From bench-top to handheld, how efficient by using Mid-infrared spectroscopy to predict soil phosphorous sorption? Sifan, Yang Dublin City University, Ireland Phosphorus (P), as an important nutrient required in agricultural soils, analyzing the P conditions precisely has important practical significance in agriculture. Although the traditional chemical methods can accurately obtain soil buffering capacity, P sorption capacity to indicate soil supply and availability of P in a water-soluble forms, they are time-consuming, laborious, and polluting the environment for using of some toxic and hazardous chemicals [1]. Soil spectroscopy has been applied as an alternative method for lab extractions due to its rapid and non- destructive soils analysis for a wide range of parameters. Compared tonear-infrared spectroscopy (NIR) (14000- 4000 cm -1 ), MIR (4,000-400 cm −1 ) is more sensitive to molecular information and suitable for being utilized for developing soil P sorption measurement[2,3].Many studies have elaborated the accuracy of benchtop spectrometers in predicting the soil chemical and physical properties related to soil fertility and nutrient supply[4]. However, there are fewer conclusions about the success of on-site testing by the handheld spectrometer. To the best of our knowledge, while studies have been conducted to understand the effect of grinding on vis-NIR and MIR calibrations to soil texture and organic carbon, etc., few studies have compared the effect of soil particle size on the benchtop and portable MIR spectroscopy [5], and fewer studies have elaborated the effect of soil particle size on MIR spectral calibration and prediction of soil P adsorption. The objective of this study is to understand the efficiency and calibrate the benchtop (Bucker) and a handheld MIR spectrometer (Agilent 4300) in soil P adsorption prediction. By comparing the spectral differences between benchtop and handheld MIR spectroscopic results for sieved-only samples (< 2 mm samples) and ball-milled samples, and to understand how soil particle size affects the spectra. References 1. Dunne, Kathleen S., Nicholas M. Holden, and Karen Daly. “Predicting Phosphorus Sorption Isotherm Parameters in Soil Using Data of Routine Laboratory Tests.” Pedosphere 31, no. 5 (2021): 694–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002- 0160(21)60012-7. 2. R Reeves, J. B., G. W. McCarty, and W. D. Hively. “Mid- Versus Near-Infrared Spectroscopy for On-Site Analysis of Soil.” Proximal Soil Sensing, 2010, 133–42. 3. José M. Soriano-Disla, LeslieJ.Janik, Sean T. Forrester, Michael J. McLaughlin, Sonia F. Grocke, and Robert W. Fitzpatrick. “The Use of Mid-Infrared Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy for Acid Sulfatesoil Analysis.” Science of the Total Environment 646, no. 2019 (2019): 1489–1502. 4. Konrad Metzger, Chaosheng Zhang, and Karen Daly. 2021. “From Benchtop to Handheld MIR for Soil Analysis: Predicting Lime Requirement and Organic Matter in Agricultural Soils.” Biosystems Engineering 204:257–69. 5. Guillou, F. L., Wetterlind, W., Rossel, R. A. V., Hicks, W., Grundy, M., & Tuomi, S. (2015). How does grinding affect the mid-infrared spectra of soil and their multivariate calibrations to texture and organic carbon? Soil Research 53(8), 913-921. doi:https://doi.org/10.1071/SR15019
IP19
© The Author(s), 2022
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog