Advertisement

Eurasian Soil Science

, Volume 51, Issue 12, pp 1462–1473 | Cite as

Dependence of the Osmotic Pressure and Electrical Conductivity of Soil Solutions on the Soil Water Content

  • A. V. SmaginEmail author
  • N. B. Sadovnikova
  • A. V. Kirichenko
  • Yu. V. Egorov
  • V. G. Vityazev
  • A. S. Bashina
SOIL PHYSICS
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract—

The osmotic pressure and electrical conductivity were determined with the use of instrumental methods (centrifuging, conductometry, and cryoscopy) in equilibrium soil solutions as the functions of moisture (the mass ratio between solid and liquid phases) for the soils of different geneses and textures. These functions proved to have a nonlinear character with one extremum. A theoretical substantiation to this phenomenon is suggested. It is based on the concept of competing interphase interactions in soil and develops the classical ideas by A.A. Rode. Upon the low soil water content, surface (molecular and ion-electrostatic) forces of the solid phase bind water molecules and prevent them from hydrating ions and dissolving electrolyte salts in the soil solution; as a result, electrical conductivity and osmotic pressure values approach zero in this case. With an increase in the water content, water molecules escape gradually from the energy field of surface forces, and their activity (chemical potential) and dissolving capacity also increase. This results in the expected growth of the electrical conductivity and osmotic pressure of the equilibrium solution extracted from the soil. The maximum values of the studied parameters are observed at the water content approximately equal to the maximum molecular water capacity (or to the boundary zone, within which capillary gravitational forces influencing the soil liquid phase become prevailing over the surface interphase interaction forces). The further increase in the soil water content lowers the electrical conductivity and osmotic pressure of equilibrium solution because of dilution of the fixed mass of electrolyte salts. For quantitative description of the revealed functional dependence, we suggest an empirical mathematical model in the form of modified equation of lognormal distribution.

Keywords: soil solution solid and liquid phases interphase interactions concentration activity thermodynamic potential dispersion modeling 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (projects nos. 16-16-04014 and 17-77-20046). The authors are grateful to E.V. Sokolova, a graduate student of the Soil Science Faculty of Lomonosov Moscow State University for her help in the laboratory experiments.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    A. A. Ananyan, “Water crystallization in freezing and frozen rocks,” in Modern Concepts about Related Water in Minerals (Academy of Sciences of USSR, Moscow, 1963), pp. 59–63.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    I. S. Belyuchenko, A. V. Smagin, L. B. Popok, and L. E. Popok, Data Analysis and Mathematical Modeling in Ecology and Nature Management (Kuban State Agricultural Univ., Krasnodar, 2015) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Bresler, B. Mc Neal, and D. L. Carter, Saline and Sodic Soils: Principles–Dynamics–Modeling (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982; Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad, 1987) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. L. Bystritskaya, V. V. Volkova, and V. V. Snakin, Soil Solutions of Chernozems and Gray Forest Soils (Nauka, Moscow, 1981) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. L. Bystritskaya, E. Kovach-Lang, and V. V. Snakin, “Soil solutions as the parts of the cycle of chemical elements in the forest-steppe zone of Hungaria,” Ekol. Kooperatsiya, No. 3, 58–63 (1984).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. F. Vadyunina, E. V. Shein, A. V. Kirichenko, V. M. Goncharov, and L. P. Kopikova, “Electrical conductivity of saturated and unsaturated soil and pore solutions,” Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 17: Pochvoved., No. 2, 42–49 (1984).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. F. Vedrova and V. M. Korsunov, “Composition of lysimetric waters in soddy-podzolic soils of Western Siberia,” Pochvovedenie, No. 6, 49–54 (1985).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. A. Vorob’eva, Chemical Analysis of Soils (Moscow State Univ., Moscow, 1998) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. D. Voronin and V. D. Skalaban, “Relationships between full, capillary-sorption, and osmotic potentials of water in soil,” Pochvovedenie, No. 12, 121–125 (1978).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    N. I. Gorbunov and I. G. Tsyurupa, “Heterogenic concentration of a solution isolated from clay minerals and soils,” Pochvovedenie, No. 33, 166–171 (1947).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. A. Dmitriev, Mathematical Statistics in Soil Science (Moscow State Univ., Moscow, 1995) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. I. Zaitseva, N. G. Minashina, and I. I. Sudnitsyn, “Concentration of sodium chloride solutions in pores of various size,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 30, 284–289 (1997).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. G. Zvyagintsev, G. M. Zenova, E. A. Doroshenko, A. A. Gryadunova, T. A. Gracheva, and I. I. Sudnitsyn, “Actinomycete growth in conditions of low moisture,” Biol. Bull. 34, 242–247 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. I. Karavanova and E. A. Timofeeva, “Chemical composition of solutions in macro- and micropores in the upper horizons of soils in the Central Forest State Biosphere Reserve,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 42, 1357–1363 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. I. Karavanova and S. Ya. Trofimov, Liquid Phase of Soils (Universitetskaya Kniga, Moscow, 2009) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. I. Karavanova, E. A. Timofeeva, and A. V. Smagin, “Water retention curves and chemical compositions of soil solutions from some soils of the Central Forest State Nature Biosphere Reserve,” Moscow Univ. Soil Sci. Bull. 62, 190–195 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. A. Kryukov, Solutions in Rocks, Soils, and Clays (Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1971) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    N. G. Minashina, “Concentration and composition of salts in the solution of a gypsum-containing soil as dependent on the soil water content,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 38, 718–726 (2005).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. V. Nerpin and A. F. Chudnovskii, Soil Physics (Nauka, Moscow, 1967) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. I. Pozdnyakov, Field Electrophysics of Soils (Nauka, Moscow, 2001) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. A. Ponizovskii, D. L. Pinskii, and L. A. Vorob’eva, Chemical Processes and Equilibria in Soils (Moscow State Univ., Moscow, 1986) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    O. G. Rastvorova, Physics of Soils: Practical Manual (Leningrad State Univ., Leningrad, 1983) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. A. Rode, Soil Moisture (Academy of Sciences of USSR, Moscow, 1952) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bound Water in Disperse Systems (Moscow State Univ., Moscow, 1977) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. V. Smagin, “Theory and methods of evaluating the physical status of soils,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 36, 301–312 (2003).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    A. V. Smagin, “Soil-hydrological constants: physical meaning and quantification based on equilibrium centrifugation,” Dokl. Ekol. Pochvoved. 1 (1), 31–56 (2006).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    A. V. Smagin, N. B. Sadovnikova, M. V. Glagolev, and A. V. Kirichenko, “New instrumental methods and portable electronic devices for the ecological monitoring of soils and adjacent media,” Ekol. Vestn. Sev. Kavk. 2 (1), 5–17 (2006).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    A. V. Smagin and N. B. Sadovnikova, “Physical mechanisms of water retention and dispersion dynamics in soils, rocks, and colloid-dispersed materials,” Ekol. Vestn. Sev. Kavk. 13 (4), 4–20 (2017).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    T. A. Sokolova, “Clay soil material as a block of “memory” about soil cover formation,” Pochvovedenie, No. 5, 582–590 (1995).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    T. A. Sokolova and S. Ya. Trofimov, Sorption Properties of Soils. Adsorption. Cation Exchange (Universitetskaya Kniga, Moscow, 2009) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    I. I. Sudnitsyn, Movement of Soil Moisture and Water Consumption by the Plants (Moscow State Univ., Moscow, 1979) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    I. I. Sudnitsyn, A. P. Shvarov, and E. A. Koreneva, “Integral energy of soil hydration,” Estestv. Tekh. Nauki, No. 10, 85–87 (2011).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    I. I. Sudnitsyn, A. V. Smagin, and A. P. Shvarov, “The theory of Maxwell–Boltzmann–Helmholtz–Gouy about the double electric layer in disperse systems and its application to soil science (on the 100th anniversary of the paper published by Gouy),” Eurasian Soil Sci. 45, 452–457 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Theories and Methods of Soil Physics (Grif i K, Moscow, 2007) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    V. V. Terleev, W. Mirschel, V. L. Badenko, I. Yu. Guseva, and P. D. Gurin, “Physical-statistical interpretation of the parameters of the soil water retention function,” Agrofizika, No. 4, 1–8 (2012).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    E. I. Shilova and K. G. Kreier, “Carbon dioxide of soil solution and its role in pedogenesis,” Pochvovedenie, No. 7, 65–72 (1957).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    T. E. Shitikova, “Composition of lysimetric waters of soddy-podzolic soils, Pochvovedenie, No. 4, 27–38 (1986).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    V. V. Shcherbakov and Yu. M. Artemkina, “Electromagnetic properties of solutions,” in Proceedings of the All-Russia Forum of Young Scientists “A Step to the Future” (APFN Scientific Technical Association, Moscow, 2012), pp. 20–28.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    E. C. Brevik, Th. E. Fenton, and A. Lazari, “Soil electrical conductivity as a function of soil water content and implications for soil mapping,” Precis. Agric. 7 (6), 393–404 (2006). doi 10.1007/s11119-006-9021-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    G. S. Campbell, Soil Physics with BASIC (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1985).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    R. Giesler, U. S. Lundstrom, and H. Grip, “Comparison of soil chemistry assessment using zero-tension lysimeters or centrifugation,” Eur. J. Soil Sci. 47 (3), 395–405 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    M. E. Essington, Soil and Water Chemistry: An Integrative Approach (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    B. R. Hanson and K. Kaita, “Response of electromagnetic conductivity meter to soil salinity and soil-water content,” J. Irrig. Drain. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 123, 141–143 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    K. Kosugi, “Lognormal distribution model for unsaturated soil hydraulic properties,” Water Resour. Res. 32, 2697–2703 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    A. V. Smagin, “Column-centrifugation method for determining water retention curves of soils and disperse sediments,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 45, 416–422 (2012). doi 10.1134/S1064229312040126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    A. V. Smagin, “Thermodynamic evaluation of the impact of strongly swelling polymer hydrogels with ionic silver on the water retention capacity of sandy substrate,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 52 (012087), 1–7 (2017). doi 10.1088/1755-1315/52/1/ 012087Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    V. V. Snakin, E. Kovasc-Lang, and T. L. Bystritskaya, “Methodological aspects of in situ ionometry in grassland ecosystems,” Abstr. Bot. 10, 87–95 (1986).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    V. Terleev, R. Ginvesky, V. Lazarev, A. Nikonorov, I. Togo, A. Topaj, K. Moiseev, E. Abakumov, A. Melnichuk, and I. Dunaeva, “Predicting the scanning branches of hysteretic soil-water retention capacity with use the method of mathematical modeling,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 90 (012105), (2017). doi 10.1088/1755-1315/90/1/012105Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    D. Zabowski and F. C. Ugolini, “Lysimeter and centrifuge soil solutions: seasonal differences between methods,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54, 1130–1135 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. V. Smagin
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • N. B. Sadovnikova
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. V. Kirichenko
    • 1
  • Yu. V. Egorov
    • 1
  • V. G. Vityazev
    • 1
  • A. S. Bashina
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Lomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Institute of Forestry, Russian Academy of SciencesUspenskoeRussia

Personalised recommendations