Repository logo
Log In
Log in as University member:
Log in as external user:
Have you forgotten your password?

Please contact the hohPublica team if you do not have a valid Hohenheim user account (hohPublica@uni-hohenheim.de)
Hilfe
  • English
  • Deutsch
    Communities & Collections
    All of hohPublica
Log In
Log in as University member:
Log in as external user:
Have you forgotten your password?

Please contact the hohPublica team if you do not have a valid Hohenheim user account (hohPublica@uni-hohenheim.de)
Hilfe
  • English
  • Deutsch
  1. Home
  2. Browse by Subject

Browsing by Subject "Secondary minerals"

Type the first few letters and click on the Browse button
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Results Per Page
  • Sort Options
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Potential pitfalls when using popular chemical extractions to characterize Al‐ and Fe‐containing soil constituents
    (2025) Rennert, Thilo; Lenhardt, Katharina R.; Rennert, Thilo; Department of Soil Chemistry and Pedology, Institute of Soil Science and Land Evaluation, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany; Lenhardt, Katharina R.; Department of Soil Chemistry and Pedology, Institute of Soil Science and Land Evaluation, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany
    Wet‐chemical extraction of soil to quantify pedogenic species or to remove specific compounds prior to other analyses is an established approach in analytical soil mineralogy and soil chemistry. Interpretation and informational value of data derived from long‐established and frequently used extractions, for instance involving dithionite, oxalate/oxalic acid in the dark (AOD), and pyrophosphate (PYR), suffers from nonuniform practical regulation and missing knowledge about potential methodical limitations. In this review, we analyzed potential pitfalls of these frequently used extractions, with the focus on selectivity and completeness of the methods as derived from effects of time dependency and of phase separation. Major problems we identified comprised that time‐dependency of extraction differed between analytical targets, that a multitude of species is attacked, reducing the selectivity for the original analytical target, and that studies on extraction from model compounds, including analytical targets and nontargets, are not universally present. The latter aspect is crucial for the completeness of AOD and PYR extraction that has not been proven for all potential analytical targets of the methods yet. We practically tested citrate (CIT) extraction of aluminum (Al) and iron (Fe) in organic association, using selected models of soil constituents. Apart from a synthesized poorly ordered Si‐rich short‐range ordered aluminosilicate, CIT did not extract Al from nontarget phases, confirming previous studies, but did extract Al and Fe completely from organic associations. In addition to recommendations on the practical use of dithionite‐based, AOD, citrate‐ascorbate (CA), and CIT extraction, we suggest replacing highly problematic PYR extraction by CIT extraction for metals in organic association in soil and using AOD extraction in combination with CA and CIT extraction to avoid potential misinterpretation of ambiguous data.

  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Cookie settings
  • Imprint/Privacy policy