Advertisement

Effect of Water Absorbing Polymer Amendment on Water Retention Properties of Cohesionless Soil

  • Abhisekh SahaEmail author
  • Bharat Rattan
  • S. Sreedeep
  • Uttam Manna
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 55)

Abstract

Water absorbing polymers (WAP) are chemically cross-linked structures formed with different hydrophilic groups (hydroxyl, amine, and carboxyl) capable of absorbing and storing a huge quantity of water within its three-dimensional network. Due to its high water absorbing capacity, these polymers find applications in improving the water retention behavior of the soil, particularly in arid and semiarid regions. Therefore, it is very important to study the improvement in water retention behavior of soil with different concentration of WAP amendment. The objective of this work is to investigate the effect of different rates (0, 1 g, 2 g, and 4 g/kg of soil) of WAP application on the water retention behavior of a locally available cohesionless soil. For this purpose, water retention characteristics curve (WRCC) of the soil was obtained by monitoring the soil suction and water content variation from saturated state to air-dried condition. The saturated water content and field capacity of the soil was found to be increased by 1.9 times and 2 times with highest amount of WAP addition than the control condition (without WAP). The results indicated that the water retention properties as well as the plant available water content (PAWC) significantly increased with WAP application, which indirectly indicates an increase in plant survival time in water stress conditions.

Keywords

WAP Soil amendment Drought stress Cohesionless soil Suction Water content Matric potential sensor 

References

  1. 1.
    5TM Water Content and Temperature Sensors (2017) Operator’s manual. METER Group Inc., USAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abedi-Koupai J, Sohrab F, Swarbrick G (2008) Evaluation of hydrogel application on soil water retention characteristics. J Plant Nutr 31(2):317–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Agaba H, Baguma Orikiriza LJ, Osoto Esegu JF, Obua J, Kabasa JD, Hüttermann A (2010) Effects of hydrogel amendment to different soils on plant available water and survival of trees under drought conditions. Clean Soil Air Water 38(4):328–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Akhter J, Mahmood K, Malik KA, Mardan A, Ahmad M, Iqbal MM (2004) Effects of hydrogel amendment on water storage of sandy loam and loam soils and seedling growth of barley, wheat and chickpea. Plant Soil Environ 50(10):463–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andry H, Yamamoto T, Irie T, Moritani S, Inoue M, Fujiyama H (2009) Water retention, hydraulic conductivity of hydrophilic polymers in sandy soil as affected by temperature and water quality. J Hydrol 373:177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arbona V, Iglesias DJ, Jacas J, Primo-Millo E, Talon M, Gómez-Cadenas A (2005) Hydrogel substrate amendment alleviates drought effects on young citrus plants. Plant Soil 270(1):73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bai W, Zhang H, Liu B, Wu Y, Song J (2010) Effects of super-absorbent polymers on the physical and chemical properties of soil following different wetting and drying cycles. Soil Use Manag 26:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bao Y, Ma J, Li N (2011) Synthesis and swelling behaviors of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose-g-poly (AA-co-AM-co-AMPS)/MMT superabsorbent hydrogel. Carbohydr Polym 84(1):76–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bhardwaj AK, McLaughlin RA, Shainberg I, Levy GJ (2009) Hydraulic characteristics of depositional seals as affected by exchangeable cations, clay mineralogy, and polyacrylamide. Soil Sci Soc Am J 73(3):910–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bhardwaj AK, Shainberg I, Goldstein D, Warrington D, Levy GJ (2007) Water retention and hydraulic conductivity of cross-linked polyacrylamides in sandy soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71(2):406–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bowman DC, Evans RY (1991) Calcium inhibition of polyacrylamide gel hydration is partially reversible by potassium. HortScience 26(8):1063–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dorraji SS, Golchin A, Ahmadi A (2010) The effects of hydrophilic polymer and soil salinity on corn growth in sandy and loamy soils. Clean Soil Air Water 38(7):584–591Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    El-Tohamy WA, El-Abagy HM, Ahmed EM, Aggor FS, Hawash SI (2014) Application of super absorbent hydrogel poly (acrylate/acrylic acid) for water conservation in sandy soil. Trans Egypt Soc Chem Eng 40(2):1–8Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Farrell C, Ang XQ, Rayner JP (2013) Water-retention additives increase plant available water in green roof substrates. Ecol Eng 52:112–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feng D, Bai B, Ding C, Wang H, Suo Y (2014) Synthesis and swelling behaviors of yeast-g-poly (acrylic acid) superabsorbent co-polymer. Ind Eng Chem Res 53(32):12760–12769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Geng SM, Yan DH, Zhang TX, Weng BS, Zhang ZB, Qin TL (2015) Effects of drought stress on agriculture soil. Nat Hazards 75(2):1997–2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huttermann A, Orikiriza LJB, Agaba H (2009) Application of superabsorbent polymers for improving the ecological chemistry of degraded or polluted lands. Clean Soil Air Water 37 (7):517–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huttermann A, Zommorodi M, Reise K (1999) Addition of hydrogels to soil for prolonging the survival of pinus halepensis seedlings subjected to drought. Soil Tillage Res 50:295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    IS 2720, Part II (1973) Methods of test for soils: determination of water content. Indian Standards Institute, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    IS 2720, Part III (1973) Methods of test for soils: determination of specific gravity. Indian Standards Institute, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    IS 2720, Part IV (1985) Methods of test for soils: grain size analysis. Indian Standards Institute, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    IS 2720, Part V (1985) Methods of test for soils: determination of liquid limit and plastic limit. Indian Standards Institute, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ismail H, Irani M, Ahmad Z (2013) Starch-based hydrogels: present status and applications. Int J Polym Mater 62(7):411–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kabiri K, Omidian H, Zohuriaan-Mehr MJ, Doroudiani S (2011) Superabsorbent hydrogel composites and nanocomposites: a review. Polym Compos 32(2):277–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kala CP (2017) Environmental and socioeconomic impacts of drought in India: lessons for drought management. Sci Educ 5(2):43–48MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kalhapure A, Kumar R, Singh VP, Pandey DS (2016) Hydrogels: a boon for increasing agricultural productivity in water-stressed environment. Curr Sci 111(11):1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Likos WJ, Yao J (2014) Effects of constraints on van Genuchten parameters for modeling soil-water characteristic curves. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 140(12):06014013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lu N, Likos WJ (2004) Unsaturated soil mechanics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mbonimpa M, Aubertin M, Maqsoud A, Bussière B (2006) Predictive model for the water retention curve of deformable clayey soils. J. Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 132(9):1121–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mohawesh O, Durner W (2017) Effect of bentonite, hydrogel and biochar amendments on soil hydraulic properties from saturation to oven dryness. PedosphereGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Montesano FF, Parente A, Santamaria P, Sannino A, Serio F (2015) Biodegradable superabsorbent hydrogel increases water retention properties of growing media and plant growth. Agric Agric Sci Proc 4:451–458Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    MPS-6 Dielectric Water Potential Sensor (2015) Operator’s manual. Decagon Devices, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    MPS-6 Dielectric Water Potential Sensor (2015) Operator’s manual. METER Group, Inc., USAGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Narjary B, Aggarwal P, Singh A, Chakraborty D, Singh R (2012) Water availability in different soils in relation to hydrogel application. Geoderma 187:94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nnadi F, Brave C (2011) Environmentally friendly superabsorbent polymers for water conservation in agricultural lands. J Soil Sci Environ Manag 2(7):206–211Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Orikiriza LJB, Agaba H, Tweheyo M, Eilu G, Kabasa JD, Hüttermann A (2009) Amending soils with hydrogels increases the biomass of nine tree species under nonwater stress conditions. Clean Soil Air Water 37(8):615–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Richards D, Lane M, Beardsell DV (1986) The influence of particle-size distribution in pinebark: sand: brown coal potting mixes on water supply, aeration and plant growth. Sci Hortic 29(1–2):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sepaskhah AR, Shahabizad V (2010) Effects of water quality and PAM application rate on the control of soil erosion, water infiltration and runoff for different soil textures measured in a rainfall simulator. Biosyst Eng 106(4):513–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shi Y, Li J, Shao J, Deng S, Wang R, Li N, Zheng X (2010) Effects of Stockosorb and Luquasorb polymers on salt and drought tolerance of populus popularis. Sci Hort 124(2):268–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sivakumar Babu GL, Peter J, Mukesh MD, Gartung E (2005) Significance of soil suction and soil water characteristic curve parameters. Geotech Test J 28(1):102–107Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    UMS GmbH (Umwelt-Monitoring-Systeme) 2001 T5 user manual. Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    van Genuchten MT (1980) A closed form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:892–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wei Y, Durian DJ (2013) Effect of hydrogel particle additives on water-accessible pore structure of sandy soils: a custom pressure plate apparatus and capillary bundle model. Phys Rev E 87(5):053013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhang X, Obringer R, Wei C, Chen N, Niyogi D (2017) Droughts in India from 1981 to 2013 and implications to wheat production. Sci Rep 7:44552CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abhisekh Saha
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bharat Rattan
    • 1
  • S. Sreedeep
    • 1
  • Uttam Manna
    • 1
  1. 1.Indian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations