the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The effect of soil moisture content and soil texture on fast in situ pH measurements with two types of robust ion-selective electrodes
Abstract. In situ soil pH measurements with ion-selective electrodes (ISE) receive increasing attention in soil mapping for precision agriculture, as they can avoid time consuming sampling and off-site laboratory work. However, unlike the standard laboratory protocol, in situ pH measurements are carried out at lower and varying soil moisture content (SMC), which can have a pronounced effect on the sensor readings. In addition, as the contact with the soil during in situ measurements should be relatively short, effects of soil texture could be expected, because texture controls the migration of protons to the electrode interface. This may be exacerbated by the fact that the electrodes used for in situ measurements are made of less sensitive but more robust materials as compared to the standard glass electrode. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of soil moisture and soil texture on pH measurements using robust antimony and epoxy-body ISE pressed directly into the soil for 30 seconds. The SMC was gradually increased from dry conditions to field capacity. A wide range of soil texture classes were included with sand, silt and clay contents ranging from 16 to 91 %, 5 to 44 % and 4 to 65 % respectively. An exponential model was fitted to the data to quantify the relationship between SMC and pH. The results show that an increase in SMC causes a maximum increase in pH of approximately 1.5 pH units, regardless of the type of pH ISE used. Furthermore, for sandy soil textures, a rather linear relationship between pH and SMC was observed, whereas with decreasing mean particle diameter (MPD), the model had a pronounced exponential shape, i.e. a greater pH increase at low SMC and a plateau effect at high SMC. With increasing SMC, the pH values asymptotically approached the standard pH measured with a glass electrode in 0.01 M CaCl2 (soil:solution ratio = 1:2.5). Thus, at high SMC, subsequent calibration of the sensor pH values to the standard pH value is negligible, which may be relevant for using the sensor pH data for lime requirement estimates. The pH measurement error decreases exponentially with increasing soil moisture and increases with decreasing MPD. Using a knee point detection, reliable pH values were obtained for SMC > 11%, irrespective of the pH ISE used. An analysis of the regression coefficients of the fitted exponential model showed that the maximum pH increase also depends on soil texture, i.e. the influence of soil moisture variation on the pH value increases with decreasing MPD. Moreover, the concavity of the exponential curve increases with decreasing MPD.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1858 KB)
-
Supplement
(270 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1858 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(270 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1470', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Nov 2023
In this manuscript the authors test 2 types of pH sensors to measure soil pH of different soil types at varying water content.
This study is in my view very valuable, as soil pH is such an important parameter. It is not easy to measure soil pH at in-situ like conditions and so this manuscript definitely advances the field. The study was well designed and the presented data is well presented and analyzed. A big compliment to the authors.
In fact I only have one minor comment. The used sensors are not well described. It could be nice to show a calibration cure of the sensors to see the response over the pH range. Also potential drift and need for recalibration could be evaluated.
Otherwise this manuscript can be published.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1470-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sebastian Vogel, 29 Nov 2023
Dear reviewer,
First of all I would like to thank you for reviewing our manuscript and your positive feedback. Concerning the additional information about the sensors you demanded we will add two additional references in the text: "For more detailed information regarding glass and antimony pH ISE, the reader is referred to Fujimoto et al. (1980) and Schirrmann et al. (2011)."
Regarding the issue potential drift and recalibration we will add a new paragraph: "Ion-selective pH electrodes are generally considered to be reliable and accurate, but they can experience drift over time, which refers to a slow, gradual change in their response or calibration over time, leading to inaccurate pH measurements. Possible factors that can contribute to drift are: electrode aging, reference electrode issues, ion-selective membrane contamination, temperature changes, sample contamination or improper storage (Durst, 1978; Comer, 1991; Orellana et al., 2011). Regular calibration and maintenance are essential to minimize drift in ion-selective pH electrodes. Calibrating the electrode with standard buffer solutions, following proper storage and handling procedures, and replacing the electrode or its components when necessary can help maintain accuracy and reliability in pH measurements over time. The pH ISE should be calibrated at least at the beginning of each day or before each set of measurements. For in situ measurements, changing environmental conditions, such as major temperature fluctuations during the day can impact the electrode performance. In this case, it may be necessary to calibrate more often or perform a temperature compensation by integrating temperature measurements. Temperature and pH value are related, as the activity of ions in solution is temperature dependent. This relationship is described by the Nernst slope in the Nernst Equation (Barron et al., 2006)."
Best regards,
Sebastian Vogel
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1470-AC1 -
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Nov 2023
Thank you for the response and for adding the mentioned sections. In my opinion this manuscript can be published.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1470-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Sebastian Vogel, 04 Mar 2024
Thank you very much for your positive evaluation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1470-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Sebastian Vogel, 04 Mar 2024
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Nov 2023
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sebastian Vogel, 29 Nov 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1470', Rafael Lopez, 26 Feb 2024
This study evaluates the effect of soil moisture and texture on the pH measurement performed with two different ion selective electrodes, an antimony electrode and an epoxy body electrode. The article is of interest because this type of electrodes, little studied in their behavior, would allow in situ measurements to be carried out in the ground, as they are more resistant.
The article is very well structured and clear and concise. The description of the study is generally accurate.
Specific comments
Line 206: The sample is not homogenized by shaking or similar. How is the homogeneity of the water content within the sample volume confirmed? It must be assumed that the tips of the electrodes "explore" a relatively small volume around them.
Line 226: Why is Spearman's Rho used and not the correlation coefficient r?
Line 333: At least in the case of the study by Oliveira et al 2018, I think the comparison of limit values (throughout the article) is inappropriate. In my opinion, in Oliveira's work, the humidity values are expressed based on the weight of dry soil (the authors do not explicitly indicate this but if this is not the case, the data referring to 100% humidity that appears in the graphs would not be possible). I think that in your article the moisture contents are expressed on the total weight of soil, that is, on a wet basis, although it should be specified in the Materials and Methods section. I am unaware of the studies by Adamchuk et al. (1999) and Kahlert et al. (2004) on what basis (dry or wet weight of soil) the moisture results are expressed but the authors should consider this.
Line 334: Without discarding Davis's explanation, perhaps the greater standard deviation for low moisture contents may be due to a lack of homogeneity in the distribution of water in the sample. It must be assumed that the surface of the electrode explores a certain space of the sample and with little water perhaps this distribution will be less effective.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1470-RC3 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Sebastian Vogel, 04 Mar 2024
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your review and the valuable remarks you have given therein. In the following, you find our answers to your specific comments:
- The homogeneous distribution of the added water within the soil sample was assured by using thoroughly homogenized soil samples and by allowing an equilibration time of 30 min. During that time, the matrix potential of the soil sucks the water into every direction of the soil volume.
- The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (Spearman’s Rho) was used in order to quantify and compare both linear and non-linear relationships. Furthermore, as it is based on the ranks of the data rather than actual values, Spearman’s Rho can handle non-normally distributed data and is less sensitive to outliers compared to other correlation metrics.
- Thank you very much for that valuable advice concerning the calculation basis of the soil moisture content (SMC). We have indeed calculated SMC on dry weight basis and specified it in the Materials and Methods section. I also checked the studies cited and added (when available) the basis of their SMC calculation in the text. Since all studies used for comparison of the threshold values used the SMC of dry weight basis, the comparison is indeed valid. Furthermore, the basis for calculation of SMC has not a strong impact at low SMC, because the deviation between SMC on dry and wet weight basis is negligible below a SMC of about 15%.
- Thank you for your comment on the greater standard deviation at low moisture contents . We expect a lack of homogeneity in the distribution of water in the sample to be of minor importance. Even at low SMC, after the equilibration time of 30 min, the distribution of water in the sample around the pH electrode is expected to be as homogeneous as at high SMC as it is mostly driven by the matrix potential of the soil. However, we have integrated your argument in the text.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1470-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Sebastian Vogel, 04 Mar 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1470', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Nov 2023
In this manuscript the authors test 2 types of pH sensors to measure soil pH of different soil types at varying water content.
This study is in my view very valuable, as soil pH is such an important parameter. It is not easy to measure soil pH at in-situ like conditions and so this manuscript definitely advances the field. The study was well designed and the presented data is well presented and analyzed. A big compliment to the authors.
In fact I only have one minor comment. The used sensors are not well described. It could be nice to show a calibration cure of the sensors to see the response over the pH range. Also potential drift and need for recalibration could be evaluated.
Otherwise this manuscript can be published.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1470-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sebastian Vogel, 29 Nov 2023
Dear reviewer,
First of all I would like to thank you for reviewing our manuscript and your positive feedback. Concerning the additional information about the sensors you demanded we will add two additional references in the text: "For more detailed information regarding glass and antimony pH ISE, the reader is referred to Fujimoto et al. (1980) and Schirrmann et al. (2011)."
Regarding the issue potential drift and recalibration we will add a new paragraph: "Ion-selective pH electrodes are generally considered to be reliable and accurate, but they can experience drift over time, which refers to a slow, gradual change in their response or calibration over time, leading to inaccurate pH measurements. Possible factors that can contribute to drift are: electrode aging, reference electrode issues, ion-selective membrane contamination, temperature changes, sample contamination or improper storage (Durst, 1978; Comer, 1991; Orellana et al., 2011). Regular calibration and maintenance are essential to minimize drift in ion-selective pH electrodes. Calibrating the electrode with standard buffer solutions, following proper storage and handling procedures, and replacing the electrode or its components when necessary can help maintain accuracy and reliability in pH measurements over time. The pH ISE should be calibrated at least at the beginning of each day or before each set of measurements. For in situ measurements, changing environmental conditions, such as major temperature fluctuations during the day can impact the electrode performance. In this case, it may be necessary to calibrate more often or perform a temperature compensation by integrating temperature measurements. Temperature and pH value are related, as the activity of ions in solution is temperature dependent. This relationship is described by the Nernst slope in the Nernst Equation (Barron et al., 2006)."
Best regards,
Sebastian Vogel
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1470-AC1 -
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Nov 2023
Thank you for the response and for adding the mentioned sections. In my opinion this manuscript can be published.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1470-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Sebastian Vogel, 04 Mar 2024
Thank you very much for your positive evaluation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1470-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Sebastian Vogel, 04 Mar 2024
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Nov 2023
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sebastian Vogel, 29 Nov 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1470', Rafael Lopez, 26 Feb 2024
This study evaluates the effect of soil moisture and texture on the pH measurement performed with two different ion selective electrodes, an antimony electrode and an epoxy body electrode. The article is of interest because this type of electrodes, little studied in their behavior, would allow in situ measurements to be carried out in the ground, as they are more resistant.
The article is very well structured and clear and concise. The description of the study is generally accurate.
Specific comments
Line 206: The sample is not homogenized by shaking or similar. How is the homogeneity of the water content within the sample volume confirmed? It must be assumed that the tips of the electrodes "explore" a relatively small volume around them.
Line 226: Why is Spearman's Rho used and not the correlation coefficient r?
Line 333: At least in the case of the study by Oliveira et al 2018, I think the comparison of limit values (throughout the article) is inappropriate. In my opinion, in Oliveira's work, the humidity values are expressed based on the weight of dry soil (the authors do not explicitly indicate this but if this is not the case, the data referring to 100% humidity that appears in the graphs would not be possible). I think that in your article the moisture contents are expressed on the total weight of soil, that is, on a wet basis, although it should be specified in the Materials and Methods section. I am unaware of the studies by Adamchuk et al. (1999) and Kahlert et al. (2004) on what basis (dry or wet weight of soil) the moisture results are expressed but the authors should consider this.
Line 334: Without discarding Davis's explanation, perhaps the greater standard deviation for low moisture contents may be due to a lack of homogeneity in the distribution of water in the sample. It must be assumed that the surface of the electrode explores a certain space of the sample and with little water perhaps this distribution will be less effective.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1470-RC3 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Sebastian Vogel, 04 Mar 2024
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your review and the valuable remarks you have given therein. In the following, you find our answers to your specific comments:
- The homogeneous distribution of the added water within the soil sample was assured by using thoroughly homogenized soil samples and by allowing an equilibration time of 30 min. During that time, the matrix potential of the soil sucks the water into every direction of the soil volume.
- The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (Spearman’s Rho) was used in order to quantify and compare both linear and non-linear relationships. Furthermore, as it is based on the ranks of the data rather than actual values, Spearman’s Rho can handle non-normally distributed data and is less sensitive to outliers compared to other correlation metrics.
- Thank you very much for that valuable advice concerning the calculation basis of the soil moisture content (SMC). We have indeed calculated SMC on dry weight basis and specified it in the Materials and Methods section. I also checked the studies cited and added (when available) the basis of their SMC calculation in the text. Since all studies used for comparison of the threshold values used the SMC of dry weight basis, the comparison is indeed valid. Furthermore, the basis for calculation of SMC has not a strong impact at low SMC, because the deviation between SMC on dry and wet weight basis is negligible below a SMC of about 15%.
- Thank you for your comment on the greater standard deviation at low moisture contents . We expect a lack of homogeneity in the distribution of water in the sample to be of minor importance. Even at low SMC, after the equilibration time of 30 min, the distribution of water in the sample around the pH electrode is expected to be as homogeneous as at high SMC as it is mostly driven by the matrix potential of the soil. However, we have integrated your argument in the text.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1470-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Sebastian Vogel, 04 Mar 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
369 | 186 | 27 | 582 | 40 | 16 | 15 |
- HTML: 369
- PDF: 186
- XML: 27
- Total: 582
- Supplement: 40
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
Katja Emmerich
Ingmar Schröter
Eric Bönecke
Wolfgang Schwanghart
Jörg Rühlmann
Eckart Kramer
Robin Gebbers
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1858 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(270 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper