Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Recently a dilute nitric acid extraction (0.43 M) was adopted by ISO (ISO-17586:2016) as standard for extraction of geochemically reactive elements in soil and soil like materials. Here we evaluate the performance of this extraction for a wide range of elements by mechanistic geochemical modeling. Model predictions indicate that the extraction recovers the reactive concentration quantitatively (>90%). However, at low ratios of element to reactive surfaces the extraction underestimates reactive Cu, Cr, As, and Mo, that is, elements with a particularly high affinity for organic matter or oxides. The 0.43 M HNO₃ together with more dilute and concentrated acid extractions were evaluated by comparing model-predicted and measured dissolved concentrations in CaCl₂ soil extracts, using the different extractions as alternative model-input. Mean errors of the predictions based on 0.43 M HNO₃ are generally within a factor three, while Mo is underestimated and Co, Ni and Zn in soils with pH > 6 are overestimated, for which possible causes are discussed. Model predictions using 0.43 M HNO₃ are superior to those using 0.1 M HNO₃ or Aqua Regia that under- and overestimate the reactive element contents, respectively. Low concentrations of oxyanions in our data set and structural underestimation of their reactive concentrations warrant further investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Groenenberg et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: