Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 184, Issue 1–4, pp 63–75 | Cite as

A Comparison of 18Oδ Composition of Water Extracted from Suction Lysimeters, Centrifugation, and Azeotropic Distillation

  • Maria A. Figueroa-Johnson
  • James A. Tindall
  • Michael Friedel
Article

Abstract

The representativeness of soil pore water extracted by suction lysimeters in ground-water monitoring studies is a problem that often confounds interpretation of measured data. Current soil water sampling techniques cannot delineate from which soil volume a pore water sample is extracted, neither macroscopic, microscopic, or preferential flowpath. This research was undertaken to compare δ18O and Br values of extracted suction lysimeters samples from intact soil cores with samples obtained by the direct extraction methods of centrifugation and azeotropic distillation. Also, the study was concerned with determining what portion of soil pore water is sampled by each method and explaining differences in concentrations of the extracted water from each method to allow a determination of the accuracy and viability of the three methods of extraction. Intact soil cores (30 cm diameter by 40 cm height) were extracted from two different sites. Site 1 was rapid infiltration basin number 50, near Altamonte Springs in Seminole County, Florida. Site 2 was the Missouri Management System Evaluation Area (MSEA) near Centralia in Boone County, Missouri. Isotopically (18Oδ) labeled water and bromide concentrations within water samples taken by suction lysimeters was compared with samples obtained by methods of centrifugation and azeotropic distillation. The 18Oδ water was analyzed by mass spectrometry while bromide concentration, applied in the form of KBr was measured using standard IC procedures. Water collected by centrifugation and azeotropic distillation data were about 0.25‰ more negative than that collected by suction lysimeter values from a sandy soil and about 2–7‰ more negative from a well structured soil. Results indicate that the majority of soil water in well-structured soil is strongly bound to soil grain surfaces and is not easily sampled by suction lysimeters. In cases where a sufficient volume of water has passed through the soil profile and displaced previous pore water, suction lysimeters will collect a representative sample of soil pore water from the sampled depth interval. It is suggested that for stable isotope studies monitoring precipitation and soil water, suction lysimeter be installed at shallow depths (10 cm). Samples should also be coordinated with precipitation events. The data also suggest that each extraction method samples a separate component of soil-pore water. Centrifugation can be used with success, particularly for efficient sampling of large areas. Azeotropic distillation is more appropriate when strict qualitative and quantitative data on sorption desorption, and various types of kinetic studies may be needed.

Keywords

Soil–water sampling DelO18 Azeotropic distillation Macropores Unsaturated zone Soil–water classes Capillary water Gravitational water Hygroscopic water Preferential flowpaths 

References

  1. Baker, K. E., Hull, L. C., MClinng, T. L., Street, L. V., Roback, R. C., & Jones, C. L. (2004). Geological Society of America, 36(5), 392.Google Scholar
  2. Barbarick, K. A., Sabey, B. R., & Klute, A. (1979). Comparison of various methods of sampling soil water for determining ionic salts, sodium and calcium content in soil columns. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 43, 1053–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes, C. J., & Allison, G. B. (1988). Tracing water movement in the unsaturated zone using stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen. Journal of Hydrology, 100, 143–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bear, J. (1972). Dynamics of fluids in porous media. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  5. Biggar, J. W., & Nielsen, D. R. (1962). Miscible displacement: 2. Behavior of tracers. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, 26, 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blume, L. J., Perkins, H. F., & Hubbard, R. K. (1987). Subsurface water movement in an upland coastal plain soil as influenced by plinithite. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 51, 774–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Debyle, N. V., Hennes, R. W., & Hart, G. E. (1988). Evaluation of ceramic cups for determining soil solution chemistry. Soil Science, 46, 30–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. England, C. B. (1974). Comments on a technique using porous cups for water sampling at any depth in the unsaturated zone by Warren W. Wood. Water Resources Research, 20, 1049.Google Scholar
  9. Faure, G. (1986). Principles of isotope geology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Gardner, W. H. (1986). Water content. In A. Klute (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis part I – Physical and mineralogical methods. Agronomy Monograph 9 (pp. 493–541). Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
  11. Germann, P., & Beven, K. (1981). Water flow in soil macropores. I. An experimental approach. Journal of Soil Science, 32, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Germann, P. F., Edwards, W. M., & Owens, L. B. (1984). Profiles of bromide and increased soil moisture after infiltration into soils with macropores. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 48, 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansen, E. A., & Harris, A. R. (1975). Validity of soil–water samples collected with porous ceramic cups. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 39, 528–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hendry, M. J., Kellna, C. J., Wassenaarb, L. I., & Shaw, J. (2004). Characterizing the hydrogeology of a complex clay-rich aquitard system using detailed vertical profiles of the stable isotopes of water. Journal of Hydrology, 293(1–4), 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kennedy, V. C., Kendall, C., Zellweger, G. W., Wyermann, T. A., & Avanzino, R. J. (1986). Determination of the components of stormflow using water chemistry and environmental isotopes, Mattole River Basin, California. Journal of Hydrology, 84, 107–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kinniburgh, D. G., & Miles, D. L. (1983). Extraction and chemical analysis of interstitial water from soils and rocks. Environmental Science & Technology, 17, 362–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levin, M. J., & Jackson, D. R. (1977). A comparison of in-situ extractors for sampling soil water. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 41, 535–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Litoar, M. I. (1988). Review of soil solution samplers. Water Resources Research, 24, 727–733.Google Scholar
  19. Muir, K. S., & Coplen, T. B. (1981). Tracing groundwater movement by using stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen, upper Penitencia creek alluvial fan, Santa Clara Valley, California. U.S.G.S. Water supply paper 2075.Google Scholar
  20. Pandey, R. S., & Gupta, S. K. (1984). Analysis of breakthrough curves: Effect of mobile and immobile pore volumes. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 22, 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Poulsena, T., Moldrupa, P., Jongeb, L., Komatsuc, T. (2006). Colloid and bromide transport in undistrubed soil columns. Soil Science Society of America, Vadose Zone J, 5, 649–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Priebe, D. L., & Blackmer, A. M. (1989). Preferential movement of oxygen-18 labeled water and nitrogen-15 labeled urea through macropores in a nicollet soil. Journal of Environmental Quality, 18, 66–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Revesz, K., & Woods, P. H. (1990). A method to extract soil water for stable isotope analysis. Journal of Hydrology, 115, 397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Severson, R. C., & Grigal, D. F. (1976). Soil solution concentrations: Effect of extraction time using porous ceramic cups under constant tension. Water Resources Bulletin, 12, 1161–1170.Google Scholar
  25. Shaffer, K. A., Fritton, D. D., & Baker, D. E. (1979). Drainage water sampling in wet, dual pore soil system. Journal of Environmental Quality, 8, 241–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Silkworth, D. R., & Grigal, D. F. (1981). Field comparison of soil solution samplers. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 45, 440–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sklash, M. G., Farvolden, R. N., & Fritz, P. (1976). A conceptual model of watershed response to rainfall, developed through the use of oygen-18 as a natural tracer. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 13, 271–283.Google Scholar
  28. Soil Moisture Equipment Corporation (1989). Porous ceramics. Soil Moisture Equipment Corporation, P.O. Box 30025, Santa Barbara, California 93105.Google Scholar
  29. Swensen, B. (1997). Unsaturated flow in a layered, glacial-contact delta deposit measured by the use of 18O, Cl- and Br- as tracers. Soil Science, 62(4), 242–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thomas, G. W., & Swobado, A. B. (1979). Anion exclusion effects on chloride movement in soils. Soil Science, 110(3), 163–166, (September, 1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tilahun, K., Botha, J. F., & Bennie, A. T. P. (2003). Comparison of bromide and nitrate transport in the Bainsvlei soil of South Africa under natural rainfall. Water South Africa, 30(1), 9–16.Google Scholar
  32. Tindall, J. A., Hemmen, K., & Dowd, J. F. (1992). An improved method for field extraction and laboratory analysis of large, intact soil cores. Journal of Environmental Quality, 21, 259–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tindall, J. A., Kunkel, J. R., & Anderson, D. E. (1999). Unsaturated zone hydrology for scientists and engineers (p. 624). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Tindall, J. A., Petrusak, R. L., & McMahon, P. B. (1995). Nitrate transport and transformation processes in unsaturated porous media. Journal of Hydrology, 169, 51–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tindall, J. A., Vencill, W. K. (1995). Transport of atrazine, 2,4-D, and dicamba through preferential flowpaths in an unsaturated claypan soil near Centralia, Missouri. Journal of Hydrology, 166, 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tyler, D. D., & Thomas, G. W. (1981). Chloride movement in undisturbed soil columns. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 45, 459–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van der Ploeg, R. R., & Beese, F. (1977). Model calculations for the extraction of soil water by ceramic cups and plates. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 41, 466–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Genuchten, M. Th., & Wierenga, P. J. (1986). Solute dispersion coefficient and retardation factors. In A. Klute (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis part I-Physical and mineralogical methods. Agronomy Monograph 9 (pp. 1025–1054). Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
  39. Wood, W. W. (1973). A technique using porous cups for water sampling at any depth in the unsaturated zone. Water Resources Research, 9, 486–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zimmerman, U., Ehhalt, O. D., & Munnich, K. O. (1967). Soil water movement and evapotranspiration: Changes in the isotopic composition of the water. In Proc. IAEA Symp. Isot. Hydrol (pp. 567–586). Vienna: IAEA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria A. Figueroa-Johnson
    • 1
  • James A. Tindall
    • 2
  • Michael Friedel
    • 3
  1. 1.Los Tilos 1978QuilpueChile
  2. 2.U.S. Geological SurveyNational Research ProgramDenverUSA
  3. 3.Geological DivisionDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations