Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 19, Issue 10, pp 3489–3498 | Cite as

The effect of interactions between particles on soil infiltrability

  • Wuquan Ding
  • Xinmin LiuEmail author
  • Feinan Hu
  • Hualing Zhu
  • Yaxue Luo
  • Song Li
  • Rui Tian
  • Bing Bao
  • Hang LiEmail author
Soils, Sec 2 • Global Change, Environ Risk Assess, Sustainable Land Use • Research Article
  • 75 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Soil infiltrability is an important topic in environmental and agricultural research and influences plant growth, soil erosion and water runoff. In this study, the influences of interactions between soil particles on soil infiltrability were investigated in different MgCl2 and NaCl solutions.

Materials and methods

We selected an entisol soil in Chongqing, China. The soil samples were saturated with Na+ and Mg2+: each air-dried sample was weighed into a 5-L beaker and washed three times with NaCl and MgCl2 and then deionised water, respectively. The cationic saturated soil samples were then dried at 333 K, crushed and passed through a 1-mm sieve. For water infiltration, the Na- or Mg-saturated soil samples were added and packed to a bulk density of 1.05 g cm−3 in a rectangular acrylic glass column (20 cm × 3 cm2). The NaCl or MgCl2 solution was selected to leach the soil column with a constant water head, and the depth of the wetted front was recorded at 150 min. For the computed tomography scan, the circular columns of Na- and Mg-saturated soil were wetted by 0.01 mol L−1 NaCl and MgCl2 solutions, respectively, and then were determined by computed tomography scanner when the position of wetting front reached 3 cm.

Results and discussion

Soil with relatively weak electrostatic repulsion had a net attractive force, which leads to the unbroken soil aggregate and high infiltrability. The calculated net forces at the critical concentration in MgCl2 (0.005 mol L−1) and NaCl (0.25 mol L−1) were attractive and the measured soil infiltrability reached maximum value. The calculations of particle–particle interaction forces also showed that, when the soil aggregate did not break down, the electrostatic repulsive forces caused the soil aggregate to “swell”, which decreased the soil infiltrability. The “swelling” strength in the Mg2+ solution was much weaker than that in the Na+ solution, and the experimentally observed infiltrability values in Mg2+ were much higher than that in Na+ for soil with the same non-breaking aggregates.

Conclusions

Soil infiltrability was determined by the electrostatic interactions at the soil/water interfaces, which was generated from the net surface charges of soil particles. The net force between soil particles can be repulsive because of the strong electrostatic repulsion, which results in aggregate breakdown and low infiltrability of soils.

Keywords

Soil aggregate Soil electric field Surface potential Water movement 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41101223, 41530855 and 41877026), the Natural Science Foundation Project of CQ CSTC (grant nos. cstc2018jcyjAX0354 and cstc2018jcyjAX0318), Young Elite Scientist Sponsorship Program by CAST (2015QNRC001), the Scientific and Technological Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission (KJ1501115) and the International Science and Technology Cooperation Program of China (2015DFR70390).

References

  1. Arienzo M, Christen EW, Jayawardane NS, Quayle WC (2012) The relative effects of sodium and potassium on soil hydraulic conductivity and implications for winery wastewater management. Geoderma 173-174:303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartoli F, Philippy R, Burtin G (1988) Aggregation in soils with small amounts of swelling clays. I. Aggregate stability. J Soil Sci 39:593–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolt GH (1955) Analysis of the validity of the Gouy-Chapman theory of the electric double layer. J Colloid Sci 10:206–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buelow MC, Steenwerth K, Parikh SJ (2015) The effect of mineral-ion interactions on soil hydraulic conductivity. Agric Water Manag 152:277–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng S, Bryant R, Doerr SH, Wright CJ, Williams PR (2009) Investigation of surface properties of soil particles and model materials with contrasting hydrophobicity using atomic force microscopy. Environ Sci Technol 43:6500–6506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chinchalikar AJ, Aswal VK, Kohlbrecher J, Wagh AG (2012) Evolution of structure and interaction during aggregation of silica nanoparticles in aqueous electrolyte solution. Chem Phys Lett 542:74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Churaev NV, Derjaguin BV (1985) Inclusion of structural forces in the theory of stability of colloids and films. J Colloid Interface Sci 103:542–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craig VSJ, Ninham BW, Pashley RM (1999) Direct measurement of hydrophobic forces: a study of dissolved gas, approach rate, and neutron irradiation. Langmuir 15:1562–1569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ding W, Liu X, Song L, Li Q, Zhu Q, Zhu H, Hu F, Luo Y, Zhu L, Li H (2015) An approach to estimate the position of the shear plane for colloidal particles in an electrophoresis experiment. Surf Sci 632:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ducker W, Pashley R (1992) Forces between mica surfaces in the presence of rod-shaped divalent counterions. Langmuir 8:109–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duiker SW, Rhoton FE, Torrent J, Smeck NE, Lal R (2003) Iron (hydr)oxide crystallinity effects on soil aggregation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67:606–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dullien FAL (1992) Porous media: fluid transport and porous structure. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Halliwell DJ, Barlow KM, Nash DM (2001) A review of the effects of wastewater sodium on soil physical properties and their implications for irrigation systems. Aust J Soil Res 39:1259–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hou J, Li H (2009) Determination of clay surface potential: a more reliable approach. Soil Sci Soc Am J 73:1658–1663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hu F, Xu C, Li H, Li S, Yu Z, Li Y, He X (2015) Particles interaction forces and their effects on soil aggregates breakdown. Soil Till Res 147:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hu F, Liu J, Xu C, Du W, Yang Z, Liu X, Liu G, Zhao S (2018) Soil internal forces contribute more than raindrop impact force to rainfall splash erosion. Geoderma 330:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Itami K, Fujitani H (2005) Charge characteristics and related dispersion/flocculation behavior of soil colloids as the cause of turbidity. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 265:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jayawardane NS (1979) An equivalent salt solutions method for predicting hydraulic conductivities of soils for different salt solutions. Aust J Soil Res 17:423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jayawardane NS (1983) Further examination of the use of the equivalent salt solutions method for predicting hydraulic conductivity of soils for different salt solutions. Aust J Soil Res 21:105–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jayawardane NS, Blackwell PS (1991) Relationship between equivalent salt solution series of different soils. Eur J Soil Sci 42:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jayawardane N, Christen E, Arienzo M, Quayle W (2011) Evaluation of the effects of cation combinations on soil hydraulic conductivity. Soil Res 49:56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leng Y (2012) Hydration force between mica surfaces in aqueous KCl electrolyte solution. Langmuir 28:5339–5349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li H, Qing CL, Wei SQ, Jiang XJ (2004) An approach to the method for determination of surface potential on solid/liquid interface: theory. J Colloid Interface Sci 275:172–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Li H, Peng X, Wu L, Jia M, Zhu H (2009) Surface potential dependence of the Hamaker constant. J Phys Chem C 113:4419–4425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li H, Hou J, Liu X, Wu L (2011) Combined determination of specific surface area and surface charge properties of charged particles from a single experiment. Soil Sci Soc Am J 75:2128–2135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li S, Li H, Xu C-Y, Huang X-R, Xie D-T, Ni J-P (2013) Particle interaction forces induce soil particle transport during rainfall. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77:1563–1571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liang Y, Hilal N, Langston P, Starov V (2007) Interaction forces between colloidal particles in liquid: theory and experiment. Adv Colloid Interf Sci 134-135:151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu X, Ding W, Tian R, Du W, Li H (2017) Position of shear plane at the clay–water interface: strong polarization effects of counterions. Soil Sci Soc Am J 81:268–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McNeal B, Coleman N (1966) Effect of solution composition on soil hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci Soc Am J 30:308–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Millington RJ, Quirk JP (1959) Permeability of porous media. Nature 183:387–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mishchuk NA (2011) The model of hydrophobic attraction in the framework of classical DLVO forces. Adv Colloid Interf Sci 168:149–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Montoro MA, Francisca FM (2010) Soil permeability controlled by particle–fluid interaction. Geotech Geol Eng 28:851–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Myers R, Thien SJ (1991) Soil permeability in an ammonium and phosphorus application zone. Soil Sci Soc Am J 55:866–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Olphen HV (1977) An introduction to clay colloid chemistry, for clay technologists, geologists, and soil scientists. Wiley-InterscienceGoogle Scholar
  35. Pashley RM (1981) DLVO and hydration forces between mica surfaces in Li+, Na+, K+, and Cs+ electrolyte solutions: a correlation of double-layer and hydration forces with surface cation exchange properties. J Colloid Interface Sci 83:531–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pashley RM, Israelachvili JN (1984) DLVO and hydration forces between mica surfaces in Mg2+, Ca2+, Sr2+, and Ba2+ chloride solutions. J Colloid Interface Sci 97:446–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pupisky H, Shainberg I (1979) Salt effects on the hydraulic conductivity of a sandy soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 43:429–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Quirk JP, Schofield RK (1955) The effect of electrolyte concentration on soil permeability. J Soil Sci 6:163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rengasamy P (2002) Transient salinity and subsoil constraints to dryland farming in Australian sodic soils: an overview. Aust J Exp Agric 42:351–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmitz RM (2006) Can the diffuse double layer theory describe changes in hydraulic conductivity of compacted clays? Geotech Geol Eng 24:1835–1844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shainberg I, Rhoades JD, Prather RJ (1981) Effect of low electrolyte concentration on clay dispersion and hydraulic conductivity of a sodic soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 45:273–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shen C, Lazouskaya V, Zhang H, Wang F, Li B, Jin Y, Huang Y (2012) Theoretical and experimental investigation of detachment of colloids from rough collector surfaces. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 410:98–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shen C, Wu L, Zhang S, Ye H, Li B, Huang Y (2014) Heteroaggregation of microparticles with nanoparticles changes the chemical reversibility of the microparticles’ attachment to planar surfaces. J Colloid Interface Sci 421:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shen C, Zhang M, Zhang S, Wang Z, Zhang H, Li B, Huang Y (2015) Influence of surface heterogeneities on reversibility of fullerene (nC60) nanoparticle attachment in saturated porous media. J Hazard Mater 290:60–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smiles DE, Smith CJ, Kirkham J (2012) On the use of solute water fronts to measure nitrate adsorption in a Red Ferrosol. Eur J Soil Sci 63:200–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tedeschi A, Dell’Aquila R (2005) Effects of irrigation with saline waters, at different concentrations, on soil physical and chemical characteristics. Agric Water Manag 77:308–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tschapek M (1984) Criteria for determining the hydrophilicity-hydrophobicity of soils. Z Pflanzenernähr Bodenkd 147:137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang L-F, Wang L-L, Ye X-D, Li W-W, Ren X-M, Sheng G-P, Yu H-Q, Wang X-K (2013) Coagulation kinetics of humic aggregates in mono- and di-valent electrolyte solutions. Environ Sci Technol 47:5042–5049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yang Y, Aplin AC (2010) A permeability–porosity relationship for mudstones. Mar Pet Geol 27:1692–1697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang W, Crittenden J, Li K, Chen Y (2012) Attachment efficiency of nanoparticle aggregation in aqueous dispersions: modeling and experimental validation. Environ Sci Technol 46:7054–7062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhang T, Zhan X, He J, Feng H, Kang Y (2018) Salt characteristics and soluble cations redistribution in an impermeable calcareous saline-sodic soil reclaimed with an improved drip irrigation. Agric Water Manag 197:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chongqing Key Laboratory of Soil Multi-scale Interfacial Process, College of Resources and EnvironmentalSouthwest UniversityChongqingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Chongqing Key Laboratory of Environmental Materials & Remediation TechnologiesChongqing University of Arts and ScienceChongqingPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Institute of Soil and Water ConservationChinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water ResourcesYanglingPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.Chongqing Landscape and Gardening Research InstituteChongqingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations