| Literature DB >> 34249869 |
Jinping Liu1,2, Tao Yang2, Jiaqi Xu1, Yankun Sun1.
Abstract
The rapid detection of organic matter in soil is of great interest in agriculture, but the commonly used techniques require laboratory operation. Therefore, the development of a technique that allows rapid detection of soil organic matter in the field is of great interest. In this work, we propose an electrochemical-based approach for the detection of organic matter in soil particles. Since soil particles immobilized directly on the electrode surface can fall off during testing, we introduced graphene to coat the soil particles. The encapsulated soil particles can be stably immobilized on the electrode surface. We have investigated the electrochemical behavior of soil particles. The results show a correspondence between the electrochemical oxidation and reduction of soil particles and the organic matter content in them. We collected soil samples from three sites and constructed an electrochemical modeling, testing framework with stability based on multiple calibrations and random division of the prediction set. We used the equal interval partial least squares (EC-PLS) method for potential optimization to establish the equivalent model set. A joint model for the electrochemical analysis of organic matter in three locations of soil samples was developed for the commonality study.Entities:
Keywords: cyclic voltammetry; equivalent model set; graphene; joint model; soil organic matter
Year: 2021 PMID: 34249869 PMCID: PMC8267474 DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2021.699368
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Chem ISSN: 2296-2646 Impact factor: 5.221
FIGURE 1Schematic process of proposed electrochemical method for soil particle encapsulation.
FIGURE 2SEM images of (A) soil particles and (B) polydopamine-graphene encapsulated soil particles on the electrode surface.
FIGURE 3SSEAC spectra of soil particles.
Parameters and prediction results of the optimal PLS voltammetric region model for soil SSEAC data.
| Location | Region |
| SEP+ | SEPAve | SEPSD | RP,Ave | RP,SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 0.0–1.0 V | 9 | 0.277 | 0.271 | 0.022 | 0.917 | 0.016 |
| 0.7–1.0 V | 6 | 0.322 | 0.299 | 0.021 | 0.903 | 0.009 | |
| 0.0–1.0 V | 9 | 0.260 | 0.241 | 0.014 | 0.922 | 0.007 | |
| Whole scan | 11 | 0.247 | 0.230 | 0.022 | 0.919 | 0.011 | |
| B | 0.0–1.0 V | 13 | 0.857 | 0.779 | 0.057 | 0.869 | 0.021 |
| 0.7–1.0 V | 17 | 1.207 | 1.035 | 0.124 | 0.801 | 0.043 | |
| 0.0–1.0 V | 17 | 0.754 | 0.576 | 0.155 | 0.933 | 0.033 | |
| Whole scan | 26 | 0.611 | 0.471 | 0.151 | 0.951 | 0.031 | |
| C | 0.0–1.0 V | 20 | 0.365 | 0.318 | 0.041 | 0.814 | 0.022 |
| 0.7–1.0 V | 29 | 0.418 | 0.366 | 0.061 | 0.851 | 0.041 | |
| 0.0–1.0 V | 17 | 0.221 | 0.201 | 0.020 | 0.923 | 0.007 | |
| Whole scan | 26 | 0.209 | 0.191 | 0.022 | 0.955 | 0.009 |
The parameters and prediction effects of the optimal EC-PLS models for three locations of soils.
| Location | Potential (V) |
|
|
| SEP+ | SEPAve | SEP50 | Rp,Ave | RP,SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 0.204 | 47 | 10 | 4 | 0.248 | 0.233 | 0.015 | 0.922 | 0.006 |
| B | 0.306 | 33 | 3 | 11 | 0.551 | 0.502 | 0.044 | 0.941 | 0.006 |
| C | 0.267 | 31 | 9 | 17 | 0.206 | 0.191 | 0.013 | 0.950 | 0.005 |
FIGURE 4The optimal SEP+ corresponding to the starting potential I and the number of potentials N of the soil EC-PLS model for A location.
FIGURE 5The optimal SEP+ corresponding to the starting potential I and the number of potentials N of the soil EC-PLS model for B location.
FIGURE 6The optimal SEP+ corresponding to the starting potential I and the number of potentials N of the soil EC-PLS model for C location.