在间歇和流动实验中测定阳离子交换容量和总交换碱

C.D. Barton, A.D. Karathanasis
{"title":"在间歇和流动实验中测定阳离子交换容量和总交换碱","authors":"C.D. Barton,&nbsp;A.D. Karathanasis","doi":"10.1016/S0933-3630(97)00002-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Cation exchange capacity (CEC) recoveries from a leaching procedure utilizing intact soil columns were compared to extracts from disturbed soil samples to determine the influence of macropores and preferential flow on ion exchange. Eleven soils representing eight soil series with a variety of morphological and physicochemical characteristics were used in the study. Leachate was introduced into duplicate undisturbed soil columns following the 1 M NH<sub>4</sub>OAc, pH 7.0 procedure at a weight to volume ratio equivalent to that used for the disturbed soil samples. Effluents from disturbed and undisturbed samples were collected and analyzed for CEC and total extractable bases. Average CEC values for the intact columns were 49.1% lower than those measured by routine analysis. Regressional analysis indicated a significant difference between the two methods (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.1). Particle size distribution was identified through multiple linear regression analysis as the most influential physicochemical property contributing to the difference between methods. Soil columns with sandier textures displayed high recovery rates attributable to uniform porosity and low CEC. As the silt fraction increased, the difference between methods increased due to formation of macropores and associated preferential flow through the soil matrix. However, increased clay levels allowed more thorough hydration of the matrix which apparently restricted flow, increased residence time and promoted exposure of more exchange sites, thus resulting in intermediate recovery rates. These results suggest that routine CEC measurements based on batch extractions of disturbed soil samples may overestimate ion exchange interactions, and therefore, overestimate true contaminant sorption capacities of soils.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101170,"journal":{"name":"Soil Technology","volume":"11 2","pages":"Pages 153-162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0933-3630(97)00002-0","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring cation exchange capacity and total exchangeable bases in batch and flow experiments\",\"authors\":\"C.D. Barton,&nbsp;A.D. Karathanasis\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S0933-3630(97)00002-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Cation exchange capacity (CEC) recoveries from a leaching procedure utilizing intact soil columns were compared to extracts from disturbed soil samples to determine the influence of macropores and preferential flow on ion exchange. Eleven soils representing eight soil series with a variety of morphological and physicochemical characteristics were used in the study. Leachate was introduced into duplicate undisturbed soil columns following the 1 M NH<sub>4</sub>OAc, pH 7.0 procedure at a weight to volume ratio equivalent to that used for the disturbed soil samples. Effluents from disturbed and undisturbed samples were collected and analyzed for CEC and total extractable bases. Average CEC values for the intact columns were 49.1% lower than those measured by routine analysis. Regressional analysis indicated a significant difference between the two methods (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.1). Particle size distribution was identified through multiple linear regression analysis as the most influential physicochemical property contributing to the difference between methods. Soil columns with sandier textures displayed high recovery rates attributable to uniform porosity and low CEC. As the silt fraction increased, the difference between methods increased due to formation of macropores and associated preferential flow through the soil matrix. However, increased clay levels allowed more thorough hydration of the matrix which apparently restricted flow, increased residence time and promoted exposure of more exchange sites, thus resulting in intermediate recovery rates. These results suggest that routine CEC measurements based on batch extractions of disturbed soil samples may overestimate ion exchange interactions, and therefore, overestimate true contaminant sorption capacities of soils.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101170,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Soil Technology\",\"volume\":\"11 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 153-162\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0933-3630(97)00002-0\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Soil Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0933363097000020\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soil Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0933363097000020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

利用完整的土壤柱进行浸出过程的阳离子交换容量(CEC)回收率与扰动土壤样品的提取物进行了比较,以确定大孔和优先流对离子交换的影响。研究对象为8个土壤系列的11种土壤,它们具有不同的形态和理化特征。按照1 M NH4OAc, pH 7.0的程序,将渗滤液引入重复的未受干扰的土壤柱中,其重量与体积比与受干扰的土壤样品相同。收集扰动和未扰动样品的流出物并分析CEC和总可提取碱。完整色谱柱的平均CEC值比常规分析结果低49.1%。回归分析显示两种方法之间存在显著差异(p <0.1)。通过多元线性回归分析,确定粒度分布是影响方法差异的最重要的物理化学性质。砂质土柱由于孔隙度均匀且CEC较低,恢复率较高。随着粉土比例的增加,由于大孔隙的形成和通过土壤基质的优先流动,两种方法之间的差异增大。然而,粘土含量的增加使基质的水化更加彻底,这显然限制了流动,增加了停留时间,促进了更多交换位点的暴露,从而产生了中等的回收率。这些结果表明,基于批量提取扰动土壤样品的常规CEC测量可能高估了离子交换相互作用,因此高估了土壤的真实污染物吸附能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Measuring cation exchange capacity and total exchangeable bases in batch and flow experiments

Cation exchange capacity (CEC) recoveries from a leaching procedure utilizing intact soil columns were compared to extracts from disturbed soil samples to determine the influence of macropores and preferential flow on ion exchange. Eleven soils representing eight soil series with a variety of morphological and physicochemical characteristics were used in the study. Leachate was introduced into duplicate undisturbed soil columns following the 1 M NH4OAc, pH 7.0 procedure at a weight to volume ratio equivalent to that used for the disturbed soil samples. Effluents from disturbed and undisturbed samples were collected and analyzed for CEC and total extractable bases. Average CEC values for the intact columns were 49.1% lower than those measured by routine analysis. Regressional analysis indicated a significant difference between the two methods (p < 0.1). Particle size distribution was identified through multiple linear regression analysis as the most influential physicochemical property contributing to the difference between methods. Soil columns with sandier textures displayed high recovery rates attributable to uniform porosity and low CEC. As the silt fraction increased, the difference between methods increased due to formation of macropores and associated preferential flow through the soil matrix. However, increased clay levels allowed more thorough hydration of the matrix which apparently restricted flow, increased residence time and promoted exposure of more exchange sites, thus resulting in intermediate recovery rates. These results suggest that routine CEC measurements based on batch extractions of disturbed soil samples may overestimate ion exchange interactions, and therefore, overestimate true contaminant sorption capacities of soils.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信