Journal of Controlled Release 181 (2014) 11–21
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Controlled Release
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jconrel
Review
Review on materials & methods to produce controlled release coated
urea fertilizer
Babar Azeem ⁎, KuZilati KuShaari, Zakaria B. Man, Abdul Basit, Trinh H. Thanh
Department of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar, 31750 Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 8 January 2014
Accepted 21 February 2014
Available online 1 March 2014
Keywords:
Controlled release coated urea
Slow release urea
Urea coating
Urea release mechanism
Controlled release fertilizer
a b s t r a c t
With the exponential growth of the global population, the agricultural sector is bound to use ever larger quantities of fertilizers to augment the food supply, which consequently increases food production costs. Urea, when
applied to crops is vulnerable to losses from volatilization and leaching. Current methods also reduce nitrogen
use efficiency (NUE) by plants which limits crop yields and, moreover, contributes towards environmental
pollution in terms of hazardous gaseous emissions and water eutrophication. An approach that offsets this
pollution while also enhancing NUE is the use of controlled release urea (CRU) for which several methods and
materials have been reported. The physical intromission of urea granules in an appropriate coating material is
one such technique that produces controlled release coated urea (CRCU). The development of CRCU is a green
technology that not only reduces nitrogen loss caused by volatilization and leaching, but also alters the kinetics
of nitrogen release, which, in turn, provides nutrients to plants at a pace that is more compatible with their
metabolic needs. This review covers the research quantum regarding the physical coating of original urea
granules. Special emphasis is placed on the latest coating methods as well as release experiments and
mechanisms with an integrated critical analyses followed by suggestions for future research.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.
Controlled release fertilizers (CRFs) . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.1.
Classification of CRFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.2.
Mechanism of controlled release . . . . . . . . .
1.2.3.
Advantages and disadvantages of CRFs . . . . . .
1.3.
Why controlled release coated urea (CRCU)? . . . . . . . .
2.
Materials and methods for CRCU production . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
CRCU from sulfur based coating materials . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
CRCU from polymer based coating materials . . . . . . . .
2.3.
CRCU from superabsorbent/water retention coating materials
2.4.
CRCU from bio-composite based coating materials . . . . .
2.5.
Commercially available controlled release coated urea (CRCU)
3.
Conclusion and suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
17
18
19
19
20
20
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 16 6171584.
E-mail address: engrbabara@gmail.com (B. Azeem).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.02.020
0168-3659/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
There has been exponential growth in the earth's population that
has now reached approximately 7.0 billion [1] and is expected to
12
B. Azeem et al. / Journal of Controlled Release 181 (2014) 11–21
approach 9.5 billion by 2050. Global food requirements have also
risen and the expected per capita food requirement is likely to double by 2050 [2]. Meanwhile, arable lands diminish due to industrialization, urbanization, desertification and land degradation from
heavy flooding [3]. These intimidating factors threaten global food security and demand a robust response. Multidimensional steps have already
been taken worldwide to meet the challenge of food security with modifications to improve agricultural systems. To meet the increasing food
demands, the agricultural sector is bound to employ enormous quantities
of fertilizers that have thus far demonstrated undesirable environmental
impacts. Hence, it is of paramount importance to develop systems that
boost production and alleviate environmental problems [4]. Controlled
release fertilizers may be one such solution as they are believed to
enhance crop yield while reducing the environmental pollution caused
by the hazardous emissions (NH3, N2O etc.) from current fertilizer
applications [5].
1.2. Controlled release fertilizers (CRFs)
Controlled release fertilizer (CRF) is a purposely designed manure that releases active fertilizing nutrients in a controlled, delayed
manner in synchrony with the sequential needs of plants for nutrients, thus, they provide enhanced nutrient use efficiency along
with enhanced yields [5]. An ideal controlled release fertilizer is
coated with a natural or semi-natural, environmentally friendly
macromolecule material that retards fertilizer release to such a
slow pace that a single application to the soil can meet nutrient requirements for model crop growth [6]. The terms, controlled release
fertilizer (CRF), and slow release fertilizer (SRF), are generally considered analogous. Nevertheless, Trenkel [7] and Shaviv [5] defined
differences between both. In the case of SRFs, the pattern of nutrient
release is nearly unpredictable and remains subject to changes in soil
type and climatic conditions. To the contrary, the pattern, quantity,
and time of release can be predicted, within limits, for CRFs. However, in this study, we use the term “Controlled release fertilizers”
(CRFs) for both types. A rigorous literature review reveals that the
history of CRFs' development and evolution has roots in the early
1960's [8]. Initially, sulfur and polyethylene were used as coating
materials in the preparation of SRFs. This journey eventually included numerous polymer materials, natural coating agents, multifunctional super-absorbent materials, and even nano-composites. Many
of the CRFs have also been prepared on commercial scale so far.
1.2.1. Classification of CRFs
The CRFs have been classified in a diverse manner according
to the literature. A comprehensive classification has been based
on the opinions of Shaviv [5], Trenkel [7], Liu [9] and Rose [10] as
portrayed in Fig. 1. Comprehensively, CRFs were classified into three
major categories:
1. Organic compounds that are further sub-divided to natural organic
compounds (animal manure, sewage sludge etc.) and synthetically
produced organic-nitrogen, low solubility compounds. The latter
group generally includes condensation products from urea and
acetaldehyde. These compounds are further subdivided into biologically decomposing compounds, e.g. urea formaldehyde (UF), and
chemically decomposing compounds such as isobutyledene-diurea
(IBDU) or urea acetaldehyde/cyclo diurea (CDU).
2. The second major category includes renowned water soluble
fertilizers with physical barriers that control nutrient release. These
appear either as granules/cores coated with a hydrophobic polymer,
or as a matrix of active fertilizer nutrients dispersed on a continuum
via hydrophobic material that encumbers fertilizer dissolution.
However, controlled release matrices are less common compared
to coated CRFs, which is why this paper is focused on controlled
release coated fertilizer that contain only urea. Coated granular CRFs
Fig. 1. Classification of controlled release fertilizers.
are subcategorized to those coated with organic polymer materials
(e.g. thermoplastics, resins etc.) and those coated with inorganic
materials (including sulfur and other minerals). The controlled release
matrix material can be either hydrophobic e.g. polyolefin, rubber etc.,
or gel forming polymers sometimes referred to as a hydrogels. A
hydrogel is hydrophilic and the dissolution of fertilizer dispersed
through hydrogel material is impeded by its ability to retain high
amounts of water (swelling).
3. Lastly are inorganic low solubility compounds that include metal
ammonium phosphates, e.g. KNH4PO4 and MgNH4PO4, and partially
acidulated phosphate rock (PAPR).
A classification of CRFs can also be based on the mode of control
release, i.e. diffusion, erosion or chemical reaction, swelling and osmosis.
Blaylock [11] however, classified CRFs as only two major types: those
coated with low solubility compounds and those coated with water
soluble materials.
1.2.2. Mechanism of controlled release
It is vital to become acquainted with the mechanism of controlled
release, the direct measure of the effectiveness of a CRF. Generally, the
controlled release mechanism is difficult to conceive as it depends on
numerous factors such as the nature of the coating material, the type
of CRF, agronomic conditions and much more. Different mechanisms
are cited in the literature and these are still under development. Liu
[9] and Shaviv [5] proposed a release mechanism for coated fertilizers
called the multi-stage diffusion model. According to this model, after
applying the coated fertilizer, irrigation water penetrates the coating
to condense on the solid fertilizer core followed by partial nutrient
dissolution (Fig. 2). Subsequently, as osmotic pressure builds within
the containment, the granule consequently swells and causes two
processes. In the first, when osmotic pressure surpasses threshold membrane resistance, the coating bursts and the entire core is spontaneously
released. This is referred to as the “failure mechanism” or “catastrophic
release”. In the second, if the membrane withstands the developing pressure, core fertilizer is thought to be released slowly via diffusion for which
the driving force may be a concentration or pressure gradient, or combination thereof called the “diffusion mechanism”. The failure mechanism
is generally observed in frail coatings (e.g. sulfur or modified sulfur),
13
B. Azeem et al. / Journal of Controlled Release 181 (2014) 11–21
1.3. Why controlled release coated urea (CRCU)?
Urea is the most widely used fertilizer globally because of its high
nitrogen content (46%), low cost, and ease of application [7,17]. Therefore, the development of CRCU has been a subject of interest for decades
[18]. When applied to the soil, urea undergoes a series of biological,
chemical and physical transformations to produce plant available
nutrients as follows [7].
Urease
ðNH2 Þ2 CO þ 2H2 O → ðNH4 Þ2 CO3
þ
Ammonification
ð1Þ
þ
ðNH4 Þ2 CO3 þ 2H → 2NH4 þ CO2 þ H2 O
ð2Þ
Nitrosomonas=nitrosococus bacteria
þ
2NH4 þ 3O2 →2NO2 − þ 2H2 O þ 4Hþ þ Energy ð3Þ
Fig. 2. Diffusion mechanism of controlled release; (a) Fertilizer core with polymer coating,
(b) Water penetrates into the coating and core granule, (c) Fertilizer dissolution and osmotic pressure development, (d) Controlled release of nutrient through swollen coating
membrane.
while polymer coatings (e.g. polyolefin) are expected to exhibit the
diffusion release mechanism.
A pictographic representation of both mechanisms is given in Fig. 2.
The controlled release of nutrients also depends on ambient temperature and moisture with the release rate increasing at higher temperatures with greater moisture content [10]. The coated fertilizer release
mechanism is basically a nutrient transfer from the fertilizer–polymer
interface to the polymer–soil interface, driven by water. The governing
parameters for the release mechanism are: (i) diffusion/swelling; (ii)
degradation of the polymer coating, and (iii) fracture or dissolution. A
similar release mechanism was presented by Guo [12], Liang [13], Liu
[14], and Wu [15].
1.2.3. Advantages and disadvantages of CRFs
Controlled release fertilizers generate savings in fertilizer quantity and the labor of application frequency because only a single application is required for the growth season. They also inhibit nutrient
loss, seed toxicity, hazardous emissions, leaf burning, dermal irritation, and inhalation problems. In addition, they improve soil quality,
handling properties and germination rates. On the other hand, they
are expensive and pose marketing issues. Furthermore, some of the
coating materials used to produce CRFs are non-biodegradable and
toxic to the soil. In most cases, the release pattern is also uncertain
in field applications. Some CRFs also drastically change the soil's
pH, which is undesirable. Storage facilities also need modification
to avoid pre-mature nutrient release caused by moisture absorbance
through fissures that result due to the attrition of granules [5,8–10,16].
There are number of issues preventing widespread adoption of CRFs
in their current state. The application of CRFs is limited by a lack of
data regarding the release kinetics of CRF in various types of soil
and environmental conditions of interest to the agriculture industry.
Current CRFs are vulnerable to changes in temperature, ambient
moisture, bioactivity of the soil, and wetting and drying cycles of
the soil. Changes in any of these conditions will make the release
rate of the fertilizers unpredictable and will negatively affect the efficiency of the fertilizer release, especially if the release rate has been
calibrated for a specific kind of crop. In addition, CRFs do not respond
directly to the plant's demand for nutrients and release nutrients at
the same rate regardless of whether a plant is demanding more nutrients or none at all.
2NO2
−
Nitrobacter bacterium=nitrification
þ O2 → 2NO3 − þ Energy
ð4Þ
−
Microorganisms=O2 deficient soil
þ
Urease enzyme=Basic soil pH
NO3 → N2 þ N2 O
ð5Þ
þ
NH4 → NH3 ðgÞ þ H
ð6Þ
The 2nd and 4th reactions produce required nutrients for plants.
Since plants need only a small quantity of food during early growth,
excess nutrients are lost due to leaching. In the 5th and 6th reactions,
the nitrogen is lost through hazardous gaseous emissions. The
production of a more suitable CRCU is therefore needed to solve
these problems. A pictorial representation of these transformations
is shown in Fig. 3.
Hitherto, various perspectives on slow/controlled release fertilizers
have been discussed in different reviews and book chapters. Ussiri [19]
presented fertilizer management strategies to boost plant nutrient-use
efficiency and reduce nitrous oxide emissions. Davidson [16] wrote on
the control release minutiae of nutrients N, P, K, Mg, Zn, and the commercial availability of CRFs along with some description of crops that use CRFs
for nutrition. Trenkel [7] published a review on different options to
enhance the nutrient use efficiency of plants, including the use of
CRFs, urease inhibitors, nitrification inhibitors as well as economic and
legislative aspects concerning these materials. A similar review on the
improvement of nutrient-use efficiency with an additional segment for
the controlled release of phosphorus fertilizers was presented by Chien
[4]. The use of controlled release nitrogenous fertilizers, specifically for
vegetable crops, was discussed by Guertal [20]. Akiyama [21] employed
Fig. 3. Post dressing transformation of urea in soil.
14
B. Azeem et al. / Journal of Controlled Release 181 (2014) 11–21
a beta analysis to evaluate how successfully modified fertilizers alleviated
nitrous oxide emissions. Similarly, Yan [22], Puosi [23], Liu [9], Blaylock
[11], Shaviv [5], Sartain [24], Tharanathan [25] and Rose [10] shed light
on different aspects of coated urea and other controlled release fertilizers.
Despite the extensive literature on CRFs, there remains copious room
to stretch research frontiers further for controlled release coated urea
(CRCU) products. This paper attempts to elaborate on the knowledge
pool within the context of CRCU. Our major focus is on the coating
materials, coating methods, release experiments and a critical analysis
of the controlled release mechanism for CRCU. We limited our review to
contemporary and 21st century research. However, to establish appreciation for the historical evolution of CRCU, a few papers from the distant
past were included. To enhance the reader's grasp of the subject, this review has been divided into sections according to types of coating materials used to produce controlled release coated urea (CRCU).
2. Materials and methods for CRCU production
2.1. CRCU from sulfur based coating materials
Initially, sulfur was an attractive candidate for urea coating due to
its several advantages. It is generally claimed that the foremost significant work on urea coating was accomplished by Blouin et al. for
the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), USA. With a goal to encase
granular urea and impart controlled release characteristics, Blouin
[6] provided a strong platform that established a cost effective, upscale production process for the sulfur coating of urea. Initially,
urea granules were impregnated by a petroleum by-product (e.g.
petrolatum, motor oil, soft wax, etc.) to act as an impervious sealant
and sub-coating. A vacuum was then applied to cause the sealant
material to penetrate the granules more thoroughly. The sealant
was considered a mobile component that prohibited urea dissolution
by filling small channels via capillary action. In turn, the urea was
tumbled in a second rolling drum and spray-coated with molten sulfur. Finally, the sulfur coated urea (SCU) was subjected to a third
compartment wherein plasticizers (e.g. polyethylene or polyvinyl
acetate) adhered to the sulfur shell to aid the spreading and fusion
of the sulfur layer and decrease crack formation. For some products,
the addition of a plasticizer was proposed as a substitute using inexpensive, finely divided powders (for example, talc or vermiculite) to
render a uniform sulfur layer and decrease the incidence of layer
cracking. To achieve a comparative study, urea was coated with
petrolatum-only or sulfur-only. A 24-hour dissolution test in water
was done to evaluate coating effectiveness. The authors found that
the oil-only coating was absolutely ineffective to withstand water
permeability. The sulfur-only coating was mildly effective, whereas
a combination of both gave effective controlled release results. The
coating shell with an oil to sulfur ratio of 3:21 withstood water the
most with only 1% dissolution in 24 h. Despite the controlled release
advantages, this study still had a challenge to address. The presence
of the sealant sub-coating could not negate the need for a uniform
sulfur coating. If the sulfur coating was not sufficiently uniform to
avoid fissuring, the urea substrate dissolved within minutes, even
in the presence of the sealant sub-coating.
In 1968, Rindt et al. [18] reported that the addition of plasticizers only
moderately reduced the water permeability of the sulfur coating and that
the sulfur solidification period was extended while its tackiness was
worsened by plasticizers. This problem was addressed by applying a
microcrystalline wax coupled to microbicides. This involved a three step
process by which molten sulfur was initially sprayed on a rolling bed of
urea granules in an undulating drum, after which molten wax was poured
on the sulfur coated granules. They believed the wax coating was subject
to attack by soil microorganisms. Hence, 0.5–2% of microbicides (e.g.
pentachlorophenol or coal tar) was added to the wax to combat bacterial
attack. Lastly, in order to enhance flow while avoiding tackiness from the
wax, a conditioner was dusted onto the cooled coated granules. The
addition of about 1% diatomaceous earth (kaoline clay or vermiculite)
was used for this purpose. Twenty-four hour and longer dissolution
tests revealed dissolution rates of 3.5–42% and 0.8–1.1%, respectively.
The higher dissolution rate for the 24 h trial was attributed to smaller
particle size.
The aforementioned work was up-scaled to plant capacity
(300 lb/h) by the same authors [8]. They then followed the same
technique for a coating and dissolution study that focused on evaluating optimal parameters for a more effective sulfur coating. They
discovered that coating thickness was reciprocal to dissolution rate.
Urea particle size distribution also had an inverse effect; i.e. smaller
granules dissolved earlier than larger counterparts. The higher dissolution of small particles was due to granule sphericity as the surface
to volume ratio of smaller spheres is greater compared to larger
spheres. Therefore, with an equal amount of coating material applied
to both small and large granules, smaller granules received thinner
coating which then granted quicker dissolution. The effect of higher
air pressure permitted a finer coating which also enhanced dissolution rates. As for coating effectiveness, their ‘seven day dissolution
test’ became a reference point thereafter for other researchers. This
test measured the amount of urea released by a 250 g coated sample
immersed in 250 ml of water at 100 °F for seven days.
Another study by Tsai at the University of British Columbia, aimed to
develop a process for coating urea with sulfur using a spouted fluidized
bed [26]. A ‘sulfur-only’ coating was applied and optimal process conditions were evaluated to attain reasonably controlled release characteristics. Urea was coated with molten sulfur concurrently with fluidizing air
in a spouted bed under certain conditions of temperature and pressure.
Optimized conditions eventually comprised 80 °C, fluidizing air flow at
0.65 m3/min, and pressurized atomizing air at 208 kPa. Their seven-day
trial found 30% urea dissolution. Akin to Tsai [26], in 1997 Choi [27] also
studied urea coating with sulfur and derived parameters that predominantly affected the coating performance of a spouted bed. Urea coating
with molten sulfur was carried out in batch as well as continuous operations and then followed by the seven-day dissolution test. Nitrogen
pressurized molten sulfur was introduced with pre-heated atomizing
air at the base of the spouted bed and sprayed onto the urea fluidized
bed concurrently followed by drying and withdrawal. He recommended
a spray angle of forty degrees and the use of multiple spouted beds as
well as an extended coating period for better results in terms of coating
uniformity, which directly affects the controlled release characteristics
of coated urea. The TVA dissolution test findings saw a minimal dissolution of 32.8% at seven days.
Ayub [28] prepared sulfur coated urea in a 2-D spouted bed and
evaluated the effects of spouting air temperature, atomizing air, and
liquefied sulfur flow rates on the quality of sulfur coated urea in terms
of the dissolution rate. He posited that the dissolution rate was a function of spouting air temperature but the rate remained unaffected by
the atomizing air flow rate. For example, dissolution was 100% and
95.61% at spouting air temperatures of 69 °C and 82.5 °C at atomizing
air flow rates of 1.0 and 1.4 m3/h, respectively. The major dependence
of coating quality on spouting air temperature was determined in
terms of sulfur's behavior at different temperatures. At lower spouting
air temperatures, the exterior of the sulfur particles solidified prior to
coating the urea's surface. To the contrary, sulfur particles close to melting point solidified after coating the urea granules resulting in a more
uniform coating layer. The seven-day dissolution trial resulted in a minimal level of 95.61% at the highest spouting air temperature (82.5 °C),
with a sulfur flow rate of 33.9 g/min and atomizing air flow rate of
1.4 m 3 /h. Orthorhombic (Beta) sulfur is amorphous in nature and
most suitable for encasing other polymer materials to enhance coating longevity. Whereas monoclinic (Alpha) sulfur is crystalline and
subject to cracks and fissures which reduce coating life. Moreover,
beta sulfur readily converts to alpha sulfur at about 60 °C. To retard
the transformation from the amorphous to crystalline phase and
thereby strengthen sulfur coating against cracking and deformation,
B. Azeem et al. / Journal of Controlled Release 181 (2014) 11–21
Liu [29] produced a dicyclopentadiene-modified (DCPD-modified) sulfur
coated urea in a fluidized bed. The DCPD-modified sulfur was obtained by
simply mixing DCPD and sulfur at elevated temperatures for 1–6 h. To
evaluate release characteristics, a certain amount of the coated urea was
poured into a deionized water beaker kept at constant temperature and
sealed with polyethylene film to avoid evaporation. A certain volume of
water was periodically taken from beaker at regular intervals to analyze
nitrogen concentration via spectrophotometry. The reduced water
volume in the beaker was replaced with fresh water. The seven-day
release rate of the sulfur-only coated urea was about 83% while the
release rate for DCPD-modified sulfur coated urea was 53.5%, thus, giving
a comparatively far better result.
Another technique was introduced by Detrick [30] for urea coating with sulfur as an inner coat to a secondary polymer coating.
Here, the innovation permitted monomers to react on the surface
of sulfur coated granules to form a polymer over-coating. The sulfur
coating was then protected by the secondary polymer coat which
proved more resistant to tackiness and mechanical degradations
caused by impacts, abrasion, handling, transportation, storage etc.
It presented good controlled release characteristics when compared
to sulfur coated urea with an outer polymer coating. Urea granules
were initially preheated in a fluidized bed and then spray coated
with sulfur in a heated rotary drum. The resultant granules were
then sprayed with diethylene glycol triethanolamine polyol and
diisocyanate monomers in a second rotating drum with multiple
nozzles. The seven-day dissolution rate was 38%. Detrick expanded
this study to present another approach [31] that surpassed the previous in terms of enhanced controlled release attributes for sulfur
coated urea. A triple layer coated urea was produced with an inner
layer formed by on-surface polymerization of certain monomers
(4,4-diphenylmethane diisocyanate, triethanolamine and diethylene
glycol polyols). This was followed by a second layer of molten sulfur
and a third outer layer produced by on-surface polymerization of the
aforementioned monomers. The controlled release period more than
doubled that of the previous technique's result. Further work on urea
coating with sulfur can be consulted in the following U.S. Patents:
3567613 (Fleming), 4636242 (Timmons), 3697245 (Dilday), 4676821
(Gullett), 4142885 (Heumann), 4857098 (Shirley), 5219465 (Goertz),
5405426 (Timmons) and 5454851 (Zlotnikov).
Sulfur has been used to produce CRCU for decades. It also acts as a
secondary plant nutrient and fungicide. It further possesses acidic
properties that neutralize soil alkalinity. It is also a relatively cheap
material that reduces the caking tendency of many fertilizers.
When contrasted with many polymer materials used for urea coating, it is biodegradable [6,26]. On the other hand, the crystalline nature of sulfur leads to the development of microscopic pores and
cracks that induce significant brittleness [18,31], and is also prone
to higher friability when subjected to elevated temperatures in the
soil. Due to its inherently augmented surface tension, sulfur coating
appears to possess low wettability and adhesion to the urea substrate [26]. The sulfur-only coating is, therefore, not an effective sealant and requires additional conditioning materials that become vital
for its application to urea granules which poses economic constraints. Since sulfur shells left in the soil are not immediately integrated, an excessive amount of sulfur may build up and react with
water to acidify the soil [30].
The mechanism for the controlled release of sulfur coated urea comprises two steps: the burst effect and then continual release by diffusion
as mentioned in Section 1.2.2.
2.2. CRCU from polymer based coating materials
Following the affair with sulfur, polymeric materials were widely
used to coat urea since sulfur coatings were easily disrupted by microorganisms whereas polymer coatings were not. The nutrient release from polymer coating is affected by diffusion as a function of
15
coating thickness and soil temperature. However, polymer spray coating
involves organic solvents that not only inflict additional costs of the lean
solvent and solvent recovery, but also cause hazardous environmental
emissions. Hence, the use of aqueous polymeric solutions was initiated
to counter these issues. Donida [32] studied urea coating using a commercially available aqueous polymeric material called Eudragit L30-D55®
(methacrylic acid copolymers) in a two dimensional spouted bed with
top spray orientation. The coating's composition is given in Table 1.
Eudragit L30-D55® is mixed with water in addition to: talc, esthearates
of magnesium, triethyl citrate, polyethylene glycol, and titanium dioxide
to produce the CRCU. Higher atomizing air pressure and fluidizing air
temperature produced a uniform coating film due to the production of
smaller droplets and improved spreading of the suspension, respectively,
resulting in a homogeneous layer. The coating thickness also imparted
controlled release characteristics as it increased in thickness at a higher
coating suspension rate and atomizing air pressure, but decreased with
increased fluidizing air flow rate and temperature. However, elutriation
was also caused at elevated air temperatures due to the pre-mature drying of droplets before contacting the granules' surface.
The impermeable film on urea granules formulated by Eudragit
L30-D55® was not effective for soils with a pH N 5.5. Also, low temperatures and high flow rates caused a rough coating surface. Therefore, the need arose to optimize processing conditions using
different coating compositions as mentioned in Table 1 [33]. In this
case, nutrient release was measured by a static capture system in
which filter paper soaked in H2SO4 was used to capture evolved nitrogen and an empirical process was used to measure its loss. The optimal fluidizing air temperature was 74 °C; the optimal suspension
flow rate was 11 ml/min; and the optimal atomizing air pressure
was 68.95 kPa; which produced a controlled release of evolved nitrogen at 3–57%. The authors extended this research by using vinasse as
the solvent instead of water for the aqueous polymeric suspension
[34]. Vinasse is an effluent of the ethyl alcohol industry that prevents
pollution when used as an ingredient of the coating solution. Additionally, it also contains the plant nutrients nitrogen, potassium, calcium and magnesium. Therefore, Rosa [34] used vinasse instead of
water to prepare a coating suspension from Eudragit with the same
composition (Table 1) as previously reported [33]. The equipment,
as well as the coating method and nitrogen volatilization measurements were also the same. The coating process was successfully carried out with the use of vinasse as a solvent and achieved a decrease
in nitrogen volatilization up to 57%.
The permeability of water and urea in the coating film is a factor
that governs release rate, release time, and release pattern. Lan [35]
studied the effects of various process parameters on the film's structure and permeability by coating urea granules in a Wurster type,
fluidized bed apparatus. Polyacrylic acid latex with 40% solids was
used as the coating solution. At elevated fluidizing air temperature
and atomizing gas pressure, the coating film had a porous structure
attributed to the poor spreading and pre-mature drying of droplets.
Similarly, higher spraying rates resulted in reduced dewatering capacity by forming large pores on the coating's surface leading to
poorly controlled release.
Wu [36] reported that thicker coating layers may damage soil quality
if they are not degraded in parallel with nutrient release. With this in
mind, urea coating with polyurethane is costly but its thinner coating
layer was said to reduce coating cost by coating greater quantities of
urea granules with less material. Coating was done in a rotating drum
so that isocyanate, polyols and wax were added to urea granules for a
certain period. The reaction between isocyanate and polyols formed a
10–15 μm thick polyurethane layer on the granules while paraffin
acted as lubricant to facilitate the process. Water dissolution and soil
incubation experiments revealed a 10% dissolution over the first ten
days with 70–80% dissolution in thirty days followed by total release
by forty–fifty days. The release mechanism was the same as mentioned
by Shaviv [5].
16
B. Azeem et al. / Journal of Controlled Release 181 (2014) 11–21
Table 1
Composition of coating suspension.
Ref. Weight % composition of coating suspension
32
33
34
Eudragit (16.7%), polyethylene glycol (0.75%), triethyl citrate (0.5%), esthearate
of Mg (1%), titanium dioxide (1.8%), pigment (0.2%), talc (2.75%), water (76.3%)
Eudragit (25%), polyethylene glycol (0.75%), triethyl citrate (0.5%), esthearate of
Mg (3%), titanium dioxide (1.8%), pigment (0.2%), talc (3%), water (65.75%)
Eudragit (25%), polyethylene glycol (0.75%), triethyl citrate (0.5%), esthearate of
Mg (3%), titanium dioxide (1.8%), pigment (0.2%), talc (3%), vinasse (65.75%)
Due to higher costs and process complexity along with issues of
environmental pollution caused by polymers, research frontiers shifted
towards developing low cost, easily fabricable and environmentally
friendly materials [37]. Although the price of starch based coating was
low, so was nutrient release longevity compared to polymer coating
formulations, and furthermore, they were occasionally incompatible
with crop metabolic needs [38]. Yang [38] employed waste polystyrene
(thermocol) as a coating material mixed with wax and polyurethane as
sealants for a more cost effective and controlled release urea fertilizer.
Initially, polyurethane was prepared by dissolving and agitating
diphenylmethane diisocyanate in ethyl acetate and castor oil, after
which polyurethane was mixed with ethyl acetate-dissolvedpolystyrene. Urea granules were then spray coated with this solution
in a Wurster fluidized bed followed by oven drying at 40 °C for 24 h to
remove excess ethyl acetate. Nitrogen release was measured in still
water at 25 °C using the Kjeldahl method. The release rate slowed with
greater coating thickness and the addition of wax to the coating solution
did not have a significant effect. To the contrary, polyurethane effectively
enhanced controlled release characteristics.
The development of controlled release and environmentally safe urea
fertilizer was also studied by Mathews in 2010 [39]. Here, the conceptual
advantage of the swelling capacity of certain polymers that retained
strength enough to withstand osmotic pressure and avoid the burst effect
during gelation, finally materialized. Urea was coated with a newly synthesized poly[N-isopropyl acrylamide]-co-polyurethane (PNIPAm-PU)
and the controlled release of urea—monitored by mass spectroscopy—
was observed as a function of the soil's temperature, pH, and moisture.
The coating solution was first synthesized with NMR characterization to
validate the claimed structure. The Amino Terminated Poly N-Isopropyl
Acrylamide (NH2-PNIPAm) was synthesized by the radical polymerization of N-Isopropyl acrylamide (NIPAm) with potassium persulfate as
the initiator and 2-aminoethanethiol hydrochloride as the chain transfer
reagent in aqueous media. The next step involved the preparation of
Isocyanate Terminated Polyurethane (NCO-PU-NCO) by degassing
Poly(1,4-butylene adipate)diol end-capped (PBAG) at high temperature
allowing this to react with 4, 40-methylene bis(phenyl isocyanate)
(MDI) in a tri-necked flask equipped with a stirrer. In the third step,
PNIPAm-PU was synthesized by the reaction of NH2-PNIPAm with
NCO-PU-NCO at 90 °C. Urea granules were then dip coated in this
solution, followed by centrifugal separation and vacuum drying. The
proposed release pattern was similar to that mentioned by Yong [40].
In this study, the coating solution was set to vacuum drying; a time
consuming, lengthy process.
To enhance nitrogen uptake efficiency of tea plants while studying
controlled release behavior, Han [41] developed three different controlled
release fertilizers. Urea granules were coated with Ca–Mg phosphate,
polyolefin, and polyolefin plus dicyandiamide (DCD). The granules were
placed in a concrete mixer with a smooth inner surface and the DCD,
dissolved in dilute phosphoric acid, was sprayed onto the granules. The
coated granules were then placed in a Ca–Mg phosphate powder and
sprayed with wax sealant. Polyolefin and polyolefin plus DCD coated
urea granules were also prepared in the same fashion. Pot and field
experiments were done to study controlled release and nitrogen uptake
by tea plants using all three coated urea samples. The polyolefin plus
DCD coated granules produced the best results in terms of controlled
release while maintaining optimal soil nitrogen concentration over the
long term.
Petchsuk et al. [42] reported the feasibility of poly(lactic acid-coethylene terephthalate) as a coating material. In a comparative study,
urea granules were coated with commercial polylactic acid (PLA) and
PLA, plus poly(lactic acid-co-ethylene terephthalate) which were
synthesized by the authors. After dissolving this polymer in chloroform,
it was sprayed on urea granules in a rotating mixing machine followed
by two drying steps (hot air and heating gun). Controlled release
properties were evaluated by monitoring the urea concentration by
refractive indexing in a rotating bottle of water containing the coated
urea granules. In addition, they also employed a scanning electron
microscopic morphological study. The authors posited that controlled
release was a function of the percent of coating applied, which, in
turn, directly depended on the molecular weight, nature, concentration
and frequency of the polymer coating. They also determined that
controlled release was markedly affected by the coating's surface
morphology.
1-Naphthylacetic-acid (NAA) has been reported to be a plant growth
regulator (PGR) for the rooting of cuttings, fruit-set inhibition, fruit
shedding, and the initiation of flowering [43]. In 2012, Qiu [43] prepared
CRCU with dual attributions of controlled release and PGR. To prepare
the coating material, the monomers N-butyl methacrylate (BMA),
methyl methacrylate (MMA) and 2-hydroxyethl acrylate (HEA) were
added to a four-necked flask equipped with a stirrer, nitrogen supply,
and condenser. Benzoyl peroxide (BPO) (0.45%) dissolved in 5 ml of
ethyl acetate was then added to the monomers and the mix was
agitated under nitrogen with ethyl acetate for ~ 6 h until a non-sticky
material was produced. The non-reacted monomers were then precipitated by n-hexane and separated. The final poly(BMA-MMA-HEA) was
air dried at 80 °C. The solid coating material (PBMHs-NAA) thus obtained,
along with the paraffin wax, was dissolved in ethyl acetate and the
solution was then sprayed onto a fluidized bed of urea granules at 75 °C
for 25 min. The controlled release property of the coated fertilizer was
determined by water dissolution followed by a urea concentration assay
via UV spectrophotometry. The initial release rate was high (100% in
eight days) due to the sticky adhesion of the granules which caused a
rough surface. The addition of 10% paraffin wax, however, prolonged
the dissolution: 1.54% at 24 h, and 78.77% at 28 days.
Polymer coating materials have also been used to affect the controlled
release of urea when urea acted as a constituent of compound fertilizers.
For example, the combination, polyvinyl chloride/polyacrylamide/natural
rubber/polylactic acid, was employed to coat a compound fertilizer
containing urea, phosphorous, potassium, calcium, magnesium and
copper [44]. Polyethylene and paraffin wax were used for the NPK
compound fertilizer [45] and a polysulfone/cellulose acetate/polyacrylonitrile based coating by Tomaszewska [46–48]. However, the scope of
our review does not cover coating materials for compound fertilizers as
our focus is urea and those materials used as coating to enhance its
controlled release.
Costa et al. [49] studied the coating of urea granules with polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) and ethyl cellulose (EC) using simple immersion
and manual spraying with a pulverizer and triggler. PHB and EC were
initially dissolved in chloroform and acetone, respectively, as the coating
solution. Adjuncts were also employed to facilitate interface interactions
between the coating solution and urea granules. The urea dissolution
rate in distilled water was measured via indirect enzymatic conversion
of urea to ammonia with a spectrophotometer to determine concentrations. The optimal coating material allowed complete urea release within
5 min, which was incompatible with set standards for agricultural use.
Polymer materials offer a number of advantages when used as
coating materials for the controlled release of urea. They are biologically
inert against microbial attack and provide a supply of nutrients consistent with crop metabolic needs over longer periods of time. They are
B. Azeem et al. / Journal of Controlled Release 181 (2014) 11–21
also able to retain both micro and macronutrients within the helical
polymer chain matrix [34]. Despite these advantages, polymer materials
do have limitations. The coating processes are quite complex and
involve a number of chemicals. The overall process does not attract
commercial attention because of the high cost as most polymer materials require the use of organic solvents to formulate a coating solution.
This not only increases costs due to solvents and their recovery, but also
poses adverse environmental impacts in terms of hazardous emissions.
Furthermore, many, if not all polymer coatings, are non-biodegradable
after total nutrient release and present a new type of soil pollution
that is undesirable. Hence, most controlled release urea fertilizers
produced thus far have not been effectively admitted to commercial
production. Even so, certain polymers have been employed to produce
controlled release urea on a commercial scale; a glimpse of these is
given in the next sections.
2.3. CRCU from superabsorbent/water retention coating materials
Superabsorbent polymer materials (SPMs) have recently caught the
attention of research circles because of interesting properties that favor
CRCU production. These SPMs are 3-dimensional cross-linked hydrophilic
polymers with an ability to imbibe water that is hundreds of times higher
than their own weight and which cannot easily be removed even under
extended pressure [12,14,50–55]. They find attractive use in agricultural
and horticultural applications due to reduced water consumption and
irrigation frequency, especially in drought prone areas and are thus
considered economical. The advantages of SPM produced CRCUs include
soil improvement through aeration, abatement of soil degradation, alleviation of water evaporation losses, reduction of environmental pollution
through volatilization and leaching, and a decrease in crop morbidity
due to increased nutrition through enhanced nutrient retention periods
[12,14,50–56,92].
Yong's study [40] triggered new vistas of research for the production
of multifunctional controlled release coated urea fertilizers with attributes of controlled release and improved water retention properties
that are very beneficial, especially in regions with limited water
supply. The most frequently used SPMs are classed as cross-linked
polyacrylates/polyacrylamides, hydrolyzed cellulose-polyacrylonitriles/
starch polyacrylonitriles graft copolymers, and cross-linked copolymers
of maleic anhydride. The general methods employed in most studies for
SPMs as a coating material are based on either solution polymerization
or inverse-suspension polymerization. The solution polymerization
involves the blending of NH3-neutralized acrylic acid (AA) or acrylamide
(AM) based monomers in aqueous solution, followed by the addition of a
water-soluble cross-linking N,N′-methylenebisacrylamide (MBA) and
potassium/ammonium persulfate as initiators. The blending is continued
at increased temperature until a rubbery product is obtained which
is then dried, ground and sieved for coating purposes. For inversesuspension polymerization, the surfactant and dispersant are mixed to
form a water-in-oil phase in which AA/AM monomers are blended with
a cross-linker and initiator as described above. The resultant microspherical product is dried to form a free flowing powder that requires
no grinding or sieving.
With this background, Guo [12] prepared slow release membrane
encapsulated, double coated urea granules with an inner shell of crosslinked starch and an outer layer of acrylic acid and acrylamide. Soil incubation experiments determined nitrogen release by using the Kjeldahl
method of distillation. Results indicated 10%, 15%, and 61% release rates
on days two, five, and thirty, respectively. Coated urea, thus obtained,
has cross-linked starch as inner coating layer with a copolymer of crosslinked acrylic acid and acrylamide as an outer coating. The slow release
mechanism involves the absorption of water by the coating material
which causes it to swell and transform to a hydrogel. The core urea
then dissolves in the hydrogel's water and diffuses slowly through a
grid like system of the swollen hydrogel via mass transfer of water from
within the hydrogel to water in the soil. Another double coated urea
17
with an inner coating of urea-formaldehyde and an outer layer of crosslinked poly(acrylic acid)/organo attapulgite composite was prepared by
Liang [53]. He reported a dried CRCU released of 3.9%, 7.5%, and 75%
(wt.%) at two, five, and thirty days of soil incubation, respectively. The
release mechanism was similar to Guo's study with a slight difference:
water, after diffusing through the outer coating, slowly penetrated the
urea-formaldehyde layer to dissolve the urea which then escaped slowly
by a dynamic exchange between hydrogel free water and soil moisture.
The coating's thickness and the solubility of urea-formaldehyde were
characterized as controlling factors for the slow release. Hence, higher
thickness and lower solubility produced the best slow-release outcome.
Liang [50] also prepared double coated urea granules with an inner
layer of polystyrene and outer coating of cross-linked poly(acrylic
acid)-containing urea. The urea release of the polystyrene coating was
said to follow the same mechanism suggested by Shaviv [5]; i.e. a
three stage release mechanism: first came a lag period in which water
penetrated the coating without urea release; then a constant release
period followed when urea dissolved and flowed through the coating
(burst effect); and finally, there came a stage of decline until the release
of urea ultimately ended. The presence of the second coating layer in
this study waived the burst effect in which more than 70% of the urea
was released. Hence, the outer coating not only enhanced slow release
but further facilitated effective irrigation due to water retention.
Some investigators have prepared controlled release urea fertilizers
by either blending with superabsorbent materials or polymerization
with a superabsorbent mixture. However, these slow release formulae
have thus far experienced the undesirable “burst effect” that hampers
the controlled release property. Some polymer shells also remain in
the soil for a long time after nutrients have been completely released.
Hence, an approach to enhance their biodegradability to avoid hazardous emissions and other effects was presented by Ni [54]. He prepared
CRCU with an attapulgite matrix as the fertilizer core with two layers
of coating: ethyl cellulose joined to a plasticizer as the inner coat, and
a sodium carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) plus hydroxyethylcellulose
(HEC) based hydrogel as the outer coat. Attapulgite is a type of octahedral layered Mg–Al–silicate absorbent mineral with hydroxyl groups on
its surface. It is almost inert towards salts (like urea), so it is preferred as
a substrate for superabsorbent composite materials [55]. After 24 h of
soil incubation, the urea release rate was 8.7%. During this phase,
water diffused gradually into the granules as slower release was facilitated by the hydrophobic ethylcellulose coating. During the second
stage, from day two to five, there was consistent release caused by the
diffusion of nutrients outwardly followed by dynamic mass transfer to
the external atmosphere. In the last phase, from day two onwards, the
solution's concentration within was lowered as bulk water was
absorbed. During this stage, attapulgite absorbed the remaining nutrients which further enhanced the slow release of urea.
Another recent study by Yang et al. [57], addressed the issue of
polymer biodegradability with double coated urea granules produced
with biodegradable biopolyurethane derived from liquefied corn Stover
as the inner coating, and a superabsorbent material based on chicken
feather meal modified with acrylic acid as the outer coating. For the
inner coating, urea granules were placed in a rotary drum and the
coating solution was poured on rotating granules. Different runs were
made to produce different mass coatings. For the outer layer, the
acrylic-acid-modified-chicken-feather-meal (MCFM-AA) solution was
poured on previously prepared coated granules followed by an adherent (MCFM-AA powder) to produce the final compact product. Release
kinetics was studied in deionized water as well as in soil. The periodic
increments in the mass coating of the inner coating layer caused significant reductions in release rates. For example, N release slowed from
1.5 days to 13 and then to 57 days as the mass of the inner coating
increased from 3.2% to 5.3% and 8.5% (wt.%), respectively.
Tao [51] developed a triple polymer coated slow release urea with an
inner coating of polyethylene, that primarily served as a slow release film;
an intermediate coating layer of poly(acrylic acid-co-acrylamide) that
18
B. Azeem et al. / Journal of Controlled Release 181 (2014) 11–21
served as a superabsorbent water retaining layer; and an outermost
coating of poly (butyl methacrylate) to protect the intermediate layer.
The study intended to gain slow release while avoiding water evaporation
losses with a goal to lessen irrigation frequency by the use of a multifunctional superabsorbent slow release fertilizer. The three-layered coating
operation utilized fluidized bed equipment that avoided nutrient loss
due to high temperatures in the dip coating, which was easily amenable
to up-scaling to pilot or industrial use. Slow release behavior was
monitored by soil incubation. At a thickness of 25 μm, the release rate
was 4.2%, 38%, and 56% respectively for days 1, 7 and 14 respectively.
Similarly, at 50 μm it was 0.15%, 13.5%, and 24%; and at 75 μm it was
0.1%, 10.1%, and 10.3% on days 1, 7 and 14, respectively for both trials.
The release mechanism was the same as described in Section 1.2.2 in
reference to Shaviv's work [5]. Hence, Tao demonstrated that nutrient
release increased at elevated temperatures while the release rate was
similar in both soil and water.
In 2012, Wang double coated urea in a pan granulator with
k-Carrageenan-sodium alginate (kC-SA) as the inner shell and a crosslinked k-Carrageenan graft, copolymerized with polyacrylic acid and
celite (kC-g-poly AA/celite), as the outer shell [58]. Sodium alginate is
an anionic natural macromolecule extracted from marine algae. Similarly, k-Carrageenan is an anionic polysaccharide extracted from red seaweed. The combination of both materials enhanced the mechanical
strength of the coating layers and the hydrogel's brittleness which
then eased water super-absorption. After coating, granules with a thin
layer were dried and subjected to a duplicate coating step for better
thickness. The same procedure was repeated to enclose kC-SA coated
urea granules in a superabsorbent outer coating of (kC-g-poly AA/celite)
followed by drying at 30 °C to obtain the final product. Soil incubation
experiments revealed 39%, 72%, and 94% nitrogen release on days two,
five and twenty-five, respectively. The release mechanism was the
same as depicted by the same author in previous studies [12] and [53].
The use of SPMs to produce CRCU offers a number of advantages, the
most prominent being super-absorption of water combined with the
controlled release of urea. However, the preparation steps are complex
and required raw materials are costly. The CRCU products produced
thus far offer higher costs which present a major impediment to their
commercialization. Another aspect that prevents their commercialization is the non-biodegradability of some coating materials which causes
a new type of soil pollution. However, this remains a relatively new
research field and scientists are addressing these issues.
2.4. CRCU from bio-composite based coating materials
To obviate effects from the non-biodegradability of certain polymer
coatings and to offset higher operational costs, the development of biocomposite based coating materials for controlled release coated urea
have recently caught interest in the research circles, with starch as a
contender. Starch naturally occurs as a polysaccharide biopolymer that
is abundantly available from many renewable plant sources. Due to its
low cost, biodegradability, and abundance, several non-food applications
of starch have been investigated, with starch based controlled release
coating materials as one of the numerous areas. Since starch is hydrophilic, it cannot be used as a coating material on its own for CRCU preparations and requires blending with other materials for effective utilization
[37,59–63].
In 2005, Ito [64] prepared dual coated urea granules with an inner
layer of poorly soluble isobutylidendiurea (IBDU) and the outer layer
of starch with wax powder in a high shear granulator mixer using a
simple blending technique. Through HPLC, he found that the nutrient
release rate can be modified by adjusting both the fraction of dispersed
particles and the thickness of both inner and outer coatings. With only
one coating (in the absence of an outer coating), that shell was subject
to a diffusion release mechanism. The dual layer, on the other hand,
followed a sigmoidal pattern of controlled release. The sigmoidal release
pattern, as necessitated by some applications, refers to an initial slower
release quantity followed by consistent increases. The proposed release
mechanism followed a dual path. First off, the core nutrient shrunk in
size after dissolution in water. Secondly, the concentration of the core
nutrient solution kept decreasing until the concentration equilibrated
within the reservoir. The release rate from a single layer preparation
had soluble particles with a faster diffusion release pattern attributed
to the formation of microchannels through which active nutrients
immediately flowed. However, the dual layer product caused a sigmoidal
release because of the hindrance offered by the outer, more impermeable
layer.
Suherman [61] prepared a coating solution by mixing starch, acrylic
acid, and polyethylene glycol with slow additions of water and continuous stirring until a homogeneous mixture was obtained. The urea coating
was carried out in a fluidized bed with a top spray of the starch based
coating solution. Water dissolution experiments revealed reduced release
rates with increased starch content of the coating. Higher temperatures
enhanced the release rate because of the pre-mature drying of the coating
droplets. Also, elevated temperatures reduced the proportion of liquid
bridges on the urea granules, thus, leaving uncoated spots that permitted
higher release rates later on.
In 2012, K2S2O8 modified starch (ST) was prepared by gelatinizing
starch with water at 80 °C followed by cooling and mixing with
K2S2O8 at 60 °C for 45 min [62]. The modified starch was graft polymerized with natural rubber (NR) latex by mixing and stirring at 60 °C for 3
h in the presence of Teric®16A16 to produce NR-g-ST. The NR-graftpolymerized starch was then used to encase urea granules to make
CRCU. Coating was done by simple immersion of urea granules into
the graft polymer blend followed by drying. The urea release rate in
water, as determined by UV–vis spectrophotometer, was 21% in 24 h.
The diffusion mechanism of release was followed by nutrients so that
only the core's shell remained; the core being hydrophobic natural rubber and a shell of starch. The hydrophilic nature of starch is associated
with the presence of hydroxyl functional groups [59]. Various studies
attempted to transform this hydrophilic nature to hydrophobic by the
addition of different chemicals and additives. In most cases, consequent
controlled release achievements did not correspond with crop metabolic needs, and thus, failed to meet standards (10-12 weeks) set by the
scientific community.
Lignin is a cheap and natural macromolecular compound that is
abundantly available as a waste material from pulp and paper industries
[65]. Moreover, lignin is renewable, biodegradable, amorphous, and a
relatively hydrophobic bio-polymer compared to other polymers [66].
Perez [65] prepared a lignin based controlled release urea formulation
by mixing urea and lignin in a glass reactor immersed in a thermostatic
silicon oil bath. The mixture was heated and the resultant urea-lignin
matrix was cooled to give a glass like structure that was later milled in
a crusher to obtain the desired size range of controlled release particles.
This study also included urea coating with ethyl cellulose in a Wurster
fluidized bed. Ethyl cellulose predominantly possesses high physical
and chemical stabilities with good film forming properties and is
relatively less toxic. A 5% ethanol solution of ethyl cellulose was sprayed
onto a fluidized bed of urea granules at 60 °C followed by air drying in
the same chamber at 70 °C. Different runs were made to produce
different coating thicknesses for the analysis. Both the lignin based
controlled release urea particles and the ethyl cellulose coated granules
were subjected to water leaching experiments to evaluate release rates.
The patterns produced very slow releases in the early stage followed by
a constant release leading to a period of decaying release. The coating's
thickness, as reported by many others, had an inverse effect in terms of
controlled release. The comparative study revealed that ethyl cellulose
coated granules were better than the lignin based slow release urea
formulation because of its coating uniformity which retarded water
diffusion through the coating layer.
Mulder [66] also employed soda flax lignin (Bioplast) coupled with
acronal as a plasticizer and alkenyl succinic anhydride (ASA) as a
hydrophobizing or cross-linking agent to produce CRCU. The urea
B. Azeem et al. / Journal of Controlled Release 181 (2014) 11–21
granules were spray coated in a rotary pan coater with 25% bioplast
dispersion as well as plasticizer and cross-linking agents at 70 °C.
Refractive index measurements were made to evaluate the amount of
nitrogen released in water. Coating thickness and uniformity played
key roles in the inhibition of urea dissolution. Coating uniformity is
increased by spraying the coating suspension in three stages. In the
first step, a handsome quantity of suspension solids should engulf the
urea granules in order to avoid the dissolution of urea during the
process and which also allows the urea to become part of coating
material. In the second and third steps, relatively small quantities of
solids should be sprayed to fill fissures and micropores to contribute
towards coating uniformity. Higher coating thickness granted better
control release properties and the hydrophobizing action of ASA also
played a key role in impeding urea dissolution. Furthermore, coating
films with a plasticizer remained intact in water for two weeks and
the cross-linker aided the coating layers and significantly reduced the
release rate but still could not meet set market standards. It was,
therefore, suggested to chemically modify cellulose to enhance control
release properties.
Considering the swellability and biodegradability of konjac flour,
Yong [40] prepared a controlled release urea fertilizer and studied its
effect on various process parameters. A pallet of urea was initially heat
molded to cake and then soaked in coating material. The coating
consisted of compound polyether added to water, silicon oil and a
catalyst that was fluffed uniformly under heat for 10 min. Heating and
whisking continued with a further addition of toluene diisocyanate
and konjac flour until the solution turned white. This was then spread
on the caked urea. The coated urea was oven dried at 60–80 °C, the
setting temperature of the coating material. To study controlled release
behavior, sodium hyposulfite titration experiments were used. Coated
samples were buried in soil in beakers at constant temperature with
an additional 500 ml of water. During the first 8 weeks, only a 20%
release was observed which then rose to 70–80%. This is because the
konjac flour initially absorbed water and swelled, which, in turn,
inhibited urea release by narrowing exhaust channels. Later, the
gelation of konjac flour occurred followed by microbial attack which
disintegrated the material and assured rapid urea release. Soil burial
tests at 70–90 °C proved that the coating material was biodegradable.
In another study, 5% acetone solution of ethyl cellulose and cellulose
acetate phthalate at 30 °C were used to coat urea beads in a Wurster
fluidized bed unit at temperatures ranging from 32 to 51 °C [67]. Soil
incubation tests were done in a soil filled flask mounted on an orbital
shaker kept rotating at 120 rpm. Released urea was analyzed by conductivity which indicated the release rate for coating with ethyl cellulose
was higher than that of cellulose acetate phthalate. However, both
coating materials were analogous in terms of the release mechanism.
The three stage release rate was initially high, followed by a fairly
constant release preceding a prolonged decline.
Vashishtha [68] posited that the dual advantage of sulfur coated urea—
i.e. controlled release of urea and availability of sulfur as a plant
nutrient—can better be achieved when phosphogypsum is used as
the coating material instead of sulfur. This was likely because phosphogypsum is not only slightly soluble in water but also because it
does not alter the soil pH (sulfur makes the soil pH acidic). Secondly,
to transform sulfur coated urea to a plant available form (sulfate
form), common sulfur must undergo bacterial transition whereas
phosphogypsum, provides plant available sulfate readily. With this
as a background, Vashishtha [68] employed both dry and wet
methods to prepare phosphogypsum coated urea in a fluidized bed.
The only difference between either method was that the wet method (a
mixture of phosphogypsum with neem oil, linear alkyl benzene, and
water) was used to prepare the coating material; whereas, in the dry
method, the same mixture was prepared without the addition of water.
Neem oil and linear alkyl benzene were used as binder and surfactant, respectively. Water dissolution experiments were conducted with twice
distilled water and with magnetic stirring until 100% dissolution took
19
place. The dissolution rate decreased with increased coating thickness
and the coating layer produced with the wet method was more effective
than the dry preparation.
2.5. Commercially available controlled release coated urea (CRCU)
Despite high operational costs, CRCUs have been produced and sold
on commercial scale. However, most of these products have been
limited to horticultural and ornamental applications rather than large
scale agriculture. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) pioneered the
commercialization of CRCU with a large scale production of sulfur
coated urea. The Arthur Daniels Co. (ADM) was the first to produce
polymer coated fertilizers using dicyclopentadiene with glycol ester. A
literature review is given in Table 2 that provides an overview of coating
materials that have been used to produce CRCU on a commercial scale
thus far.
3. Conclusion and suggestions
The coating of urea is required to avoid nitrogen loss through
leaching, volatilization, and denitrification. CRCUs inhibit this
loss and serve to release nitrogen in a mode that is compatible
with the metabolic requirements of plants. Millions of research
dollars have been spent to develop numerous coating materials
and techniques; even so, the production of CRCU has yet to
reach industrial scale. Sulfur alone cannot be effectively used as
a coating material to produce CRCU because of its amorphous
nature. Many sealants, binders, plasticizers and protective agents
have therefore been used to combat the immediate burst effect,
all of which increase process complexity and costs, which is
why the production of sulfur coated urea has almost been abandoned. CRCUs based on polymer/superabsorbent materials offer
promising potential in terms of extended controlled release and
water retention, but the complexity of processing, elevated
costs and the non-environmentally friendly side effects of some
materials prevent industrial scale production. A relatively small
research quantum is reported with regard to the production of
CRCUs with starch, lignin and cellulose based coating materials,
which are relatively cheaper, biodegradable and renewable.
However, their augmented hydrophilicity and limited controlled
release characteristics are weak points.
In view of this thorough investigation, the authors offer a few
suggestions:
• The production of CRCU should begin with original industrial grade
urea granules rather than melting, transforming, dissolving or
polymerization to fabricate controlled release matrices with other
materials.
• Coating material should be selected with a view to its (i) affinity
with urea; (ii) its ability to permeate water and urea solution; (iii)
its capability to impede immediate urea escape from the coating
surface; and (iv) its ability to release urea in a manner that meets
a crop's metabolic requirements over a specified period of time. It
should also be biodegradable and cheaper. Apparently, no such
material(s) exist which possess these ideal traits. Nevertheless,
bio-composites based on starch/lignin/cellulose can indeed be
modified to significantly achieve such properties.
• The coating process should enable industrial production of CRCU
without changing the spherical geometry of urea granules. For this
reason, a fluidized bed coater, pan coater or rotary drum coater
may be employed. Due to its excellent heat and mass transfer
characteristics in addition to its easy operation, fluidized bed coating
is a good candidate for industrial scale production. However, bear in
mind that when using the fluidized bed, coating materials should be
compatible with effortless spraying of the fluidized bed of urea
granules.
20
B. Azeem et al. / Journal of Controlled Release 181 (2014) 11–21
Table 2
Coating materials used to produce CRCU on commercial scale.
Commercial name
Composition of coating material
Company/provider
Ref
SCU
Meister
[7, 10, 15, 20, 27, 70, 270]
LP30 ~ 180, LPS40 ~ 200
LPSS 100
CRU
CU & CUS
PCF
Zn-coated urea
Sulfur + wax + diatomaceous earth + coal tar
Polyolefin + inorganic powder
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) USA
Chisso Co. Kitakysya Japan
[69]
[69–75]
Polyolefin
Chisso-Asahi Fertilizer Corporation
[76–79]
Polymeric material
Polymeric material
Polyurethane-like
Zinc oxide
[80]
[81]
[82,83]
[84]
Agrium PCU
Kingenta PCU
Polymeric material
Polymeric material
Agrium Inc. Calgary
Chisso-Asahi Fertilizer Corporation
Haifa Chemicals Co. Ltd.
Indo-Gulf
Fertilizers, Jagdishpur (UP), India
Agrium US Inc.
Shandong Kingenta Ecological Engineering Co. Ltd. China
Humate coated urea
Duration type 5
PCU
Humic acid
Polymeric material
Polyolefin
• The granulation process can be used to produce controlled release
urea granulates. Analytical grade urea can be either blended or
made to physically react with a suitable material (with the same
aforementioned attributes) that best constructs a controlled release
formulation which can then be converted to appropriate granular
sizes and shapes as needed. For this purpose also, the fluidized bed
granulator can successfully be employed.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to offer their utmost appreciation to Universiti
Teknologi PETRONAS for providing a conducive work environment and
state-of-the-art research facilities. The research grants extended to us
by the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (MOHE) (LRGS Fasa 1/
2011) for ongoing research projects are also decidedly acknowledged.
The linguistic expertise shared by Mr. Zaheer Hussain, Lecturer, National
University of Modern Languages (NUML), Lahore-Pakistan, is also highly
acknowledged.
References
[1] P. Gerbens-Leenes, S. Nonhebel, W. Ivens, A method to determine land requirements
relating to food consumption patterns, Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 90 (1) (2002) 47–58.
[2] M.E. Brown, B. Hintermann, N. Higgins, Markets, climate change, and food security
in West Africa, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (21) (2009) 8016–8020.
[3] C. Jie, et al., Soil degradation: a global problem endangering sustainable development, J. Geogr. Sci. 12 (2) (2002) 243–252.
[4] S. Chien, L. Prochnow, H. Cantarella, Recent developments of fertilizer production
and use to improve nutrient efficiency and minimize environmental impacts, Adv.
Agron. 102 (2009) 267–322.
[5] A. Shaviv, Controlled release fertilizers, IFA International Workshop on
Enhanced-Efficiency Fertilizers, Frankfurt, International Fertilizer Industry Association, Paris, France, 2005.
[6] Blouin, G.M., Method of making sulfur-coated fertilizer pallet having a controlled dissolution rate, 1967, Google Patents.
[7] M.E. Trenkel, Slow-and controlled-release and stabilized fertilizers: an option for enhancing nutrient use efficiency in agriculture, IFA, International fertilizer industry
association, 2010.
[8] G.M. Blouin, D.W. Rindt, O.E. Moore, Sulfur-coated fertilizers for controlled release.
Pilot-plant production, J. Agric. Food Chem. 19 (5) (1971) 801–808.
[9] L. Liu, et al., A review: controlled release systems for agricultural and food applications,
in: N. Parris, L.S. Liu, et al., (Eds.), New Delivery Systems for Controlled Drug Release
from Naturally Occurring Materials, ACS Symposium series, 992, 2008, pp. 265–281.
[10] R. Rose, Slow release fertilizers 101, in: R.K. Dumroese, L.E. Riley, T.D. Landis (Eds.),
Technical, 2002.
[11] A. Blaylock, J. Kaufmann, R. Dowbenko, Nitrogen fertilizer technologies, West. Nutr.
Manag. 6 (2005) 8–13.
[12] M. Guo, et al., Preparation and properties of a slow-release membrane-encapsulated
urea fertilizer with superabsorbent and moisture preservation, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
44 (12) (2005) 4206–4211.
[13] R. Liang, M. Liu, L. Wu, Controlled release NPK compound fertilizer with the function
of water retention, React. Funct. Polym. 67 (9) (2007) 769–779.
[14] M. Liu, et al., Preparation of superabsorbent slow release nitrogen fertilizer by
inverse suspension polymerization, Polym. Int. 56 (6) (2007) 729–737.
[85–88]
[85]
[89,90]
[69]
[69]
[91]
[15] L. Wu, M. Liu, Preparation and properties of chitosan-coated NPK compound fertilizer with controlled-release and water-retention, Carbohydr. Polym. 72 (2) (2008)
240–247.
[16] D. Davidson, F.X. Gu, Materials for sustained and controlled release of nutrients and
molecules to support plant growth, J. Agric. Food Chem. 60 (4) (2012) 870–876.
[17] T. Zheng, et al., Superabsorbent hydrogels as carriers for the controlled-release of
urea: experiments and a mathematical model describing the release rate, Biosyst.
Eng. 102 (1) (2009) 44–50.
[18] D. Rindt, G. Blouin, J. Getsinger, Sulfur coating on nitrogen fertilizer to reduce dissolution rate, J. Agric. Food Chem. 16 (5) (1968) 773–778.
[19] D. Ussiri, R. Lal, The role of fertilizer management in mitigating nitrous oxide emissions, Soil Emission of Nitrous Oxide and its Mitigation, Springer, 2013, pp. 315–346.
[20] E. Guertal, Slow-release nitrogen fertilizers in vegetable production: a review,
HortTechnology 19 (1) (2009) 16–19.
[21] H. Akiyama, X. Yan, K. Yagi, Evaluation of effectiveness of enhanced‐efficiency fertilizers as mitigation options for N2O and NO emissions from agricultural soils: meta‐
analysis, Glob. Chang. Biol. 16 (6) (2010) 1837–1846.
[22] X. Yan, et al., Recent advances on the technologies to increase fertilizer use efficiency, Agric. Sci. China 7 (4) (2008) 469–479.
[23] F. Puoci, et al., Polymer in agriculture: a review, Am. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 3 (1) (2008) 299.
[24] J. Sartain, et al., New tools for the analysis and characterization of slow-release
fertilizers, ACS Symposium series, ACS Publications, 2004.
[25] R. Tharanathan, Biodegradable films and composite coatings: past, present and
future, Trends Food Sci. Technol. 14 (3) (2003) 71–78.
[26] B.S. Tsai, Continuous spouted bed process for sulphur-coating urea, 1986.
[27] M. Choi, A. Meisen, Sulfur coating of urea in shallow spouted beds, Chem. Eng. Sci.
52 (7) (1997) 1073–1086.
[28] G. Ayub, S. Rocha, A. Perrucci, Analysis of the surface quality of sulphur-coated urea
particles in a two-dimensional spouted bed, Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 18 (1) (2001) 13–22.
[29] Y.-H. Liu, et al., Urea particle coating for controlled release by using DCPD modified
sulfur, Powder Technol. 183 (1) (2008) 88–93.
[30] Detrick, J.H., Process for producing improved sulfur-coated urea slow release fertilizers,
1997, Google Patents.
[31] Detrick, J.H. and G.L. Hargrove, Polymer-sulfur-polymer coated fertilizers, 2002,
Google Patents.
[32] M.W. Donida, S.C. Rocha, Coating of urea with an aqueous polymeric suspension in a
two-dimensional spouted bed, Dry. Technol. 20 (3) (2002) 685–704.
[33] G.S. da Rosa, S.C. dos Santos Rocha, Effect of process conditions on particle growth
for spouted bed coating of urea, Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif. 49 (8)
(2010) 836–842.
[34] G.S. da Rosa, S.C.d.S. Rocha, Use of vinasse to produce slow‐release coated urea in
spouted bed, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 91 (2012) 589–597.
[35] R. Lan, et al., Experimental modeling of polymer latex spray coating for producing
controlled-release urea, Particuology 9 (5) (2011) 510–516.
[36] S. Wu, et al., Synthesis and performance of polyurethane coated urea as slow/controlled
release fertilizer, J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. Mater. Sci. Ed. 27 (1) (2012) 126–129.
[37] Y. Niu, H. Li, Controlled release of urea encapsulated by starch-g-poly (vinyl
acetate), Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51 (38) (2012) 12173–12177.
[38] Y.-c Yang, et al., Improving the quality of polymer-coated urea with recycled plastic,
proper additives, and large tablets, J. Agric. Food Chem. 60 (45) (2012) 11229–11237.
[39] A.S. Mathews, S. Narine, Poly [N‐isopropyl acrylamide]‐co‐polyurethane copolymers
for controlled release of urea, J. Polym. Sci. A Polym. Chem. 48 (15) (2010) 3236–3243.
[40] W. Yong, L. Jian, C. Xiaoyao, Biodegraded and polyurethane drape-formed urea
fertilizer, J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. Mater. Sci. Ed. 20 (2) (2005) 12–14.
[41] W.Y. Han, et al., Nitrogen release dynamics and transformation of slow release
fertiliser products and their effects on tea yield and quality, J. Sci. Food Agric. 88
(5) (2008) 839–846.
[42] A. Petchsuk, et al., Controlled-release materials for fertilizer based on lactic acid
polymers, Adv. Mater. Res. 55 (2008) 905–908.
[43] X. Qiu, et al., 1‐naphthylacetic‐acid‐functionalized polyacrylate‐coated urea with
dual controlled‐release properties, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 129 (2012) 559–567.
B. Azeem et al. / Journal of Controlled Release 181 (2014) 11–21
[44] M. Hanafi, S. Eltaib, M. Ahmad, Physical and chemical characteristics of controlled
release compound fertiliser, Eur. Polym. J. 36 (10) (2000) 2081–2088.
[45] S. Al-Zahrani, Utilization of polyethylene and paraffin waxes as controlled delivery
systems for different fertilizers, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 39 (2) (2000) 367–371.
[46] M. Tomaszewska, A. Jarosiewicz, Use of polysulfone in controlled-release NPK fertilizer formulations, J. Agric. Food Chem. 50 (16) (2002) 4634–4639.
[47] M. Tomaszewska, A. Jarosiewicz, K. Karakulski, Physical and chemical characteristics
of polymer coatings in CRF formulation, Desalination 146 (1) (2002) 319–323.
[48] M. Tomaszewska, A. Jarosiewicz, Polysulfone coating with starch addition in CRF formulation, Desalination 163 (1) (2004) 247–252.
[49] Milene M.E. Costa, et al., Use of polyhydroxybutyrate and ethyl cellulose for coating
of urea granules, J. Agric. Food Chem. 61 (42) (2013) 9984–9991.
[50] R. Liang, M. Liu, Preparation and properties of a double-coated slow-release and
water-retention urea fertilizer, J. Agric. Food Chem. 54 (4) (2006) 1392–1398.
[51] S. Tao, et al., Preparation and characterization of triple polymer‐coated controlled‐
release urea with water‐retention property and enhanced durability, J. Appl.
Polym. Sci. 120 (4) (2011) 2103–2111.
[52] S. Qin, et al., Synthesis and characterization of slow‐release nitrogen fertilizer with
water absorbency: based on poly (acrylic acid‐acrylic amide)/Na‐bentonite, J.
Appl. Polym. Sci. 126 (5) (2012) 1687–1697.
[53] R. Liang, M. Liu, Preparation and properties of coated nitrogen fertilizer with slow
release and water retention, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 45 (25) (2006) 8610–8616.
[54] B. Ni, et al., Environmentally friendly slow-release nitrogen fertilizer, J. Agric. Food
Chem. 59 (18) (2011) 10169–10175.
[55] L. Xie, et al., Slow-release nitrogen and boron fertilizer from a functional superabsorbent
formulation based on wheat straw and attapulgite, Chem. Eng. J. 167 (1) (2011)
342–348.
[56] X.-S. He, et al., Characteristics and performance of novel water-absorbent slow
release nitrogen fertilizers, Agric. Sci. China 6 (3) (2007) 338–346.
[57] Yuechao Yang, et al., Biobased polymer composites derived from corn stover and feather meals as double-coating materials for controlled-release and water-retention urea
fertilizers, J. Agric. Food Chem. 61.34 (2013) 8166–8174.
[58] Y. Wang, et al., κ-Carrageenan–sodium alginate beads and superabsorbent coated
nitrogen fertilizer with slow-release, water-retention, and anticompaction properties, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51 (3) (2012) 1413–1422.
[59] L. Chen, et al., Controlled release of urea encapsulated by starch-g-poly (L-lactide),
Carbohydr. Polym. 72 (2) (2008) 342–348.
[60] X. Han, S. Chen, X. Hu, Controlled-release fertilizer encapsulated by starch/polyvinyl
alcohol coating, Desalination 240 (1) (2009) 21–26.
[61] Suherman, Producing slow release urea by coating with starch/acrylic acid in fluid
bed spraying, Int. J. Eng. Technol. IJET-IJENS 11 (06) (2011) 4.
[62] S.-A. Riyajan, Y. Sasithornsonti, P. Phinyocheep, Green natural rubber-g-modified
starch for controlling urea release, Carbohydr. Polym. 89 (1) (2012) 251–258.
[63] S. Ariyanti, Z. Man, B.M. Azmi, Improvement of hydrophobicity of urea modified
tapioca starch film with lignin for slow release fertilizer, Adv. Mater. Res. 626
(2013) 350–354.
[64] R. Ito, B. Golman, K. Shinohara, Design of multi-layer coated particles with sigmoidal
release pattern, Chem. Eng. Sci. 60 (20) (2005) 5415–5424.
[65] M. Fernández-Pérez, et al., Lignin and ethylcellulose as polymers in controlled release formulations of urea, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 108 (6) (2008) 3796–3803.
[66] W. Mulder, et al., Lignin based controlled release coatings, Ind. Crop. Prod. 34 (1)
(2011) 915–920.
[67] S. Lu, et al., Urea release rate from a scoop of coated pure urea beads: unified extreme analysis, J. Chin. Inst. Chem. Eng. 38 (3) (2007) 295–302.
[68] M. Vashishtha, P. Dongara, D. Singh, Improvement in properties of urea by phosphogypsum coating, Int. J. ChemTech Res. 2 (1) (2010) 36–44.
[69] J.K. Kiran, et al., Effects of controlled release urea on the yield and nitrogen nutrition
of flooded rice, Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 41 (7) (2010) 811–819.
21
[70] X. Yan, et al., Nitrous oxide emission from wetland rice soil as affected by the application of controlled-availability fertilizers and mid-season aeration, Biol. Fertil. Soils
32 (1) (2000) 60–66.
[71] S. Shoji, et al., Use of controlled release fertilizers and nitrification inhibitors to increase nitrogen use efficiency and to conserve air and water quality, Commun.
Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 32 (7–8) (2001) 1051–1070.
[72] H. Chu, et al., Soil microbial biomass and activities in a Japanese Andisol as affected by
controlled release and application depth of urea, Biol. Fertil. Soils 42 (2) (2005) 89–96.
[73] S. Haque, Z. Sultana, Efficiency of Meister-10 and urea-Nimin as controlled release
nitrogen fertilizers on rice, SAARC J. Agric. 6 (2) (2008) 31–37.
[74] X.-Z. Wang, et al., Nitrogen cycling and losses under rice-wheat rotations with coated urea and urea in the Taihu lake region, Pedosphere 17 (1) (2007) 62–69.
[75] D. Chen, et al., Evaluation of a polyolefin coated urea (Meister) as a fertilizer for
irrigated cotton, Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 81 (3) (2008) 245–254.
[76] Y. Hara, Application of parametrization using the Richards function to nitrogen release
from coated urea and growth of rice seeds, Jpn. Agric. Res. 35 (3) (2001) 155–161.
[77] K. Inubushi, et al., Effects of controlled-release coated urea (CRCU) on soil microbial
biomass N in paddy fields examined by the 15 N tracer technique, Nutr. Cycl.
Agroecosyst. 63 (2–3) (2002) 291–300.
[78] W. Cheng, et al., N2O and NO emissions from a field of Chinese cabbage as influenced by band application of urea or controlled-release urea fertilizers, Nutr. Cycl.
Agroecosyst. 63 (2–3) (2002) 231–238.
[79] F. Zvomuya, et al., Nitrate leaching and nitrogen recovery following application of
polyolefin-coated urea to potato, J. Environ. Qual. 32 (2) (2003) 480–489.
[80] R. McKenzie, et al., Controlled-release urea for winter wheat in southern Alberta,
Can. J. Soil Sci. 87 (1) (2007) 85–91.
[81] Y. Takahashi, et al., Effect of basal side‐dressing of various types of coated urea
fertilizer on shoot growth, yield components and seed composition of soybean
(Glycine max (L.) Merr.), Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 52 (3) (2006) 264–273.
[82] C. Du, et al., Prediction of nitrate release from polymer-coated fertilizers using an
artificial neural network model, Biosyst. Eng. 99 (4) (2008) 478–486.
[83] M.D. Patil, et al., Performance of polymer-coated urea in transplanted rice: effect of
mixing ratio and water input on nitrogen use efficiency, Paddy Water Environ. 8 (2)
(2010) 189–198.
[84] Y.S. Shivay, et al., Relative yield and zinc uptake by rice from zinc sulphate and zinc
oxide coatings onto urea, Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 80 (2) (2008) 181–188.
[85] M.L. Wilson, C.J. Rosen, J.F. Moncrief, A comparison of techniques for determining nitrogen release from polymer-coated urea in the field, HortSci. 44 (2) (2009) 492–494.
[86] B. Golden, et al., Evaluation of polymer-coated urea for direct-seeded, delayed-flood
rice production, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 73 (2) (2009) 375–383.
[87] Y. Soon, et al., Effect of polymer-coated urea and tillage on the dynamics of available
N and nitrous oxide emission from Gray Luvisols, Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 90 (2)
(2011) 267–279.
[88] C. Grant, et al., Crop yield and nitrogen concentration with controlled release urea
and split applications of nitrogen as compared to non-coated urea applied at
seeding, Field Crop Res. 127 (2012) 170–180.
[89] Q. Zhu, M. Zhang, Q. Ma, Copper-based foliar fertilizer and controlled release urea
improved soil chemical properties, plant growth and yield of tomato, Sci. Hortic.
143 (2012) 109–114.
[90] Y. Ji, et al., Effect of controlled-release fertilizer on mitigation of N2O emission
from paddy field in South China: a multi-year field observation, Plant Soil
(2013) 1–14.
[91] H. Akiyama, et al., Nitrification, ammonia-oxidizing communities, and N2O and
CH4 fluxes in an imperfectly drained agricultural field fertilized with coated
urea with and without dicyandiamide, Biol. Fertil. Soils 49 (2) (2013) 213–223.
[92] Q. Xu, Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Material Science and Environmental Engineering, DEStech Publications, Inc., ISBN: 9781605951256, 2013,
p. 233.