Aggregate stability

and Crumb Formation Theories

Dr Sandeep Upadhyay
Teaching cum Research Associate,
Soil Science, RLB CAU Jhansi 284003
[email protected]
 FORMATION OF SOIL AGGREGATES:
Q. How do aggregates form?

●Several biological, physical, and chemical processes interact to form

aggregates
Chemical Processes:

A. Flocculation -The mutual attraction of clay and organic molecules -

Flocculation of clay particles results into microscopic clumps or floccules

B. Absorption of cations -Polyvalent cations: Ca2+, Fe3+, Al3+ - Can

effectively neutralize the negative surface charges on clay particles -Can

form bridges that bring clay particles together -Monovalent ions (especially

Na+) -Can cause clay particles to repel each other and create a dispersed

condition.

Physical Processes:

A. Volume changes in clayey materials

●Swelling and shrinking actions that accompany freeze-thaw and wet-dry

Biological Processes

A. Action by plants

●Plant roots move particles as they push their way through the soil. ○This

forces soil particles to come into close contact with each other,

encouraging aggregation and creating pores

●Plant roots and fungal hyphae exude sugar-like polysaccharides and

other organic compounds forming sticky networks that bind together

individual soil particles and micro-aggregates into macro-aggregates.

B. Action by animals

●Burrowing and molding activities of soil animals ●Earthworms and

termites move and mix soil particles Some factors enouncing

aggregation are:
1.Organic Matter ●Binds soil particles into water-stable aggregates

●During the aggregation process, soil mineral particles become coated and encrusted

with bits of decomposed plant residue and other organic materials ●OM also provides

the energy substrate that makes possible the biological activities

2.Tillage ●Both promote and destroy aggregation Promote aggregation:

●If soil is not too wet/dry, tillage can break large clods into natural aggregates

resulting to loose, porous condition conducive to root growth and seedling emergence

●Tillage can incorporate organic amendments into the soil and kill weeds Destroy

aggregation:

●Over longer periods, tillage hastens the loss of soil OM, weakening soil aggregates

●Tillage operations tend to crush/smear soil aggregates resulting to loss of

macroporosity

3.Fe/Al oxides ●Fe and Al sesquioxides coat soil particles and cement soil aggregates,

preventing their ready breakdown when the soil is tilled

● Cementing action of Fe oxides and other inorganic compounds produces very

stable small aggregates called pseudosand.

• Aggregate Stability -The ability of soil aggregates to
resist disruption when outside forces are applied (usually
associated with water)

• Importance of aggregate stability:

• Aggregation affects:
-Erosion
-Movement of water
-Plant root growth
• Desirable aggregates are stable against rainfall and water
movement ●Aggregates that break down in water
release individual soil particles, hence, can seal the soil
surface and clog pores ●Pore space provides zones of
weakness through which plant roots can grow
 1. Theory of Crumb Formation
• Russell (1934) proposed that clay particles are bonded
together into aggregates through ionic bonds (Fig. below).
Main Assumptions:
(i) Clay particles have a charge when hydrated,
(ii) the charged particle is surrounded by an electric double
layer of cations,
(iii) POLAR WATER molecules are oriented along the lines of
force radiating from each ion, and from each free charge on
the clay particle,
(iv) Every clay particle is thus surrounded by an envelope of
water, and
(v) As the soil moisture content is reduced, the thickness of
the envelope is reduced, and each ion shares its envelope
 RUSSELL crumb formation theory Limitations:

(i) Particles must have high cation exchange and large surface
area,
(ii) Particles must be smaller than a certain size 1 µm because
sand and silt fractions are not essential to crumb formation
and make a crumb weaker,
(iii) The liquid must have an appreciable dipole moment, and
(iv) Polyvalent cations must be present. Clay particles are
absorbed on sand and silt fractions, and the strength of
bond between the clay and the sand increases with
decreasing particle size of the clay.
 2. THE Ca-LINKAGE THEORY; WILLIAMS (1935) AND PETERSON (1947)

• The linkage was more effective in the presence of polyuronides, a

component of soil organic matter, than without it. Negatively
charged organic materials such as polysaccharides are absorbed
onto the surface of clay by Ca+2 or other polyvalent cations (Fe+3,
Al+3). This model is schematically presented in Eq. (1) for different
polyvalent cations, and Eq. (2) for Ca+2, and schematically
presented in Fig. 2.

clay–Mg–OH, clay–Be–OH, clay–Fe–(OH)2, clay–Fe–OH (Eq. 1)

clay–Ca–OOC–R–COO–Ca–OOC–R–COO–Ca–clay (Eq. 2)

Fig. 2 Plate-condensation of Ca–clay.

FIG. 1 A hypothetic pattern for protopectin. (Redrawn from Peterson, 1947.)
 Edge–Surface Proximity Concept
• Schofield and Samson (1954) and Trollope and
Chan (1959) proposed a model based on the
interparticle forces of attraction and repulsion.
• Their proposal of a card-house structure is
based on the establishment of equilibrium
between adjacent particles due to the edge-
surface proximity establishing a link bond (Fig.
3).
• Flocculation occurs as a result of electrostatic
attraction between the positive edges and
negative faces of clay lattices. The link bond is
FIG 3. Card-house structure
of floccules. established if the particles are sufficiently close
to exceed the potential energy barrier.
• This model is essentially based on the forces of
adhesion between the clay particles. This edge-to-
face type of flocculation produces a much more
stable system than flocculation caused by lowering of
zeta potential due to addition of salt.
 3. Emerson’s Model (1959)
• Crumbs are formed by cementation
of cardhouse or brush heap type of
floccules by positive edge-negative
face attraction (Fig. 4).
• According to this model, both
quartz and clay form the main
FIG 4. Schematic of the arrangements components of an aggregate or
of quartz, clay domains, and organic
matter in aggregate. Type of bond: A,
crumb.
quartz-organic matter quartz; B, • However, this structure dis-appears
quartz– organic matterdomain; C,
domain-organic matterdomain (C1, when soil is dried and 2:1 type clay
face-face; C2, edge-face; C3, edge- minerals show an orientation with
edge); D, domain edgedomain face.
(Redrawn from Emerson, 1959.) flat sides parallel. This crumb
structure is generally stable when the
 Emerson proposed 4 types of bonds common in the crumb str.
(i) H bonding between the carboxyl group in org. matter and the clay,
(ii) Ionic bonding between the carboxyl group of org. matter and the clay,
(iii) Interaction of the electric double layers leading to the formation of
domains, and
(iv) Bonding between the organic and inorganic colloids and between the
colloids and the large soil particles.

Emerson’s model is an extension of Russell’s model and incorporates the

principles of the diffuse double layer. Clusters of clay crystals form
domains as a result of orientation and electrostatic attraction to each
other.
These domains function as a single unit, and are bonded to the surface of
the quartz grains and to each other to form aggregates.
In addition, organic compounds increase the strength of the clay-quartz bond
(Fig. 4).
Electrostatic forces between the positive edges and negative faces of clay
minerals, and presence of polyvalent cations also increase bond
 4. The Organic Bond Theory

• Greenland (1965a; b) advanced Emerson’s

model by showing the importance of soil
organic matter in strengthening the bond
between adjacent clay particles.
• Soil organic matter may hold particles together
by ionic bonding in a manner similar to “string
of beads.” For electrically neutral system,
organic molecules may form a “coat of paint”
around the outside of a number of particles
binding them together into an aggregate.
 5. Clay-Domain Theory
• Williams et al. (1967) proposed that clay
particles mostly exist in domains, up to
about 5 µm in diameter, within which they
are separated by “bonding pores” which
maintain their identity.
• Clusters of domains are called
microaggregates, with sizes in the order of
5– 1,000 (µm, and microaggregates are
clustered into aggregates, 1–5 mm in
diameter (Fig. 5).
• The integrity of microaggregates and
aggregates is dependent on cementation
between domains or microaggregates by
Fig. 5 A hypothetical model of a inorganic precipitates, or on organic
soil aggregate. (Redrawn from materials acting as a lining spread over the
Williams et al., 1967.) surfaces of domains or microaggregates.
Oriented clay films and microbial films may
also bind microaggregates and aggregates.
 6. Quasi Crystal Theory
• Aylmore and Quirk (1971) extended Williams et al. (1967) domain
model by introducing the concept of quasi crystals or packets.
• The latter involves parallel clay crystals (about 5 µm in diameter) which
are clustered together. closely enough (0.01–1.3 µm apart) to form
domains. Rather than using domains, Quirk and Aylmore proposed the
term “quasi crystals” to describe the regions of parallel alignment of
individual lamellae of aluminosilicates in swelling type clay minerals
which exhibit the intracrystalline swelling (e.g., montmorillonite).
• In comparison, they used the term domain to describe the regions of
parallel alignment of crystals with fixed lattice and which exhibit
intercrystalline swelling only (e.g., illite). The quasi crystal model has
been verified and supported by Oades and Waters (1991), who argued
that clay particles are aggregated into quasi crystals or stable packets.
• Oades and Waters proposed three distinct size fractions: (i) binding of
clay particles into stable packets of 250 µm. (ii) binding of clay packets
into stable microaggregates 20–250 µm, and (iii) the binding of
microaggregates into stable macroaggregates >250 µm.
 Microaggregate Theory
• Edwards and Bremner (1967) proposed that soil consists of
microaggregates (< 250 µm) bound into macroaggregates (>250
µm), and bonds within microaggregates are stronger than those
between microaggregates. Microaggregates are represented by the
structure shown in Eq. (4).
Microaggreate = [(Cl–P–OMx] (Eq 4)
where Cl is clay, P is polyvalent cation (Ca+2, Al+3, Fe+3), and OM is
organometallic complex including humified organic matter
complexed with polyvalent metals. There may be more than one
polyvalent metal bridge between clay (Cl) and OM in the Cl–P– OM
units (Fig. 6).
[(Cl–P–OM)x ]y Y(Cl–P–OM)x represent compound particles of clay
size(<2 µm in diameter)