as a whole. Compared with the δ56Fe in the wet season of the MR, the δ56Fe in the dry season was slightly lower than that in the wet season, which may be ascribed to the great influx of groundwater in the dry season. The δ56Fe of groundwater was lower than that in the continental crust. In addition, the oxidation and precipitation of Fe in groundwater will lead to the lightening of DFe isotopes in river water. The relationship between DAl and DFe concentrations suggested that there was little correlation between DFe concentrations and DAl concentrations in the dry season and a strong correlation between DFe concentrations and DAl concentrations in the wet season. According to the relationship between δ56Fe and DFe/DAl ratio, the sources of DFe in MR were rock weathering, anthropogenic inputs and groundwater inputs. The DFe in upstream was mainly from rock weathering, and anthropogenic activities obviously influenced the DFe in the midstream and downstream. Furthermore, the relationship between the δ56Fe and DOC concentrations of rivers in different climate zones showed that the heavy Fe isotopes were carried by organic matter.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/w14132038/s1, Table S1: The data of DFe concentrations and DFe isotope compositions in the dry and wet seasons of the Mun River.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.H. and X.X.; methodology, J.Z., X.X. and X.L.; software, X.X. and M.L.; validation, G.H., X.X. and J.Z.; formal analysis, X.X.; investigation, X.X., G.H., J.Z., M.L. and X.L.; resources, G.H.; data curation, X.X.; writing—original draft preparation, X.X., G.H., J.Z., M.L. and X.L.; writing—review and editing, X.X. and G.H.; visualization, X.X.; supervision, G.H.; project administration, G.H.; funding acquisition, G.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41661144029; 41325010).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Fairda Malem’s group from the Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment of Thailand and Qian Zhang from the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, for their help in field sampling.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wedepohl, K.H. The composition of the continental crust. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1995, 59, 1217–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Craddock, P.R.; Dauphas, N. Iron and carbon isotope evidence for microbial iron respiration throughout the Archean. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2011, 303, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Morel, F.M.M.; Price, N.M. The biogeochemical cycles of trace metals in the oceans. Science 2003, 300, 944–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Gao, S.; Wang, Z.; Wu, Q.; Wang, W.; Peng, C.; Zeng, J.; Wang, Y. Urban geochemistry and human-impacted imprint of dissolved trace and rare earth elements in a high-tech industrial city, Suzhou. Elementa-Sci Anthrop. 2021, 9, 00151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sun, Y.; Wang, S.; Liu, X.; He, Y.; Wu, H.; Xie, W.; Li, N.; Hou, W.; Dong, H. Iron availability is a key factor for freshwater cyanobacterial survival against saline stress. Environ. Res. 2021, 194, 110592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Martin, J.H. Glacial-interglacial CO2 change: The iron hypothesis. Paleoceanography 1990, 5, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Anbar, A.D.; Knoll, A.H. Proterozoic ocean chemistry and evolution: A bioinorganic bridge? Science 2002, 297, 1137–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Blain, S.; Queguiner, B.; Armand, L.; Belviso, S.; Bombled, B.; Bopp, L.; Bowie, A.; Brunet, C.; Brussaard, C.; Carlotti, F.; et al. Effect of natural iron fertilization on carbon sequestration in the Southern Ocean. Nature 2007, 446, 1070–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Raiswell, R.; Canfield, D.E. The iron biogeochemical cycle past and present. Geochem. Perspect. 2012, 1, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Wu, B.; Amelung, W.; Xing, Y.; Bol, R.; Berns, A.E. Iron cycling and isotope fractionation in terrestrial ecosystems. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2019, 190, 323–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Johnson, C.M.; Beard, B.L. Biogeochemical cycling of iron isotopes. Science 2005, 309, 1025–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Poitrasson, F.; Vieira, L.C.; Seyler, P.; Pinheiro, G.M.D.; Mulholland, D.S.; Bonnet, M.P.; Martinez, J.M.; Lima, B.A.; Boaventura, G.R.; Chmeleff, J.; et al. Iron isotope composition of the bulk waters and sediments from the Amazon River Basin. Chem. Geol. 2014, 377, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhang, J.; Wu, Q.; Wang, Z.; Gao, S.; Jia, H.; Shen, Y. Distribution, water quality, and health risk assessment of trace elements in three streams during the wet season, Guiyang, Southwest China. Elementa-Sci. Anthrop. 2021, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fantle, M.S.; DePaolo, D.J. Iron isotopic fractionation during continental weathering. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2004, 228, 547–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Kiczka, M.; Wiederhold, J.G.; Frommer, J.; Kraemer, S.M.; Bourdon, B.; Kretzschmar, R. Iron isotope fractionation during proton- and ligand-promoted dissolution of primary phyllosilicates. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2010, 74, 3112–3128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Thompson, A.; Ruiz, J.; Chadwick, O.A.; Titus, M.; Chorover, J. Rayleigh fractionation of iron isotopes during pedogenesis along a climate sequence of Hawaiian basalt. Chem. Geol. 2007, 238, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wiederhold, J.G.; Teutsch, N.; Kraemer, S.M.; Halliday, A.N.; Kretzschmar, R. Iron isotope fractionation in oxic soils by mineral weathering and podzolization. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2007, 71, 5821–5833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chen, J.B.; Busigny, V.; Gaillardet, J.; Louvat, P.; Wang, Y.N. Iron isotopes in the Seine River (France): Natural versus anthropogenic sources. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2014, 128, 128–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Escoube, R.; Rouxel, O.J.; Sholkovitz, E.; Donard, O.F.X. Iron isotope systematics in estuaries: The case of North River, Massachusetts (USA). Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2009, 73, 4045–4059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Dauphas, N.; John, S.G.; Rouxel, O. Iron Isotope Systematics. In Non-Traditional Stable Isotopes; Teng, F.Z., Watkins, J., Dauphas, N., Eds.; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 2017; Volume 82, pp. 415–510. [Google Scholar]
  21. Dideriksen, K.; Baker, J.A.; Stipp, S.L.S. Equilibrium Fe isotope fractionation between inorganic aqueous Fe(III) and the siderophore complex, Fe(III)-desferrioxamine B. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2008, 272, 758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ilina, S.M.; Poitrasson, F.; Lapitskiy, S.A.; Alekhin, Y.V.; Viers, J.; Pokrovsky, O.S. Extreme iron isotope fractionation between colloids and particles of boreal and temperate organic-rich waters. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2013, 101, 96–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. dos Santos Pinheiro, G.M.; Poitrasson, F.; Sondag, F.; Cochonneau, G.; Vieira, L.C. Contrasting iron isotopic compositions in river suspended particulate matter: The Negro and the Amazon annual river cycles. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2014, 394, 168–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. dos Santos Pinheiro, G.M.; Poitrasson, F.; Sondag, F.; Vieira, L.C.; Pimentel, M.M. Iron isotope composition of the suspended matter along depth and lateral profiles in the Amazon River and its tributaries. J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 2013, 44, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ingri, J.; Malinovsky, D.; Rodushkin, I.; Baxter, D.C.; Widerlund, A.; Andersson, P.; Gustafsson, Ö.; Forsling, W.; Öhlander, B. Iron isotope fractionation in river colloidal matter. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2006, 245, 792–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Escoube, R.; Rouxel, O.J.; Pokrovsky, O.S.; Schroth, A.; Holmes, R.M.; Donard, O.F.X. Iron isotope systematics in Arctic rivers. Comptes Rendus Geosci. 2015, 347, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Hecht, J.S.; Lacombe, G.; Arias, M.E.; Dang, T.D.; Piman, T. Hydropower dams of the Mekong River basin: A review of their hydrological impacts. J. Hydrol. 2019, 568, 285–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, J.K.; Han, G.L.; Liu, X.L.; Liu, M.; Song, C.; Yang, K.H.; Li, X.Q.; Zhang, Q. Distributive Characteristics of Riverine Nutrients in the Mun River, Northeast Thailand: Implications for Anthropogenic Inputs. Water 2019, 11, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Liu, J.; Han, G.; Liu, X.; Liu, M.; Song, C.; Zhang, Q.; Yang, K.; Li, X. Impacts of Anthropogenic Changes on the Mun River Water: Insight from Spatio-Distributions and Relationship of C and N Species in Northeast Thailand. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Liang, B.; Han, G.; Liu, M.; Li, X.; Song, C.; Zhang, Q.; Yang, K. Spatial and Temporal Variation of Dissolved Heavy Metals in the Mun River, Northeast Thailand. Water 2019, 11, 380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Akter, A.; Babel, M.S. Hydrological modeling of the Mun River basin in Thailand. J. Hydrol. 2012, 452–453, 232–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhao, Z.H.; Liu, G.H.; Liu, Q.S.; Huang, C.; Li, H. Studies on the Spatiotemporal Variability of River Water Quality and Its Relationships with Soil and Precipitation: A Case Study of the Mun River Basin in Thailand. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Peel, M.; Finlayson, B.; McMahon, T. Updated World Map of the Koppen-Geiger Climate Classification. Hydrol Earth Syst. Sci. 2007, 4, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Li, X.; Han, G.; Liu, M.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Q.; Qu, R. Potassium and its isotope behaviour during chemical weathering in a tropical catchment affected by evaporite dissolution. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2022, 316, 105–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Prabnakorn, S.; Maskey, S.; Suryadi, F.X.; de Fraiture, C. Rice yield in response to climate trends and drought index in the Mun River Basin, Thailand. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 621, 108–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Wijnhoud, J.D.; Konboon, Y.; Lefroy, R.D.B. Nutrient budgets: Sustainability assessment of rainfed lowland rice-based systems in northeast Thailand. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 100, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, X.; Han, G.; Liu, M.; Song, C.; Zhang, Q.; Yang, K.; Liu, J. Hydrochemistry and Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC) Cycling in a Tropical Agricultural River, Mun River Basin, Northeast Thailand. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Nimnate, P.; Choowong, M.; Thitimakorn, T.; Hisada, K. Geomorphic criteria for distinguishing and locating abandoned channels from upstream part of Mun River, Khorat Plateau, northeastern Thailand. Environ. Earth Sci. 2017, 76, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zeng, J.; Han, G.L.; Yang, K.H. Assessment and sources of heavy metals in suspended particulate matter in a tropical catchment, northeast Thailand. J. Clean Prod. 2020, 265, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Han, G.; Yang, K.; Zeng, J.; Zhao, Y. Dissolved iron and isotopic geochemical characteristics in a typical tropical river across the floodplain: The potential environmental implication. Environ. Res. 2021, 200, 111452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Liu, J.; Han, G. Tracing riverine particulate black carbon sources in Xijiang River basin: Insight from stable isotopic composition and Bayesian Mixing Model. Water Res. 2021, 194, 116932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zeng, J.; Han, G.; Zhang, S.; Liang, B.; Qu, R.; Liu, M.; Liu, J. Potentially toxic elements in cascade dams-influenced river originated from Tibetan Plateau. Environ. Res. 2022, 208, 112716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Zeng, J.; Han, G. Preliminary copper isotope study on particulate matter in Zhujiang River, southwest China: Application for source identification. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 198, 110663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Yang, K.; Han, G.; Zeng, J.; Liu, M.; Li, X.; Zhao, Y. Tracing Fe Sources in Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) in the Mun River: Application of Fe-Stable Isotopes Based on a Binary Mixing Model. ACS Earth Space Chem. 2021, 5, 1613–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, S.T.; Han, G.L.; Zeng, J.; Xiao, X.H.; Malem, F. A Strontium and Hydro-Geochemical Perspective on Human Impacted Tributary of the Mekong River Basin: Sources Identification, Fluxes, and CO2 Consumption. Water 2021, 13, 3137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhou, W.; Han, G.; Man, L.; Zeng, J.; Liang, B.; Liu, J.; Qu, R. Determining the Distribution and Interaction of Soil Organic Carbon, Nitrogen, pH and Texture in Soil Profiles: A Case Study in the Lancangjiang River Basin, Southwest China. Forests 2020, 11, 532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lacan, F.; Radic, A.; Jeandel, C.; Poitrasson, F.; Sarthou, G.; Pradoux, C.; Freydier, R. Measurement of the isotopic composition of dissolved iron in the open ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2008, 35, L24610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Chatterjee, M.; Silva Filho, E.V.; Sarkar, S.K.; Sella, S.M.; Bhattacharya, A.; Satpathy, K.K.; Prasad, M.V.R.; Chakraborty, S.; Bhattacharya, B.D. Distribution and possible source of trace elements in the sediment cores of a tropical macrotidal estuary and their ecotoxicological significance. Environ. Int. 2007, 33, 346–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sutherland, R.A. Bed sediment-associated trace metals in an urban stream, Oahu, Hawaii. Econ. Environ. Geol. 2000, 39, 611–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Négrel, P.; Roy, S. Chemistry of rainwater in the Massif Central (France): A strontium isotope and major element study. Appl. Geochem. 1998, 13, 941–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ross, J.M.; Sherrell, R.M. The role of colloids in tracemetal transport and adsorption behavior in New Jersey Pinelands streams. Limnol. Oceanogr. 1999, 44, 1019–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Kappler, A.; Straub, K.L. Geomicrobiological cycling of iron. In Molecular Geomicrobiology; Banfield, J.E., CerviniSilva, J., Nealson, K.H., Eds.; Mineralogical Society of America: Chantilly, VA, USA, 2005; Volume 59, pp. 85–108. [Google Scholar]
  53. Li, X.; Han, G.; Liu, M. Seasonal and Spatial Variations of δ13CDIC Values in the Mun River, Northeast Thailand. Water 2022, 14, 1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Poitrasson, F. On the iron isotope homogeneity level of the continental crust. Chem. Geol. 2006, 235, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Beard, B.L.; Johnson, C.M. Fe Isotope Variations in the Modern and Ancient Earth and Other Planetary Bodies. Rev. Mineral Geochem. 2004, 55, 319–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Bergquist, B.A.; Boyle, E.A. Iron isotopes in the Amazon River system: Weathering and transport signatures. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2006, 248, 54–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Stevenson, E.I.; Fantle, M.S.; Das, S.B.; Williams, H.M.; Aciego, S.M. The iron isotopic composition of subglacial streams draining the Greenland ice sheet. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2017, 213, 237–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Yang, K.; Han, G.; Liu, M.; Li, X.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Q. Spatial and seasonal variation of O and H isotopes in the Jiulong River, Southeast China. Water 2018, 10, 1677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Song, L.T.; Liu, C.Q.; Wang, Z.L.; Zhu, X.K.; Teng, Y.G.; Liang, L.L.; Tang, S.H.; Li, J. Iron isotope fractionation during biogeochemical cycle: Information from suspended particulate matter (SPM) in Aha Lake and its tributaries, Guizhou, China. Chem. Geol. 2011, 280, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Teutsch, N.; von Gunten, U.; Porcelli, D.; Cirpka, O.A.; Halliday, A.N. Adsorption as a cause for iron isotope fractionation in reduced groundwater. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2005, 69, 4175–4185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Guo, H.; Liu, C.; Lu, H.; Wanty, R.B.; Wang, J.; Zhou, Y. Pathways of coupled arsenic and iron cycling in high arsenic groundwater of the Hetao basin, Inner Mongolia, China: An iron isotope approach. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2013, 112, 130–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hirst, C.; Andersson, P.S.; Kooijman, E.; Schmitt, M.; Kutscher, L.; Maximov, T.; Morth, C.M.; Porcelli, D. Iron isotopes reveal the sources of Fe-bearing particles and colloids in the Lena River basin. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2020, 269, 678–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wang, T.; Wu, Q.; Wang, Z.; Dai, G.; Jia, H.; Gao, S. Anthropogenic Gadolinium Accumulation and Rare Earth Element Anomalies of River Water from the Middle Reach of Yangtze River Basin, China. ACS Earth Space Chem. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Liu, Y.; Wu, Q.; Jia, H.; Wang, Z.; Gao, S.; Zeng, J. Anthropogenic rare earth elements in urban lakes: Their spatial distributions and tracing application. Chemosphere 2022, 300, 134534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Chotpantarat, S.; Thamrongsrisakul, J. Natural and anthropogenic factors influencing hydrochemical characteristics and heavy metals in groundwater surrounding a gold mine, Thailand. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2021, 211, 104692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Dideriksen, K.; Baker, J.A.; Stipp, S.L.S. Iron isotopes in natural carbonate minerals determined by MC-ICP-MS with a 58Fe–54Fe double spike. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2006, 70, 118–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Schroth, A.W.; Crusius, J.; Chever, F.; Bostick, B.C.; Rouxel, O.J. Glacial influence on the geochemistry of riverine iron fluxes to the Gulf of Alaska and effects of deglaciation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2011, 38, L16605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Criss, R. Principles of Stable Isotope Distribution; Oxford Scholarship Online: Oxford, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gélabert, A.; Pokrovsky, O.S.; Viers, J.; Schott, J.; Boudou, A.; Feurtet-Mazel, A. Interaction between zinc and freshwater and marine diatom species: Surface complexation and Zn isotope fractionation. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2006, 70, 839–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Jouvin, D.; Louvat, P.; Juillot, F.; Maréchal, C.N.; Benedetti, M.F. Zinc Isotopic Fractionation: Why Organic Matters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 5747–5754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kiczka, M.; Wiederhold, J.G.; Kraemer, S.M.; Bourdon, B.; Kretzschmar, R. Iron Isotope Fractionation during Fe Uptake and Translocation in Alpine Plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 6144–6150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Meybeck, M. Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus transport by world rivers. Am. J. Sci. 1982, 282, 401–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 14 02038 g001 550
Figure 1. The sampling sites and the different rock types of the Mun River Basin, adapted from Li, Han, Liu, Song, Zhang, Yang and Liu [37].
Figure 1. The sampling sites and the different rock types of the Mun River Basin, adapted from Li, Han, Liu, Song, Zhang, Yang and Liu [37].
Water 14 02038 g001
Water 14 02038 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) Dissolved oxygen (DO) and (b) Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in the upstream, midstream and downstream of Mun River (MR) during dry and wet season; data are from [29,45].
Figure 2. (a) Dissolved oxygen (DO) and (b) Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in the upstream, midstream and downstream of Mun River (MR) during dry and wet season; data are from [29,45].
Water 14 02038 g002
Water 14 02038 g003 550
Figure 3. The concentration of dissolved Fe in MR during dry and wet seasons and the δ56Fe of the dry and wet seasons. The δ56Fe data of the wet season are from [40] and data of Fe concentration are from [30].
Figure 3. The concentration of dissolved Fe in MR during dry and wet seasons and the δ56Fe of the dry and wet seasons. The δ56Fe data of the wet season are from [40] and data of Fe concentration are from [30].
Water 14 02038 g003
Water 14 02038 g004 550
Figure 4. Fe concentrations (μg/L) versus (a) Al concentrations (μg/L) and (b) DFe/DOC ratio in MR water.
Figure 4. Fe concentrations (μg/L) versus (a) Al concentrations (μg/L) and (b) DFe/DOC ratio in MR water.
Water 14 02038 g004
Water 14 02038 g005 550
Figure 5. Fe concentration (μmol/L) versus Si/Al ratio (μmol/μmol) in MR water in the dry season. The data of Si are from [53].
Figure 5. Fe concentration (μmol/L) versus Si/Al ratio (μmol/μmol) in MR water in the dry season. The data of Si are from [53].
Water 14 02038 g005
Water 14 02038 g006 550
Figure 6. The δ56Fe of MR and other world rivers. These data come from [16,24,38,54].
Figure 6. The δ56Fe of MR and other world rivers. These data come from [16,24,38,54].
Water 14 02038 g006
Water 14 02038 g007 550
Figure 7. δ56Fe versus DFe/DAl ratio in Mun River showing the source of dissolved Fe. The data of end-members of rock weathering and anthropogenic inputs are from [40] and those of end-member of groundwater inputs are from [61,65].
Figure 7. δ56Fe versus DFe/DAl ratio in Mun River showing the source of dissolved Fe. The data of end-members of rock weathering and anthropogenic inputs are from [40] and those of end-member of groundwater inputs are from [61,65].
Water 14 02038 g007
Water 14 02038 g008 550
Figure 8. The relationship between Fe isotopes and DOC concentration in different climate zones. These data are from [16,24,38,63].
Figure 8. The relationship between Fe isotopes and DOC concentration in different climate zones. These data are from [16,24,38,63].
Water 14 02038 g008
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xiao, X.; Han, G.; Zeng, J.; Liu, M.; Li, X. Geochemical and Seasonal Characteristics of Dissolved Iron Isotopes in the Mun River, Northeast Thailand. Water 2022, 14, 2038. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14132038

AMA Style

Xiao X, Han G, Zeng J, Liu M, Li X. Geochemical and Seasonal Characteristics of Dissolved Iron Isotopes in the Mun River, Northeast Thailand. Water. 2022; 14(13):2038. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14132038

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xiao, Xuhuan, Guilin Han, Jie Zeng, Man Liu, and Xiaoqiang Li. 2022. "Geochemical and Seasonal Characteristics of Dissolved Iron Isotopes in the Mun River, Northeast Thailand" Water 14, no. 13: 2038. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14132038

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop