HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sikora, F. J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Sikora, F. J. Agricola Articles by Sikora, F. J. Related Collections Soil pH Soil Analysis Soil Chemistry

Nutrient Management & Soil & Plant Analysis

A Buffer that Mimics the SMP Buffer for Determining Lime Requirement of Soil

Univ. of Kentucky, Division of Regulatory Services, Soil Testing Lab., 103 Regulatory Service Bldg., Lexington, KY 40546-0275

^* Corresponding author (fsikora{at}uky.edu)

The Shoemaker-McLean-Pratt (SMP) buffer used for determining lime requirement of soil contains chromium and p-nitrophenol, which classifies the solution as a hazardous waste. A buffer without hazardous chemicals producing the same pH as SMP buffer would eliminate hazardous waste and have no effect on agronomic interpretation. Chemicals chosen to replace chromium and p-nitrophenol were 2-(N-morpholino)ethanesulfonic acid monohydrate (MES) and imidazole. Acid titrations of SMP buffer and various mixtures of a new buffer were performed to duplicate the acid-base characteristics of the SMP buffer. The new buffer is adjusted to pH 7.70 and contains 69.6, 13.7, 31.4, 89.3, and 2000 mM of triethanolamine, imidazole, MES monohydrate, acetic acid, and KCl, respectively. Coefficients of determination (r²) for linear regressions of soil-buffer pH with the new buffer versus SMP buffer on 255 Kentucky and 87 North American Proficiency Testing (NAPT) soils were 0.974 and 0.967, respectively. The linear regression equation for new buffer versus SMP buffer lime recommendations in Mg ha^–1 was y = 0.226 + 0.994x with an r² of 0.935 for 158 Kentucky soils requiring lime and y = 1.42 + 0.876x with an r² of 0.876 for 27 NAPT soils requiring lime. Repeated soil-buffer pH measurements were made using 10 Kentucky soils and 11 NAPT soils over 150 d. Only one of the soil samples showed a significant drift in soil-buffer pH with time using the new buffer, and the drift was also observed using SMP buffer. With 88 measurements of soil-buffer pH using the new buffer on 11 NAPT soils, 2 measurements fell outside NAPT warning limits for SMP soil-buffer pH. The new buffer without hazardous chemicals mimicked the soil-buffer pH obtained with SMP buffer, provided lime recommendations similar to that with SMP buffer, and had a laboratory shelf life of at least 150 d.

Abbreviations: MAD, median absolute deviation • MES, 2-(N-morpholino) ethanesulfonic acid monohydrate • NAPT, North American Proficiency Testing • RCRA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act • SMP, Shoemaker–McLean–Pratt.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. J. Sikora and K. P. Moore The Moore-Sikora Buffer for Lime Requirement Determinations Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., July 1, 2008; 72(4): 1163 - 1173. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. B. Godsey, G. M. Pierzynski, D. B. Mengel, and R. E. Lamond Evaluation of Common Lime Requirement Methods Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., April 5, 2007; 71(3): 843 - 850. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]