No abstract

Wind erosion is a serious problem throughout the world which results in soil and environment degradation and air pollution. The main objective of this study was to evaluate feasibility of microbial-induced carbonate precipitation, as a novel soil-strengthening technique, to reduce wind erosion risk of a sandy soil. For this purpose, the erosion of biocemented soil samples was investigated experimentally in a wind tunnel under the condition of wind velocity of 45 km h -1 . The weight loss of treated samples relative to the weight loss of control treatment was 1.29 and 0.16 % for low and high bacterial mix concentrations, respectively, indicating a significant improvement in erosion control in biologically treated samples. The effect of biological treatment on wind erosion control was even superior at the higher velocities. Thereafter, the penetration resistance of the surface layers as a simple index of resistance against wind erosion was measured. Significant improvements in the penetration resistance of the treated soil samples were observed. Although low bacterial mix concentrations did not significantly improve the penetration resistance of the samples, significant improvements in the penetration resistance of the treated soil samples were observed reaching to the highest measured strength (56 kPa) in high bacterial mix concentrations samples. Finally, the morphology of precipitated CaCO 3 crystals using scanning electron microscopy and X-ray powder diffraction analysis showed that the CaCO 3 was mainly precipitated as vaterite crystals forming pointto-point contacts between the sand granules.

Citric acid (CA) was evaluated in terms of its efficiency as a biodegradable chelating agent, in removing zinc (Zn) from heavily contaminated soil, using a soil washing process. To determine preliminary ranges of variables in the washing process, single factor experiments were carried out with different CA concentrations, pH levels and washing times. Optimization of batch washing conditions followed using a response surface methodology (RSM) based central composite design (CCD) approach. CCD predicted values and experimental results showed strong agreement, with an R2 value of 0.966. Maximum removal of 92.8% occurred with a CA concentration of 167.6 mM, pH of 4.43, and washing time of 30 min as optimal variable values. A leaching column experiment followed, to examine the efficiency of the optimum conditions established by the CCD model. A comparison of two soil washing techniques indicated that the removal efficiency rate of the column experiment (85.8%) closely matching that of the batch experiment (92.8%). The methodology supporting the research experimentation for optimizing Zn removal may be useful in the design of protocols for practical engineering soil decontamination applications

No abstract

The least limiting water range (LLWR) was introduced as an integrated soil water content indicator, measuring the impact of mechanical impedance, oxygen and water availability on water uptake and crop growth. However, a rigorous definition of the upper limit of the LLWR using plant physiological and soil physical concepts was not given. We introduce in this study an upper limit of the LLWR, based on soil physical and plant physiological properties. We further evaluate the sensitivity of this boundary to different soil and crop variables, and compare the sensitivity of the upper limit of the LLWR to previous definitions of soil water content at field capacity. The current study confirms that the upper limit of the LLWR can be predicted from knowledge of the soil moisture characteristic curve, plant root depth and oxygen consumption rate. The sensitivity analysis shows further that the upper limit of the LLWR approaches the volumetric soil water content at saturation when the oxygen consumption rate by plants becomes less than 2 µmol m −3 s −1 . When plants are susceptible to aeration (e.g. potato and avocado), there is a big difference between the upper limit of the LLWR and the soil water content at field capacity, in particular for sandy soils. Results also show that the soil water content at aeration porosity corresponding to 10% cannot be considered as an appropriate upper limit of LLWR because it does not appropriately reflect the crop water requirements. Similar poor results are obtained when considering the soil water content at matric potential −0.033 MPa or when defining the soil water content at field capacity based on drainage flux rate. It is observed that the upper limit of the LLWR is higher than either soil water content at −0.033 MPa matric potential or soil water content at field capacity as based on drainage flux rate, especially in sandy soils.