Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:34:24.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The revised official British method for mechanical analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Extract

In a former number of this Journal (1), there appeared a report on the mechanical analysis of soils by this sub-committee of the Agricultural Education Association. The report contained proposals for certain modifications of the earlier A.E.A. (1906) method, of which the most important were the introduction of hydrogen peroxide as a dispersive agent in the preliminary treatment, the use of the pipette method for the actual mechanical analysis, and the abolition of the fine gravel (3 mm.–1 mm.) fraction. This report was officially adopted by the A.E.A. and the method of mechanical analysis therein proposed was accepted as the new standard to replace the 1906 method. The full details were published in the Journal of the Association (2).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1928

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

(1)Sub-Committee of the Agricultural Education Association. The Mechanical Analysis of Soils: A Report on the Present Position, and Recommendations for a New Official Method. J. Agric. Sci. (1926), 16, 123–44. (Rothamsted Memoirs, 13.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Sub-Committee of the Agricultural Education Association. The Official Method for the Mechanical Analysis of Soils. Adopted by the Agricultural Education Association in 1925. Agricultural Progress (1926), 3, 106–10.Google Scholar
(3)Sub-Committee of the Agricultural Education Association. Revised Official Method for the Mechanical Analysis of Soils. Adopted by the Agricultural Education Association in 1927. Agricultural Progress (1928), 5, 137–44.Google Scholar