Dependence Between Electrical Resistance and Water Content in Peat

6/11/2016
DEPENDENCEBetweenELECTRICALRESISTANCEANDWATERCONTENTINPEAT
Readmoreaboutsoilandwaterelectricalproperties,geophysicsinsoilscience,GIS,fractals,andgeostatisticsatmyNEW
redesignedwebsite:Landviser,Inc.
SoilWaterRetentionandElectricalResistivity
L.Pozdnyakova1,R.Zhang1,andA.Pozdnyakov2
1DepartmentofRenewableResources,UniversityofWyoming,Laramie,USA
2CentralPeatBogResearchStation,Dmitrov,MoscowArea,Russia
Waterisretainedinsoilbytheforcesofmolecularattraction,suchasvanderWaalsandelectrostaticinteractionsamongwatermolecules,
solutemolecules,andsolidsurfaces,aswellasbytheairwaterinterfacialtensionincapillaries.Atlowerwatercontentsmostofsoilwateris
intheformoffilmsattributabletothepredominantforceofmolecularattraction,whereasathighwatercontentsmostofwaterisholdbythe
capillaryforceinwedgesbetweensoilparticlesandincapillaries(TaylorandAshcroft,1972Iwataetal.,1995).Themagnitudeofdifferent
forcescontributingtowaterretentionortosoilmatricpotentialchangeswiththesoilwatercontent(NerpinandChudnovskii,1967Nielsen
etal.,1972Foth,1990Juryetal.,1991).However,soilwaterretentionfunctionrepresentsthecomplexinfluenceofthedifferentforceson
soil matric potential with the change of water content. Thus, the soil water retention function, as a general characteristic of the retention
forces,cannotrevealthemagnitudeofdifferentforcescontributingtothesoilmatricpotentialatdifferentwatercontents.
Tounderstandtheinfluenceofthedifferentforcesonthesoilwaterretention,westudytherelationshipbetweenelectricalresistivityandsoil
watercontentanduseitasatooltorevealthenatureofretentionforcesinsoils.Theelectricalresistivityorconductivityofthesoilwater
systemisrelatedwith the mobility of electrical charges in water and with themobilityofsoilwateritselfyetcanbeameasureofsolute
retentioninsoil(NerpinandChudnovskii,1967Pozdnyakovetal.,1996).Inaddition,theelectricalpropertiesofsoilwatersystemsuchas
electricalresistivity,conductivity,andelectricalpotentialareeasilymeasuredinbothfieldandlaboratoryconditions(Rhoadesetal.,1989
Bantonetal.,1997).
The objectives of the study are to discuss the influence of soil water retention on electrical properties of soil water based on the
thermodynamictheoriesandtoshowexperimentallythedifferentmechanismsofelectricalconductivityandwaterretentionatdifferentsoil
watercontentranges.Theoriesofsoilwaterretentionandelectricalconductivityaswellasexperimentaldataarecombinedtodevelopthe
relationshipsbetweenelectricalresistivityandwatercontentforthedifferentwatercontentconditionsfromairdrytosaturatedsoil.
THEORY
ThefundamentalBoltzmannsdistributionlawofstatisticalthermodynamicsdefinestherelationshipbetweenthenumberofmoleculesand
theenergyofasystemas(Besanson,1974):
[1]
whereNi andNjarethenumbersofmoleculesatstagesiandj,respectivelyEiandEjaretheenergiesofthesystematthestageskisthe
universalconstantequalto1.38041x1023joules/degreeandTistheabsolutetemperature.Theenergyofsoilsolutionisinfluencedbythe
electricalMaxwellforcesresultingfromthevaryingdensityofmobileelectricalchargesinsolutionandbythepressureresultingfromthe
interactions of soil solution with soil matrix (Nerpin and Chudnovskii, 1967). Therefore, considering two stages of soil solution i and j
correspondingtothedifferentwatercontentsbutlocatedwithinthesameinfinitesoilvolume,thedifferenceoftheenergiescanbedefined
(Neilsenetal.,1972):
[2]
wheresubscriptsiandjindicatethedifferentstagesofthesoilsolutionEistheenergyofsoilsolutionistheelectricalpotentialpisthe
soilmatricpotentialeistheelectronicchargezisthesummaryvalenceofthemobileionsinthesolutionandVistherelativevolumeof
solutepermoleculeofsolvent.BycombiningEq.[2],Eq.[1]canbeseparatedintoelectricalandmatricpotentialpartsandrewrittenforthe
soilsolutionasfollows:
[3]
Thefraction
representstherelativenumberofmobileelectricalchargesinsoilsolutionatthestageiincomparisonwiththestagej.
Theamountofthemobileelectricalchargesinthesoilisproportionaltothewatercontent,sincetheelectricalchargesinsoilsaremobile
only in hydrated form in the waterfilled capillaries or in water films around soil matrix (Hinrich et al., 1982). The electrical potential
difference
isproportionaltotheelectricalresistivityaccordingtoOhmslaw.Thus,fromEq.[3]arelationshipbetweensoilwater
contentandelectricalresistivitycanbeobtainedas:
http://larisa_pozd.tripod.com/water/water.htm
1/9
6/11/2016
[4]
whereWisthegravitationalwatercontentaandbareempiricalparametersandERisthebulkelectricalresistivityofsoil.Theparametera
represents the influence of soil water retention on the electrical properties of soil solution yet may depend on the soil physical properties
altering the water retention such as specific surface area, porosity, tortuosity, etc. The parameter b may be related with the chemical
propertiesofsoilandsoilsolution,suchastheamountandvarietyofsolubleinorganicandorganiccompoundsinfluencingthevalenceof
mobileelectricalchargesinsoilsolution.Sincethenatureandmagnitudeoftheforcesinfluencingsoilwaterretentionvaryconsiderablyfor
differentwatercontent conditions, parametersaandb change with soil water content. It is assumed that aandb in Eq. [4] are constants
within a certain water content range but may vary for different ranges of soil water content. The assumption yields a piecewise linear
relationshipbetweenelectricalresistivityandlogarithmofsoilwatercontent(Fig.1).
Fig.1.Theoreticalpiecewiselinearrelationshipbetweenthenaturallogarithmofwatercontentandelectricalresistivity.
The different parts of the piecewise linear relationship between soil electrical resistivity or conductivity and water content have been
reportedinliterature(EdlefsenandAnderson,1941GuptaandHanks,1972Weertsetal.,1998).Thebreakpointsontherelationshipsare
related to some soil water constants such as hygroscopic water, wilting point, and field capacity separating different soil water categories
(Bouyoucos, 1948 Fripiat et al., 1965 Borovinskaya et al., 1981). However, the studies did not show consistent agreement between soil
watercategoriesandthelinearsegmentsattherelationshipbetweenelectricalresistivityorconductivityandwatercontentinsemilogarithm
coordinates.Themainproblemisinluckofareliabletheoryaboutsoilwatercategories.
Voronin (1986) developed a concept of soil water categories based on the theory of molecular attraction and capillary forces. The
contribution of the molecular attraction force to the soil matric potential decreases with the increase of water content from the airdry to
saturatedsoil,whereasthecontributionofthecapillaryforceincreases.Voronin(1986)hasshownthatnatureandmagnitudeoftheforces
contributing to the soil matric potential changes abruptly at some specific conditions separating the different ranges of soil water such as
adsorbed,film,filmcapillary,capillary,andgravitationalwater.InthisstudytheVoroninsconceptisappliedtocharacterizetheinfluenceof
soil water retention forces on the relationship between soil water content and electrical resistivity. The soil water retention restricts the
mobilityofelectricalchargesinsoiltherefore,influencesaandbparametersinEq.[4].SinceVoronin(1986)proposedtheabruptchangein
natureandmagnitudeofwaterretentionforcesbetweensoilwaterranges,theparametersaandbinEq.[4]varyfortherangesofadsorbed,
film,filmcapillary,capillary,andgravitationalwater(Fig.1).
Theelectricalresistivitydecreasesrapidlywiththeincreaseofsoilwatercontentintheadsorptionwaterrange(Fig.1).Althoughsoluteand
watermoleculesonthesurfacesofsoilmatrixareimmobileintheadsorbedwaterrange,thedipolarmoleculesoftheadsorbedwatercreatea
conductivepathalongthesoilmatrixcausingresistivityrapidlydecreasewiththeincreaseofwatercontent.Theadsorbedwaterisstrongly
boundtothesoilmatrixbytheforceofmolecularattraction.ThemolecularattractionforceincludesVanderWallsattractionsbetweensolid
surfaces and water molecules, attractions between water molecules and solute molecules themselves, and electrostatic interactions among
solidsurfaces,waterdipoles,andsolutemolecules.Themolecularattractionforceformsthedisjoiningpressure,whichisthefunctionofthe
thicknessofwaterfilm(NerpinandChudnovskii,1967Clifford,1975):
[5]
wherepz isthedisjoiningpressureAandnareconstantsdependingonthenatureoftheinteractingphasesandinvolvedmolecularforces
andzisthefilmthickness,whichcanbeexpressedaswatercontentdividedbyspecificsurfacearea.TheconstantArepresentsthematric
potentialatthemaximumadsorption,thatis,about3monomolecularlayersofwaterstronglyboundtothesoilmatrixprimarilybyVander
2/9
6/11/2016
Walls force (Voronin, 1986). Analyzing extensive experimental data, Voronin (1986) found that the matric potential at the maximal
adsorptionfordifferentsoilsfollowstherelationship:
[6]
where is the absolute value of the matric potential (cm) and W is the soil water content (g g1). Equation [6] describes a straight line
crossing the soil water retention functions (line I in Fig. 2). The maximum amount of adsorbed water for a soil is determined from the
intersectionofthelineandthesoilretentionfunction.
Fig.2.TheillustrationtoVoroninstheory.CurvesarethewaterretentionfunctionsfordifferentsoilssuchassolidlineforAhorizonofMollisol,
dashedlineforB1horizonofMollisol,opencirclesforAhorizonofSpodosol,closedcirclesforEhorizonofSpodosol,dotteddashedlineforC1of
Aridosol.StraightlinesshowtheboundariesbetweendifferentwaterrangesbasedonEq.[6],[7],[9],and[10](Voronin,1986).
Asthewatercontentincreasesbeyondthemaximaladsorption,waterhydratesadsorbedsoluteionsanddistributestheminthewaterfilm
along soil matrix. Water also begins to fill the wedges between soil particles. Applying the equilibrium principle between the molecular
attractionforceinwaterfilmsandthecapillaryforceinwaterwedges(NerpinandChudnovskii,1967),Voronin(1986)derivedtheamount
offilmwaterinthesoilasafunctionofthematricpotential.Themaximalamountofthefilmwatercanbeobtainedfromtheintersectionof
soilretentionfunctionand(Fig.2,II)
[7]
Theamountofwatercorrespondstothemaximalpossiblethicknessofthewaterfilmontheflatsurfaceandisbelievedtobethemaximal
extent of the electrical double layer (Childs, 1969 Clifford, 1975). The mobility of electrical charges in the double layer is restricted by
electrostaticforces(Kemper,1960RaijandPeech,1972LaverdiereandWeaver,1977).TheelectrostaticforcesareweakerthanVander
Waalsforcesholdingtheadsorbedwaterinsoiltherefore,inthefilmwaterrangetheelectricalresistivitydecreasesslowerthanintherange
ofadsorbedwater(Fig.1).
Afterthemaximalpossiblethicknessofthewaterfilmisreached,wateractivelymovesfromthefilmstothewedges.Intherangeoffilm
capillarywatertherelativeportionofthefilmwaterdecreasesandtheamountofwaterholdinthewedgesandcapillariesincreases(Voronin,
1986).Sincetheforceofmolecularattractionismuchstrongerthanthecapillaryforce,thefilmcapillarywaterisstillholdinsoilmainlyby
the molecular attraction. However, the magnitude of the capillary force became increasingly pronounced within the filmcapillary water
range.Thecapillaryforceisdescribedby(KirkhamandPowers,1972)
[8]
wherer1 andr2 arethetwoprincipalradiiofcurvatureandisthecoefficientofsurfacetension.Theradiiareprimarilyaffectedbythesoil
structure, yet the capillary pressure depends indirectly on the soil specific surface area and water content. Thus, when the capillary force
mainlyinfluencesthesoilwaterretention,theexperimentaldatabegintodeviatefromtherelationshipofEq.[5].Thewatercontentandthe
matricpotentialatthepointofdeviationdividethefilmcapillaryandcapillarywaterranges.Therangesoffilmcapillaryandcapillarywater
onthesoilretentionfunctionsareseparatedby(Fig.2,III)
[9]
3/9
6/11/2016
Since the filmcapillary water is partly influenced by the capillary force, which is weaker than molecular attraction force, the electrical
charges are more mobile in the filmcapillary water range than in the adsorbed and film water ranges. Therefore, electrical resistivity
decreaseslessdramaticallyintherangeoffilmcapillarywater(Fig.1).Electricalchargesareevenmoremobileintherangeofcapillary
water,whichisundertheprimarilyinfluenceofthecapillaryforce.Thus,slopeofthelinelnWvs.ERfurtherdecreasesinthecapillarywater
range(Fig.1).
Thewatercontentincreaseswithinthecapillaryrangeuntilthecapillarymeniscusesbecameplanar.Beyondthiscondition,thecurvatureof
theairwaterinterfacedoesnotinfluencethesoilwaterretention,andadditionallyappliedwaterisdrainedawaybygravity.Thegravitational
waterisdefinedasthewaterlocatedintheporesofdiameter>10mwithaconstantmatrixpotentialof148centimeters(Fig.2,IV):
[10]
Inthegravitationalwaterrangethemobilityofwatermoleculesdoesnotaffectthemobilityoftheelectricalcharges(soluteions)therefore,
theelectricalresistivityispracticallyindependentofthewatercontentinthisrange(Rhoadesetal.,1989).Nevertheless,asmalldecreasein
electricalresistivitycanstilloccurinthegravitationalwaterrangeduetocontinuousdissolutionoftheadsorbedandprecipitatedionsfrom
thesoilsolidphase(Fig.1).
Insum,theexponentialmodel(Eq.[4])isappropriatetodescribetherelationshipbetweenelectricalresistivityandsoilwatercontentatall
possiblewatercontents.Thevariationsinmodelparametersshouldbeconsideredinthedifferentrangesofwatercontent,suchasadsorption,
film, filmcapillary, capillary, and gravitational water, attributable to different mechanisms of the water retention. Theoretically, the
relationship between electrical resistivity and logarithm of water content should represent the series of the line segments with the
consequentlydecreasingslopesattributabletothedifferentrangesofwatercontent(Fig.1).
MATERIALSANDMETHODS
SoilsampleswerecollectedattheYachromavalley,Moscowregion,Russiainthesummerof1994.Variouspeatandmineralalluvialsoils
wereinvestigatedincludinggrasswoodypeatsoil(AntropicEutrohemist),sedgemossypeatsoil(AntropicSpagnofibrist),andsodalluvial
soil(TypicCryfluoll).Thirtyonesampleswerecollectedfromdifferentsoildepthsatthesiteswithvariouscultivationpractices.Thesoil
samplesvariedingenesis,botanicalandashcontentsofpeat,andphysicalproperties(Table1).
Table1.Somephysicalpropertiesoftheinvestigatedsoils
Soil
Depth
Bulk
density
Particle
Porosity
cm
gcm3
Grasswoodypeatsoil
1020
0.34
1.89
82.0
24.7
1.21
1.60
(AntropicEutrohemist)
3040
0.21
1.80
88.3
23.1
2.00
2.00
5060
0.21
2.06
89.8
14.2
3.90
3.20
7080
0.18
1.93
90.7
11.7
4.83
3.90
90100
0.16
1.88
91.5
17.6
5.44
3.50
Sedgemossypeatsoil
1020
0.28
1.82
84.6
40.8
1.04
1.30
(AntropicSpagnofibrist)
2030
0.28
1.82
84.6
39.8
2.23
1.50
4050
0.29
1.70
84.7
27.9
2.67
2.10
7080
0.15
1.70
91.2
7.8
5.32
4.85
90100
0.14
1.57
91.1
19.7
6.07
6.00
Sodalluvialsoil
1020
1.11
2.32
52.1
0.18
0.35
(TypicCryfluoll)
3040
1.36
2.49
45.4
0.21
0.39
130139
1.37
2.92
53.1
0.40
0.44
density
Ashcontent Water
content
Field
capacity
gg 1
WatercontentwasmeasuredonJuly14,1994
Thesampleswereanalyzedforsoilparticledensity,bulkdensity,andsoilwaterretention(MethodsofSoilAnalysis,1986).Thesoilwater
retentionfunctionswereobtainedforthedisturbedsoilsampleswithalaboratorytensiometryandpsychrometry.Totalinorganiccontent(ash
content) of peat soils, a measure of peat decomposition, was determined by ashing peat in a muffle furnace at 800o 25o C (Fushcman,
1980).Electricalresistivityofthesoilsampleswasmeasuredinafourelectrodecellatthedifferentwatercontents.AsshowninFig.3,the
construction of the cell was different from those described in the literature (Gupta and Hanks, 1972 Rhoades et al., 1976). The cell is a
rectangularplasticboxwiththecurrentelectrodesAandBasbrassplatesonthesmallersides.ThepotentialelectrodesMandNarethe
brassrodsinthemiddleofthelongsideofthecell.Suchconstructionensurestheinductionoffixedhomogeneouselectricalfieldinthecell,
which allows measure the average bulk electrical resistivity of a sample with a greater accuracy. The time variation and the difference in
electricalresistivityarelessthan0.5%whenmeasuredinthesamesoilsamplebythecellswithdifferentdistancesbetweenelectrodes.
4/9
6/11/2016
Fig.3.Schemeofthefourelectrodeelectricalcellusedintheexperiment.
Thefollowingprocedurewasconductedforeachofthe31soilsamplestoobtainexperimentallytherelationshipsbetweenwatercontentand
electricalresistivity.Eachsamplewasairdriedanddividedinto20subsamples,weightingapproximately15geachforpeatsoilsamplesand
about50gformineralsoilsamples.ThesubsampleswereplacedinAlmoisturecanswherethedifferentvolumesofdistilledwaterwere
addedwith1mlincrementtoachievevarioussoilwatercontents.Thesubsampleswereallowedtoequilibratewiththewaterfor24hours.
Electricalresistivityofeachsubsamplewasmeasuredinturnusingthefourelectrodecell.Thenthewatercontentsoftheallsubsamples,
except for one with the maximum water added, were measured with the gravimetrical method. The subsample with the maximum water
content was left in the measuring cell, and water was added directly into the cell with 1ml interval followed by electrical resistivity
measurementuntilthesubsamplereachessoilpasteconsistency.Finalwatercontentofthesubsamplewasmeasuredwiththegravimetrical
method. The water contents corresponding to the electrical resistivity measurements were obtained with back calculation. The suggested
techniqueallowedmeasuring20to40experimentalpairsofelectricalresistivityandsoilwatercontentwithin30minutes.Theexperimental
data covered the range of water contents from air dry to saturated soil with a 0.05g g1intervalofwatercontent for the peat and with a
0.005gg1intervalformineralsoils.Theexperimentaldesigneliminatedtheinfluenceofotherfactors,suchastemperatureandsaltcontent,
on the relationship between electrical resistivity and soil water content. The soil water content was the only factor affecting measured
electricalresistivityofsoil.Therefore,thedataweresuitableforevaluatingtheproposedtheoryaboutthedifferentmechanismsofelectrical
conductivityandwaterretentioninthespecificrangesofwatercontent.
RESULTSANDDISCUSSION
Theexponentialrelationshipsbetweenelectricalresistivityandwatercontent(Eq.[4])wereobservedforallthe31soilsamples.Figure4
shows one example of the experimental relationship. Fitting of the data sets to the single exponential model of Eq. [4] resulted in the
coefficientsofdetermination(r2)betweenobservedandfittedwatercontentvaluesfrom0.701to0.972.Logarithmoftheexperimentalwater
content values was used for a visual test of Eq. [4] (Fig. 5). The relationship is notably nonlinear, but consists of four different linear
segments (Fig. 5). The linear segments represent the exponential relationships between water content and electrical resistivity in the
particularrangesofwatercontentandrevealthesimilarityintheelectricalpropertiesofsoilwaterintheseranges(Fig.5).
5/9
6/11/2016
Fig.4.Anexampleofexperimentalrelationshipbetweenelectricalresistivityandwatercontentofapeatsoil.
Fig.5.Anexampleofthelinearizedrelationshipbetweenelectricalresistivityandwatercontent.
The break points between the segments correspond to the specific water contents divided the ranges of film, filmcapillary, capillary, and
gravitationalwateraccordingtotheVoronin'sconcept(1986).ThewatercontentvalueatbreakpointIIisveryclosetothecharacteristic
watercontentvalueobtainedfromthesoilretentionfunctionwithEq.[7],whichdividestherangesoffilmandfilmcapillarywater(Fig.2,
5,II).ThewatercontentvalueatbreakpointIIIcorrespondstothewatercontentvaluedividedtherangesoffilmcapillaryandcapillary
water(Fig.2,5,IIIEq.[9])andbreakpointIVcorrespondstothefieldcapacity(Fig.2,5,IVEq.[10]).Thewatercontentvaluesatthe
breakpoints(
)werecomparedwiththevaluesfoundfromtheretentionfunctionsusingtheVoronins(1986)equations(
)forthe31
soilsamplesandlistedinTable2.Forexample,thewatercontent,whichdividestherangesoffilmandfilmcapillarywater(II),is0.58gg1
fromtheretentionfunctionand0.60gg1fromthelnWvs.ERrelationshipforthe3238cmlayerofsedgemossypeatsoil(Table2,raw3,
columns3and4).TherelativeestimationerrorwascalculatedforeachpairofthevaluesinTable2with
6/9
6/11/2016
[11]
The mean relative estimation error was calculated as an average of the absolute values of
for the each characteristic water content
(Table2,bottomline).Themeanrelativeestimationerrorswere16.9%forcharacteristicpointII,9.8%forpointIII,and3%forpointIV
(Table2).
WefoundthesimilarityofthebreakpointsfromthelnWvs.ERrelationshipwiththreecharacteristicwatercontentvalues(Fig.2,5,II,III,
and IV). The breakpoint I was difficult to identify from the lnW vs. ER relationship because the constantcurrent method of electrical
resistivity measurement did not allow obtaining enough experimental points in the range of adsorbed water. The break point between the
rangesofadsorbedandfilmwatercanbefoundwithahighfrequencyelectromagneticmethod(Fripiatetal.,1965).
Table2.Thecomparisonofthewatercontentvaluesrecalculatedfromthebreakpointsatln(W)=f(ER)
relationshipsandthecharacteristicwatercontentvaluesobtainedfromthewaterretention
functionswithVoronin'sconcept.
Nofprofile
Depth
II
III
IV
Soil
gg1
cm
gg1
gg1
gg1
Cultivatedabout80years
1(mossypeat)
2(mossypeat)
38
0.76
1.28
1.20
6.2
1.86
1.90
2.1
1.95
1520
0.76
1.16
1.24
6.9
1.86
1.75
5.9
2.20
3238
0.58
1.40
1.25
10.7
2.86
2.90
4.0
3.20
5055
0.70
1.60
1.50
6.2
3.00
3.00
0.0
6.00
510
0.75
1.52
1.56
2.6
2.10
2.20
4.8
2.25
2025
0.60
1.35
1.38
2.2
2.05
1.90
7.3
2.20
3238
0.76
1.70
1.75
2.9
2.60
2.50
3.8
2.65
5257
0.82
1.72
1.80
4.6
5.49
5.50
0.0
1020
0.73
0.68
6.8
0.93
0.98
5.4
1.11
1.10
2030
0.64
0.75
17.2
1.02
1.04
2.0
1.40
1.40
3040
0.64
0.62
3.1
0.97
0.97
0.0
1.30
4050
0.67
1.47
1.50
2.0
1020
0.68
1.05
0.92
12.4
2030
0.73
1.07
1.05
3040
0.92
1.80
4050
0.76
1.45
3040
0.90
5060
0.90
7080
0.85
>114
2.22
0.9
5.80
6.75
16.4
0.9
1.55
1.53
1.3
0.0
1.90
2.15
13.2
1.40
7.7
1.90
2.05
7.9
3.00
3.00
0.0
4.10
4.30
4.9
1.50
1.50
0.0
2.20
2.15
2.3
1.9
1.50
1.48
1.3
2.45
2.50
2.0
1.90
5.6
3.06
3.05
0.0
4.10
4.10
0.0
1.45
0.0
2.10
2.20
4.8
3.00
3.00
0.0
1.30
1.30
0.0
2.00
1.90
5.0
3.10
3.00
3.2
1.85
2.10
13.5
3.20
3.40
0.2
4.90
4.60
6.1
1.70
2.60
52.9
3.90
4.00
2.6
5.40
4.90
9.3
0.95
2.00
3.50
3.50
0.0
5.40
5.35
0.9
1020
0.49
3.50
0.0
3040
0.45
5060
0.49
3.10
6.1
0.60
3.4
Cultivatedabout30years
3(mossypeat)
5(woodypeat)
7(woodypeat)
12(woodypeat)
7080
0.49
90100
0.46
24(woodypeat)
90100
0.50
29(alluvialsoil)
1020
0.28
3040
0.21
130139
0.33
0.50
0.50
11.1
8.7
1.00
1.30
30.0
2.30
2.25
2.2
3.50
0.75
0.70
6.7
1.50
1.42
5.3
1.60
1.00
1.10
10.0
2.40
2.20
8.3
3.30
1.00
1.30
30.0
2.25
2.20
2.2
3.60
1.08
0.98
9.3
1.90
1.90
0.0
3.70
3.80
2.7
2.15
2.00
7.0
3.70
3.30
10.8
0.53
3.9
2.00
4.8
0.95
0.13
53.6
0.22
33.3
0.36
0.30
16.7
0.42
0.42
0.0
0.45
0.30
0.26
13.3
0.40
0.39
2.5
0.43
0.39
0.31
20.5
0.45
0.44
2.2
0.51
1.02
1.08
5.9
1.80
1.86
3.3
2.40
0.96
1.00
4.2
1.54
1.40
9.1
2.10
Agrochemicalfieldexperiment
30(mossypeat)
010
0.68
31(mossypeat)
010
0.62
Meanrelative
0.68
0.0
16.9
9.8
3.0
4.8
error
breakpointVwasnotobservedfornonswellingsoils
breakpointwasnotobservedbecauseoflackoftheexperimentaldataattherange
7/9
6/11/2016
ThedataprovedvalidityoftheVoronins(1986)conceptaboutfourcharacteristicwatercontentvaluesforallthenonswellingorslightly
swellingmineralsoils.However,forthepeatandclayswellingsoilsamplesweobservedonemorebreakpointapproximatelynearthematrix
potential10cmofwater.Theequationforfindingthefifthcharacteristicwatercontentvaluefromthesoilretentionfunctionis
[12]
ThemeanrelativeerroroftheestimationofpointVis4.8%fortheswellingsoils(Table2).ThebreakpointVwasfoundforallthepeat
soilscultivatedabout30yearsandforthe130139cmlayerofthealluvialsoilwithclayloamtexture.Thepointwasnotobservedforthe
sandlayers(1020and3040cmofalluvialsoil)andforthehighlydecomposedpeatsoilscultivatedabout80years,whichhavethereduced
swelling ability (Table 2). The break point V exists for the swelling soils, probably, because the structure of soil matrix of the swelling
organicorclaysoilsispenetrableforthewatermolecules.Therefore,theinternalwatersorptionoccursafterthepotentialwhentheenergyof
water outside the soil particle equilibrates with the water potential inside. The internally sorbed water and solute molecules are partly
separated from the total conductive path in the soil yet the increase in the internal water content shows practically no influence on the
decreaseofelectricalresistivity.
CONCLUSIONS
AnexponentialrelationshipbetweensoilwatercontentandelectricalresistivitywasderivedbasedonBoltzmann'sdistributionlawofthe
statisticalthermodynamics.Therelationshipisapplicableforallwatercontentconditionsfromairdrytosaturatedsoil.Differentparameters
areappliedtocharactertheexponentialrelationshipsatthespecificrangesofwatercontentwheredifferentmechanismsgovernthesoilwater
retention. Good agreement between the soil water categories and the ranges in the relationship between water content and electrical
resistivityshowsthatsoilwaterpropertiesdifferconsiderablyattheseranges.Thedifferentexponentialrelationshipsfortheadsorbed,film,
filmcapillary,capillary,andgravitationalwaterrangescanbeusedtoevaluatethesoilretentionpropertiesfromtherelationshipsbetween
soil water content and electrical resistivity. The proposed laboratory method for obtaining the experimental relationship allows fast
estimationofthespecificwatercontentvalueswheretheactivemechanismsofwaterretentionandelectricalconductivitychange.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work described here was partly funded by Russian Fund of Fundamental Researches (RFFR) and by the Program on Peace and
InternationalCooperationoftheJohnD.andCatherineT.MacArturFoundation.
REFERENCES
Banton, O., M.K. Seguin, and M.A. Cimon. 1997. Mapping fieldscale physical properties of soil with electrical resistivity.
SoilSci.Soc.Am.J.61:10101017.
Besanson,R.M.(ed.).1974.Theencyclopediaofphysics.VanNorstrandReinholdComp.NY.
Borovinskaya,L.B.,V.P.Samsonova,andL.M.Plohih.1981.Relationshipbetweenelectricalresistivityandsoilwatercontent.
(InRussian.)Biologicalscience,HighSc.3:7078.
Bouyoucos, G. J. 1948. Nylon electrical resistance unit for continuous measurement of soil moisture in the filed. Soil Sci.
67:319330.
Childs,E.C.1969.Anintroductiontothephysicalbasisofsoilwaterphenomena.AWileyIntersciencePub.JohnWiley&
SonsLtd.,London,NewYork,Sidney,Toronto.
Clifford,J.1975.Propertiesofwaterincapillariesandthinfilms.InFranks,F.(ed)"Water.Acomprehensivetreatise.Volume5.
Waterindispersesystems."PlenumPress,NewYork.75132.
Edlefsen,N.E.,andA.B.C.Anderson.1941.Thefourelectroderesistancemethodformeasuringsoilmoisturecontentunder
fieldconditions.SoilSci.51:367376.
Fuchsman,C.H.1980.Peat.Industrialchemestryandtechnology.AcademicPress,NJ.
Foth,H.D.1990.Fundamentalsofsoilscience.8Ed.JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
Fripiat,J.J.,A.Jelli,G.Poncelet,andJ.Andre.1965.Thermodynamicpropertiesofadsorbedwatermoleculesandelectrical
conductioninmontmorilloniteandsilicas.J.Phys.Chem.69:21852197.
Gupta, S.C. and R.J. Hanks. 1972. Influence of water content on electrical conductivity of the soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
36:855857.
HinrichL.B.,J.BenAsher,H.S.Tabbara,andM.Marwan.1982.Theoriesandtestsofelectricalconductivityinsoils.SoilSci.
Am.J.46:11431146
Iwata,S.,T.Tabuchi,andB.P.Warkentin.1995.Soilwaterinteractions.Mechanismsandapplications.MarcelDekker,Inc.270
MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016.
Jury,W.A.,W.R.Gardner,andW.H.Gardner.1991.Soilphysics.5Ed.JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
8/9
6/11/2016
Kemper, W.D. 1960. Water and ion movement in thin films as influenced by electrostatic charge and diffuse layer of cations
associatedwithclaymineralsurfaces.SoilSci.Soc.Am.Proc.24:1016.
Kirkham, D., and W. L. Powers. 1972. Advanced soil physics. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Inc. Krieger Drive,
Malabar,FL32950.
Laverdiere,M.R.andR.M.Weaver.1977.Chargecharacteristicsofspodichorizons.SoilSci.Soc.Am.J.41:505510.
MethodsofSoilAnalysis.1986.Part1.Physicalandmineralogicalmethods.SecondEdition.ASA,SSSA,Madison,Wisconsin.
Nerpin,S.V.,andA.F.Chudnovskii.1967.Physicsofthesoil.IsraelProgramforScientificTranslationsLtd.Jerusalem1970.
Nielsen,D.R.,R.D.Jackson,J.W.Cary,andD.D.Evans(ed.).1972.Soilwater.ASA,SSSA.677SouthSegoeRoad,Madison,
Wisconsin,53711.
Pozdnyakov, A.I., L.A. Pozdnyakova, and A.D. Pozdnyakova. 1996. Stationary electrical fields in soils. (In Russian.) KMK
ScientificPress.,Moscow.
Raij, B.V., and M. Peech. 1972. Electrochemical properties of some oxisols and alfisols of the tropics. Soil Sci. Am. Proc.
36:587593.
Rhoades,J.D.,N.A.Manteghi,P.J.Shouse,andW.J.Alves.1989.Soilelectricalconductivityandsoilsalinity:newformulations
andcalibrations.SoilSci.Am.J.53:433439.
Rhoades,J.D.,P.A.C.Raats,andR.J.Prather.1976.Effectsofliquidphaseelectricalconductivity,watercontent,andsurface
conductivityonbulksoilelectricalconductivity.SoilSci.Soc.Am.J.40:651655.
Taylor,S.A.,andG.L.Ashcroft.1972.Physicaledaphology.Thephysicsofirrigatedandnonirrigatedsoils.W.H.Freemanand
Company.SanFrancisco.
Voronin,A.D.1986.Thebasesofsoilphysics.(InRussian.)MoscowUniv.Press,Moscow.
Weerts,A.H.,W.Boutem,andJ.M.Verstraten.1998.Simultaneousmeasurementofwaterretentionelectricalconductivity:Test
oftheMualemFriedmantortuositymodel.ASA/CSSA/SSSAAnnualMeetingAbstracts.Baltimore,Maryland.October1822.
172.
9/9

Dependence Between Electrical Resistance and Water Content in Peat

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Dependence Between Electrical Resistance and Water Content in Peat

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

6/11/2016

Anda mungkin juga menyukai