Deconstruct Practical: Improving the CEC of Soil

SACE No. 937651R

Mind Map:

What is cation exchange capacity?

Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) is a measure of how well soil can hold and provide essential nutrients to plants.
Soil particles usually have negatively charged surfaces that attract positively charged nutrient ions. When plants
release hydrogen ions, these can swap places with the nutrients on the soil particles, making them available for
plant roots to absorb (Efretuei, 2016). Soils with higher CEC can hold more nutrients, supporting better plant
growth.

What factors can affect cation exchange capacity?

Several factors influence cation exchange capacity, primarily the soil's composition and structure. Clay and organic
matter content play a significant role, as they have more negatively charged sites for cation attachment (Efretuei,
2016). Soils rich in these components have higher CEC. Additionally, pH levels affect CEC; soils with a higher pH
tend to have higher CEC as the number of negative charges increases (“Cation Exchange Capacity”, 2023). Soil
texture also matters, with finer-textured soils like clay having higher CEC than coarser sands (The Green Life Soil co.
2021) (Efretuei, 2016).

Increasing cation exchange capacity

Since cation exchange capacity is directly influenced by composition, pH, texture, calcium content, and organic
matter content, increasing these factors as needed increases the CEC of the soil (“Cation Exchange Capacity”, 2023).
Farmers add organic matter such as compost and manure when organic matter is running low, similarly lime is
added to increase pH and calcium content (The Green Life Soil co. 2021) (Atlas Scientific, 2022) (“Which liming
material is best?”, 2023).

Methods for increasing cation exchange capacity.

In order to increase CEC, there are many substances that can be added to the soil, all of which involve increasing
one or more the four major factors that affect CEC and therefore fertility of the soil: Organic matter, pH, calcium
level and clay content.

Adding any type of organic matter is known to increase fertility of soil, the most common being compost, prepared by
decomposing organic matter, typically food waste, plant trimmings, and paper. Alternatively, gardeners can add
organic matter on top as mulch, such as straw or wood chip, or just bury organic matter in the soil to decompose
over time (Valencia, M, 2018).

If the pH of the soil is low, lime can be added (Atlas Scientific, 2022). There are several types of lime commercially
available, including calcium carbonate (CaO3), magnesite (MgCO3), and dolomite, a mix of the two (“Which liming
material is best?”, 2023). Calcium carbonate and dolomite are also used to increase the calcium content of the soil,
increasing CEC to an extent. An excess of calcium leads to plants being unable to absorb other essential nutrients
(Weisenberger, 2020), or simply raise the pH too high for plants to tolerate.

Alternatively, household bases can be added to soil, baking soda (NaHCO3) is the most used as it is inexpensive and
available in most households (Ward, 2021). Other methods include adding compost, crushed eggshells, and wood
ash, also increasing organic matter (Atlas Scientific, 2022).

Aim: To determine the best possible additive to increase the CEC of acid washed sand.

Hypothesis: Organic material that increases pH of soil will increase CEC the most.

Independent Variable: Types of organic matter added to soil.

Dependant Variable: CEC of soil

Factors Level of pH of Soil Calcium Clay Content Amount of Temperature

Organic Matter Content Soil
How they will All samples will Every soil The starting Soil samples Each soil As well as
be kept contain no sample will calcium content will start as sample will soil samples
constant organic matter be taken will be pure sand, be measured being taken
to begin with. from the maintained by meaning no to have the from the
Any organic same batch, having all soil clay will be same mass same batch,
matter added ensuring a samples taken present. Any before all
will have the uniform pH from the same calcium having any experiments
same mass between all batch. Any bentonite additions. will take
each trial. samples. added calcium added will place at
will have the have a room
same mass. consistent temperature
mass. within a
two-hour
time frame.
Why they need Different Acidic soil Added sources Clay content In order to As
to be kept substances will tends to have of calcium also is one of the accurately temperature
constant have different a worse CEC add other most measure and increases,
effects on CEC. than neutral substances that significant compare CEC
In order to soils. Since affect CEC such factors in results of decreases
accurately pH directly as clay or determining trails the (Onwuka, B.
compare affects CEC, increase pH, CEC. amount of & Mang, B,
results, the this factor when adding soil in each 2018).
initial amount must remain sources of sample must
and final constant as calcium in it remain
amount of to not crucial to keep constant,
organic matter interfere with everything this ensures
must remain trials of identical as to the ratio of
constant. different keep everything any additives
factors. comparable. can easily be
compared.

Hazards and Safety

Hazard Hazard Statements (source: chem-supply safety How danger is minimised
data sheet)
Copper (II) Harmful if swallowed. Protective clothing and eye protection must
Sulphate Causes skin irritation. be worn at all times.
Causes serious eye irritation. Dispose of chemical waste properly,
Very toxic to aquatic life. avoiding access to aquatic life.
Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects.
Glassware Sharp edges may cause lacerations. Protective clothing, eyewear, and closed
Dust released as a result of cutting, grinding, toed shoes must be worn at all times in
breaking, etc. causes irritation to skin, eyes, nose case of breakage.
and throat.

Apparatus
o 250 mL Copper (II) sulphate solution – 0.1 mol.L-1
o 36g Acid-washed laboratory sand
o 1g organic substances (charcoal, wood ash, volcanic ash, wheat bran, pumice)
o Glass wool
 o Distilled water
o Retort stand and clamp
o 6 plastic syringes – 20 mL
o 6 25mL beakers
o 10mL measuring cylinder
o 25mL measuring cylinder
o 250mL beaker
o Spectrophotometer
o 2 plastic cuvettes

Method – Calibration Procedure

1. Using the 0.1 mol.L-1 CuSO4 solution, by dilution prepare 5 mL each of 0.08, 0.06, 0.04 and 0.02 mol.L -1.
These, combined with distilled water as the zero concentration will form the series of standard solutions used
to prepare a calibration curve.
2. Into a clean cuvette, place 2.0 mL of distilled water.
3. Place the cuvette into the holder, then place the holder into the spectrophotometer in the correct orientation
and close the cover.
4. Wait for the readout to settle, then record the absorbance value (for distilled water this should be very close
to zero).
5. Repeat this process with the standard solutions (0.02-1.0 mol.L-1) you have prepared, recording the
absorbance value for each.
6. Prepare a scatter plot of the absorbance values against concentration for the values recorded and add a line
of best fit. This is the line you will use to determine the concentration of copper ions in your test solutions.

Method – CEC Testing Procedure

1. Pack the bottom of a syringe body with glass wool to prevent sand from passing through.
2. Weigh 6 g of sand and pour it into the syringe body on top of the glass wool.
3. Fix the syringe in place with a retort stand and clamp and place a 250 mL beaker underneath.
4. Wash the sand with 10 mL of distilled water, allowing as much water as will to pass into the beaker.
5. Load the sand by adding 20 mL of 0.1 mol.L-1 CuSO4 and when half the liquid has passed into the beaker,
collect about 2 mL of liquid in a cuvette.
6. Measure the absorbance of the solution using the spectrophotometer and record it.
7. Repeat steps 1-6, but instead of adding 6 g of sand to the syringe, add a mixture of 5 g of sand and 1 g of the
substance to be tested. Do this for each substance to be tested.

Results - Individual
Calibration
Concentration 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100
(mol/L)
Absorbance 0.000 0.010 0.024 0.039 0.059 0.074

Organic Matter
Samples Sand Charcoal Wood Ash Volcanic Ash Wheat bran Pumice
Absorbance 0.069 0.064 0.119 0.128 0.075 0.071

Copper Sulphate Solution

CEC after adding different organic matterLinear (Copper Sulphate Solution)
Sand
0.14 Charcoal
Wood Ash
0.12
Volcanic Ash
0.1 Wheat bran
Pumice
Absorbance

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Concentration (mol/L)
Results – Group
Calibration
Concentratio 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100
n (mol/L)
Absorbance Group 1 0.000 0.005 0.028 0.036 0.052 0.108
Group 2 0.000 0.010 0.024 0.039 0.059 0.074
Group 3 0.000 0.019 0.034 0.048 0.070 0.086
Group 4 0.000 0.008 0.021 0.031 0.055 0.074
Group 5 0.000 0.029 0.036 0.049 0.067 0.071
Group 6 0.000 0.011 0.027 0.034 0.054 0.066
Average 0.000 0.014 0.028 0.040 0.060 0.080

Organic Matter
Control Charcoal Pumice Volcanic Silicon Wood Wheat Vermiculit
Ash Dioxide Ash Bran e
Absorbanc Group 1 0.069 0.065 0.071 0.060 0.070
e Group 2 0.069 0.064 0.071 0.129 0.119 0.075
Group 3 0.084 0.071 0.078 0.075 0.112 0.071
Group 4 0.155 0.076 0.082 0.134 0.079 0.101
Group 5 0.070 0.065 0.094 0.192 0.085
Group 6 0.059 0.072 0.200 0.166 0.190 0.071
Average 0.087 0.070 0.095 0.117 0.104 0.102 0.120 0.071

Copper Sulphate Solution

CEC after adding different organic matter
Linear (Copper Sulphate Solution)
0.14 Sand
Charcoal
0.12 Pumice
Volcanic Ash
0.1 Silicon Dioxide
Wood Ash
Absorbance

0.08 Wheat Bran

Vermiculite
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Concentration (mol/L)

Discussion
Both individual and group results show that charcoal and vermiculite are the only effective additives in increasing
the cation exchange capacity of soil. Every other additive tested appears to have decreased the CEC of the soil
samples when compared to the control sample. In isolation, charcoal and vermiculite being effective at increasing
CEC of soil aligns with the hypothesis “organic material that increases the pH of soil will increase CEC the most.”
However, it is important to note that other additives that increase pH did not have the same effect, therefore an
assumption can be made that the cause of the increase is not an increase in pH. Another factor that could have
contributed to the success of these two additives is the high surface area each particle possesses, allowing more
cations to exchange per unit volume than the acidic sand alone (Dicalite, 2021) (Schulze, 2023). Once again, the
other additives tested that have a high surface area also performed worse than the control sample, leading to the
assumption that an increase in surface area is also not the cause for an increase in CEC.

Upon further research, it was found that pumice, volcanic ash, and wood ash also have a high surface area, but a
range of acidity levels, (Lewis, C. 2013) (Bang-Anderson, et al. 2021) implying that it is indeed the surface area that
increases CEC. Since these substances are known to have a high CEC, the fact that this was not represented in the
results proves there are significant errors in the method.

The most consequential source of error is likely from the filtration method used. A random error that proved to affect
the results drastically is the fact that there were larger particles suspended in solution for minimum 47% of the
trials done, leading to absorption readings much higher than expected. In the method, glass wool was used to stop
matter from escaping the syringes, whilst they were being washed with copper sulphate solution. The amount used
was not measured or consistent, leading to spaces large enough for sand and other particles to flow through, but not
at a systematic rate. This was also reflected before testing through different flow speeds through the filter,
cloudiness, and even colour change of the collected solution (see below figure). In order to resolve this error, a finer
filter could be used, or passing the collected solution through a secondary filter.

Figure 1: Copper sulphate solution collected after being washed through sand and different soil additives.
Note the colour difference in wheat bran sample compared to others, and varying levels of opaqueness.

Another error that may have skewed the absorption readings in a more predictable manner is the spectrophotometer
used. This equipment is known to be difficult to calibrate and maintain a zero reading. In this experiment, it was
observed that the absorption reading of distilled water was higher than it should be, needing to be lowered back to
zero constantly. This climb in absorption can be caused by many factors. The fluctuations in readings may have
been caused by tiny changes in temperature, light output, or voltage, such miniscule changes that with any other
apparatus would be negligible. The standard testing method of CEC in Australia uses silver thiourea instead of
copper sulphate and tests for each cation present in soil individually ("Soil Survey Standard Test Method", 2023).

Further, the cuvettes had to be cleaned before use due to fingerprints and debris being present on the clear windows
of each cuvette caused by improper handling. The degree of contamination both before and after cleaning was
random, with higher amounts of contaminants, a higher absorption reading observed. This paired with the
sensitivity of the spectrophotometer likely led to higher readings than expected for almost all trials.

Cuvettes were not washed between trials, leading to dilution during the calibration phase, and contamination during
the actual tests. Readings with known concentrations of diluted copper sulphate solution tended to be lower than
anticipated, shown by the calibration line not passing through (0, 0) as expected. Not rinsing between trails may
have left the previously discussed large particles in the cuvette contaminating solutions that may have had less. In
order to obtain more accurate readings, cuvettes must be rinsed with excess solution to ensure there is none of the
previous solution remaining.

Limited trials allow the effect of random error be much more significant, comparing the raw data, wood ash only had
two trails, but extremely differing results. The average was taken from all trials due to limited data, however any
outliers were not removed, leading the calibration line not passing through known concentration points, and average
data to be skewed. Removing outliers in future experiments would provide a much more precise result, likely with
higher accuracy.

Conclusion
Charcoal and vermiculite proved to be effective additives to soil to increase the cation exchange capacity. The
hypothesis of “organic material that increases pH of soil will increase CEC the most” was proved to be false by both
the results and further research. This investigation was shown to have significant errors in the process, including
calibration, dilution, and contamination, leading to inaccurate and untrustworthy results. Many modifications to the
method must be made before using it as a reliable source of information on soil CEC. Due to the limitations, this
experiment is not a reliable source of advice on how to improve soil beyond charcoal and vermiculite are helpful.
Applying these results to the garden would not cause harm to plants, however, individual research will likely be
more effective for finding the best way to improve soil for agriculture.
Word Count:

Part 1 – Investigation: 494

Discussion: 794
Conclusion: 140
Total: 1428

Bibliography

Andrew Pearson Industries, 2011. Material Safety Data Sheet: Float and Rolled Flat Glass. Andrew Pearson
Industries.
https://www.andrewpearsonglass.com/files/resources/new-msds-glass1.pdf

Atlas Scientific, 2022. How To Increase the PH in Soil? Atlas Scientific.

https://atlas-scientific.com/blog/how-to-increase-the-ph-in-soil

Bang-Anderson, T., Peltre, M., Ellegaard-Jensen, L., et al. 2021. Application of wood ash leads to strong vertical
gradients in soil pH changing prokaryotic community structure in forest top soil. Scientific Reports.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80732-0

Barbano, P. 2012. Add charcoal to create rich, quality garden soil. Cape Gazette.
https://www.capegazette.com/article/add-charcoal-create-rich-quality-garden-soil/25068

Chem-Supply, 2014. Safety Data Sheet: Copper (II) Sulphate Pentahydrate. Industry.gov
https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-06/copper-sulphate-preservative-for-dissolved-sulfide-
samples.pdf

Department of Sustainable Natural Resources. 2023. Soil Survey Standard Test Method: Cation Exchange Capacity
and Exchangeable Cations by Silver Thiourea. NSW Government.
https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/soils/testmethods/cecst.pdf

Department of Primary Industries, 2023. Cation exchange capacity. NSW Government.

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/soils/guides/soil-nutrients-and-fertilisers/cec

Department of Primary Industries, 2023. Which liming material is best? NSW Government.
https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/soils/guides/soil-acidity/best-lime

Dicalite, 2021. Cation Exchange Capacity in Vermiculite. Dicalite.

https://www.dicalite.com/2021/03/cation-exchange-capacity-vermiculite/

Efretuei, A. 2016. The Soils Cation Exchange Capacity and its Effects on Soil Fertility. Permaculture Research
Institute.
https://www.permaculturenews.org/2016/10/19/soils-cation-exchange-capacity-effect-soil-fertility/

The Green Life Soil co. 2021. Turn Sand into Soil. The Green Life Soil co.
https://greenlifesoil.com.au/sustainable-gardening-tips/turn-sand-into-soil

Lewis, C. 2013. Mineral Components. Colin Lewis Bonsai Art.

https://www.colinlewisbonsai.com/Reading/soils2.html

Onwuka, B., Mang, B. 2018. Effects of soil temperature on some soil properties and plant growth. Advances in Plants
& Agricultural Research.
https://medcraveonline.com/APAR/effects-of-soil-temperature-on-some-soil-properties-and-plant-growth.html

Ross, S. & Ketterings, Q. 2011. Recommended Methods for Testing Cation Exchange Capacity. University of Vermont.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/udextension/lawngarden/files/2012/10/CHAP9.pdf

Schulze, D. 2023. Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment (2nd ed.). Science Direct, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-
0-12-822974-3.00206-8

Valencia, M. 2018. What to Use When You Have Run Out of Compost. Self Sufficient Me.
https://selfsufficientme.com/what-to-use-when-you-have-run-out-of-compost/

Ward, M. 2021. 12 Amazing Ways to Use Baking Soda in the Garden. Gardening.org
https://gardening.org/12-amazing-ways-to-use-baking-soda-in-the-garden/
Weisenberger, N. 2020. Too much calcium in your soil? Antelope Valley Press.
https://www.avpress.com/valley_life/too-much-calcium-in-your-soil/article_a00121d0-d3a2-11ea-9159-
f3bf220a341d.html