Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:36:28.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remarks and observations on imbibitional soil moisture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. A. Fisher
E. A. Fisher
Affiliation:
Department of Textile Industries, University, Leeds.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has been shown in earlier papers that the water present in soils is held in two ways: as capillary or interstitial water present as water wedges between the soil grains and as imbibitional or “gel” water which is associated in some way other than interstitially with the clay particles and with the colloidal coating of the soil grains. Imbibitional water is the cause of the swelling in water of soil and other colloidal (gel) systems such as cotton, wool, gelatin.

The nature of the imbibitional process is discussed and it is suggested that with clay, wool and soil imbibition may be due to the attainment of a Donnan equilibrium as is the case with gelatin. Experiments are quoted and discussed in support of this suggestion; and in particular it is pointed out that such swollen colloids appear to behave as perfectly elastic solids when under compression. This is not the case with sand and water nor with soil, wool or cotton in xylol, i.e. when no swelling occurs.

Imbibition may be a factor in the movement of soil water, in addition to capillarity, and it is shown that such a factor is quite consistent with the general mathematical treatment of the movement of soil water as developed by Gardner and others.

[It is realised that the point of view outlined above rests, as far as soil is concerned, on a very slender experimental basis, but it appears to be of sufficient interest to merit further investigation. The writer, however, has neither facilities nor opportunity for developing the matter further and this paper is published in its present form in the hope that it may prove of some interest to other workers more directly connected with soil research.]

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , April 1924 , pp. 204 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1924

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

page 204 note 1 This Journal, 13 (1923), p. 120Google Scholar; Roy. Soc. Proc. 103 A (1923), pp. 139, 664.Google Scholar

page 204 note 2 This Journal, 6 (1914), p. 456.Google Scholar

page 205 note 1 This Journal, 10 (1920), p. 425Google Scholar, 11 (1921), p. 450, 12 (1922), p. 372; Journ. Soc. Chem. Ind. 41 (1922), p. 77 T.Google Scholar

page 205 note 2 For a further study of this type of “protection” see Loeb, J., Journ. Gen. Physiol. 5 (1923), p. 479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 205 note 3 This Journal, 4 (1911–1912), p. 1.Google Scholar

page 206 note 1 New Phytologist, 12 (1913), p. 125.Google Scholar

page 206 note 2 U.S. Dept. of Agric. Bur. of Soils, Bul. 45 (1907)Google Scholar. Moisture equivalent is the term employed to denote the percentage of water retained by a soil when subjected to a constant centrifugal force sufficient in magnitude to remove the moisture from the larger capillary spaces.

page 206 note 3 For the determination of moisture equivalents the writer is indebted to Dr A. F. Joseph, Government Chemist, Sudan.

page 207 note 1 Fisher, E. A.. This Journal, loc. cit.Google Scholar

page 208 note 1 Zeit. f. Elektrochem. 17 (1911), p. 572.Google Scholar

page 208 note 2 The concentration of undissociated acid will be the same on both sides and therefore does not affect the equilibrium. Also the Osmotic pressure inside is really equal to 2y + z + a in which a is the molar concentration of colloid molecules and ions; a, however, is small and in a simple statement of the problem may be neglected. In the case of a protein a is proportional to the (very small) osmotic pressure of the pure protein, of the same molar concentration, at the isoelectric point. Cf. Loeb, 's book (vide infra) and Science, 56 (1923), pp. 731–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 209 note 1 Procter, H. R., J.C.S. 105 (1914), p. 313Google Scholar; H. E. Procter and J. A. Wilson, Ibid. 109 (1916), p. 307; Wilson, J. A. and Wilson, W. H., Journ. Amer. Chem. Soc. 40 (1918), p. 886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 209 note 2 For a detailed treatment of this subject, see Loeb, J., “The colloidal Behaviour of Proteins” (McGraw-Hill Book Co.), 1922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

page 209 note 3 See Briggs, and McLane, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

page 210 note 1 Journ. Text. Tnst. (Trans.), 14 (1923), p. 28.Google Scholar

page 211 note 1 Loc. cit.

page 213 note 1 That cotton should swell apparently so much more than wool is possibly due to the fact that Coward and Spencer presumably used loose cotton in their experiments while the writer used pieces of milled (i.e. felted) wool fabric. In the latter case the strength and close packing of the milled fabric might be expected seriously to restrict the swelling of the individual wool hairs. If loose wool had been used the slope of the curve might have been much greater.

page 213 note 2 Journ. Pliys. Chem. 26 (1922), p. 647.Google Scholar

page 213 note 3 Loc. cit.

page 215 note 1 Mem. Ind. Dept. Agric. (Chem. Series), 6, No. 3, 03 1921, p. 155.Google Scholar

page 215 note 2 Wilsdon attempted a mathematical derivation of the term 21 but his reasoning has been shown to be fallacious by Keen, B. A. (this Journal, 14 (1924), p. 171)Google Scholar. The fallacy does not appear to affect that portion of Wilsdon's argument used in the present discussion.

page 216 note 1 Alway, and Clark, , Journ. Agric. Res. 7 (1916), p. 345Google Scholar; Hardy, F., this Journal, 13 (1923), pp. 243, 340.Google Scholar

page 216 note 2 Zeit. phys. Chem. 45 (1903), p. 75.Google Scholar

page 216 note 3 Ibid. 89 (1915), p. 271.

page 216 note 4 Koll. Beihefte. 9 (1917–1918), p. 1.Google Scholar

page 216 note 5 Koll. Zeit. 17 (1915), p. 78.Google Scholar

page 216 note 6 Journ. Phys. Chem. 16 (1912), p. 396.Google Scholar

page 216 note 7 Amer. Journ. Bot. 7 (1920), p. 318.Google Scholar

page 216 note 8 Journ. Amer. Cer. Soc. 1 (1918), p. 25.Google Scholar

page 217 note 1 Applied Colloid Chem. (McGraw-Hill Book Co., London, 1921), p. 76.Google Scholar

page 217 note 2 In this connection see “The Swelling of Agar Agar,” Fairbrother, F. and Mastin, H., J.C.S. 123 (1923), p. 1412.Google Scholar

page 217 note 3 Journ. Amer. Chem. Soc. 44 (1922), p. 521.Google Scholar

page 217 note 4 Fisher, E. A., Trans. Far. Soc. 17 (1922), p. 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 218 note 1 Soil Science, 11 (1921), p. 215.Google Scholar

page 218 note 2 Ibid. 10 (1920), p. 357.

page 219 note 1 Roy. Soc. Proc. 103 A (1923), p. 664.Google Scholar

page 219 note 2 That the presence of a colloid phase may, and probably does, affect the rate of movement of soil water has been recognised by Wilsdon, (loc. cit.)Google Scholar but his point of view is somewhat different from the writer's.

page 219 note 3 Quoted by Keen, B. A., this Journal, 9 (1919), p. 396.Google Scholar