A comparison of methods used to characterize the soil specific surface area of clays

Maček, Matej; Mauko, Alenka; Mladenovič, Ana; Majes, Bojan; Petkovšek, Ana

doi:10.1016/j.clay.2013.08.026

Cited by 37 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results showed good estimates of SA when compared with the EGME estimates, although the model overestimated the thickness of the water film at very small matric potentials (e.g. Resurreccion et al ., ; Arthur et al ., ; Maček et al ., ). Estimates of SA from the GAB model were also similar to those of SA EGME ; there was some under‐ and over‐estimation for SA GABa and SA GABd , respectively (Figure e).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…where A svl (J) is the Hamaker constant for solid-vapour interactions through the intervening liquid, w is the density of water and g is acceleration due to gravity (m s −2 ). The value of A svl was set to −6 × 10 −20 J as suggested in Tuller & Or (2005) and Maček et al (2013).…”

Section: The To Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Tuller-Or (TO) approach that applies a thermodynamic scaling relationship between adsorbed water film thickness, matric potential and SA, works well for soils with SA values ranging from 5 m 2 g −1 to about 200 m 2 g −1 . (Arthur et al, 2013;Maček et al, 2013). Some challenges associated with the TO approach are the estimation of a realistic value for the apparent Hamaker constant (Or & Tuller, 1999;Tuller & Or, 2005) and inability of the model to describe accurately the drier parts of the adsorption isotherms (Resurreccion et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Applicability of the Guggenheim–Anderson–Boer water vapour sorption model for estimation of soil specific surface area

Arthur

Tuller

Møldrup

et al. 2017

European J Soil Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummarySoil specific surface area (SA) controls fundamental soil processes such as retention of water, ion exchange, and adsorption and release of plant nutrients and contaminants. Conventional methods for determining SA include adsorption of polar or non-polar fluid molecules with associated advantages and limitations. The Guggenheim-Anderson-Boer (GAB) sorption model accurately characterizes soil water vapour sorption isotherms and is posited as an alternate approach for the determination of SA from water vapour sorption. The present study investigates the GAB model as an alternative to other water sorption-based modelling approaches to determine SA. Measured water vapour adsorption and desorption isotherms for 321 soil samples were used to parameterize the GAB model, the Brunauer-Emmet-Teller (BET) equation and a film adsorption Tuller-Or (TO) model to estimate SA. For adsorption isotherms, the values of the GAB parameters varied depending on the water activity or relative humidity range of measured data (0.03-0.93 compared with 0.10-0.80), whereas the variation for desorption was minimal. For desorption isotherms, the average water activity value at which the GAB monolayer parameter was obtained was 0.24 for kaolinite-rich samples, 0.31 for illite-rich or mixed clay samples, 0.34 for smectitic samples and 0.30 for organic matter-rich samples, respectively. The GAB model provided reasonable estimates of SA (root mean squared error from 11.6 to 36.4 m 2 g −1 ), in particular for smectite-rich soil samples, when compared with SA measured by the ethylene glycol monoethyl ether (EGME) method. For kaolinitic samples, however, the BET equation provided the best estimate of EGME-SA. The SA estimates of the GAB model were comparable to those obtained by the TO adsorption model. Thus, the GAB model provides a good alternative to the TO model (applicable only to adsorption data) or the BET model, which fails when the fraction of swelling clay minerals increases. Highlights• GAB, BET and film adsorption models were parameterized with water vapour sorption data.• Water activity at GAB monolayer coverage depended on clay mineralogy.• Soil organic matter did not affect water activity at monolayer coverage.• Estimates of SA from GAB were in accord with EGME-measured SA.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: The To Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Applicability of the Guggenheim–Anderson–Boer water vapour sorption model for estimation of soil specific surface area

Arthur

Tuller

Møldrup

et al. 2017

European J Soil Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The SSA values of the two soils differed widely (Table 1) and were higher in the Oxisol as a result of its high clay content and oxidic mineralogy. According to Maček et al (2013) and Yukselen‐Aksoy and Kaya (2010), SSA is affected by differences in the nature and content of clay minerals. SSA was higher under CT than under NT in both soils, the difference being significant in the Ultisol.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phosphorus adsorption and desorption in undisturbed samples from subtropical soils under conventional tillage or no‐tillage

Fink

Inda

Bavaresco

et al. 2016

J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dynamics of P in soil is greatly influenced by the adsorption of phosphate onto Fe‐oxides. Access of phosphate to the surface of these minerals depends on the degree of soil aggregation, which in turn is influenced by soil management system. The primary purpose of this work was to investigate P adsorption and desorption in undisturbed and disturbed soil samples from an Ultisol (Rhodic Paleudult) and an Oxisol (Humic Hapludox) under conventional tillage (CT) or no‐tillage (NT). Phosphorus adsorption and desorption in undisturbed soil was studied by using a continuous flux system containing a P solution for adsorption measurements or deionized water and Mehlich‐I solution for desorption measurements. The Oxisol, which had higher clay, hematite, and goethite contents than the Ultisol, exhibited the highest maximum P adsorption capacity (Pmax) values in disturbed samples. Also, the disturbed Ultisol samples had lower Pmax values under NT than under CT. The undisturbed soil samples exhibited no significant differences in P adsorption between soil management systems, but P desorption was more marked under NT than under CT. The samples of Oxisol under NT exhibited lower P adsorption rates and higher P desorption rates than the CT samples of the same soil. The decreased P adsorption in undisturbed samples relative to disturbed samples suggests that P adsorption is influenced by physical properties of soil.

show abstract

“…is the volume of MB solution used in the analysis, and W (g) is the mass of zeolite used in the experiment. The SSA was calculated according to the Hang and Brindley method; Equation (2) was applied [22]…”

Section: Characterization Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Synthesis of Zeolite A from Metakaolin and Its Application in the Adsorption of Cationic Dyes

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A comparison of methods used to characterize the soil specific surface area of clays

Cited by 37 publications

References 25 publications

Applicability of the Guggenheim–Anderson–Boer water vapour sorption model for estimation of soil specific surface area

Applicability of the Guggenheim–Anderson–Boer water vapour sorption model for estimation of soil specific surface area

Phosphorus adsorption and desorption in undisturbed samples from subtropical soils under conventional tillage or no‐tillage

Synthesis of Zeolite A from Metakaolin and Its Application in the Adsorption of Cationic Dyes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About