Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-hb754 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-22T00:01:46.755Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The flocculation of soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Norman M. Comber
Affiliation:
(Department of Agriculture, the University of Leeds.)

Extract

“Silt”, like most insoluble substances, when suspended in water is most easily flocculated by calcium salts when the suspension is neutral. The addition of alkali stabilizes the suspension and renders flocculation more difficult. Soil “clay,” however, behaves in an opposite manner and is precipitated from alkaline suspensions more readily than from neutral suspensions. In this behaviour clay resembles silicic acid and some other members of the so-called “emulsoid” colloids, and it is suggested that the clay particles are protected by such colloids and thus behave as an “emulsoid” and not as a “suspensoid.”

If this is true then the action of lime, which being alkaline nevertheless flocculates clay, is seen to be in accordance with the facts of colloid chemistry.

The view is advanced and some experimental support of it is described, that clay, as an “emulsoid,” protects the larger particles which by themselves are “suspensoid.” The soil aggregates are conceived as having large nuclei surrounded by particles which become smaller from the centre of the aggregate outwards, the clay ultimately imposing its “emulsoid” nature on the whole aggregate, and on the whole soil in normal cases. Fine silt soils are not flocculated by calcium hydroxide on account of the inefficiency of the relatively small amount of “emulsoid” clay to protect the large “suspensoid” surface exposed by the fine silt.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1920

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Page 425 note 1 Pickering has advanced a different explanation. See Proc. Roy. Soc. 1918, 94 (A), 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Page 425 note 2 Journ. Agric. Sci. 2, Part 3, 244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Page 425 note 3 Zeitsch. physik. Chem. 1900, 33, 355.Google Scholar

Page 425 note 4 Jahrb. Mineral, 1893, 3, 147.Google Scholar

Page 425 note 5 Phil. Mag. 1899, 5, 48, 474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Page 425 note 6 See Lewis, , A System of Phys. Chem. 1918, 1, 346–8.Google Scholar

Page 425 note 7 Bancroft, W. D., Journ. Phys. Chem. 1915, 19, 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Page 426 note 1 These soils were kindly supplied to the writer by Mr G. W. Robinson, University College of North Wales, Bangor.

Page 431 note 1 Kapillarchemie, 1909.

Page 431 note 2 Zeitsch. fur phy. Chem. 1905, 51, 19.Google Scholar

Page 431 note 3 Journ. Amer. Chem. Soc. 1905, 27, 2, 85.Google Scholar

Page 431 note 4 Grundriss der Kolloidchemie, 1909.

Page 431 note 5 Grundzüge der Dispersoidchemie, 1911.

Page 431 note 6 Kolloidchemie, 1912.

Page 432 note 1 Zeitsch. phys. Chem. 1905, 51, 150.Google Scholar

Page 432 note 2 Wolkoff, M. I., Soil Sci. 1916, 1, 585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Page 433 note 1 Journ. Agric. Sci. 8, 338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Page 433 note 2 Ibid. 7, 458.

Page 435 note 1 Burton, E.F., The Phys. Props. of Colloidal Solns., 1916.Google Scholar

Page 435 note 2 Journ. of Agric. Sci. 8, 65.Google Scholar

Page 435 note 3 Ibid. 6, 456.