Advertisement

Fertilizer research

, Volume 35, Issue 1–2, pp 115–126 | Cite as

Modelling the oxidation of elemental sulfur in soils

  • J. H. Watkinson
  • G. J. Blair
Article

Abstract

Direct and recursive estimation models for the oxidation rate of elemental sulfur (S°) in soil have been proposed, both essentially based on a constant oxidation rate per unit area of exposed surface. Fertilizer S° is taken to consist largely of blocky shaped particles, i.e. having similar dimensions along three axes, which can be treated as equivalent spheres. The most important implication in applying the rate assumption to these shaped particles is that the mass at any time is related to the cube of the time. This has been verified experimentally for oxidation by thiobacilli. Although the assumption is less likely for heterotrophs, experiments involving four soils conformed to the cubic relation.

Implications for the particle variables of size and size distribution have been given more limited testing. The data are generally consistent with theory, such as independence of the rate constant with particle size.

Assuming an activation energy for the oxidation process implies, in addition to the above, an exponential relation of rate constant with temperature. This is supported by experiment. Values for the activation energy are approximately 85 kJ mol−1, and therefore consistent with the rate limiting step for the oxidation being a chemical or biochemical reaction, rather than a diffusion process.

Because absolute rate constants are generated by the models, they are useful for examining the effects of environmental variables not hitherto included. Empirical relationships, once established, can then be included in the model, such as the quadratic relation between rate constant and soil moisture, with the maximum at approximately field capacity.

The delay time (the time to reach maximum oxidation rate) was useful, together with the rate constant, for distinguishing species of oxidizing microorganisms. Typically, under optimum conditions at 25°C, thiobacilli have a delay time of several days and a rate constant of 50µg cm−2 day−1 S, while heterotrophs have a negligible delay time but a rate constant of only 5µg cm−2 day−1 S.

The cubic model with a single rate constant gave a surprisingly good fit to the oxidation rate over 12 months in New Zealand pastoral soils under field conditions of varying temperature and moisture. This was attributed to the balancing effect of moisture and temperature on the rate constant under the cool temperate climate. A knowledge of the annual average soil temperature is sufficient to provide advice on the optimum particle size for S° fertilizer.

Key words

Elemental sulfur shape size size distribution model oxidation rate soils 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barrow NJ (1971) Slowly available fertilizers in southwestern Australia. 1. Elemental sulfur. Aust J Exp Agric Anim Husb 11: 211–6Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chapman SJ (1989) Oxidation of micronized elemental sulphur in soil. Plant and Soil 116: 69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chapman SJ (1990) Thiobacillus populations in some agricultural soils. Soil Biol Biochem 22: 479–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chatupote W (1990) An investigation of some factors influencing the rate of oxidation of elemental sulphur fertilizers. PhD Thesis. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey UniversityGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chopra SL and Kanwar JS (1968) Effect of some factors on the transformation of elemental sulfur in soils. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 16: 83–8Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dana M (1992) Sulfur sources for flooded and nonflooded rice and pastures. PhD Thesis. Armidale, Australia: University of New EnglandGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deng S and Dick RP (1990) Sulfur oxidation and rhodanese activity in soils. Soil Sci 150: 552–560Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fawzi Abed MAH (1976) Rate of elemental sulfur oxidation in some soils of Egypt as affected by the salinity level, moisture content, temperature and inoculation. Beitr Trop Landwirtsch Veterinaermed 14: 179–85Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fox RL, Atesalp HM, Kampbell DH and Rhoades HF (1964) Factors influencing the availability of sulfur fertilizers to alfalfa and corn. Proc Soil Sci Soc Am 28: 406–408Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Germida JJ, Lawrence JR and Gupta VVSR (1984) Microbial oxidation of sulphur in Saskatchewan soils. Proc Int Sulphur 1984 Conf: 703-710Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Janzen HH and Bettany JR (1987) Measurement of sulfur oxidation in soils. Soil Sci 143: 444–452Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Janzen HH and Bettany JR (1987) The effect of temperature and water potential on sulfur oxidation in soils. Soil Sci 144: 81–89Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kittams HA and Attoe OJ (1965) Availability of phosphorus in rock phosphate-sulfur fusions. Agron J 57: 331–4Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee A, Boswell C and Watkinson JH (1988) Effect of particle size on the oxidation of elemental sulphur, thiobacilli numbers, soil sulphate, and its availability to pasture. New Zealand J Agric Res 31: 179–186Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee A, Watkinson JH, Orbell G, Bagyaraj J and Lauren DR (1987) Factors influencing dissolution of phosphate rock and oxidation of elemental sulphur in some New Zealand soils. New Zealand J Agric Res 30: 373–385Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee A, Watkinson JH and Lauren DR (1988) Factors affecting oxidation rates of elemental sulphur in a soil under a ryegrass dominant sward. Soil Biol Biochem 20: 809–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li P and Caldwell AC (1966) The oxidation of elemental sulfur in soil. Proc Soil Sci Am 30: 370–372Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCaskill, MR (1984) The residual effects of elemental sulfur as a pasture fertilizer. MRurSc Thesis. Armidale, Australia: University of New EnglandGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McCaskill MR and Blair GJ (1989) A model for the release of sulfur from elemental S and superphosphate. Fert Res 19: 77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meyer B (1977) Sulfur, energy and the environment. Amsterdam: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moser US and Olson RV (1953) Sulfur oxidation in four soils as influenced by soil moisture tension and sulfur bacteria. Soil Sci 76: 251–256Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shedley CD (1982) An evaluation of elemental sulfur as a pasture fertilizer. PhD Thesis. Armidale, Australia: University of New EnglandGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Swartzendruber D and Barber SA (1965) Dissolution of limestone particles in soil. Soil Sci 100: 287–291Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Watkinson JH (1988) Rate equations for the oxidation of elemental sulphur in soil. Massey Fertilizer and Lime Research Centre Occasional Report No. 2: 26-31Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Watkinson JH (1989) Measurement of the oxidation rate of elemental sulfur in soil. Aust J Soil Res 27: 365–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Watkinson JH (1993) Oxidation rate of elemental sulfur particles with a wide range of sizes. Aust J Soil Res 31: 67–72Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Watkinson JH and Lee A (1992) A mechanistic model for the oxidation rate of elemental sulphur in soil tested on results by HPLC. Proc Middle East Sulphur Sym Feb 1990: 163–171Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Watkinson JH, Lee A and Lauren DR (1987) Measurement of elemental sulfur in soil and sediments: Field sampling, sample storage, pretreatment, extraction and analysis by high-performance liquid chromatography. Aust J Soil Res 25: 167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Watkinson JH and Perrott KW (1990) A new soil test for sulphate and mineralised organic sulphur. Proc New Zealand Fert Manufacturers' Res Assoc Conf: 188-198Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. H. Watkinson
    • 1
  • G. J. Blair
    • 2
  1. 1.Ruakura Agricultural CentreNZ Pastoral Agriculture Research Institute LtdHamiltonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Agronomy and Soil ScienceUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia

Personalised recommendations