吸管法与扫描电镜法测定中国水蚀区典型土壤粒径分布对比

彭婷婷; 白雪; 杨扬; 高晓飞; 刘瑛娜

doi:10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2023.03.021

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

吸管法与扫描电镜法测定中国水蚀区典型土壤粒径分布对比

试验研究

- 吸管法与扫描电镜法测定中国水蚀区典型土壤粒径分布对比
- Comparison of Particle Size Distributions Determined by Pipette Method and Scanning Electron Microscopy for Typical Soils in Water Erosion Region of China
- 水土保持通报 2023年43卷第3期页码：165-175
- 作者机构：
  
  1. 北京师范大学地理科学学部地表过程与资源生态国家重点实验室,北京,100875
  2. 北京师范大学地理科学学部地理学院,北京,100875
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
  
  国家自然科学基金项目“黄土高原植被恢复影响切沟侵蚀的动力机制与模拟”(42130701);地表过程与资源生态国家重点实验室重点项目“典型黑土区冻融循环特征及其对水力侵蚀的影响机制”(2021-ZD-05)
- DOI：10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2023.03.021
  中图分类号： S152.3
- 纸质出版：2023
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
彭婷婷, 白雪, 杨扬, 等. 吸管法与扫描电镜法测定中国水蚀区典型土壤粒径分布对比[J]. 水土保持通报, 2023,43(3):165-175.

Peng Tingting, Bai Xue, Yang Yang, et al. Comparison of Particle Size Distributions Determined by Pipette Method and Scanning Electron Microscopy for Typical Soils in Water Erosion Region of China[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2023, 43(3): 165-175.
彭婷婷, 白雪, 杨扬, 等. 吸管法与扫描电镜法测定中国水蚀区典型土壤粒径分布对比[J]. 水土保持通报, 2023,43(3):165-175. DOI： 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2023.03.021.

Peng Tingting, Bai Xue, Yang Yang, et al. Comparison of Particle Size Distributions Determined by Pipette Method and Scanning Electron Microscopy for Typical Soils in Water Erosion Region of China[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2023, 43(3): 165-175. DOI： 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2023.03.021.

摘要

[目的] 利用扫描电镜法(scanning electron microscopy， SEM)评估吸管法(pipette method， PM)对中国水蚀区不同土壤粒径分布(particle size distribution， PSD)的测定结果，以期为各典型土壤PSD的测定及其结果在土壤侵蚀模型中的应用提供参考。[方法] 以5个水蚀二级区的典型土壤——黑土、褐土、黄土、紫色土和红壤为研究对象，利用SEM测定PM所得＜100 μm各粒级悬液的粒径分布，分析两种方法测得的粒径分布差异并探讨其原因。[结果] PM所得绝大多数土壤悬液中都存在粒径大于对应粒级的颗粒。随着悬液粒级减小，SEM所得相应粒级颗粒的数量百分比和体积百分比均降低。在＜100 μm悬液中，SEM测得黑土、褐土和紫色土颗粒集中于20~53 μm，平均体积直径(mean volume diameter， MVD)较小；黄土和红壤颗粒集中于20~53，53~100 μm，MVD较大。相比SEM，PM对黄土＜100 μm悬液PSD的测定结果差异不大，但高估了其余土壤＜2 μm黏粒含量，低估了黑土、褐土和紫色土20~53 μm粒级含量及红壤20~100 μm含量，所测各土壤平均重量直径(mean weight diameter， MWD)均小于SEM所测MVD。PM与SEM所测土壤PSD的差异使85.6%的土壤样品质地类型发生了变化。通过S曲线对PM所测PSD进行转换后可使质地类型不一致的样品占比下降至61.5%。[结论] 以SEM结果为基准，PM对水蚀区各土壤粒径分布的测定普遍存在误差。两种方法之间的差异因土壤类型而异，主要与土壤矿物组成和黏土矿物类型有关。

Abstract

[Objective] The particle size distributions (PSD) of different soils measured by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and by the pipette method (PM) in the water erosion region of China was compared in order to provide a reference for the determination of typical soil PSDs and their applications in soil erosion models.[Methods] Five typical soils corresponding to the five water erosion subregions of China (i.e.

black soil

cinnamon soil

loess

purple soil

and red soil) were collected and analyzed by PM and SEM. Specifically

soil suspensions of different size classes obtained by PM (i.e.

< 100

< 53

< 20

< 10

< 5 and < 2 μm) were measured using SEM. The PSD results determined by PM and SEM were compared and the causes for their difference were determined.[Results] For most soil suspensions obtained by PM

particles larger than the corresponding size classes of the suspensions were detected by SEM. As the size classes of soil suspensions decreased

both the count and volume fractions of the corresponding sizes

as measured by SEM

decreased. For the suspensions < 100 μm

the particles of the black

cinnamon

and purple soils fell mainly in the 20-53 μm class

resulting in relatively lower values of SEM-derived mean volume diameter (MVD). In contrast

the primary size classes of the loess and red soil were 20-53 and 53-100 μm

leading to larger MVD. Little difference was observed in the PSDs of loess between PM and SEM for the suspension < 100 μm. Compared with SEM

PM overestimated the clay fractions < 2 μm of the other soil samples

and underestimated the size fractions of 20-53 μm for the black

cinnamon

and purple soils

as well as the fractions of 20-100 μm for the red soil. As a result

the PM-derived mean weight diameters (MWD) were smaller than the SEM-derived MVD for all of the investigated soils. Additionally

the PSD discrepancies between the two analytical methods shifted the textural classes of 84.6% of the total soil samples. Converting the PM-derived PSD with the optimal S-curve models

the proportion of the samples with different textural classes due to PSD analytical method decreased to 61.5%.[Conclusion] Based on the SEM results

PM tended to misestimate the PSDs of all of the five typical soils in the water erosion region. The PSD differences between the two methods varied with soil type and were mainly related to soil mineral composition and clay mineral types.

关键词

Keywords

references

Wischmeier W H, Smith D D. Agriculture Handbook 537[R]. Washington, D. C:Usda, 1978.

Borrelli P, Alewell C, Alvarez P, et al. Soil erosion modelling:A global review and statistical analysis[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2021,780:146494.

Gee G W, Bauder J W. Particle size analysis[M]//Klute A. Methods of Soil Analysis (Part 1):Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Madison, WI, USA:Soil Science Society of America, 1986:383-411.

Beuselinck L, Govers G, Poesen J, et al. Grain-size analysis by laser diffractometry:Comparison with the sieve-pipette method[J]. Catena, 1998,32(3/4):193-208.

Konert M, Vandenberghe J. Comparison of laser grain size analysis with pipette and sieve analysis:A solution for the underestimation of the clay fraction[J]. Sedimentology, 1997,44(3):523-535.

Flint A L, Flint L E. Particle Density[M]//Dane J H, Topp G C. Methods of Soil Analysis(Part 4):Physical Methods. Madison, WI, USA:Soil Science Society of America, 2002:229-240.

Clifton J, McDonald P, Plater A, et al. An investigation into the efficiency of particle size separation using Stokes' Law[J]. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 1999,24(8):725-730.

Allen T. Powder Sampling and Particle Size Determination[M]. Amsterdam:Elsevier, 2003.

Pieri L, Bittelli M, Pisa P R. Laser diffraction, transmission electron microscopy and image analysis to evaluate a bimodal Gaussian model for particle size distribution in soils[J]. Geoderma, 2006,135:118-132.

Tang Zhiyun, Wu Longhua, Luo Yongming, et al. Size fractionation and characterization of nanocolloidal particles in soils[J]. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 2009,31(1):1-10.

Dur J C, Elsass F, Chaplain V, et al. The relationship between particle-size distribution by laser granulometry and image analysis by transmission electron microscopy in a soil clay fraction[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2004,55(2):265-270.

Yang Yang, Wang Lijuan, Wendroth O, et al. Is the laser diffraction method reliable for soil particle size distribution analysis?[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2019,83(2):276-287.

中华人民共和国水利部.SL 190-2007土壤侵蚀分类分级标准[S].北京:中国水利水电出版社,2008.

Bai Xue, Yang Yang, Huang Tingting, et al. Applicability of laser diffraction method for soil particle size distribution analysis of five soil orders in the water erosion region of China[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2021,76(4):303-316.

国家质量监督检验检疫总局,中国国家标准化管理委员会.GB/T 17296-2009中国土壤分类与代码[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2009.

吴克宁,赵瑞.土壤质地分类及其在我国应用探讨[J].土壤学报,2019,56(1):227-241.

Šrodoń J, Elsass F. Effect of the shape of fundamental particles on XRD characteristics of illitic minerals[J]. European Journal of Mineralogy, 1994,6(1):113-122.

Hillel D, Warrick A W, Baker R S, et al. Environmental Soil Physics[M]. San Diego, CA:Academic Press, 1998.

Jeong G Y, Hillier S, Kemp R A. Quantitative bulk and single-particle mineralogy of a thick Chinese loess-paleosol section:Implications for loess provenance and weathering[J]. Quaternary Science Reviews, 2008,27(11/12):1271-1287.

Hong Hanlie, Gu Yansheng, Yin Ke, et al. Red soils with white net-like veins and their climate significance in South China[J]. Geoderma, 2010,160(2):197-207.

Egashira K, Matsumoto J. Evaluation of the axial ratio of soil clays from gray lowland soils based on viscosity measurements[J]. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 1981,27(3):273-279.

浏览量

570

下载量

CSCD

文章被引用时，请邮件提醒。

提交

工具集

关联资源

榆神府典型煤矿区土壤粒径和可蚀性的分布特征及其影响因素

激光衍射法与吸管法对东北黑土区土壤粒径分布测定的差异性研究

石羊河尾闾水面形成区土壤颗粒的分形特征

伊犁河谷不同森林模式下土壤的养分特征和粒径组成

杨树低效林下土壤粒径分布与分形特征