Published August 17, 2017

Soil & Water Management & Conservation

Superabsorbent Polymer Properties and Concentration

Effects on Water Retention under Drying Conditions
Superabsorbent polymer (SAP) efficiency in water absorption and release
Jian Yu* depends on soil properties and SAP type and concentration. Our objective
J. G. Shi was to examine the effects of soil texture, SAP concentration and properties
Xin Ma on water absorption and release from soil–SAP mixtures during 10 h of drying.
Water Resources Research Institute Four SAP types, five SAP concentrations, and five soils were used. Initial water
of Inner Mongolia quantity absorbed by SAPs (53–171 g g-1 of SAP) was more than two orders of
No. 11 Genghis Khan Street magnitude greater than that absorbed by soils (0.35–0.53 g g-1 of soil). Water
New Town District absorption by soil–SAP mixtures (i) significantly improved water holding
Hunhot 010051
capacity relative to the soil, and (ii) increased with an increase in SAP concen-
China
tration and soil clay content. The ability of soil–SAP mixtures to retain water
after 5 h of drying relative to the initial water content was greater than that of
P. F. Dang
the soils alone, especially in coarse-textured soils. After 5 h of drying, the spe-
Y. L. Yan cific amount of water retained by a unit weight of SAP in the soil–SAP mixture
Inner Mongolia Agricultural Univ.
was higher than that at 0 h. This observation suggests a continued absorption
Hohhot 010010
China
of water by SAPs from soils during the first 5 h of drying. The fraction of water
loss from SAP with large-size beads (BJ-2101M) was smallest in all the mix-
Amrakh I. Mamedov tures among the four SAPs after 10 h drying. Our results showed that addition
Arid Land Research Center of SAPs to soils not only decreases water loss to evaporation from soils but
Faculty of Agriculture also from the SAPs, especially for a SAP with large size beads.
Tottori Univ.
Tottori, Japan Abbreviations: SAP, superabsorbent polymer; EC, electrical conductivity; SAR,
and sodium adsorption ratio.

Institute of Soil Science and
Agrochemistry and Institute of Botany
ANAS, Baku
Azerbaijan
Isaac Shainberg
Guy J. Levy
Institute of Soil, Water and Environ. Sci.
Agriculture Research Organization
Volcani Center
PO Box 15159
Rishon LeZion 7505101
Israel
Core Ideas
• SAP amount for optimal water
absorption is influenced by soil
properties, SAP type and concentration.
• Soil–SAP mixtures had significantly
greater water holding capacity
compared with soil alone.
• Improvement in water holding
capacity increased with an increase in
SAP concentration.
• Improved retention is from reduced
evaporation and from SAP absorption
of water from soil during drying.
• Efficiency of SAP application
depended on soil type, SAP type, SAP
concentration, and their interactions.
M
any soils from arid and semiarid regions having low clay and organic
matter contents are characterized by low water holding capacity and
poor efficiency of water and fertilizer use by crops. These problems are
aggravated in Northwest China where summer temperatures are high, and rainfall
is characterized by irregular distribution and high intensity, shorter duration of rain
thus causing a large portion of the rain water to drain deep below the root zone
(Wang et al., 2002; Fan et al., 2005). These problems require the use of an inte-
grated approach that includes agronomic water-saving techniques, and appropriate
management practices (Huang et al., 2003; Yu et al., 2011). The use of water absorb-
ing polymers (i.e., hydrogels) or superabsorbent polymers (SAPs) such as polyacry-
lates cross-linked with polyacrylamides (PAM) can effectively improve the top soil’s
ability to store water available for plant growth and production (Buchholz, 1998;
Burke et al., 2010; Yu et al., 2011), and reduce seepage of water, and fertilizer and
heavy metal leaching down the soil profile (Lentz, 2007; Qu and Varennes, 2009).
Mixing SAPs with soils has been found to (i) decrease soil bulk density (similar
to organic matter function) and penetration resistance, (ii) increase soil aggregation,
porosity, aeration and water retention capacity (Huttermann et al., 1999; Akhter et
al., 2004; Busscher et al., 2009; Bai et al., 2010; Han et al., 2010), (iii) decrease soil
saturated hydraulic conductivity and drainage (Abedi-Koupai et al., 2008; Andry et
al., 2009; Bhardwaj et al., 2007), and (iv) serve as a source of slow release of nutri-
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 81:889–901
doi:10.2136/sssaj2016.07.0231
Received 25 July 2016.
Accepted 15 Mar. 2017.
*Corresponding author (jianyu192005@aliyun.com).
© Soil Science Society of America. This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Soil Science Society of America Journal
ents, and reduce plant sensitivity to soil salinity (Liu et al., 2006;
Teodorescu et al., 2009; Dorraji et al., 2010; Qu and Varennes,
2009). The application of SAP increased soil water content at
field capacity and at permanent wilting point, which may lead to
a considerable increase in available water content in soils of dif-
ferent texture used under various crops’ management (Karimi et
al., 2009; Agaba et al., 2010; Shahid et al., 2012; Banedjschafie
and Durner, 2015; Montesano et al., 2015). This increase in the
content of plant available water can, under conditions of climate
change, mitigate abiotic stress (plant water shortage, high tem-
perature and salinity stress); it could thus enable longer intervals
between consecutive irrigations, and improve plant growth rate
and performance (El-Hady et al., 1981; Baker, 1991; Silberbush et
al., 1993; Singh, 1998; Hüttermann et al., 1999; Viero et al., 2002;
Han et al., 2005; Beniwal et al., 2010).
However, SAPs as soil additives have not been widely used
on field-scale in agriculture, possibly because of the uncertainty
regarding (i) the high cost of the SAPs, (ii) the effects of applying
SAPs on water availability and crop yields (Kim and Nadarajah,
2008; Bhardwaj et al., 2009; Yu et al., 2011; Langaroodi et al.,
2013), and (iii) SAP longevity in soils with respect to its water re-
tention ability (Sivapalan, 2006; Lentz, 2007; Busscher et al., 2009;
Han et al., 2010; Yu et al., 2012). Some studies have shown that
addition of SAPs reduces the sensitivity of plants to water short-
age and increases crop production (Silberbush et al., 1993; Singh,
1998; Viero et al., 2002; Han et al., 2005) or at least enhances
plant growth at the early stages of production (Frantz et al., 2005).
Conversely, other studies have either reported no saving of water
and effects on wilting point (Ingram and Yeager, 1987; Chatzoudis
and Rigas, 1999), or that there were detrimental effects on plant
survival and yield (Sarvaš et al., 2007; Han et al., 2010).
These inconsistent results could be ascribed to a variation
in soil and SAP properties, and the specific conditions during
the experiments, such as wetting-drying intensity, type of SAP
and SAP particle size, irrigation water quality (level of salinity
and the composition of the ions present) and crop species ( James
and Richard, 1986; Wang and Gregg, 1989; Salem et al., 1991;
Bakass et al., 2000; Koupai et al., 2008; Xie et al., 2009; Bai et al.,
2013; Langaroodi et al., 2013).
The studies on the effects of SAP concentration on soil wa-
ter status and crops have also yielded varying results. Akhter et al.
(2004) reported that plant available water increased with the in-
crease in SAP concentration (0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3%). Seed germina-
tion of chickpea was higher with 0.2% SAP addition, but wheat and
barley were not affected by the treatments (Akhter et al., 2004). In
a sandy loam, increasing SAP concentration from 0 to 0.4% signifi-
cantly increased its porosity and reduced its hydraulic conductivity
relative to the control, but led to a remarkable increase in moisture
content and plant-available water, and enhanced wheat seed germi-
nation and seedling growth (Shahid et al., 2012). Keshavars et al.
(2012) noted that application of SAP (0–0.4%) compensated for
the negative effects of drought stress of pearl millet, especially in
high polymer application rates for all studied traits (e.g., four SAP
concentration and four irrigation levels). A few other studies also re-
890 Soil Science Society of America Journal
ported favorable effects of increasing SAP concentration (0–0.3%)
on soil moisture and crop growth indices (Bai et al., 2010; Nazarli
et al., 2010; Malekian et al., 2012). Recently, Banedjschafie and
Durner (2015) clearly showed for a sandy medium that addition of
0.2, 0.6 or 1% SAP increased plant available water (determined as
the difference in water content between field capacity and wilting
point) from 0.3% in the control to 3.7, 12.2 or 17.7%, respectively.
The amount of water being absorbed by SAPs is affected by the
soil matrix and SAP grain size. Bhardwaj et al. (2007) investigated
the effect of three application rates (0.5, 2.5 and 5.0 g kg-1) on water
retained by SAPs in soil–SAP mixtures and found that much less
water was retained in the mixtures compared with that under free
swelling of the SAP. With increasing SAP application rate, more
water was absorbed by the mixture (Bhardwaj et al., 2007) due to
the increased number of SAP grains in the mixture that enhanced
the pushing ability of the swelling grains so as to gain more space in
the soil matrix and thus absorb more water. Yu et al. (2011) noted
that the addition of a small amount of SAP to soils (5 g kg-1 soil)
was more effective in increasing water holding capacity of sandy
soils than in soils with high clay content. Confinement by the soil
particles was suggested as the dominant factor that controlled the
amount of water absorbed by these SAPs at the initial stage of wet-
ting (Yu et al., 2011). The observed subsequent reduction in the
amount of water was ascribed to a decrease in the swelling of the
SAPs imposed on by the gradual replacement of Na or K cations that
was adsorbed on the SAPs, with Ca and Mg cations released from
the exchange complex of the soil and CaCO3 (Yu et al., 2011).
The ability of SAP-amended soils to retain absorbed water
under evaporative conditions is an additional important aspect
when evaluating the contribution of SAPs to soil water balance,
crop development, abiotic stress tolerance and management of ir-
rigation scheduling. Yu et al. (2012) observed that addition of a
small amount (5 g kg-1 soil) of SAP to soils was very effective in
increasing the amount of water retained and extending the first
stage of evaporation (i.e., the stage where evaporation is controlled
by both external and soil-surface conditions) compared to the
quantity of water retained by the soils alone. The rate at which
the soil–SAP mixtures dried was much slower than that of these
SAPs in SAP only systems. This observation was associated with
the existence of a limited hydraulic gradient that drives water for
evaporation in these soil–SAP mixtures that ultimately reduced
evaporation from both SAP and soil particles (Yu et al., 2012).
The effects of SAP amount and type, soil properties and their
interactions on water retention under evaporative conditions, criti-
cal for its effective field-scale use in agriculture, are not well un-
derstood. It is hypothesized that water absorption and retention
by SAP in a soil–SAP mixture (i) does not depend solely on the
amount of SAP added, but is dictated by soil properties, SAP type
and concentration, and their interaction, and (ii) these interactions
may affect the hydraulic gradient among soil particles, SAP parti-
cles and the air content in the soil pores and in turn, affect the water
retention ability of each of the two components in the SAP–soil
mixtures under evaporative conditions. Consequently, the objec-
tives of this study were to examine the effects of soil type (soil tex-
ture), amount of SAP application (concentration), SAP properties

0.54
0.55
2.17
0.48
1.71
OM#
(particles size and chemical composition) and their interactions on

%
the absorption and retention of water by SAPs in soil–SAP mix-
tures under different drying conditions (drying time).

pH

8.5
8.5
7.2
8.0
7.3
Materials and Methods
Soils

cmolc kg-1
We studied five soils (representing four different soil types,

Ca+Mg

5.86
6.93
7.26

8.58
20.0
Shi et al., 2006) taken from the cultivated layer (0–250 mm) of
arable fields from five sites in Inner Mongolia, China (Table 1).
Samples from a loamy sand (Typic Ustochrepts) from Heling

EPP¶

8.39
0.25

0.17
6.84
11.4
County (40°20´ N, 111°52´ E), another loamy sand (Typic
Calciborolls) from Chayou Zhong County (41°6´ N, 111°55´
E), a sandy loam (Oxyaquic Ustifiuvents) from Dengkou County

4.42
ESP§
(40°13´ N, 107°05´ E), a sandy clay loam (Typic Calcic Ustalfs)

19.9

22.0
2.3
17.9
%
from Zhungeer County in Loess Plateau (39°16´ N, 110°5´ E),
and a loamy clay (Fluventic Ustochrepts Aeric Endoaquepts)

CaCO3
from Hangjinhou County (40°55´ N, 107°09´ E), were used.

2.77
2.85

4.64
7.20
13.8
Hereafter, the two loamy sands are referred to by county of ori-
gin as “loamy sand-Heling” and “loamy sand-Chayou Zhong”.

cmolc kg-1
The soils were characterized for particle size distribution

CEC‡

9.89
8.75
11.38
16.15
12.86
using the hydrometer method (Gee and Bauder, 1986), cation
exchange capacity by sodium acetate (Rhoades, 1982), exchange-
able cations by ammonium acetate (Thomas, 1982), calcium car-
—————— %——————
Clay

7.5
12.5
18.5
25.0
34.5
bonate content using the volumetric calcimeter method (Nelson,
Particle size distribution

1982), organic matter content by wet combustion (Nelson and

# OM, organic matter (calculated by multiplying the organic carbon content by a conversion factor of 1.724).
Sommers, 1996), and pH in a 1:1 soil to water extract. The re-
sults are presented in Table 1.
Silt

13.6
2.5
20.3
22.5
Superabsorbents 35.6
Four non-degradable SAPs were studied: WOTE (Changan
Sand

78.9
85.0
61.2
52.5
29.9

Group Limited Corporation, Dongying, Shandong Province,

China), GNKH (Boya Limited Corporation, Tangshan, Hebei
Fluventic Ustochrepts Aeric Endoaquepts
† Soil type is according to the US soil classification system based on soil texture.

Province, China), and BJ-2101M and BJ-2101S (Beijing Hanli

Table 1. Some physical and chemical properties of the soils studied.

Polywater New Technology Co., Ltd). Some properties of the

polymers are given in Table 2. The polymers differ in their bead size
and/or the type of the adsorbed cation (K or Na). Furthermore,
Classification

except for the WOTE polymer, all other polymers consist only of
Oxyaquic Ustifiuvents

a synthesis of different ratios of acrylamide and acrylic salt. The

Typic Calcic Ustalfs

‡ CEC, cation exchange capacity; Ca+Mg is soluble extract.

Loamy sand-Chayou Zhong CHYZQ Typic Calciborolls
Typic Ustochrepts

WOTE consists of a negatively charged acrylic-acrylamide poly-

mer synthesized with attapulgite. Various clay minerals, and espe-
cially attapulgite, are incorporated in SAPs to reduce production
cost, and also to improve the properties (e.g., swelling ability, gel
strength, mechanical and thermal stability) of the SAPs (Li et al.,
¶ EPP, exchangeable Potassium percent.

2004, 2005; Zhang et al., 2007). Moreover, it has been reported

§ ESP, exchangeable Sodium percent.
ZHGER
Site

HJHQ

that, compared with other clay minerals, such as kaolinite or ver-

DK
HL

miculite, attapulgite-based superabsorbent composite is more

effective in absorbing high levels of water in systems containing
univalent cations (Li et al., 2004, 2005; Zhang et al., 2007). Prior
to using the SAPs, the samples were dried in an oven at 60°C for
Loamy sand-Heling

Sandy clay loam

3 h to obtain ~ 95% active ingredients and only ~5% water.

Sandy loam

Clay loam
Soil type†

dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj 891
Table 2. Some physical and chemical properties of the superabsorbent polymers (SAP).
Superabsorbent polymer Composition
WOTE 15% acrylic + 85% acrylamide (65%) + attapulgite (35%)
GNKH 60% acrylic + 40% acrylamide
BJ-2101M 15% acrylic + 85% acrylamide
BJ-2101S 15% acrylic + 85% acrylamide
Water Absorption and Release Measurements
Samples of the soils were crushed to pass through a 2-mm
sieve. We studied (i) 0.1, 0.5, 1.0 or 2.0 g of pure SAP, (ii) soil–
SAP mixture where 100 g soil samples were mixed with 0.1, 0.5,
1.0 or 2.0 g of SAP, and (iii) soil samples with no addition of poly-
mer which served as the control treatments. This range of SAP
concentrations (0.1–2.0% by weight) was selected because it is
anticipated to be used in the field. Soil samples (100 g), pure SAP
samples and the soil–SAP mixtures were put respectively in nylon
bags (16.5 by 8 cm with a volume of 829 mL) weighing 5.4 ± 0.1
g. These nylon bags are permeable to water and salt, but not to the
soil and the SAP grains (Isik and Kis, 2004; Huang and Li, 2005).
Water absorption and the kinetics of water release were stud-
ied as follows. Three bags with the same soil, SAP or soil–SAP
mixture (serving as replicates) were placed in a container filled
with 2000 mL of tap water for 15 min. Wetting for 15 min was
chosen based on the results of Yu et al. (2011), who observed that
after 15 to 20 min of wetting, water absorbed by three of our SAPs
(WOTE, GNKH, and BJ-2101S) in soil–SAP mixtures starts to
decrease, presumably because of cations exchange between tap wa-
ter or the soil and the SAP. Hence, to (i) avoid artifacts because
of cation exchange phenomena, and (ii) maintain identical experi-
mental conditions, we have kept saturation time to 15 min for all
SAPs and systems (soils only, SAPs only, and soil–SAP mixtures),
while knowingly taking the risk that not all the SAPs may reach
complete saturation at the specified wetting period.
The tap water used had an electrical conductivity (EC)
of 0.50 dS m-1 and a sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) of
Fig. 1. Quantity of water retained by the soils during 10 h of drying.
Bars indicate two standard deviations.
892 Soil Science Society of America Journal
Bead size Adsorbed cation
mm mmolc g-1
0.4–1.5 K, 2.81
0.5–1.0 Na, 7.37
3–4 Na, 2.13
0.2–0.5 Na, 1.85
~2 (mmolc L-1)0.5. This concentration and composition of
electrolytes in the tap water was used to prevent clay dispersion
(Shainberg and Letey, 1984), and to assure that no clay colloids
could move through the nylon bag. Thus, the recorded changes in
weight of the bags were considered to be due to changes in water
absorption by the SAP and/or the soil only. After 15 min of im-
mersion in tap water, the bags were taken out, allowed to drain
for 3 min, weighed and then put into an oven at 60°C for drying
(e.g., as in Yu et al., 2011). Thereafter, every hour, for 10 h, the
bags were weighed. The amount of water retained by the soil, SAP
or soil–SAP mixtures for each drying period was then calculated.
Statistical Analysis
All the treatments in each of the experiments were conducted
in three replicates. The effects of (i) SAP type, concentration, time
of drying and their interactions, (ii) soil type, time of drying and
their interaction, and (iii) soil–SAP mixture (i.e., soil, SAP and
time and their interaction), on the amount of water retained were
evaluated via a repeated measures analysis using the MIXED pro-
cedure of the SAS statistical software (SAS Institute, 1995). The
correlation structure for the repeated measures factor, time, was
modeled as first order autoregressive. Mean separation of signifi-
cance between treatments (or their interactions) were made using
Tukey HSD test. Moreover, to quantitatively analyze the interac-
tion between SAP concentration and soil properties, and between
SAP concentration and SAPs’ properties on water retaining ability
of the SAPs in the soil–SAP mixtures, average water absorbed by
four SAPs in one soil or by one SAP in five soils and standard devia-
tion for each value were used. Regression analyses were also made
to understand the characteristics of the changes of water retained
by the soil–SAP mixtures during the drying time, and hence the
contribution of soil and SAP properties to water retention.
Results and discussion
Results of a multifactor ANOVA (SAS Institute, 1995)
(Supplemental Table S1) showed that the effects of the main fac-
tors (soil type, SAP type, SAP concentration and drying time), as
well as most of their interactions, on water absorption and reten-
tion were highly significant (P < 0.001).
Soils
Drying of the soils resulted in a common two-stage drying
curve (Fig. 1). The first stage, that took place during the initial
3 to 5 h (depending on soil type) of drying, was a constant rate
stage during which water release is controlled by external and
soil-surface conditions. The second stage (after >4 h of drying)
was a falling rate diffusion-controlled drying process at which with drying time, and to exhibit an increase in the quantity of water
the evaporation proceeds at a rate ever lower than the evapora- absorbed by all three SAPs (but GNKH was exceptional) with an
tive demand (Hillel, 1971). increase in their amount (0 to 2%) during the first 1 to 2 h of drying
The results of the water retained by the soils during 10 h of (Fig. 2). Furthermore, a much narrower range of drying curves was
drying indicated that the five soils can be divided into two dis- noted for the SAP with the largest bead size (BJ-2101M) compared
tinct groups, one contained the two loamy sands (7.5 and 12.5% with the SAPs with the smaller bead sizes (Fig. 2). A decrease in the
clay) and the second contained the sandy loam, sandy clay loam, quantity of water absorbed by all four SAPs with an increase in their
and clay loam (18.5, 25, and 34.5% clay, respectively) (Fig. 1). amount during 1 to 2 h drying was noted (Fig. 2), which could prob-
The initial level of water absorbed (i.e., at time 0 h of drying) by ably be ascribed to the bonding of SAP particles during their swell-
the loamy sands was ~0.35 g g-1 soil, while for the other three ing. The bonding mechanism prohibits some particle free swelling
soils it was, as expected, significantly higher (~0.53 g g-1 soil). and thus decreases the water absorption by SAPs. With the increase
After 10 h of drying, all the soils were nearly dry. However, after in SAP amount in a bag, the number of SAP particles, and thus the
5 h of drying, water content in the loamy sands was 0.01 and particle bonding increases which leads to the greater reduction in
in the three finer-textured soils 0.09 to 0.13 g g -1 soil (Fig. 1). water absorption (Turan and Caykara, 2007). However, the impact
These results indicate that, in relative terms, the difference in the of SAP amount on water retention by four SAPs was reversed after
amount of water absorbed between the two groups of soils at 0 h 2 h drying and water retained by the SAPs tended to increase with
of drying was smaller than the differences in the amount of water an increase in SAP amount in a bag after 10 h of drying, especially in
retained by the two groups of soils after 5 h of drying. This ob- the two SAPs (WOTE, and BJ-2101S) with the smaller-size beads,
servation clearly signifies that the water holding capacity of the which has moderate swelling capacity (water absorption rate is be-
two loamy sands was much poorer than that of the three finer- tween 74 and 129 g g-1) (Fig. 2).
textured soils; yet water retained after 10 h drying was near dry For the amount of SAP 0.1 and 0.5 g per bag, the three
conditions even for the clay loam with the highest clay percent. SAPs with the small-size beads (WOTE, GNKH and BJ-2101S)
exhibited, after 10 h of drying, a similar fraction of water loss
Superabsorbent Polymers (SAPs) to evaporation. However, for all SAP amounts, this fraction de-
Four amounts (0.1, 0.5, 1, and 2 g) of SAPs per bag were creased with the increase in SAP concentration, which became
tested for water absorbed by the pure SAPs to compare with evident especially after 10 h drying (Table 3; Fig. 2). This ob-
water absorbed by the mixtures. The initial quantity of water served decrease in the fraction of water loss to evaporation could
absorbed by the SAPs (30–171 g g-1 SAP) was more than 2 or- probably be related to the decrease in the quantity of water ab-
ders of magnitude greater than that absorbed by the soils (Fig. 2). sorption with the increase of SAP amount (Fig. 2), and to the
However, the quantity of water absorbed by the SAPs studied aforementioned suggested bonding mechanism. The latter leads
was much lower than that reported
in former studies, ~500 g g-1 of SAP
(Kazanskii and Dubrovskii, 1992;
Buchholz, 1998; Bhardwaj et al.,
2007). The lower quantity of ab-
sorbed water by our SAPs could be
ascribed to the fact that in our study
tap water with an EC of 0.50 dS m-1
was used whereas other studies used
deionized water (e.g., Bhardwaj et
al., 2007). Presence of electrolytes in
the solution is known to decrease the
absorption capacity of SAPs (Taylor
and Halfacre, 1986). In addition, the
lower water absorption in our study
could also arise from allowing only
15 min for water absorption by the
SAPs in tap water, which particu-
larly in the case of the GNKH and
BJ-2101M SAPs, may not have been
enough time to reach full saturation
(Fig. 2; Yu et al., 2011).
Water retained by the SAPs
alone tended, generally, to decrease Fig. 2. Quantity of water retained by the different SAPs during 10 h of drying. Bars indicate two standard
deviations.

dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj 893
Table 3. The fraction of water lost to evaporation out of the
water absorbed (% by weight) for the superabsorbent poly-
mers (SAPs) alone during 10 h of drying.
SAP weight, g WOTE GNKH BJ-2101S BJ-2101M
% g g–1
0.1 96.7Aa† 92.6Aab 91.3Aab 85.3Bb
0.5 75.9Bb 71.4Bb 73.5Bb 90.5Aa
1.0 49.6Cc 24.1Dd 63.6Cb 89.2Ba
2.0 21.1Dc 29.4CDb 21.5Dc 73.5Ca
† Means labeled with same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05
level. The uppercase letters reveal difference within a column (between
SAP concentration for each SAP type), and lowercase letters reveal
difference within a row (between SAP type for each SAP concentration).
to the increase in the size of the water swollen SAP particles and
thus, to the decrease in the surface area of these particles (com-
pared to smaller particles with a larger surface area) which sub-
sequently limits the sensitivity of the swollen SAP particles to
evaporation. For GNKH with highest water swelling (Fig. 2; Yu
et al., 2011), the water absorbed by the SAP reached the highest
value when the amount of the SAP increased by 1 g per bag due
to binding effect. Thus, water absorbed decreased at the initial
water absorbed when the amount is 2 g, compared with that at
the amount of 1 g. For the BJ-2101M with its large-size beads
and low initial level of water adsorption (Fig. 2), large fractions
of water loss were noted for all SAP amounts; these fractions
were significantly higher than those for the other three SAPs at
the amount of 0.5 to 2 g per bag (Table 3). The chemical compo-
sition of BJ-2101M is similar to that of BJ-2101S, but the beads
of the former are ~10 times larger (Table 2). A higher SAP con-
centration leads to a smaller average distance between the par-
ticles, thus enhancing the probability for particles binding when
these particles absorb water. Binding of the water swollen small
particles created the larger size particles, and thus to a smaller
hydraulic gradient between the particles surfaces due to a smaller
specific surface and finally to a lower water loss by evaporation.
The higher fractions of water loss for the BJ-2101M resulted
from the larger distance between adjacent particles due to the
larger bead size, leading to less particles, smaller water absorption
and less binding even at higher concentration, which ultimately
resulted in the lack of notable differences in the water retained by
the SAP at different amounts (Table 3; Fig. 2).
Soil–SAP Mixtures
The drying curves for the soil–SAP mixtures showed similar
trends among the five soils studied, hence only the data for the loamy
sand-Heling are presented in Fig. 3. Water retention (Supplemental
Tables S1 and S2) by the soil–SAP mixtures increased with increase
in SAP concentration. Water retention at the beginning of the dry-
ing was ~0.58 g, 0.65 to 0.80 g, 0.78 to 1.18 g, and 1.10 to 1.60 g per
gram of the mixtures for 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0% SAP concentration
respectively (Fig. 3). Following 10 h of drying, water retention by
soils alone was closed to zero while these ranges (for all, but 0.1%)
for the mixtures ranged between ~0.50 and 0.80 g per gram of the
mixtures (Fig. 3). Following major differences in the characteristics
of the curves, the data for the mixtures with addition of 0.1% SAP
894 Soil Science Society of America Journal
are discussed separately from the results obtained for the soil–SAP
mixtures with the other three SAP concentrations.
Mixtures Containing 0.1% SAP
The nature of the curves for the mixtures containing 0.1%
SAP (Fig. 3; SAP 0 and 0.1 g) resembles that observed for the
soils only treatment (Fig. 1) in that they exhibited an exponential
type decay, albeit of a more moderate slope, and positive qua-
dratic coefficient (details for the parameters of the fitted curves
are presented in Supplemental Table S2). Furthermore, the ini-
tial level of water absorbed (i.e., at time 0 h of drying) by the
soils amended by 0.1% SAP was comparable among the different
SAPs and in a range similar to that absorbed by the soils alone
(0.40 to 0.60 g of water per gram of soil or soil–SAP mixture).
However, unlike the case of the soils alone where after 10 h of
drying the soils were nearly dry (Fig. 3), in the soil–SAP mix-
tures the amount of water retained for all the SAPs was in the
range of 0.05 to 0.10 g per gram of the mixture (Fig. 3). These
observations suggest that, in general, the impact of addition of
0.1% SAP to the soils studied on the initial absorption of water
was negligible while the SAPs impact on the quantity of water re-
tained during drying was of some importance in all types of soils.
Mixtures Containing 0.5, 1, and 2% SAP
Unlike the drying curves for the soils only and the soil–SAP
mixtures with 0.1% SAP, the drying curves for the other three SAP
concentrations tended to demonstrate a linear type decay during
the 10 h drying (Fig. 3: SAP 0.5, 1, and 2 g), with the rate of the
decay generally increasing with the increase in SAP concentration,
and the R2 for all linear function reached 0.99 (Supplemental
Table S2). This linear decay of the drying curves indicated the ab-
sence of the falling rate diffusion-controlled drying process that
had been observed in the drying process of the soils only (Fig. 1).
Our observation further suggests that SAPs mixed with the soils at
these three concentrations prolonged the first stage of the evapora-
tion process; in the soils alone it lasted only 4 to 5 h, while in the
soil–SAP mixtures the first stage lasted 10 h. It is evident that for
these SAP concentrations, the presence of SAPs in the mixtures
resulted in a water content in the mixture throughout the drying
period that was sufficiently high and above the threshold value
below which diffusion is dictating the manner by which drying is
progressing. Our data (Fig. 3) further suggest that, based on the
findings of Banedjschafie and Durner (2015), the higher water
content in the soil–SAP mixtures compared with the soil alone
combined with the linear decay of the drying curves for the soil–
SAP mixtures, have a substantial contribution to plant available
water over that provided by the soil alone.
Water content in the soil–SAP mixtures with the 0.5, 1, and
2% SAP was much higher than that observed for the respective soils
only treatment throughout the entire drying curve (Fig. 3), indicat-
ing the contribution of the SAP to the absorption and retention
of water by the mixtures. Yu et al. (2012) suggested that the differ-
ences in water release between soil–SAP mixtures and the soil only
systems could be related to the balance between two affecting op-
posing mechanisms. The presence of water containing soil particles
that are surrounded by the SAP grains may reduce the hydraulic gra-
dient difference between soil particles and the swollen SAP. This, in
turn, results in slower water evaporation rate from each component
in the soil–SAP mixtures compared with a system containing soil
particles alone. However, contrary to the former mechanism, a pos-
sible gradual replacement of Na or K cations adsorbed on the SAPs
with Ca and Mg cations released from the exchange complex of the
soil and/or from soil-CaCO3 dissolution may take place (Yu et al.,
2011). This process of replacement renders the SAPs a lower level
of swelling and leads to enhanced release of water from the SAPs,
which, in turn, becomes available for evaporation. Our observation
of the increase in soil water holding capacity (in the presence of the
SAP relative to the control), suggests that in these soil–SAP mix-
tures, the first mechanism (confinement) predominated due to the
presence of a large number of grains of the SAPs that yield a large
surface area available for contact between the SAP grains and the
soil particles, and thus to a smaller loss of water to evaporation. It
should be noted that unlike the curve of BJ-2101M alone, where no
change in water retention when SAP concentration increased from
0.1 to 1% (Fig. 2) was noted, water retained by the BJ-2101M–soil
mixtures presented significant increases when SAP concentration
increased from 0.1 to 1% (Fig. 3). The particles of SAPs with small-
er or larger bead size were separated by soil particles, which reduce
binding between SAPs particles, thus water retention by the SAP
increased when SAP concentration increased. The BJ-2101M with
the larger bead size significantly decreased the rate of water loss
compared with the other three SAPs of smaller bead sizes (Fig. 3;
Supplemental Table S2) as can be seen from the slope of curves of
BJ-2101M which was smaller than that of the other three SAPs
SAP concentration >0.5%. However, the actual amount of water
retained by the BJ-2101M–soil mixtures was smaller compared
with that of the other soil–SAP mixtures after 10 h drying (Fig. 3).
This phenomenon was ascribed to the lower water absorption of
the BJ-2101M–soil mixtures at the initial stage of drying due to the
lower water absorption rate and longer saturation time commonly
observed for SAP with large bead size (Yu et al., 2011).
Although there are some difference in determination of water
retention of soil–SAP mixtures recent studies showed that addition
of SAPs to soils improves water availability to plants by increasing
water content at field capacity and wilting point (Agaba et. al.,
2010; Shahid et al., 2012; Montesano et al., 2015). Our results (Fig.
3) further suggest that SAPs mixed with soils significantly increased
water content compared with the soil alone during the entire evapo-

Fig. 3. Water content (g water per gram of the mixture [SAP + soil]) of the soil–SAP mixtures for the loamy sand-Heling soil as a function of drying
time. SAP application rate (0.0 = soil only, 0.1, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 g) corresponds to SAP concentration of 0, 0.1, 0.5, 1.0 and 2%, respectively. Bars
indicate two standard deviations.

dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj 895
ration process for SAP concentrations of 0.5, 1, and 2%. Moreover,
SAP addition to soils at these three concentrations significantly
prolonged the first stage of the evaporation process of the soil–SAP
mixtures that could be seen from the fitted regression equations in-
dicating linear relationships between the amount of water retained
by the soil–SAP mixtures and drying time for five soils and four
SAPs during 10 h drying (Supplemental Table S2), thus dominat-
ing the amount of water available to the plants. However, the in-
crease in water availability to plants depends on soil properties, SAP
concentration and SAP type (e.g., SAP particle size).
Interactions between Soil Type
and SAP Concentration
The interaction between soil type and SAP concentration
regarding water retention is associated with the water absorbed
by the mixtures and by SAPs only in the mixtures. Thus the dis-
cussions on these two aspects are separated.
Water Absorbed by the Mixtures
Large differences in the initial water absorbed by the differ-
ent soil–SAP mixtures at 0 h of drying were noted (Fig. 3). To
evaluate the ability of the soil–SAP mixtures to absorb and re-
tain water, and the interactions between soil type and SAP con-
centration on the aforementioned ability, two criteria were used.
(i) The degree of water absorbed (WA) by the soil–SAP
mixtures (expressed in terms of weight percentage), that
was calculated as follows:
WA = L/M x 100 [1]
where L is the weight of water in the mixture at a given drying
time (calculated as the difference between the weight of wet
soil–SAP mixtures and the weight of the dry soil [100 g] and the
dry SAP for a given concentration [0.1, 0.5, 1 or 2 g]); M is the
weight of dry soil and dry SAP.
(ii) The normalized fraction of water retained after 5 h of
drying (NFWR), which was calculated as follows:
NFWR = A/B[2]
where A is the ratio of the average quantity of water retained after 5
h by the four SAPs mixed with a given soil to the average quantity of
water retained at 0 h of drying by the four SAPs mixed with the same
soil; and B is the ratio of the quantity of water retained by the same
soil alone after 5 h of drying to the quantity of water retained at 0 h
of drying by that soil. We calculated the NFWR 5 h drying because
for sandy soils B was approaching zero after 5 h drying.
In Tables 4 and 5, only data for the loamy sand-Heling and
loamy clay were presented because the two sandy soils and the three
clay soils exhibited similar results. The degree of WA by the mixtures
increased with SAP concentration. The effect of SAP concentration
on WA increased with drying time for SAP concentration ³0.5%.
The differences in WA values in the loamy sand-Heling were 2 fold
after 5 h drying and 4 to 7 fold after 10 h drying for the four SAPs
(Table 4). Similar trends were noted in the loamy clay (Table 5).
All the NFWR values were >1 (Table 6) indicating that the
ability of the soil–SAP mixtures to retain water after 5 h of drying
relative to the initial water content (i.e., at 0 h of drying) was greater
than that of the soils alone. The NFWR values seemed to be affected
by soil clay content and SAP concentration (Table 6). The NFWR
decreased from 6 to 1.6 with the increase in clay content from 7.5%
(loamy sand-Heling) to 34.5% (loamy clay) at 0.1% SAP concen-
tration; a similar increase in clay content yielded a greater decrease,
from 14 to 2.3, at 2% SAP concentration. Furthermore, the effect of
increasing in SAP concentration on the NFWR values was larger in
the coarse textured soils than in the fine textured soils. The NFWR
values increased from 6 to 12–14 for two loamy sands while for

Table 4. The degree of water absorbed (WA, % by weight) by Table 5. The degree of water absorbed (WA, % by weight) by
the soil–superabsorbent polymer (SAP) mixtures for the loamy the soil–superabsorbent polymer (SAP) mixtures for the loamy
sand-Heling soil. clay soil.
Time, SAP concentration, % Time, SAP concentration, %
h SAP 0.1 0.5 1 2 h SAP 0.1 0.5 1 2
0 WOTE 44.07Bd† 68.51Cc 91.57Bb 132.2Ba 0 WOTE 58.83Bd† 74.02ABc 91.18Cb 126.87Aa
GNKH 47.28Ad 73.06BCc 94.9Bb 141.28Ba GNKH 62.43Ad 78.66Ac 123.59Ab 135.61Aa
BJ-2101S 45.44Bd 79.72Ac 109.99Ab 157.41Aa BJ-2101S 58.71Bd 77.11Ac 108.82Bb 133.59Aa
BJ-2010M 43.57Bd 64.17Cc 78.69Cb 109.01Da BJ-2010M 58.29Bd 70.08Bc 85.25Cb 113.86Ba
5 WOTE 5.9Dd 32.97Ec 48.56Fb 73.36Fa 5 WOTE 24.62Dd 36.22Dc 54.7Eb 79.24Ea
GNKH 10.11Cd 33.53Ec 57.52Eb 96.26Ea GNKH 25.7CDd 41.6CDc 77.05Db 90.8CDa
BJ-2101S 9.38Cd 42.64Dc 70.81Db 115.13Ca BJ-2101S 25.14Dd 44.7Cc 70.53Db 95.36Ca
BJ-2010M 10.74Cd 34.04Ec 51.05EFb 78.44Fa BJ-2010M 28.07Cd 40.9CDc 55.77Eb 81.52Da
10 WOTE 0.01Gd 6.44Gc 20.4Ib 46.17Ha 10 WOTE 5.22Fd 12.15Fc 24.51Gb 41.42Ha
GNKH 0.04EFd 12.75Fc 32.69Hb 65.31Fa GNKH 6.44EFd 17.85EFc 43.8Fb 56.48FGa
BJ-2101S 0.38Ed 16.08Fc 42.42Gb 85.33Ea BJ-2101S 5.68Fd 19.7Ec 39.54Fb 64.47Fa
BJ-2010M 0.06EFd 14.31Fc 32.65Hb 55.72Ga BJ-2010M 8.63Ed 20.01Ec 34.2FGb 54.48Ga
† Means labeled with same letter are not significantly different at P < † Means labeled with same letter are not significantly different at P <
0.05 level. For each drying time uppercase letters reveal difference 0.05 level. For each drying time uppercase letters reveal difference
within a column (between SAP type for each SAP concentration), within a column (between SAP type for each SAP concentration),
and lowercase letters reveal difference within a row (between SAP and lowercase letters reveal difference within a row (between SAP
concentration for each SAP type). concentration for each SAP type).

896 Soil Science Society of America Journal

Table 6. The normalized fraction of water retained (NFWR)
for the five soils studied. The NFWR was calculated as the
ratio of the average water retained after 5 h by the four super-
absorbent polymers (SAPs) mixed with a given soil to the aver-
age quantity of water retained at 0 h of drying for the same
soil–SAP mixtures, normalized to the ratio of the quantity of
water retained by the same soil alone after 5 h of drying to the
quantity of water retained at 0 h of drying by that soil.
SAP concentration, %
Soils 0.1 0.5 1.0 2.0
Loamy sand-Heling 5.9Ad† 11.2Ac 12.8Ab 13.8Aa
Loamy sand-Chayou Zhong 5.9Ad 9.0Bc 11.1Bb 12.2Ba
Sandy loam 1.8BCa 2.1Da 2.5Da 2.7Da
Sandy clay loam 2.3Ba 3.1CDa 3.6Ca 3.9Ca
Loamy clay 1.6Ca 1.9Da 2.2Da 2.3Da
† Means labeled with same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05
level. The uppercase letters reveal difference within a column (between
soil type for each SAP concentration), and lowercase letters reveal
difference within a row (between SAP concentration for each soil type).
the sandy loam, sand clay loam and clay loam the values increased
from 1.6–2.3 to 2.3–3.9 (Table 6). The WA values showed similar
trends whereby an increasing SAP concentration resulted in larger
differences in WA in the loamy sand-Heling than that of loamy
clay (Tables 4 and 5). The interaction between soil type and SAP
concentration resulting in higher NFWR values and to larger incre-
ments for the coarse-textured soils compared with the fine-textured
ones could be ascribed to (i) larger water absorption due to larger
size of soil pores in the coarse textured soils, and (ii) the potential
for replacing of K and Na ions on SAP particles by Ca and Mg ions
originating from the soils in the soils with higher clay content, which
leads to reduced water adsorption and retention by the SAPs in the
mixtures (Yu et al., 2011). Increasing SAP concentration enhanced
the aforementioned impact because it resulted in more water swol-
len SAP particles surrounding soil particles and increasing the capac-
ity for water retention by the soil–SAP mixtures.
 ater Retained by the SAPs in the
W much smaller, 32 to 85 g g-1 (Tables 7–10). Evidently, the pres-
Soil–SAP Mixtures
The data in Tables 4 and 5 present the interaction between SAP
type and concentration on the water retaining ability of the soil–SAP
Table 8. The specific water retained (SWR, g g–1) by GNKH in
the soil–superabsorbent polymer (SAP) mixtures at 0, 5, and
10 h drying. The SWR was calculated as the ratio of the water
absorbed by the SAP in the soil–SAP mixture to the dry weight
of the SAP in the mixture.
Time, SAP concentration, %
h Soils 0.1 0.5 1 2
0 Loamy sand-Heling 76.17BCa† 68.17Aab 57.01Bbc 53.14Ac
Loamy clay 85.23Ba 47.31Bc 71.57Ab 42.86Cc
5 Loamy sand-Heling 95.3Ba 66.95Ab 58.37Bb 49.74Bb
Loamy clay 133.37Aa 58.37ABbc 66.14ABb 40.79Cc
10 Loamy sand-Heling 5.17Db 27.81Ca 34.6Da 34.61Da
Loamy clay 69.37Ca 37.17Cc 45.44Cb 29.73Ec
† Means labeled with same letter are not significantly different at P <
0.05 level. For each drying time uppercase letters reveal difference
within a column (between soil type for each SAP concentration),
and lowercase letters reveal difference within a row (between SAP
concentration for each soil type).
mixtures. It is also of interest to evaluate the specific amount of water
retained (SWR, g g–1) by a unit weight of SAP in the soil–SAP mix-
ture at a given time of drying which was calculated as follows:
SWR = (D-b)/C[3]
where D is the weight of the soil–SAP and the water absorbed by the
mixture (g), b is the weight of a soil only (g) with the water absorbed
by it, and C is the dry weight of SAP in the soil–SAP mixture (g).
The specific amounts of water retained by the four SAPs in
the soil–SAP mixtures for the loamy sand-Heling and the loamy
clay amended with four SAP concentrations at 0 and after 5 and
10 h of drying are presented in Tables 7–10, respectively (only data
for these two soils are presented because the two sandy soils and
the three clay soils yielded similar results). The specific amount of
water retained by the SAPs alone in free swelling ranged between
30 and 171 g g-1 at 0 h of drying (Fig. 2) while the SWR by the
SAPs in the soil–SAP mixtures at 0 h of drying was, as expected
ence of a soil matrix limited SAP swelling and thus water absorp-
tion by the SAPs in the mixtures was restricted (Bhardwaj et al.,
2007; Yu et al., 2011). However, unlike the case of the soil–SAP

Table 7. The specific water retained (SWR, g g–1) by WOTE in Table 9. The specific water retained (SWR, g g–1) by BJ-2101S
the soil–superabsorbent polymers (SAP) mixtures at 0, 5, and in the soil–superabsorbent polymer (SAP) mixtures at 0, 5,
10 h drying. The SWR was calculated as the ratio of the water and 10 h drying. The SWR was calculated as the ratio of the
absorbed by the SAP in the soil–SAP mixture to the dry weight water absorbed by the SAP in the soil–SAP mixture to the dry
of the SAP in the mixture. weight of the SAP in the mixture.
Time, SAP concentration, % Time, SAP concentration, %
h Soils 0.1 0.5 1 2 h Soils 0.1 0.5 1 2
0 Loamy sand-Heling 44.2Cb† 57.94Ba 53.68Aab 48.5Aab 0 Loamy sand-Heling 56.83Cc† 81.14Aa 72.19ABb 61.33Ac
Loamy clay 46.57Ca 39.76Ba 37.97Ca 38.42Ba Loamy clay 49Ca 46.71Ca 59.23Ba 43.40Bb
5 Loamy sand-Heling 53.37Ba 64.74Aa 49.36ABa 38.05Bb 5 Loamy sand-Heling 87.1Ba 84.85Aa 71.74ABb 59.33ABc
Loamy clay 119.97Aa 46.94Bb 42.7Bb 34.92Bb Loamy clay 128.8Aa 64.72Ba 96.51Aa 61.82Aa
10 Loamy sand-Heling 0.33Dc 14.05Cb 22.23Da 24.85Ca 10 Loamy sand-Heling 2.6Dc 34.09Db 44.38Ca 44.79Ba
Loamy clay 54.6Ba 24.33Cb 25.09Db 22.07Cb Loamy clay 62.83BCa 40.23Ca 72.57ABa 49.75Ba
† Means labeled with same letter are not significantly different at P < † Means labeled with same letter are not significantly different at P <
0.05 level. For each drying time uppercase letters reveal difference 0.05 level. For each drying time uppercase letters reveal difference
within a column (between soil type for each SAP concentration), within a column (between soil type for each SAP concentration),
and lowercase letters reveal difference within a row (between SAP and lowercase letters reveal difference within a row (between SAP
concentration for each soil type). concentration for each soil type).

dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj 897
mixtures where water retention increased with the increase in
SAP concentrations (Fig. 3), SWR by the SAPs in the soil–SAP
mixtures exhibited an inconsistent behavior with change in SAP
concentration and duration of drying. At 0 h, no specific trend
could have been identified with respect to changes in the SWR
with the increase in SAP concentration from 0.1 to 2% for all
SAPs. However, after 5 h of drying, a significant decrease in the
SWR by the SAPs with the increase in SAP concentration, was
generally noted (Tables 7–10), which was opposite to the trend
noted in the case of the SAP only system (Table 3) where the frac-
tion of water lost to evaporation decreased with the increase in
SAP concentration. This implies that when the SAP is placed in
a swelling restricting medium such as soil, the SWR of the SAP
is inversely related to the number of SAP particles in the system.
The limited soil matric pores resulted in sharing smaller spaces by
singular particles of SAP and lower swellings when concentration
increased. Moreover, the SWR by SAPs in the mixtures after 5 h
of drying was higher than at 0 h, especially at the lowest concentra-
tion. Based on this finding it is postulated that during the drying
period, in addition to water loss to evaporation from the SAP and
the soil, a continued absorption of water by the SAPs from the soils
occurred, thus, further suggesting that the SAP water absorption
energy was higher than the evaporation energy (Yu et al., 2011)
before 5 h drying. The relatively high SWR levels in all the soils af-
ter 10 h of drying but for the loamy sand with SAP concentration
0.1% (Tables 7–10), further support the latter mechanism that the
particles of SAPs continued absorbing water from the soil during
the drying process prior to losing them to evaporation.
For the WA values (representing the water storage ability of
the mixtures) and NFWR values (representing the water retaining
ability of the mixtures normalized to that at 0 h drying), increas-
ing SAP concentration resulted in an increase in WA and NFWR
values (Tables 4–6), while the SWR values (water retaining ability
of SAPs in the mixtures) decreased when SAP concentration in-
creased after 5 h drying (Tables 7–10), or presented a small change
at 0 h drying and after 10 h drying when concentration increased
from 0.1 to 2%. An additional surprising result is that even after 5
h of drying, the amount of water absorbed by the SAPs (SWR) in
Table 10. The specific water retained (SWR, g g–1) by
BJ-2101M in the soil–superabsorbent polymer (SAP) mixtures
at 0, 5, and 10 h drying. The SWR was calculated as the ratio
of the water absorbed by the SAP in the soil–SAP mixture to
the dry weight of the SAP in the mixture.
Time, SAP concentration, %
h Soils 0.1 0.5 1 2
0 Loamy sand-Heling 37.33Da† 49.43Ba 40.49Ba 36.6Ba
Loamy clay 37.37Da 31.96Da 32.07Ca 31.76Ca
5 Loamy sand-Heling 99.9Ba 67.12Ab 51.7Ac 40.57Ac
Loamy clay 150.67Aa 56.47Bb 43.87Bc 36.05Bc
10 Loamy sand-Heling 5.67Ec 30.08Db 34.43Ca 29.64Cb
Loamy clay 84.8Ca 40.24Cb 34.97Cb 28.71Cb
† Means labeled with same letter are not significantly different at P <
0.05 level. For each drying time uppercase letters reveal difference
within a column (between soil type for each SAP concentration),
and lowercase letters reveal difference within a row (between SAP
concentration for each soil type).
898 Soil Science Society of America Journal
all soils was not significantly different when SAP concentration was
³0.5%, (Tables 7–10), showing that the SAPs still played a domi-
nant role in all soils when SAP concentration was ³0.5%, even after
long drying time. The results highlight the important fact that the
interaction between soil type and SAP concentration increased the
ability of water storage (in the scope of water available to plant) of
the soil–SAP mixtures, with this ability increasing with the increase
in SAP concentration (Fig. 3; Tables 4–6); however the above in-
teraction decreased the ability of water absorption by the SAPs in
the mixtures as the ability of water absorbed by SAPs in the mix-
tures decreased with SAP concentration (Tables 7–10).
The interaction between soil properties and SAP concentra-
tion regarding water absorbed by SAPs in the mixtures seemed to
also depend on drying time. No differences in SWR values were
noted among the soils for each of the four SAPs tested at SAP
concentration of 0.1% and 0 h drying (Tables 7–10). However,
after 10 h drying water retained by the SAPs in the mixtures con-
taining 0.1% SAP was significantly different between the two
soils (loamy sand-Heling and loamy clay).
Interaction between SAP Type
and SAP Concentration
To quantitatively evaluate the interaction between SAP
type and SAP concentration on water release by the SAPs in the
soil–SAP mixtures, the data for the average fraction of water loss
to evaporation (FWE) by a given SAP in five soils at different
SAP concentrations was calculated as follows:
FWE = (F-f)/F x 100 [4]
where F is the average amount of water absorbed by a given SAP
in five soils at 0 h drying, and f is the average amount of water
absorbed by a given SAP in five soils after 10 h of drying. The re-
sults obtained could be assembled into two groups according to
soil type, the first group included data for the loamy sand-Heling
and loamy sand-Chayou Zhong (Table 11) and the second group
included data for the three finer-textured soils, sandy loam, san-
dy clay loam and loamy clay (Table 12).
The results showed that generally, the average FWE for the
four SAPs was smaller in the mixtures than under free swelling
conditions (Tables 11 and 12) for concentrations of 0.1% and
Table 11. The fraction of water lost to evaporation (FWE, % by
weight) calculated for each superabsorbent polymer (SAP; aver-
age of two soils) as the ratio of the difference in the amount of
water absorbed at 0 and 10 h of drying to the amount of water
absorbed at 0 h of drying for the coarse textured soils (loamy
sand-HeLing and loamy sand-ChayouZhong).
SAP Concentration, % WOTE GNKH BJ-2101S BJ-2101M
0.1 97.0Aa† 88.4Ab 87.0Ab 71.1Ac
0.5 77.3Ba 60.3Bb 60.2Bc 35.9Bd
1 57.0Ca 39.7Cb 39.8Cb 13.7Cc
2 47.2Da 34.6Cb 29.2Db 18.9Cc
† Means labeled with same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05
level. The uppercase letters reveal difference within a column (between
SAP concentration for each SAP type), and lowercase letters reveal
difference within a row (between SAP type for each SAP concentration).
0.5%. Moreover, the change in water loss to evaporation for the BJ-
2101M with the large bead size in the mixtures was different from
that in free swelling. In free swelling and for SAP concentration
>0.5%, the fraction of water lost to evaporation by the BJ-2101M
was the largest (73.5–90.5%) among the four SAPs (Tables 11
and 12). Conversely, in the soil–SAP mixtures the BJ-2101M pre-
sented the lowest fractions (even negative values) in both group of
soils (Tables 11 and 12). The negative fractions of water loss for the
BJ-2101M in the three loamy soils at concentrations of 0.1 to 1%
or the lowest fractions in two sandy soils resulted probably from
the following two mechanisms: (i) a larger water absorption energy
(can be seen from the higher slope of the curve in Fig. 1 (Yu et al.,
2011) which indicates larger water absorption as cumulative time
increased within 0 to 90 min for the SAP with the large bead size),
than evaporation energy because of the longer saturation time and
the smaller specific area of the SAP with the large bead size, hence
resulting in an increased amount of water being absorbed; (ii) the
three loamy soils in which this phenomenon occurred have a rela-
tively high clay content, thus having a larger water retaining capacity
and the ability to supply water to satisfy higher water absorption by
the SAP with large bead size during the drying process. These two
mechanisms could lead to the continued water absorption during
the first 4 h of drying and to a larger amount of water to be retained
by the SAP with large bead size after 5 h drying compared with the
original amount of water absorbed by the SAP (at 0 h of drying).
The type of SAP had a smaller effect on water retaining
ability of the soil–SAP mixtures than SAP concentration (Fig.
3; Tables 4 and 5). Generally, water retained by the mixtures for
WOTE and BJ-2101M was lower than that for the other two
SAPs (GNKH and BJ-2101S). This resulted most likely from
lower water absorption at initial time (Fig. 3). The interaction be-
tween SAP types and concentration had significant influence in
water retaining ability of SAPs. For the two sandy loams the high-
est SAP concentration (2%) and the SAP type with large bead size
(BJ-2101M) achieved the lowest water loss of the water absorbed
(Table 11). For the three soils with the higher clay percent (sandy
loam, sand clay loam and clay loam), a similar trend was noted
(Table 12). Moreover, despite the larger water absorption by SAPs
in the mixtures at 0 h of drying for GNKH and BJ-2101S com-
pared with BJ-2101M, a much smaller differences in the amount
of water adsorbed by the SAP in the mixtures between these two
types of SAPs were noted after 10 h drying (Tables 7–10). The
aforementioned finding that water retaining efficiency relative to
its initial water absorption increases for a SAP with large bead size
(e.g., BJ-2101M) was not only due to reduction of ions replace-
ment by Ca and Mg ions in the soil, but also because of a higher
water absorption energy and a longer period of water absorption
time from soils (even after 4 h of drying), is a significant one.
Summary and Conclusions
We studied water absorption followed by water retention dur-
ing 10 h of drying by five soils differing in texture, four different
SAPs and soil–SAP mixtures containing four different SAP con-
centrations. Water absorption by the soils alone increased with an
dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj 899
Table 12. The fraction of water lost to evaporation (FWE, %
by weight) calculated for each superabsorbent polymer (SAP;
average of three soils) as the ratio of the difference in the
amount of water absorbed at 0 and 10 h of drying to the
amount of water absorbed at 0 h of drying for the fine texture
soils (sandy loam, sandy clay loam, and clay loam).
SAP Concentration, % WOTE GNKH BJ-2101S BJ-2101M
0.1 22.2Db† 34.4Ba 14.2Cc −51.2Dd
0.5 53.9Aa 37.9Ab 33.9Ab -10.2Cc
1 39.2Ca 37.0ABa 31.3ABb −4.5Bc
2 45.2Ba 29.6Bb 25.8Bb 10.7Ac
†M eans labeled with same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05
level. The uppercase letters reveal difference within a column (between
SAP concentration for each SAP type), and lowercase letters reveal
difference within a row (between SAP type for each SAP concentration)
increase in clay content. Water absorption by the SAPs decreased
with the increase in SAP amount, but during 10 h of drying, the
amount of water retained by the SAPs tended to increase with an
increase in SAP amount. Water absorption by the soil–SAP mix-
tures increased with an increase in SAP concentration, irrespective
of soil texture. The SAPs mixed with the soil significantly improved
water holding capacity, especially in the soils with low clay percent.
Moreover, the SAPs in the soil–SAP mixtures continued to absorb
water from the soils during the first 5 h of drying. The SAP with the
large-size beads (BJ-2101M) appeared to be the most effective SAP
in maintaining the smallest fraction of water loss in the soil–SAP
mixtures among the four SAPs after 10 h drying.
Our results clearly showed that SAPs mixed with soils reduce
the contribution of clay to the water retaining ability of soils even
at drying conditions. The efficiency of SAP application depended
not only on a single factor such as a soil type, SAP type and con-
centration, but also on interactions between soil type, SAP type
and concentration. These interactions showed different degrees
of improvement in SAP efficiency under different drying condi-
tions. A main advantage of adding a SAP to the soil seemed to be
its ability to absorb water from the soil during a drying period and
thus decrease water loss to evaporation and increase water avail-
ability for crop production. For agricultural practices, the type and
amount of SAP to be applied to achieve higher efficiency in pro-
viding plant available water should be specifically tailored based on
the different soil properties and the differing weather conditions.
Acknowledgments
The research was funded by the international cooperation project of China
“Using SAP combined with PAM Conditioning Technologies to Reduce
Soil Evaporation and Salt Accumulation in Hetao Irrigation Areas, Inner
Mongolia of China” (2014DFA71080) and National Natural Science
Foundation of China project “The effects of SAPs mixed with soils in upper
layer on reduction of soil evaporation and salt accumulation” (51379096).
References
Agaba, H., L.J.B. Orikiriza, J.F.O. Esegu, J. Obua, J.D. Kabasa, and A. Huttermann.
2010. Effects of Hydrogel Amendment to Different Soils on Plant Available
Water and Survival of Trees under Drought Conditions, Clean– Soil, Air.
Water 38:328–335.
Abedi-Koupai, J., F. Sohrab, and G. Swarbrick. 2008. Evaluation of hydrogel
application on soil water retention characteristics. J. Plant Nutr. 31:317–331.
doi:10.1080/01904160701853928
Akhter, J., K. Mahmood, K.A. Malik, A. Mardan, M. Ahmad, and M.M. Iqbal. 2004.
 Effects of hydro gel amendment on water storage of sandy loam and loam
soils and seedling growth of barley, wheat and chickpea. Plant Soil Environ.
50:463–469.
Andry, H., T. Yamamoto, T. Irie, S. Moritani, M. Inoue, and H. Fujiyama. 2009.
Water retention, hydraulic conductivity of hydrophilic polymers in sandy
soil as affected by temperature and water quality. J. Hydrol. 373:177–183.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.04.020
Bai, W., H. Zhang, B. Liu, Y. Wu, and J. Song. 2010. Effects of super-absorbent
polymers on the physical and chemical properties of soil following different
wetting and drying cycles. Soil Use Manage. 26:253–260. doi:10.1111/j.1475-
2743.2010.00271.x
Bai, W., J. Song, and H. Zhang. 2013. Repeated water absorbency of super-
absorbent polymers in agricultural field applications: A simulation study, Acta
Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B- Soil & Plant Sci. 63(5):433–441.
Bakass, M., A. Mokhlisse, and M. Lallemant. 2000. Absorption and desorption
of liquid water by a superabsorbent polyelectrolyte: Role of polymer on the
capacity for absorption of a ground. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 82:1541–1548.
doi:10.1002/app.1992
Baker, S.W. 1991. The effect of polyacrylamide copolymer on the performance of
Lolium perenne L. turf grown a sand root zone. J. Sports Turf Research Institute
67:66–82.
Banedjschafie, S., and W. Durner. 2015. Water retention properties of a sandy soil
with superabsorbent polymers as affected by aging and water quality. J. Plant
Nut. Soil Sci. 178:798–806.
Beniwal, R.S., R. Langenfeld-Heyser, and A. Polle. 2010. Ectomycorrhiza and
hydrogel protect hybrid poplar from water deficit and unravel plastic
responses of xylem anatomy. Environ. Exp. Bot. 69:189–197. doi:10.1016/j.
envexpbot.2010.02.005
Bhardwaj, A.K., I. Shainberg, D. Goldstein, D.N. Warrington, and G.J. Levy. 2007.
Water retention and hydraulic conductivity of cross-linked polyacrylamides in
sandy soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 71:406–412. doi:10.2136/sssaj2006.0138
Bhardwaj, A.K., R.A. McLaughlin, I. Shainberg, and G.J. Levy. 2009. Hydraulic
characteristics of depositional seals as affected by exchangeable cations,
clay mineralogy, and polyacrylamide. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 73:910–918.
doi:10.2136/sssaj2007.0426
Buchholz, F.L. 1998. The structure and properties of superabsorbents polyacrylates.
In: F.L. Buchholz and A.T. Graham, editors, Modern superabsorbent polymer
technology. Wiley-VCH, New York. p. 167–221.
Burke, D.R., G. Akay, and P.E. Bilsborrow. 2010. Development of novel polymeric
materials for agroprocess intensification. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 118:3292–3299.
doi:10.1002/app.32640
Busscher, W.J., D.L. Bjorneberg, and R.E. Sojka. 2009. Field application of PAM as
an amendment in deep-tilled US southeastern Coastal Plain soils. Soil Tillage
Res. 104(2):215–220. doi:10.1016/j.still.2009.02.009
Chatzoudis, G. K. and F. Rigas. 1999. Soil salts reduce hydration of polymeric gels
and affect moisture characteristics of soil. Communications in Soil Science and
Plant Analysis 30(17–18):2465–2474.
Dorraji, S.S., A. Golchin, and S. Ahmadi. 2010. The effects of hydrophilic polymer
and soil salinity on corn growth in sandy and loamy soils. Clean Soil Air Water
38(7):584–591.
El-Hady, O.A., M.Y. Tayel, and A.A. Lofty. 1981. Super gel as a soil conditioner. II.
Its effects on plant growth, enzyme activity, water use efficiency and nutrient
uptake. Acta Hortic. 19:257–266. doi:10.17660/ActaHortic.1981.119.22
Fan, T., B.A. Stewart, W.A. Payne, W. Yong, J. Luo, and Y. Gao. 2005. Long-
term fertilizer and water availability effects on cereal yield and soil chemical
properties in northwest China. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69:842–855. doi:10.2136/
sssaj2004.0150
Frantz, J.M., J.C. Locke, D.S. Pitchay, and C.R. Krause. 2005. Actual performance
versus theoretical advantages of polyacrylamide hydrogel throughout bedding
plant production. HortScience 40(7):2040–2046.
Gee, G.W., and J.W. Bauder. 1986. Particle size analysis. In: A. Klute, editor, Methods
of soil analysis. Part 1. 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison,
WI. p. 383–411.
Han, Y.G., P.L. Yang, and L. Xu. 2005. Experimental studies on increase of yield and
soil moisture of fruit tree by using superabsorbent polymers. Sci. Agric. Sin.
38:2486–2491.
Han, Y.G., P.L. Yang, Y.P. Luo, S.M. Ren, L.X. Zhang, and L. Xu. 2010. Porosity
change model for watered superabsorbent polymer-treated soil. Environ. Earth
Sci. 61:1197–1205. doi:10.1007/s12665-009-0443-4
Hillel, D. 1971. Soil and water: Physical principles and processes. Academic Press,
900 Soil Science Society of America Journal
New York.
Huang, M., M. Shao, L. Zhang, and Y. Li. 2003. Water use efficiency and sustainability
of different long-term crop rotation systems in the Loess Plateau of China. Soil
Tillage Res. 72:95–104. doi:10.1016/S0167-1987(03)00065-5
Huang, Z.B., and M.S. Li. 2005. The application principles and technologies of
superabsorbents in agriculture. China Agriculture Science and Technology
Press, Beijing.
Hüttermann, A., M. Zommorodi, and K. Reise. 1999. Addition of hydrogels to soil
for prolonging the survival of Pinus halepensis seedlings subjected to drought.
Soil Tillage Res. 50:295–304. doi:10.1016/S0167-1987(99)00023-9
Ingram, D.L., and T.H. Yeager. 1987. Effects of irrigation frequency and a water
absorbing polymer amendment on Ligustrum growth and moisture retention
by a container medium. J. Environ. Hortic. 5:19–21.
Isik, B., and M. Kis. 2004. Preparation and determination of swelling behavior
of poly(acrylamide-co-acrylic acid) hydrogels in water. J. Appl. Polym. Sci.
94:1526–1531. doi:10.1002/app.21074
James, E.A., and D. Richard. 1986. The influence of iron source on the water holding
properties of potting media amended with water-absorbing polymers. Sci.
Hortic. (Amsterdam) 28:201–208. doi:10.1016/0304-4238(86)90001-4
Karimi, A., M. Noshadi, and M. Ahmadzadeh. 2009. Effects of superabsorbent
polymer (Igeta) on crop, soil water and irrigation interval. J. Sci. Technol. Agric.
Nat. Res. 12:415–420.
Kazanskii, K.S., and S.A. Dubrovskii. 1992. Chemistry and physics of agricultural
hydrogels. Adv. Polym. Sci. 104:97–133. doi:10.1007/3-540-55109-3_3
Keshavars, L., H. Farahbakhsh, and P. Golkar. 2012. The effects of drought stress
and super absorbent polymer on morphphysiological traits of pear millet
(Pennisetum glaucum). International Research Journal of Applied and Basic
Sciences 3:148–154.
Kim, S., and A. Nadarajah. 2008. Development of double-layer hydrogels for
agricultural applications. In: AIChE Annual Meeting. 16–21 Nov. 2008.
Global Home of Chemical Engineers, Philadelphia, PA.
Koupai, J.A., S.S. Eslamian, and J.A. Kazemi. 2008. Enhancing the available water
content in unsaturated soil zone using hydrogel to improve plant growth
indices. Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology 8:67–75. doi:10.2478/v10104-009-
0005-0
Langaroodi, N.B.S., M. Ashouri, H.R. Dorodian, and E. Azarpour. 2013. Study
effects of super absorbent application, saline water and irrigation management
on yield and yield components of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Annals of
Biological Research 4:160–169.
Lentz, R.D. 2007. Inhibiting Water infiltration into soils with cross-linked
polyacrylamide: Seepage reduction for irrigated agriculture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 71:1352–1362. doi:10.2136/sssaj2005.0380
Li, A., A. Wang, and J. Chen. 2004. Studies on poly(acrylic acid) attapulgite
superabsorbent composites. II. Swelling behaviors of superabsorbent
composites in saline solutions and hydrophilic solvent-water mixtures. J. Appl.
Polym. Sci. 94:1869–1876. doi:10.1002/app.20850
Li, A., J. Zhang, and A. Wang. 2005. Synthesis, characterization and water absorbency
properties of poly(acrylic acid)/sodium humate superabsorbent composite.
Polym. Adv. Technol., 16: 675–680. doi:10.1002/pat.641
Liu, M., R. Liang, F. Zhan, Z. Liu, and A. Niu. 2006. Synthesis of a slow-release and
superabsorbent nitrogen fertilizer and its properties. Polym. Adv. Technol.
17:430–438. doi:10.1002/pat.720
Malekian, A., E. Valizadeh, M. Dastoori, S. Samadi, and V. Bayat. 2012. Soil water
retention and maize (Zea mays L.) growth as effected by different amounts of
pumice. Australian Journal of Crop Science 6:450–454.
Montesano, F.F., A. Parente, P. Santamaria, A. Sannino, and F. Serio. 2015.
Biodegradable superabsorbent hydrogel increaseswater retention properties
of growing media and plant growth. Agriculture and Agricultural Science
Procedia 4:451–458. doi:10.1016/j.aaspro.2015.03.052
Nazarli, H., M.R. Zardoshti, R. Darvishzadeh, and S. Najafi. 2010. The effect of water
stress and polymer on water use efficiency, yield and several morphological
traits of sunflower under greenhouse condition. Not. Sci. Biol. 2(4):1–6.
Nelson, R.E. 1982. Carbonate and gypsum. In: A.L. Page, editor, Methods of soil
analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. 2nd ed. Agron.
Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 181–197.
Nelson, D.W., and L.E. Sommers. 1996. Total carbon and organic matter. In: D.L.
Sparks, editor, Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. SSSA Book Ser. 5. SSSA,
Madison, WI. p. 975–977.
Qu, G., and A. Varennes. 2009. Use of hydrophilic insoluble polymers in the
restoration of metal-contaminated soils. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2009:1–8.
 doi:10.1155/2009/790687
Rhoades, J.D. 1982. Cation exchange capacity. In: A.L. Page, editor, Methods of soil
analysis. Part 2. 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI. p.
149–157.
Salem, N., G.V. Guidi, R. Pini, and A. Khater. 1991. Quality of irrigation waters and
water uptake of a polyacrylamide hydrogel. Agrochimica 35:149–161.
Sarvaš, M., P. Pavlenda, and E. Takáovčá. 2007. Effect of hydrogel application on
survival and growth of pine seedlings in reclamations. Journal of Forest Science
53(5):204–209.
SAS Institute. 1995. SAS guide for personal computers–version 6.07. SAS Institute,
Cary, NC.
Shainberg, I., and J. Letey. 1984. Response of soils to sodic and saline conditions.
Hilgardia 52:1–57. doi:10.3733/hilg.v52n02p057
Shahid, S.A., A.A. Qidwai, F. Anwar, I. Ullah and U. Rashid. 2012. Improvement
in the water retention characteristics of sandy loam soil using a newly
synthesized poly(acrylamide-co-acrylic Acid)/AlZnFe2O4 superabsorbent
hydrogel nanocomposite material. Molecules 17:9397–9412. doi:10.3390/
molecules17089397
Shi, X.Z., D.S. Yu, E.D. Warner, W.X. Sun, G.W. Petersen, and Z.T. Gong. 2006.
Cross-reference system for translating between genetic soil classification
of China and soil taxonomy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70:78–83. doi:10.2136/
sssaj2004.0318
Silberbush, M., E. Adar, and Y. De Malach. 1993. Use of a hydrophilic polymer to
improve water storage and availability to crops grown in sand dunes I. Corn
irrigated by trickling. Agric. Water Manage. 23:303–313. doi:10.1016/0378-
3774(93)90042-9
Singh, J. 1998. Effect of Stockosorb polymers and potassium levels on potato and
onion. J. Potassium Res. 14:78–82.
Sivapalan, S. 2006. Some benefits of treating a sandy soil with a cross-linked type
polyacrylamide. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 46:579–584. doi:10.1071/EA04026
Taylor, K.C., and R.G. Halfacre. 1986. The effect of hydrophilic polymer on media
water retention and nutrient availability to Ligustrum Lucidum. HortScience
21:1159–1161.
dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj 901
Teodorescu, M., A. Lungu, P.O. Stanescu, and C. Neamţu. 2009. Preparation and
properties of novel slow-release NPK agrochemical formulations based
on poly(acrylic acid) hydrogels and liquid fertilizers. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
48:6527–6534. doi:10.1021/ie900254b
Thomas, G.W. 1982. Exchangeable cations. In: A. Klute, editor, Methods of soil
analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. 2nd ed. Agron.
Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 159–165.
Turan, E., and T. Caykara. 2007. Swelling and network parameters of pH-Sensitive
poly (acrylamide-co-acrylic acid) hydrogels. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 106:2000–
2007. doi:10.1002/app.26848
Viero, P.W.M., K.E.A. Chiswell, and J.M. Theron. 2002. The effect of a soil amended
hydrogel on the establishment of Eucalyptus grandis clone on a sandy clay loam
soil in Zululand during winter. Southern Afr. For. J. 193:65–75. doi:10.1080/
20702620.2002.10433519
Wang, Y.T., and L.L. Gregg. 1989. Hydrophilic polymers- their response to soil
amendments and effect on properties of a soilless potting mix. J. Am. Soc.
Hortic. Sci. 115:943–948.
Wang, H.X., C.M. Liu, and L. Zhang. 2002. Water-saving agriculture in China: An
overview. Adv. Agron. 75:135–171. doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(02)75004-9
Xie, J., X. Liu, J. Liang, and Y. Luo. 2009. Swelling properties of superabsorbent poly
(acrylicacid-co-acrylamide) with different crosslinkers. J. Appl. Polym. Sci.
112:602–608. doi:10.1002/app.29463
Yu, J., I. Shainberg, Y.L. Yan, J.G. Shi, G.J. Levy, and A.I. Mamedov. 2011.
Superabsorbents and semiarid soil properties affecting water absorption. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75:2305–2313. doi:10.2136/sssaj2010.0397
Yu, J., P.F. Dang, J.G. Shi, A.I. Mamedov, I. Shainberg, and G.J. Levy. 2012. Soil and
polymer properties affecting water retention by superabsorbent polymers
under drying conditions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 76:1758–1767. doi:10.2136/
sssaj2011.0387
Zhang, J., Q. Wang, and A. Wang. 2007. Synthesis and characterization of chitosan-g-
poly(acrylic acid)/attapulgite superabsorbent composites. Carbohydr. Polym.
68:367–374. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2006.11.018