Pedosphere 2(1): 31--42, 1992
ISSN 1002-0160/CN 32-1315/P
©1992 Soil Science Society of China
Published by Elsevier B.V. and Science Press
| Contribution of Iron and Aluminum Oxides to Electrokinetic Characteristics of Variable Charge Soils in Relation to Surface Charge |
| ZHANGHONG ZHANGXIAO－NIAN |
[1]InstituteofSoilScience,AcademiaSinica,P.O.Box821,Nanjing210008(China)
[2]InstituteofSoilScience,Academia |
| ABSTRACT |
| The contribution of iron and aluminum oxides to electrokinetic characteristics of variable charge soils was studied through determination of electrophoretic mobilities of the red soils treated with either removal of iron oxides or coating of aluminum oxides,and of those deferrated under natural conditions.After removal of the iron oxides,zeta potentials of the latosol and the red earth decreased obviously with a shift of IEP to a lower pH,from 6.4 to 5.3 and 4.1 to 2.4 for the former and the latter,respectively,and the electrokinetic change for the latosol was greater than for the red earth.Zeta potentials of the kaolinite sample increased markedly after coated with iron oxides.The striking effect of iron oxides on electrokinetix properties of the soils was also demonstrated by the electrokinetic differences between the samples from the red and white zones of a plinthitic horizon formed naturally,and between the samples from the gley and bottom horizons of a paddy soil derived from a red earth.The coatings of aluminum oxides on the latosol and the yellow earth made their zeta potentials rise pronouncedly and their IEFs move toward higher pHs,from 6.2 to 6.8 and 4.3 to 5.3 for the former and the latter,respectively.The samples with different particle sizes also exhibited some electrokinetic variation.The experiment showed that the effects of iron and aluminum oxides were closely related to the pH and type of the soils. |
| Key Words: |
| Citation: . 1992. Contribution of Iron and Aluminum Oxides to Electrokinetic Characteristics of Variable Charge Soils in Relation to Surface Charge. Pedosphere. 2(1): 31-42. |
| |
|
View Full Text |
|
|
|
