• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Soil Research >Ultra-fine grinding is not essential for acid sulfate soil tests
【24h】

Ultra-fine grinding is not essential for acid sulfate soil tests

机译：超细研磨对于酸性硫酸盐土壤测试不是必需的

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Australian Standard methods for acid sulfate soils (ASS) require the grinding of soil to <0.075 mm. A ring-mill or similar grinding apparatus is therefore needed. We investigated whether ring-mill grinding is required for accurate and reproducible test results and associated calculations (such as acid-base accounting), or if more conventional fine-grinding (i.e. <0.5 mm) is sufficient to obtain acceptable results. An initial experiment (unreplicated) was conducted on 52 soils comparing ring-mill and fine-grinding treatments, and this information was used to formulate final, more detailed experimental work on five soils from the same dataset. Soils from an ASS survey in coastal central Queensland were chosen to reflect the range of chemical properties found in ASS. Soils were analysed by the Chromium and SPOCAS suite of tests for the two grinding treatments. For those tests that follow a relatively vigorous extraction carried out with heating [ such as chromium-reducible S, peroxide-oxidisable S and acid-neutralising capacity by back titration (ANC(BT))], results were similar for the two grinding treatments. However, for those tests that follow a relatively mild extraction without heating (such as KCl-extractable S, HCl-extractable S and titratable actual acidity), significantly higher values (P < 0.05) were obtained for ring-mill ground soil. There was no significant difference in calculated net acidity between ring-mill grinding and fine-grinding for soils without excess ANC. For self-neutralising soils, fine-grinding gave significantly lower values of ANC than ring-mill grinding. It is uncertain whether ring-mill grinding gives a true reflection of the ANC available in the natural environment.
机译：澳大利亚针对酸性硫酸盐土壤（ASS）的标准方法要求将土壤研磨至<0.075毫米。因此，需要一台环磨机或类似的研磨设备。我们调查了是否需要进行环磨机研磨才能获得准确且可重复的测试结果和相关计算（例如酸碱法），或者是否需要更常规的精细研磨（即<0.5 mm）才能获得可接受的结果。在52个土壤上进行了初始实验（无重复），比较了环磨和细磨处理，该信息用于制定来自同一数据集的5种土壤的最终，更详细的实验工作。选择昆士兰州中部沿海地区ASS调查的土壤以反映ASS中发现的化学性质的范围。通过铬和SPOCAS套件测试对两种研磨处理的土壤进行了分析。对于那些在加热条件下进行相对强力抽提的测试[如铬可还原S，过氧化物可氧化S和反滴定法中和酸的能力（ANC（BT））]，两种研磨处理的结果相似。但是，对于那些在不加热的情况下进行相对温和提取的测试（例如可萃取KCl的S，可萃取HCl的S和可滴定的实际酸度），对于环磨磨碎的土壤，可获得明显更高的值（P <0.05）。对于没有过量ANC的土壤，在环磨机和细磨机之间计算的净酸度没有显着差异。对于自中和的土壤，精细研磨的ANC值明显低于环铣。不确定环形磨是否能真实反映自然环境中可用的ANC。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号