Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Geo331
Winter2016
Soil Lab
Objective:
Using three different unknown soil samples, various physical and chemical tests will be
conducted to determine the soils physical and chemical makeup and identify their descriptive
soil type. The tests performed are to conclude the soils texture, structure, density, porosity, pH
and nutrient components. The tests are divided in to six parts that group various tests together
based on specific parameters to make a conclusion about the soils individually and relationally;
the results from the six parts can be correlated together to make a final conclusion about the
samples that will include the samples individual results along with a comparison of the results of
all samples based on the tests performed on them. The tested hypotheses and results can be
used to formulate a model about the identity of the samples, link them to a real world location
which in turn can be use to describe the geomorphology of the location and its geomorphic
processes.
Materials:
Part I
Part II
Part III
Brian Acheff
Geo331
Winter2016
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
Methods:
Part I: Determine soil texture and component percent by fragmentation.
1. 25mL soil and 75 mL [NaPO3 ]6 Solution in 100mL cylinder.
2. Cover cylinder with plastic wrap, and invert several times until soil is suspended
3. Allow to settle 30min 24hr
4. Calculate Component Percent
()
()
(100%) = %
Brian Acheff
Geo331
Winter2016
()
()
[1
Brian Acheff
Geo331
Winter2016
Results:
Part I: 28mL total of soil matter
Part II: All three densities were similar. A & C were the same while B was slightly higher. Experimental
error is a possibility because all three soils were very similar and when tested again the density for B was
approximately what A& C was. Therefore based of retrial and initial trials all three exhibited the same
density and porosity; also the water holding capacity would be somewhat uniform based on the three
samples densities and porosities. (Volumes were 8mL of soil for each sample)
The relationship between texture and porosity is that the more tightly packed the mineral grain
are and also depending the dominant particle type will determine the amount of pout space and the
soils ability so adhere water to the particles themselves.
Density: Soil A = 1.875g/mL
Soil B = 1.880g/mL
Soil C = 1.875g/mL
Porosity: Soil A = 29.25%
Soil B = 29.07%
Soil C = 29.25%
Brian Acheff
Geo331
Winter2016
Part III: Question (Q) 1-3 data is in the charts
Q1
A
B
C
Q3
A
B
C
Texture Class
Clay
Silt Loam
Clay Loam
Q2
A
B
C
Texture Classification
Silt Loam
Clay
Loam
Clay (%)
45
25
10
Silt (%)
20
55
10
Sand (%)
35
20
80
Images and captions are property of Genesee County Farmland & Soils George Squires Genesee
County Soil & Water Conservation District Manager. (http://slideplayer.com/slide/3528886/)
Part IV: After performing the ribbon test on each of samples A ,B & C it was concluded that all three
samples fell under the Sandy Loam, Loamy Sand and Sand classification. Ribbons essentially did not form
and when wetted the ped presumed to crumble and fall apart indicating the soils consistence was poor.
The estimated percent of sand of greater than 50 which is classified as gritty and the percentage of clay
was estimated to be less than 27 percent. These assumptions are based off of a simplified soil texture
table found on page 8 of the lab packet.
Brian Acheff
Geo331
Winter2016
Part V: After performing part five, it can be noted that there are many different variables that can be
produced for this part, thus there is room for extensive experimental error due to variability and due to
the fact that the instrumentation and methods use for this part are do not produce the adequate
precision and accuracy needed for reliable results, although the results given can be used to make sound
scientific approximation about the soils and deduces further hypothesis form them.
Variables:
SAMLE
Soil A
Soil B
Soil C
DRY(g)
104.8
104.8
104.8
WET (g)
155.2
138.3
151.3
Based on the results shown on the charts, the samples were very similar. The differences are
due to variability explained above and also the soils have different amounts of mineral matter and
humus which had a primary role in absorption and infiltration. Also experimental error such as
inaccurate measuring and recording could have had minor altercations to the results, but since the
results for the three samples were very similar, the error was held to a minimum given the resources.
Part VI: After performing the pH and conductivity test it was evident that the was either expertimental
error or that the was mineral or hums matter interfering with the conductivity electrode based on soils
A & B had an extremely high conductivity, and soil B stating that NaCl (sodium chloride) was nonlinear.
Though the pH reading were assumed appropriate for that of soil, slightly too somewhat acidic.
Samples
Soil A
Soil B
Soil C
pH
6.61
6.42
6.62
Conductivity (s/cm)
14.89
1,136
659
6
Brian Acheff
Geo331
Winter2016
Brian Acheff
Geo331
Winter2016