JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
The Potential Acid Sulfate Soils Criteria by the Relation between Total-Sulfur and Net Acid Generation
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
The Potential Acid Sulfate Soils Criteria by the Relation between Total-Sulfur and Net Acid Generation
Moon, Yonghee; Zhang, Yong-Seon; Hyun, Byung-Keun; Sonn, Yeon-Kyu; Park, Chan-Won; Song, Kwan-Cheol;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Acid sulfate soil (ASS) and potential acid sulfate soil (PASS) are distribution in worldwide and originate from sedimentary process, volcanic activity, or metamorphism and are problematic in agriculture and environmental due to their present and potential acidity developed by the oxidation. The PASS was defined as soil materials that had sulfidic layer more than 20 cm thick within 4 m of the soil profile and contained more than 0.15% of total-sulfur (T-S). A tentative interpretative soil classification system was proposed weak potential acid sulfate (T-S, 0.15-0.5%), moderate potential acid sulfate (T-S, 0.5-0.75%) and strong potential acid sulfate (T-S, more than 0.75%). PASS due to excess of pyrite over soil neutralizing capacity are formed. It provides no information on the kinetic rates of acid generation or neutralization; therefore, the test procedures used in acid base account (ABA) are referred to as static procedures. The net acid generation (NAG) test is a direct method to measure the ability of the sample to produce acid through sulfide oxidation and also provides and indication. The NAG test can evaluated easily whether the soils is PASS. The samples are mixed sandy loam and the PAS from the hydrothermal altered andesite (1:3, 1:8, 1:16, 1:20, 1:40, 1:80 and 1:200 ratios) in this study. We could find out that the NAG pH of the soil containing 0.75% of T-S was 2.5, and that of the soil has 0.15% of T-S was 3.8. NAG pH test can be proposed as soil classification criteria for the potential acid sulfate soils. The strong type has NAG pH of 2.5, the moderate one has NAG pH of 3.0, and the weak one has NAG pH of 3.5.
 Keywords
Neutralization;Pyrite;Andesite;Sedimentary process;Volcanic activity;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Bigham, J.M., U. Schwertmann, S.J. Traina, R.L. Winland, and M. Wolf. 1996. Schwertmannit and the chemical modeling of iron in acid sulfate waters. Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta. 60:2111-2121. crossref(new window)

2.
Blowes, D.W. and J.L. Jambor. 1990. The pore-water geochemistry and the mineralogy of the vadose zone of sulfide tailings, Waite Amulet, Quebec, Canada. Applied Geochemistry. 5:327-346. crossref(new window)

3.
Jung Y.T., J.K. Kim, I.S. Son, and E.S. Yun. 1990. Distribution and characteristics of potential acid sulfate soil layer contained soils in Yeongnam area. Res. Rept. RDA. 32:1-8.

4.
Jung Y.T., Y.P. No, and C.O. Baeg. 1989. Characterization and classification of potential acid sulfate soil on Flood-Plains. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 22:173-179.

5.
Jung Y.T., E.S. Yun, Y.S. Choi, J.S. Kim, Y.D. Kim, and K.Y. Jung. 1997. Improvement of paddy soils acidified by the water inflowed from potential acid sulfate soil in Tertiary deposits. Korean J. Soil Sci. & Fert. 39:1-7.

6.
Kim J.G., C.-M. Chon, E.S. Yun, Y.S. Zhang, P.K. Jung, and Y.T. Jung. 2000. Volcanic origin potential acid sulfate soil material: Hydrothermally altered pyrite rich andesite. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 33:311-317.

7.
Lee G.H., J.G. Kim, J.S. Lee, C.M. Chon, S.G. Park, T.H. Kim, K.-S. Ko, and T.K. Kim. 2005. Generation characteristics and prediction of acid rock drainage (ARD) of cut slopes. Econ and Environ. Geol. 38:91-99 (Korea).

8.
Moon Y., Y. Song, and H.-S. Moon. 2008. The potential acid-producing capacity and factors controlling oxidation tailings in the Guryong mine, Korea. Environ Geol 53:1787-1797. crossref(new window)

9.
NIAST. 2000. Taxonomical classification of Korean soils. RDA press.

10.
Nordstrom D.K. 1982. Aqueous pyrite oxidation and the consequent formation of secondary minerals. In Acid Sulphate weathering. p.37-56. Soil Science Society American.

11.
Paktunc A.D. 1999. Mineralogical constraints on the determination of neutralization potential and prediction of acid mine drainage. Environ. Geol. 39:130-112.

12.
Parkhurst D.L. and C.A.J. Appelo. 2002. User's guide to PHREEQCI (version 2.8)-A computer program for speciation, batch-reaction, one-dimensional transport, and inverse geochemical calculations. U.S. Geological Survey. Denver, Colorado.

13.
Sobek A.A., W.A. Schuller, J.R. Feeman, and R.M. Smith. 1978. Field and laboratory methods applicable to overburden and mine soils. EPA report No. 600/2-78-054. p. 47-50.

14.
Schumann R., W. Stewart, S. Miller, N. Kawashima, J. Li, and R. Smart. 2012. Acid-base accounting assessment of mine wastes using the chromium reducible sulfur method. Sci. Total Environ. 424:289-206. crossref(new window)

15.
U.S. EPA. 2003. EPA and Hardrock mining: A Source book for industry in the Northwest and Alaska. Appendix C: Characterization of ore, waste rock and tailings. US Environmental Protection Agency Region 10.

16.
Weber P.A., W.A. Stewart, W.M. Skinner, C.G. Weisener, J.E. Thomas, and R.S.C. Smart. 2004. Geochemical effects of oxidation products and framboidal pyrite oxidation in acid mine drainage prediction techniques. Applied Geochemistry. 19:1953-1974. crossref(new window)