Journal of Hydrology, 53 (1981) 355--360 355

Elsevier Scientific Publishing Cgmpany, Amsterdam -- Printed in The Netherlands

[4]

FILTER.PAPER METHOD FOR ROUTINE MEASUREMENT OF FIELD

WATER POTENTIAL

A.P. HAMBLIN

Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, University of Western Australia,

Nedlands, W.A. 6009 (Australia)
(Received December 17, 1980; accepted for publication January 20, 1981)

ABSTRACT

Hamblin, A.P., 1981. Filter-paper method for routine measurement of field water po-
tential. J. Hydrol., 53: 355--360.

A more general use of the filter-paper method for measuring soil-water potential over a
very wide range of values is advocated, both for in situ and laboratory situations. Using
Whatman No. 42, both HgC12-treated and untreated, filter papers, the calibration curves
measured on two different batches two years apart were almost identical and were in
good agreement with a curve published previously by other authors. Routine use of the
same papers could therefore be made without recalibrating. Examples using the method
for constructing water-release curves are given, and other usf s are suggested.

INTRODUCTION

While the use of tensiometers has made the measurement of soil matrix
potential in wet and irrigated soils a routine procedure of considerable prac-
tical importance, measurement of potentials less than --100 kPa (pF ~ 3.0)
remains a restricted practice involving more than one method of measure-
ment to cover the full range of values encountered in many environments.
Frequently only small and unrepresentative volumes of soil are measured be-
cause of the time taken for large samples to equilibrate on pressure plates, or
because the geometry of sample chambers does not permit large volumes. As
a result, water-release curves are obtained which may be more precise than
are needed for agronomic purposes but which cannot characterise field-scale
soil structures of heterogeneity.
In dryland agricultural situations soils are seldom fully saturated and the
crop exists for m u c h of its life at soil-water potentials outside the range of
field tensiometers. There is a need for a single, effective and rapid routine
method for measuring soil-waterpotential over the fullrange encountered in

0022-1694/81/0000--0000/$02.50 1981 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company

356

the field. Such a method has existed for a considerable period of time but
has not received the popularity which seems appropriate. Gardner (1937)
first proposed the water uptake by filter papers to measure soft-water po-
tential, and the method was used for determining the 15 bar percentage by
Williams and Sedgley (1965). Fawcett and Coilis-George (1967) modified the
method using Whatman No. 42 filter papers, treated with 0.005% HgC12,
equilibrating the papers against soft samples for seven days. McQueen and
Miller (1968) discussed the method, using an alternative brand of paper for
which they obtained a different calibration curve to that of Fawcett and
Collis-George, and they pointed out that the paper placed in close contact
with the soil measures matrix potential, whereas when the paper is supported
a small distance from the soil in a closed chamber both matrix and osmotic
potentials are measured. Al Khafaf and Hanks (1974)described a method
wherein both these values could be obtained from the same sample. Previous
authors have endorsed the me~hod for its convenience, versatility and econ-
omy. The present communication seeks to popularise it by demonstrating
the manner in which it has been used for some years for field and labora-
tory measurements in this department.

METHOD

Whatman No. 42 5.5-cm diameter papers were used. Larger-diameter

papers would be appropriate wherever the minimum structural unit of the
soil types concerned necessitated larger sample areas. Initially the papers
were treated with 0.005% HgC12 but a modification of the method, which
will be described later, has made it both unnecessary and at times undesirable
to extend equilibration times to the point where microbial decomposition
would affect the paper composition and papers are no longer treated in this
way. This has allowed the method to be extended for use ~ microbiological
studies where changes in water potential have not often been recorded.
Calibration of an original batch of filter papers was carried out against
direct suction plate up to --7.0 kPa, direct pressure plate to --0.07 MPa,
pressure membrane plate t o - - 1 . 5 MPa and saturated vapour pressure at 20C
equivalent to --5.5 MPa. Calibrations and all subsequent measurements with
the papers were made on a wetting curve with the fiiter paper initially air-
dry. As individual papers may vary in weight by up to 10%, both wet and
dry weights of each paper are'required to calculate the water content of the
paper. Use of direct reading electronic balances and infra-red ovens can speed
this process, or the paper may alternatively be read directly for its water
potential, using a psychrometer in the range 0.5--5 MPa suction. With the
latter technique, however, water loss from the paper, during cooling of the
psychrometer therrnocouple, may occur and more representative results were
obtained when a small disc was stamped from the paper and introduced into
a psychrometer leaf block.
 357

Equilibration time of the paper in contact with soil was much reduced
when a single paper was used, rather than a central paper sandwiched be-
tween two protective papers, as has been advocated by previous authors.
Any soil which remained stuck to the paper was quickly tapped off, and that
still attached was weighed as part of the paper. Errors arising from this prac-
tice were considered to be less than would have occurred either by extending
the equilibration time necessary if three papers were used or from evapora-
tion while trying to clean the papers further. The time taken for a single
paper to equilibrate therefore varied from a few minutes when soils were
near saturation, to ~ 3 6 hr. in dry soils of fine texture, providing there was
good contact between paper and soil. Temperature and water fluctuations
were minimised during the equilibration period by insulating soil samples re-
moved from the field, in sealed tins or plastic cc,nta[ners enclosed by ex-
panded polystyrene. Papers may be used in situ by being introduced into
slits cut with a spatula in field soils, or they may be placed at the base of
undisturbed soil samples or between sections of longer cores, to obtain
values at different positions in the profile.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

An initial batch of filter papers treated with 0.005% HgCI2 was calibrated
as described and two years later a new batch of untreated filter papers was
calibrated in the same manner. There was very good agreement between the
two sets of values, and both are also nearly identical to those published by
Fawcett and CoUis-George (1967) for the same brand of paper. The results
are shown in Fig. 1. It is probable that reliance can be placed upon these cali-
brations by other workers whenever the Whatman No. 42 papers are used,
unless particular accuracy demands recalibration. A double log transfor-
mation was found to give an adequate fit at all except matrix potentials less
t h a n - - 3 . 0 MPa with the equation:
In ~I/m ~" - - 2 . 3 9 7 ~- 3.683 In F
where F is the gravimetric water content of the filter paper (fraction of dry
weight). This was particularly useful for situations where large numbers of
samples were determined routinely and converted by a computer pro-
gramme.
When discs were cut from papers equilibrated against pressure plates and
read on a Wescor portable dew-point hygrometer (psychrometer), devi-
ations occurred from the anticipated potential values when the total time in-
volved in cutting, handling and taking the reading took over 3 rain. Reducing
the cooling time of the thermocouple dew point to less than 1.5 rain. also
introduced error. Within these constraints psychrometric calibration for
1--4 MPa suction was obtained in a constant temperature room at 20C and
75% relative humidity, and this modification of the method is thus not con-
sidered suitable for field use.
358

'o01
10

1.0

~Jm "
0.1-

;).01

0.001 " ~ 1 8 0
filter paper ~owater content

Fig. 1. Calibration curve for Whatman No. 42 filter papers. Original batch treated with
0.005% HgC]; (&), new batch two years later, untreated (o), and values from Fawcett and
C.ollis-George in 1967 (o).

Filter papers can be used to construct water-release curves as a routine

operation if serial sampling of a particular soil occurs when the soft is at dif-
ferent water contents. Papers placed on the lower face of such cores are in
good contact with the soil by virtue of the soil weight. Fig. 2 shows an ex-
ample of such a composite curve constructed from samples obtained for
measurement of air permeability. The ploughed soil had dry bulk densities
ranging from 1.30 to 1.50 g cm -3 and the untilled soil from 1.36 to 1.52 g
 359

10 ==

!
R
1.0..

MPa D @

qJm
0.1- ~ @
A
A

A
(~/x AA
0.01-= A A
A

A A
A

0.001
0 |0.05 10.10 10.15 10.20 0.25 0.30
soil woter c m 3 c r n -3

Fig. 2. Water-release curves of the 0--10-era zone of undisturbed (solid symbols) and
ploughed (open symbols) treatments of a red sandy loam constructed from serial sam-
pling taken on three dates: & = J u n e ; = August; and [] = September.
~m determined by filter-paper method, soil water by drying of soil samples. 1 MPa eor-
responds with pF = 4.0.

cm -3 . The composite water-release curves provided a sensitive and satis-

f a c t o r y assessment o f structural differences through the calculated pore-size
distribution without any separate determination of this parameter. Alter-
natively, water-release craves have been constructed in a relatively short time
for either disturbed or undisturbed soils by obtaining a set of wet (or dry)
samples and drying (or wetting) them to different weights and then equilib-
rating them against filter papers, using a wetting and drying cycle to allow
360

for hysteretic effects. This has been done, for example, when gravimetric
samples were obtained for calibrating neutron meters in the field.
Crop growth studies sometimes require sampling of the soft profile to
monitor nutrient distribution (Reuss et al., 1977) or root growth (Wellbank
and Williams, 1968), and if undisturbed cores are collected the soil core can
be sectioned, papers slid between each section and the core sealed while in
the field, so that equilibration has occurred by the time the core is processed
in the laboratory. Examples of soil-water potential distribution with depth
were obtained in this way by Hamblin and Tennant (1979).
The filter-paper method has also been used to provide a rapid monitoring
device for soil-water status in pot experiments where papers inserted into the
soil allow non-destructive recording of soil-water potential during plant
growth. It is not necessary even to dry and reweigh a given batch of papers
once the range of tolerable water potentials for the soil concerned has been
established (I.C. Tommerup, pets. commun., 1979). Using untreated papers
also allows filter papers to be used in soil microbiological studies whereas
treatment with HgCI~ precluded studies of this type.
It is hoped that the examples given here are sufficiently varied to provoke
more interest in what would seem to be a practical and convenient method
of obtaining information of a soil characteristic which is of fundamental
importance to all biological activity in soft, yet has proved so difficult to
measure by other methods. Pre-occupation with accuracy and possible errors
involved in the measurement of matric potential has possibly restricted the
use of this method in the past. It can be readily appreciated, however, that
its speed and convenience allow so many more replicates to be measured in a
variety of environmental conditions than are possible with other methods
that a far more representative estimate of the true variability of field water
potential may be achieved in this way at an acceptable level of accuracy.

REFERENCES

Al Khafaf, S. and Hanks, R.J., 1974. Evaluation of the filter paper method for estimating
soil water potential. Soil Sci., 117" 194--199.
Fawcett, R.G. and Collis-George, N., 1967. A filter paper method for determining the
moisture characteristics of soil. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb., 7: 162--167.
Gardner, R., 1937. A method of measuring capillary ten~ion of soil moisture over a wide
moisture range. Soil Sci., 43: 238---277.
Hamblin, A.P. and Tennant, D., 1979. Interactions between soil type and tillage level in a
dryland situation. Aust. J. Soil Res., 17: 177--189.
McQueen, I.S. and Miller, R.F., 1968. Calibration and evaluation of a wide-range gravi-
metric method for measuring moisture stress. Soil Sci., 106: 225--231.
Reuss, J.O., Soltanpour, P.N. and Ludwick, A.E., 1977. Sampling distributinf nitrates
in irrigated soils. Agron. J., 69: 588--592.
WeUbank, P.J. and Williams, E.D., 1.968. Root growt~h of a barley crop estimated by sam-
piing with portable powered soil coring equipment. J. Appl. Ecol., 5: 477--481.
Williams, O.B. and Sedgley, R.H., 1965. A simplified filter paper method for determining
the 15-atmosphere percentage in soils. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anita. Husb.~ 5: 201--205.