JEQ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Milligan, D.B.
Right arrow Articles by Sherlock, R.R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Milligan, D.B.
Right arrow Articles by Sherlock, R.R.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Milligan, D.B.
Right arrow Articles by Sherlock, R.R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Soil Methods/Instrumentation
Right arrow Nutrient Cycling
Right arrow Air Pollution
Right arrow Soil Analysis
Right arrow Soil Chemistry

Real-Time, High-Resolution Quantitative Measurement of Multiple Soil Gas Emissions

Selected Ion Flow Tube Mass Spectrometry

D.B. Milligana, P.F. Wilsona, M.N. Mautner*,a,b, C.G. Freemana, M.J. McEwana, T.J. Cloughb and R.R. Sherlockb

a Department of Chemistry, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
b Soil, Plant and Ecological Sciences Division, P.O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand



View larger version (27K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. A schematic diagram of the flowing afterglow–selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry (FA–SIFT) apparatus at the University of Canterbury.

 


View larger version (7K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Gas sampling sequences showing the linear increase of NO headspace concentration with collection time during a 5-min collection time. The symbols represent experiments with different urea soil concentrations and NO emission rates.

 


View larger version (16K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. A plot of the headspace NH3 concentrations and flux vs. time since urine application. Planted treatments incorporated four to eight mature grass plants. Both planted and unplanted treatments received 0.04 L of the synthetic urine. Data points are means of four replicates and error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

 


View larger version (13K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. A plot of headspace NH3 concentrations and fluxes from soil samples prepared with three different rates of synthetic urine. Points are means of two replicates with error bars showing 95% confidence intervals.

 


View larger version (20K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. Flux of NO gas over time, following the application of synthetic urine. The samples with or without grass plants partially dried out at Day 45 to simulate summer drought, and were not fully rehydrated until Day 65. A third treatment, unplanted, remained wet throughout. Points are means of four replicates with error bars showing 95% confidence intervals.

 


View larger version (18K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. A sample mass spectrum, generated in mass scanning mode. The primary ion is O+2 (32 amu). This sample was emitting NH3 and had been treated with pyridine and dimethylamine. Consequently, peaks from these species (17 amu-NH3, 44 and 45 amu-dimethylamine, and 79 amu-pyridine) are also present, demonstrating that multiple emissions can be readily analyzed.

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Vadose Zone Journal
Soil Science Society of America Journal Journal of Plant Registrations The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2002 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.