| Literature DB >> 36236004 |
Yuliang Fu1, Shunsheng Wang1, Shikai Gao1, Songlin Wang1, Zhikai Gao1, Zhenjia He2.
Abstract
In order to effectively suppress the negative effects of salt ions contained in saline soils on agricultural soil quality and crop growth, this study took advantage of the water-saving properties and better soil improvement properties of poly-γ-glutamic acid (γ-PGA). By carrying out various experiments, the following relationships have been found. (1) The lab experiment studies the effect of the γ-PGA application on the infiltration of sandy loam soil. The application rates of γ-PGA are 0%, 0.1%, 0.2%, and 0.3%, respectively. (2) HYDRUS-1D is used to simulate water infiltration of sandy loam soil under multiple factors (bulk density, γ-PGA application rate, and the application depth of γ-PGA). (3) The effect of γ-PGA on soil solute (Cl-) transport is also explored in this paper. The results show that bulk density and the application depth of γ-PGA (p < 0.01) have higher effects on cumulative infiltration than the application amount of γ-PGA (p < 0.05). A lower γ-PGA application rate will increase the proportion of unavailable soil water by 3%. The established empirical models have good results. Furthermore, when the γ-PGA application rate is 0.3% (0.02-cm2 min-1), the Cl- hydrodynamic dispersion coefficient is the highest. The study recommends applying the γ-PGA at 1.4 g cm-3, 5-20 cm, and 0.2%. The results of this study are conducive to an in-depth understanding of the physicochemical properties of poly-γ-glutamic acid, improving the utilization rate of salinized land, achieving agricultural water and fertilizer conservation and yield enhancement, and guaranteeing sustainable land use and sustainable development of agroecological environment.Entities:
Keywords: HYDRUS-1D; poly-γ-glutamic acid; sandy loam soil; soil water infiltration; solute (Cl−) transport
Year: 2022 PMID: 36236004 PMCID: PMC9570793 DOI: 10.3390/polym14194056
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1Grain size distribution curve of the soil.
Basic composition and physical properties characteristics of soils for the test.
| The Soil Type | Volume Fraction/% | Median Particle Size | Initial Physical and Chemical Parameters of The Soil | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clay | Silt | Sand | D50 | Initial Moisture Content | Saturated Water Content |
| pH Value | |
| (<0.002 mm) | (≥0.002~0.02 mm) | (≥0.02~2 mm) | (μm) | (cm 3·cm−3) | (cm 3·cm−3) | (g·kg−1) | (-) | |
| Sandy Loam | 1.5 | 29.0 | 69.5 | 44.53 | 6.90 | 40.26 | 0.59 | 7.93 |
Figure 2Molecular structure formula of γ-PGA.
Design of the orthogonal test.
| Treatment | Bulk Density | Depth of γ-PGA Application | γ-PGA Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| (g cm−3) | (cm) | (%) | |
| No. 1 | 1.3 | 5–25 | 0.1 |
| No. 2 | 1.3 | 15–35 | 0.2 |
| No. 3 | 1.3 | 25–45 | 0.3 |
| No. 4 | 1.35 | 5–25 | 0.2 |
| No. 5 | 1.35 | 15–35 | 0.3 |
| No. 6 | 1.35 | 25–45 | 0.1 |
| No. 7 | 1.4 | 5–25 | 0.3 |
| No. 8 | 1.4 | 15–35 | 0.2 |
| No. 9 | 1.4 | 25–45 | 0.1 |
| No. 10 | 1.32 | 8–28 | 0.12 |
| No. 11 | 1.34 | 13–33 | 0.19 |
| No. 12 | 1.38 | 18–38 | 0.28 |
Figure 3Device for infiltration and its composition.
Figure 4Diagram of the process of using the device.
Figure 5The initial and boundary conditions.
The soil hydraulic parameters of the soil with different γ-PGA application rates.
| Treatments (γ-PGA Content%) | Parameters of VG Model (Inversed by HYDRUS-1D) | Measured |
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bulk Density |
|
| ||||||||
| CK1 (0%) | 1.30 | 0.031 | 0.40 | 0.0378 | 1.47 | 0.098 | 0.99 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
| CK2 (0%) | 1.35 | 0.031 | 0.39 | 0.0369 | 1.48 | 0.085 | 0.99 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
| CK3 (0%) | 1.40 | 0.031 | 0.38 | 0.0361 | 1.49 | 0.073 | 0.99 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 0.1% | 1.30 | 0.032 | 0.42 | 0.0384 | 1.42 | 0.095 | 0.99 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 0.2% | 1.30 | 0.032 | 0.43 | 0.0395 | 1.40 | 0.089 | 0.99 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
| 0.3% | 1.30 | 0.033 | 0.43 | 0.0407 | 1.36 | 0.084 | 0.99 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 0.1% | 1.35 | 0.032 | 0.40 | 0.0372 | 1.45 | 0.080 | 0.99 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
| 0.2% | 1.35 | 0.032 | 0.42 | 0.0381 | 1.43 | 0.078 | 0.99 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 0.3% | 1.35 | 0.032 | 0.42 | 0.039 | 1.4 | 0.074 | 0.99 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 0.1% | 1.40 | 0.031 | 0.40 | 0.0366 | 1.47 | 0.071 | 0.99 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
| 0.2% | 1.40 | 0.031 | 0.41 | 0.0370 | 1.43 | 0.069 | 0.99 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 0.3% | 1.40 | 0.031 | 0.42 | 0.0376 | 1.41 | 0.067 | 0.99 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Note: The sample data Size N = 297, the same as below. The experimental treatments in the control group CK relative to the γ-PGA application comparison is no γ-PGA(0%) treatment, and the treatments of 0.1% γ-PGA, 0.2% γ-PGA and 0.3% γ-PGA represent the application of γ-PGA as a percentage of the dry soil mass in the soil samples, respectively, in%.
Figure 6The infiltration capacity under single factor. (a) The cumulative infiltration under single-factor. (b) The infiltration rate under single-factor.
Parameters fitting and error analysis for Philip infiltration models.
| Bulk Density (g·cm−3) | Parameters | CK (0%) | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.3% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.30 |
| 0.03 ± 0.006 | 0.02 ± 0.002 | 0.02 ± 0.004 | 0.01 ± 0.003 |
|
| 0.45 ± 0.001 | 0.45 ± 0.005 | 0.43 ± 0.001 | 0.41 ± 0.005 | |
|
| 0.43 | 0.35 | 0.31 | 0.24 | |
|
| 0.22 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.15 | |
|
| 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | |
| 1.35 |
| 0.02 ± 0.002 | 0.02 ± 0.004 | 0.02 ± 0.001 | 0.01 ± 0.002 |
|
| 0.41 ± 0.003 | 0.4 ± 0.008 | 0.4 ± 0.007 | 0.38 ± 0.003 | |
|
| 0.33 | 0.27 | 0.25 | 0.2 | |
|
| 0.18 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.14 | |
|
| 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | |
| 1.40 |
| 0.02 ± 0.001 | 0.02 ± 0.002 | 0.01 ± 0.004 | 0.01 ± 0.007 |
|
| 0.38 ± 0.003 | 0.37 ± 0.006 | 0.37 ± 0.005 | 0.36 ± 0.003 | |
|
| 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.2 | 0.17 | |
|
| 0.16 | 0.15 | 0.14 | 0.13 | |
|
| 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
The relationship between the γ-PGA application rate and Philip model parameters.
| Bulk Density (g·cm−3) | Parameters | Fitting Formula |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.30 |
|
| 0.99 | 0.038 | 0.021 |
|
|
| 0.88 | 0.108 | 0.064 | |
| 1.35 |
|
| 0.97 | 0.052 | 0.033 |
|
|
| 0.86 | 0.103 | 0.072 | |
| 1.40 |
|
| 0.98 | 0.051 | 0.029 |
|
|
| 0.96 | 0.060 | 0.027 |
Note: ‘x’ represents the different amount of γ-PGA application in the soil column.
Figure 7Heatmap of correlations in the acquired dataset.
Figure 8The proportion of different types of soil water. (The lowercase letters in Figure 8 represent the statistical results of ANOVA performed for the four main soil moistures under different γ-PGA content treatments; significant differences between treatments were considered when p < 0.05 level and non-significant when p ≥ 0.05.).
Influence of different factors in different levels of the cumulative infiltration.
| Level | Bulk Density (g cm−3) | The Depth of γ-PGA Application (cm) | The Amount of γ-PGA Application (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 18.2 ± 0.760 Aa | 15.2 ± 0.634 Aa | 16.2 ± 1.133 Aa |
| 2 | 16 ± 0.668 Bb | 16.4 ± 0.689 Bb | 16.0 |
| 3 | 13.7 ± 0.572 Cc | 16.5 ± 0.844 Cc | 15.9 ± 1.037 Ba |
Note: Different small letters mean significant difference (p < 0.05) and different capital letters mean extremely significant difference (p < 0.01).
Figure 9The sensitivity of various factors. (a) sensitivity vs. depth of soil with r-PGA application (cm). (b) sensitivity vs. bulk density (g cm−3). (c) sensitivity vs. the γ-PGA application rate (%).
Empirical model validation.
| Treatment | No. 10 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time (min) | Cumulative Infiltration of Formula (16) | Wetting Front Distance of Formula (19) | ||||
| Experimental Data (cm) | Calculated Value (cm) | Relative Deviation (%) | Experimental Data (cm) | Calculated Value (cm) | Relative Deviation (%) | |
| 15 | 2.4 | 2.1 | −13.3 | 8.9 | 8.6 | −3.4 |
| 20 | 2.7 | 2.5 | −10.4 | 9.9 | 10.0 | 1.4 |
| 30 | 3.4 | 3.1 | −7.0 | 12.1 | 12.5 | 3.3 |
| 45 | 4.2 | 4.0 | −4.3 | 15.2 | 15.5 | 2.2 |
| 60 | 5.0 | 4.8 | −2.9 | 17.0 | 18.1 | 6.7 |
| 90 | 6.4 | 6.2 | −2.2 | 20.7 | 22.6 | 9.1 |
| 120 | 7.6 | 7.4 | −2.9 | 25.0 | 26.4 | 5.4 |
| 150 | 8.9 | 8.5 | −4.2 | 28.3 | 29.7 | 5.1 |
| 180 | 10.1 | 9.5 | −5.8 | 32.0 | 32.8 | 2.5 |
| 240 | 12.6 | 11.4 | −9.3 | 40.0 | 38.3 | −4.3 |
| 300 | 14.1 | 13.1 | −7.2 | 47.0 | 43.2 | −8.1 |
| 360 | 16.1 | 14.6 | −9.2 | 52.8 | 47.7 | −9.8 |
| Treatment | No. 11 | |||||
| Time (min) | Cumulative Infiltration of Formula (16) | Wetting Front Distance of Formula (19) | ||||
| Experimental Data (cm) | Calculated Value (cm) | Relative Deviation (%) | Experimental Data (cm) | Calculated Value (cm) | Relative Deviation (%) | |
| 15 | 2.3 | 2.0 | −14.1 | 8.7 | 8.39 | −3.5 |
| 20 | 2.6 | 2.3 | −11.1 | 9.6 | 9.80 | 2.1 |
| 30 | 3.2 | 3.0 | −7.5 | 11.8 | 12.20 | 3.4 |
| 45 | 4.0 | 3.8 | −5.0 | 14.3 | 15.18 | 6.1 |
| 60 | 4.8 | 4.6 | −4.0 | 16.6 | 17.72 | 6.8 |
| 90 | 6.1 | 5.9 | −3.8 | 20.1 | 22.05 | 9.7 |
| 120 | 7.4 | 7.1 | −4.6 | 24.1 | 25.75 | 6.8 |
| 150 | 8.6 | 8.1 | −6.0 | 27.7 | 29.04 | 4.8 |
| 180 | 9.8 | 9.1 | −7.5 | 31.6 | 32.04 | 1.4 |
| 240 | 11.5 | 10.8 | −6.0 | 39.6 | 37.41 | −5.5 |
| 300 | 12.9 | 12.4 | −3.4 | 45 | 42.19 | −6.2 |
| 360 | 13.8 | 13.9 | 1.2 | 50.6 | 46.6 | −8.0 |
| Treatment | No. 12 | |||||
| Time/min | Cumulative Infiltration of Formula (16) | Wetting Front Distance of Formula (19) | ||||
| Experimental Data (cm) | Calculated Value (cm) | Relative Deviation (%) | Experimental Data (cm) | Calculated Value (cm) | Relative Deviation (%) | |
| 15 | 2.1 | 1.8 | −12.5 | 8.2 | 7.84 | −4.4 |
| 20 | 2.4 | 2.2 | −9.3 | 9.4 | 9.2 | −2.6 |
| 30 | 3.0 | 2.8 | −5.5 | 11.5 | 11.4 | −1.3 |
| 45 | 3.7 | 3.6 | −2.8 | 13.9 | 14.2 | 2.0 |
| 60 | 4.4 | 4.3 | −1.5 | 15.8 | 16.6 | 4.8 |
| 90 | 5.6 | 5.5 | −1.2 | 19.6 | 20.6 | 5.1 |
| 120 | 6.7 | 6.6 | −2.0 | 23.2 | 24.1 | 3.7 |
| 150 | 7.8 | 7.6 | −3.3 | 26.4 | 27.1 | 2.8 |
| 180 | 8.9 | 8.5 | −4.8 | 29.8 | 29.9 | 0.4 |
| 240 | 10.9 | 10.1 | −7.4 | 35.2 | 35.0 | −0.7 |
| 300 | 12.4 | 11.6 | −6.4 | 41.6 | 39.4 | −5.3 |
| 360 | 13.0 | 13.0 | 0.4 | 48.2 | 43.5 | −9.8 |
Figure 10Soluble breakthrough curves (BTC).
The solute transport fitting parameters by CDE.
| γ-PGA (%) |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| min | min | cm·min−1 | cm2·min−1 | ||||
| CK (0) | 304.3 | 507.1 | 0.74 | 0.45 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.99 |
| 0.1 | 358.0 | 716.0 | 0.81 | 0.35 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.99 |
| 0.2 | 494.4 | 1236.0 | 0.86 | 0.62 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.99 |
| 0.3 | 562.8 | 1407.0 | 0.80 | 0.77 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.99 |
Note: t0 represents the initial penetration time; t1 represents the complete breakthrough time; R represents the blocking factor; λ represents the dispersion, which represents equal to D/v; v represents the average pore water flow rate; D represents the dispersion coefficient.