Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T01:16:55.452Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on soil phosphorus. I. A method for the partial fractionation of soil phosphorus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Colin H. Williams
Colin H. Williams
Affiliation:
Waite Agricultural Research Institute, University of Adelaide, South Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ghani's method for the partial fractionation of soil phosphorus has been simplified. From results obtained with soils and representative phosphatic minerals it has been shown that successive single extractions with 2·5% acetic acid-l% 8-hydroxyquinoline and 0·1 N-sodium hydroxide gives a good fractionation of the phosphate compounds present.

The relative effects of cupferron and 8-hydroxyquinoline as reagents for blocking the adsorption of phosphate were also investigated. Cupferron precipitated aluminium more completely than did 8-hydroxyquinoline at the pH used for the extraction. However, because of its instability and also because of indications that it may attack organic forms of phosphorus cupferron was considered to be of less value than 8-hydroxyquinoline in the fractionation of soil phosphorus.

The recovery of phosphate added to soil, the reaction of which had been varied by the use of sulphur or calcium carbonate, was almost complete at all reactions used (pH 4·5–8·2) for amounts of phosphate up to the equivalent of 500 parts of PO4 per million parts of soil. The distribution of this added phosphate between the acid and alkali soluble fraction showed that in acid soils the phosphate tended to be fixed mainly by adsorption or as a basic ferric and aluminium phosphates, while at an alkaline reaction most of the fixation was due to precipitation by calcium.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , July 1950 , pp. 233 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1950

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

Bremner, J. M., Mann, P. J. G., Heintze, S. G. & Lees, H. (1946). Nature, Lond., 158, 790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, L. A. (1937). Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proe. 2, 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, L. A. (1938). J. Agric. Sci. 28, 234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. & Thomas, R. P. (1935). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 27, 863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghani, M. O. (1943 a). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 13, 29.Google Scholar
Ghani, M. O. (1943 b). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 13, 562.Google Scholar
Holman, W. M. (1936). J. Roy. Soc. N.S.W. 70, 267.Google Scholar
Leahey, A. (1935). Sci. Agric. 15, 704.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. E. (1935). J. Soc. Chem. Ind., Lond., 54, 393T.Google Scholar
Mellan, I. (1941). Organic Reagents in Inorganic Analysis, p. 120. Philadelphia: The Blakiston Co.Google Scholar
Meunier, P. (1935). Bull. Soc. Chim. Biol., Paris, 17, 548.Google Scholar
Moeller, T. (1943). Industr. Engng. Chem. (Anal, ed.), 15, 346.Google Scholar
Piper, C. S. (1942). Soil and Plant Analysis, p. 193. Adelaide: University of Adelaide.Google Scholar
Russell, E. J. & Prescott, J. A. (1916). J. Agric. Sci. 8, 65.Google Scholar
Stelly, M. & Pierre, W. H. (1943). Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 7, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, R. (1932). Imp. Bur. Soil Sci. Tech. Comm. no. 25.Google Scholar
Truog, E. (1930). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 22, 874.Google Scholar
Truog, E. & Meyer, A. H. (1929). Ind. Engng. Chem. (Anal. ed.), 1, 136.Google Scholar
Williams, E. G. & Stewart, A. B. (1941). J. Soc. Chem Ind., Lond., 60, 291T.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. (1937). J. Agric. Sci. 27, 259.Google Scholar
Wrenshall, C. L. & Dyer, W. J. (1939). Canad. J. Res. 17B, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar