| Literature DB >> 30046043 |
Sheela Katuwal1, Maria Knadel2, Per Moldrup3, Trine Norgaard2, Mogens H Greve2, Lis W de Jonge2.
Abstract
The intensification of agricultural production to meet the growing demand for agricultural commodities is increasing the use of chemicals. The ability of soils to transport dissolved chemicals depends on both the soil's texture and structure. Assessment of the transport of dissolved chemicals (solutes) through soils is performed using breakthrough curves (BTCs) where the application of a solute at one site and its appearance over time at another are recorded. Obtaining BTCs from laboratory studies is extremely expensive and time- and labour-consuming. Visible-near-infrared (vis-NIR) spectroscopy is well recognized for its measurement speed and for its low data acquisition cost and can be used for quantitative estimation of basic soil properties such as clay and organic matter. In this study, for the first time ever, vis-NIR spectroscopy was used to predict dissolved chemical breakthrough curves obtained from tritium transport experiments on a large variety of intact soil columns. Averaged across the field, BTCs were estimated with a high degree of accuracy. So, with vis-NIR spectroscopy, the mass transport of dissolved chemicals can be measured, paving the way for next-generation measurements and monitoring of dissolved chemical transport by spectroscopy.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30046043 PMCID: PMC6060133 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-29306-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Conceptual representation of the objective of the study. The transport of water and dissolved chemicals through soil is highly complex and is mostly governed by the soil structure/architecture, i.e., the pore-particle network (left figure). The objective of the study was to predict the complex breakthrough curve (lower figures) by the rapid visible–near-infrared (vis-NIR) spectroscopy (upper figures).
Figure 2Field-average breakthrough curves. The field-average breakthrough curves along with the 181 individual column breakthrough curves in grey colour in the background expressed as: (a) the relative concentration versus time and (b) the cumulative mass concentration versus time. CL and OC represent the soil clay content (fraction of soil minerals <2 µm) and soil organic carbon content in kg kg−1.
Figure 3Field-average visible–near infrared spectra. The field-average visible–near infrared spectra along with the spectra for the 181 soils in grey in the background. The vertical lines and bars denote specific absorption bands for the different bonds present in soil, which is specified in the top x-axis.
Figure 4Predicted versus measured arrival times. (a–h) Performance of 10-fold cross-validation for the prediction of various arrival times (T5–T50) using vis–NIR spectroscopy and partial least squares regression against arrival times measured in the laboratory. RMSECV denotes the root mean square error of cross-validation and R2 denotes the coefficient of determination.
Figure 5Predicted versus measured breakthrough curves. (a–f) Comparison of predicted BTCs using vis–NIR spectroscopy with measured BTCs in the laboratory for various fields. The symbols and the error bars represent respectively the average values and one standard deviation for the predicted BTCs. The black line and grey background represent respectively the average and one standard deviation of the measured BTCs.
Results of cross-validation using visible–near-infrared spectroscopy partial-least-squares regression (PLSR) models for prediction of various arrival times dataset.
| Arrival times | Preprocessing | Factors | Cross-validation (N = 181) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMSECV | R2 | RPIQ | Bias | |||
| T5 (h) | 2nd derivative (17,9) | 7 | 0.62 | 0.87 | 4.1 | 0.00 |
| T10 (h) | 2nd derivative (7,17) | 7 | 0.69 | 0.86 | 4.1 | −0.01 |
| T15 (h) | 2nd derivative (5,25) | 7 | 0.77 | 0.83 | 4.0 | 0.01 |
| T20 (h) | 2nd derivative (19,5) | 6 | 0.83 | 0.81 | 3.9 | 0.00 |
| T25 (h) | 2nd derivative (25,31) | 10 | 0.87 | 0.81 | 4.0 | −0.01 |
| T30 (h) | 2nd derivative (9,19) | 5 | 0.96 | 0.77 | 3.8 | 0.01 |
| T40 (h) | 2nd derivative (7,27) | 4 | 1.12 | 0.71 | 3.4 | 0.00 |
| T50 (h) | 2nd derivative (5,19) | 6 | 1.22 | 0.67 | 3.1 | 0.00 |
RMSECV denotes the root mean square error of cross-validation, R2 is the coefficient of determination, RPIQ denotes the ratio of performance to interquartile range and N is the number of samples.
Ŧ2nd derivative (w, s) refers to preprocessing with second derivative of the spectra using window/gap size of w, i.e., the number of data points across which the derivative is taken and segment, s, is the number of data points/segments across which smoothing/averaging is performed prior to derivative.