Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T20:24:40.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of moisture content and soil type on self diffusion of 86Rb in soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

I. J. Graham-Bryce
I. J. Graham-Bryce
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Self-diffusion coefficients (D) for Rb+ have been measured in a heteroionic Lower Greensand soil over a wide range of moisture contents at three different compactions. The moisture content is shown to have a considerable effect on the value of the self-diffusion coefficient, a rapid rise in the value of D taking place between 5 and 10% moisture content. It is shown that this effect is not simply due to the increased volume of water-filled pore space at higher moisture contents, and other possible factors which could influence the shape of the diffusion coefficient/moisture content curve are discussed. Diffusion coefficients for Rb+ in eight other soils at pF 2 are also reported, but no simple correlation with any of several soil properties measured could be found. A value of 1·0 × 10−7cm2/sec. would seem to be a reasonable generalization for the self-diffusion coefficient of Rb+ in moist calcium-dominated soils.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , April 1963 , pp. 239 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Brown, D. A. (1953). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 17, 92.Google Scholar
Chernoff, V. A. (1937). Trudy Konf. Pochroved. Fiziol. Saratov, 1, 42.Google Scholar
Graham-Bryce, I. J. (1963). Diffusion of Cations in Soil. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Heslep, J. M. & Black, C. A. (1954). Soil Sci. 78, 389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klute, A. & Letey, J. (1958). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 22, 213.Google Scholar
Porter, L. K., Kemper, W. D., Jackson, R. D. & Stewart, B. A. (1960). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 24, 460.Google Scholar
Richards, L. A. (1941). Soil Sci. 51, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofield, R. K. (1935). Trans. 3rd Int. Congr. Soil Sci. vol. II, p. 37.Google Scholar
Schofield, R. K. (1947). Proc. 11th Int. Congr. Pure and Appl. Chem. (London), 3, 257.Google Scholar
Schofield, R. K. & Graham-Bryce, I. J. (1960). Nature, Lond., 188, 1048.Google Scholar
Stewart, B. A. & Eck, H. V. (1958). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 22, 260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiersum, L. K. (1958). Nature, Lond., 181, 106.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. E. (1921). J. Industr. Engng Chem. 13, 326.Google Scholar