HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gilboa, A. Articles by Chen, Y. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Gilboa, A. Articles by Chen, Y. Agricola Articles by Gilboa, A. Articles by Chen, Y. Related Collections Soil Physics

Soil Physics

Applicability of Interfacial Theories of Surface Tension to Water-Repellent Soils

^a Dep. of Soil and Water Sciences, The Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem, Rehovot 76100, Israel
^b Inst. of Soil Science, Univ. of Hannover, Germany

^* Corresponding author (yona.chen{at}agri.huji.ac.il)

Most methods used to characterize the magnitude of soil water repellency consist of direct or indirect measurements of the initial advancing contact angle () at the solid–liquid–vapor interface. Aqueous ethanol solutions (AETS) are commonly used as testing liquids having different liquid–vapor surface tensions (_LV); however, measurements using AETS have rarely been performed on water-repellent soils (WRS). Measurements of in this study were conducted using both the Wilhelmy plate method (WPM) and the CRM (weight-gain capillary rise method) for three natural and four hydrophobized WRS (water-repellent soils). The values of the Young equation (solid–vapor and solid–liquid surface tension) were calculated, and correlated with the Goods–Girifalco interaction parameter, . The factor was found to be a linear function of the solid–liquid surface tension: = 1 – 0.011_SL, with no significant differences between soils. This relation was then used to formulate an ESIT (empirical equation of state of interfacial tension), suggesting that from one universal constant, can be predicted as function of _SV. The applicability of the ESIT approach to WRS was found to be inferior, in contrast to its successful use for ideal solid polymers. Nevertheless, it was found that for a water–WRS system, was 0.6 rather than 1.0 as previously assumed. Applying = 0.6 was successfully used in predicting _SV as well as the hydrophilic domain of vs. _LV for water and AETS.

Abbreviations: AETS, aqueous ethanol solutions • CRM, weight-gain capillary rise method • EP, eucalyptus • ESIT, equation of state of interfacial tension • MED, molarity of ethanol droplet • OM, organic matter • OR, orange orchard • PN, pine • WPM, Wilhelmy plate method • WRS, water-repellent soils

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Bachmann, M. Deurer, and G. Arye Modeling Water Movement in Heterogeneous Water-Repellent Soil: 1. Development of a Contact Angle Dependent Water-Retention Model Vadose Zone J., August 1, 2007; 6(3): 436 - 445. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Arye, I. Nadav, and Y. Chen Short-term Reestablishment of Soil Water Repellency after Wetting: Effect on Capillary Pressure-Saturation Relationship Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., April 5, 2007; 71(3): 692 - 702. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]