Post on 19-Jan-2023
1
Abstract
Soil sample physical properties can greatly be affected during soil sampling procedures. Improper
procedures can impose modifications on soil sample structure and consequently lead to wrong
measurements of soil properties. The objective of this work was to evaluate the damage caused by
soil samplers to soil structure through the analysis of computed tomography (CT) images. A first
generation tomograph was used, having a 241
Am source and a 7.62 x 7.62 cm NaI(Tl) scintillation
crystal detector coupled to a photomultiplier tube. Results confirm the effect of soil sampler devices
on the structure of soil samples, and that the compaction caused during sampling causes significant
alterations of soil bulk density. Through the use of CT it was possible to determine the level of
compaction and to make a detailed analysis of the soil bulk density distribution within the soil
sample.
Additional Keywords: Soil sampler device, soil compaction, computed tomography, gamma
radiation.
Introduction
Many soil scientists have investigated the influence of sampling volume on the evaluation of
soil physical properties such as, soil bulk density, air volume, water volume, and porosity (Rogasik
2
et al. 1999). VandenBygaart and Protz (1999) tried to define a representative elementary area
(REA) in the study of pedofeatures for quantitative analysis. They showed that there is a minimum
area to represent pedofeatures and that it is not possible to make quantitative analyses for smaller
areas. Baveye et al. (2002) showed the importance of the soil sampling volume in the determination
of macroscopic parameters, and that small sampling volumes exhibit significant and seemingly
erratic fluctuations.
Instruments used for soil sampling may also affect measurements. Camponez do Brasil
(2000) showed that for 4 different soil sampling devices, certain soil physical properties could be
strongly affected by soil sampling process. The equipment could cause compaction of the samples,
causing modifications of the porous system and consequently in soil structure.
Soil compaction and changes in soil structure can cause serious alterations of soil physical
properties such as bulk density. Soil bulk density, represented by the ratio between soil mass and
soil volume, is meant to give an idea of the percentage of voids that define soil structure. Low
porosity represents a more compact region of the soil sample. These compacted regions can cause
modifications in soil water storage capacity and matric soil water potential, which are parameters
used in irrigation and drainage management, and therefore have economic significance in
agriculture.
Computed tomography (CT) is a noninvasive imaging technique that allows good resolution
images of materials and permits quantitative analyses of physical properties. CT has been used to
obtain non-destructive images of different objects in several areas of knowledge (Hounsfield 1973;
Borgia et al. 2001; Stampanoni et al. 2003; Treimer et al. 2003; Jenneson et al. 2003). Petrovic et
al. (1982) introduced CT into soil science through studies of soil bulk density. Hainsworth and
Aylmore (1983) and Crestana et al. (1985) performed measurements of soil water content and soil
water movement through X-ray and gamma ray CT. Crestana et al. (1986) developed a CT scanner
dedicated to soil science analysis and showed that this equipment has advantages over the
3
commercial medical scanner. Vaz et al. (1989) used miniscanner CT to study soil compaction
caused during plowing operations with heavy equipments. Perret et al. (1999) made a 3-D
quantification of soil macropores in undisturbed soil columns. Wildenschild et al. (2002) used X-
ray CT for hydrological purposes and compared results obtained for 3 different CT systems, and
Balogun and Cruvinel (2003) investigated soil density distributions for agricultural purposes
utilizing Compton scattering tomography.
We propose to use gamma ray CT to observe the effect of soil sampler devices on the
measurement of soil bulk density distribution inside collected samples.
Theory
When a gamma ray beam passes through a soil sample of thickness x (cm) different
electromagnetic processes can occur, and the transmitted photon intensity I follows the Beer-
Lambert law:
)](xexp[.II *
ws
*
s0 (1)
where I0 is the incident photon intensity, *s and *
w (cm2/g) are the soil and water mass attenuation
coefficients, s (g/cm3) is the soil bulk density, respectively, and (cm
3/cm
3) is the volumetric soil
water content. The CT often uses the linear attenuation (cm-1
) converted into numbers called
tomographic units (TU) that are numerical values assigned to gray levels (Herman 1980). For a soil
sample the relation between TU and of the sample is given by:
)...(.TU *
ws
*
s (2)
4
where represents the correlation coefficient between and TU.
Differences in TU values represent differences in soil physical density at each point or pixel.
Consequently, it is possible to obtain density distributions along the length of the soil sample, and
in the case of a moist soil sample, this density distribution includes the water content distribution.
On the other hand, if the soil sample is dry or its water content is uniformly distributed, the TU
distribution permits the calculation of soil bulk density values:
.
TU*
w
*
s
s (3)
where (g/g) represents the gravimetric soil water content.
Material and Methods
Soils
Soil core samples were taken from a soil profile of an Eutrustox from an experimental field
of the Department of Plant Production of ESALQ/USP, in Piracicaba, SP, Brazil (22°4´S; 47°38´W;
580 m above sea level). Four different soil sampling devices were used and correspond to inox
cylinders of different sizes: (1) Sampler A (4.2 cm high, 2.7 cm i.d., 25 cm3 volume), (2) Sampler B
(3.0 cm high, 4.8 cm i.d., 55 cm3 volume), (3) Sampler C (2.65 cm high, 4.9 cm i.d., 50 cm
3
volume), and (4) Sampler D (5.3 cm high, 4.9 cm i.d., 100 cm3 volume). All samplers permit the
introduction of the steel cylinders in their inner space and soil samples are collected in these
cylinders by a procedure that starts with a rubber mass falling from different heights to introduce
the sampler containing the steel cylinder into the soil, down to the desired depth. After complete
5
introduction of the set into the soil, the surrounding soil is removed with a spade. The excavation is
made carefully allowing the extraction of the cylinder containing the sample for density evaluation.
Caution is needed during this process to minimise vibration, scissoring and compaction effects on
the structure of the soil sample.
CT analysis was performed on 20 soil samples (5 from each soil sampler) carefully collected
close to the soil surface using the steel cylinders described above.
Scanning system
The CT scanner was a first generation system with a fixed source-detector arrangement, with
translation/rotational movements of the sample. The radioactive gamma ray source was 241
Am with
an activity of 3.7 GBq emitting monoenergetic photons of 59.54 keV. The detector was a 7.62 x
7.62 cm NaI(Tl) scintillation crystal coupled to a photomultiplier tube. Circular lead collimators of
2mm were adjusted and aligned between source and detector. Angular sample rotation steps
were 2.25° until completing a scan of 180°, with linear steps r of 0.14 cm. The pixel size was 1.0 x
1.0 mm for sampler A; 1.14 x 1.14 mm for samplers B and C; and 1.40 x 1.40 mm for sampler D.
The pixel size was calculated by the ratio between the inner diameter of the soil sample and number
of pixels of the reconstruction matrix. Acquired data were stored in a PC and a reconstruction
algorithm called Microvis (2000) developed by Embrapa Agricultural Instrumentation (CNPDIA –
São Carlos, Brazil) was used to obtain CT images. The calibration of the CT system was obtained
through linear correlation between linear attenuation coefficients and tomographic units of different
materials (Pires et al. 2002; Pires et al. 2003). The tomographic images of the soil samples were
taken on vertical planes crossing the center of the cylindrical sample.
For image analysis different concentric rectangular areas were selected inside soil sample
images (Fig. 1), where the arithmetic means of TU were calculated and converted into soil bulk
6
density, giving a general idea of the spatial variability of this parameter, in depth as well as
laterally, within the sample.
Fig. 1. Concentric rectangular areas utilized for soil sample image analysis. Each area represents arithmetic
means of the pixels inside the area. H represents the height and D the diameter of sample.
Results and discussion
Figure 2 shows the regression of tomographic units and linear attenuation coefficients for
different materials used to calibrate the scanner system, presenting a high correlation coefficient
(R=0.999), which is very important to obtain soil images of good quality (Pedrotti et al. 2003).
Fig. 2. CT calibration for 241
Am gamma photons. Homogeneous materials utilized in calibration were water,
alcohol, nylon, acrylic and aluminum.
7
The mass attenuation coefficients for soil and water were 0.244290.00250 and
0.198900.00018 cm2/g, respectively, for the 59.54 keV photons, which agree with values found in
the literature for 241
Am source (Ferraz and Mansell 1979).
Four images of soil samples obtained for each soil sampler device are shown in Fig. 3. The
planes of image acquisition were vertical and the available data permitted a continuous 2-D analysis
of the density distribution along the soil sample. These images show a clear heterogeneity of soil
bulk density and the occurrence of larger values near the edges of the soil samples. There was a
density gradient for samples obtained by all soil sampler devices and this gradient is represented in
Fig. 3 through arrows. Each arrow indicates the direction of higher to smaller densities, and
therefore, the direction of the arrows for all soil samples indicates an increase in soil density near
the edges and the lowest bulk density is found in the center region. For the sampler A it is possible
to observe a compaction at the bottom and at the top of the sample, probably due to the lower
internal diameter of the cylinder. Pires et al. (2004) shown through of the analyses of transects of
CT images that small soil-sampling volumes may induce compaction at the top and at the bottom of
the soil sample.
8
Fig. 3. Tomographic images of soil samples collected by different soil sampler devices. The direction of
arrows shows the existence of a density gradient and indicate the way of higher to smaller density.
For the evaluation of the effect of each soil sampler device on soil bulk density, graphs of
density v. area were used (Fig. 4). This area represents the different areas shown in Fig. 1, and for
each soil image there are distinct values of bulk density. Table 1 shows values of these areas for
each soil image and their respective values of bulk density.
9
Table 1. Average soil bulk density () obtained for different areas (A) of soil image for four types
of soil sampler devices (A-D).
Sampler A Sampler B Sampler C Sampler D
Number of
areas
A
(cm2)
(g/cm3)
A
(cm2)
(g/cm3)
A
(cm2)
(g/cm3)
A
(cm2)
(g/cm3)
1 0.38 1.230.07 0.65 1.020.05 0.65 1.040.07 0.78 0.980.02
2 1.03 1.330.08 1.42 1.060.04 1.42 1.090.09 2.82 1.020.02
3 1.89 1.420.09 3.76 1.130.04 3.76 1.160.07 6.35 1.070.02
4 3.22 1.530.09 6.26 1.200.05 6.26 1.250.05 11.76 1.150.02
5 4.56 1.620.07 9.28 1.310.06 9.28 1.350.05 17.01 1.250.02
6 6.73 1.770.08 12.65 1.570.07 12.65 1.610.07 24.69 1.510.03
Fig. 4. Gamma ray transmission analysis of the variation of soil density with the increase of rectangular areas
for soil sample collected by soil sampler devices (A-D).
Fig. 4 and Table 1 reveal a tendency of a density gradient from the center to the edge of the
samples. These results indicate that there is a compaction near the edge of sample and consequently
a decrease in soil porosity. Decreases in soil porosity indicate variations in soil structure, which can
affect soil hydraulic properties. Modifications in hydraulic properties can lead to important practical
problems of water management of irrigated crops. Fig. 4 shows a good linear correlation between
10
bulk density and area, and the angular coefficients obtained represent the density gradient for each
soil sample. Soil samples collected by sampler A presented the largest slope value and samples
collected by sampler D the smallest. Soil samples collected by samplers B and C presented
practically equal values. The larger value of the slope for sampler A indicates the great impact of
this soil sampler in soil sample structure and the smaller value obtained for sampler D indicates that
this instrument causes the lowest impact. Similar results for sampler B and C indicate that these
instruments cause the same effect on soil samples. Fig. 5 presents a comparison of all soil samplers
and their impacts in soil sample structure.
Fig. 5. Comparison of all soil samplers and their respective impacts in the soil sample. , Sampler A; ,
Sampler B; , Sampler C; , Sampler D.
Fig. 6 and Table 2 show density increments () for different area increments (A). Each
increment of area is obtained through the difference between posterior and anterior area represented
in Fig. 1. By the analysis of these density increments it is possible to notice that the largest
variations of density occur for sampler A. Sampler A presents a practically homogeneous variation
of density for small increments of area, and as consequence, more significant modifications in soil
structure. Analyzing Table 2 - Column 2 and 3 it is possible to observe that for small increments of
area the density increment for sampler A is very similar to the results obtained for the other
samplers. Samplers B and C present similar variations of densities and the larger value of density
increment found for the last value of d, represents a direct result of the compaction near the edge.
11
Sampler D has similar results of density increments in comparison to samplers B and C, but for
larger increments of area. Therefore, this soil sampler device presents the minimum impact in soil
sample structure during sampling procedure. The smaller standard deviation observed in Table 2 -
Column 9 confirms that sampler D causes the lowest impacts on soil samples, because the smaller
standard deviation represents a larger homogeneity of soil sample, since the results of represent
average values of five samples. The larger value of density found for the last increment for this
sampler is because of the compaction near the edge and of the larger area increment. It is possible to
conclude by the results obtained here that the length and diameter of soil sample is very important
in soil physics measurements (Rogasik et al. 1999; VandenBygaard and Protz 1999), and that small
samples, as those obtained through sampler A, certainly have great probability to give incorrect or
non representative results when obtaining soil physics parameters.
Table 2. Density increments obtained for different area increments.
Sampler A Sampler B Sampler C Sampler D
Number of
increments A
A
(cm2)
A
(g/cm3)
A
(cm2)
(g/cm3)
A
(cm2)
(g/cm3)
A
(cm2)
(g/cm3)
1 0.65 0.110.04 0.78 0.040.02 0.78 0.050.02 2.04 0.040.01
2 0.86 0.090.02 2.33 0.070.01 2.33 0.070.03 3.53 0.060.01
3 1.33 0.100.02 2.50 0.070.02 2.50 0.090.03 5.41 0.080.01
4 1.34 0.090.04 3.02 0.110.02 3.02 0.100.01 5.25 0.110.02
5 2.17 0.150.03 3.37 0.260.02 3.37 0.260.04 7.68 0.240.04 A A = An+1 – An and = n+1 - n
In order to avoid the effects of possible artifacts or fluctuations in the images, according to
observed by other authors (Herman 1980; Paulus et al. 1999), in the evaluation of soil density, we
made our quantitative analyses selecting areas smaller than the real soil sample size inside the
cylinder. With this procedure we excluded the sample strip borders very close to the cylinder walls
where the abrupt density changes (aluminum/soil) may cause the known image distortions.
12
Fig. 6. Density increments for different area increments for soil sampler devices (A-D). Each increment of
area A is obtained through the difference between posterior and anterior area of the rectangular areas
utilized on the image analysis.
The largest areas chosen were 6.73 cm2 (Sampler A), 12.65 cm
2 (Samplers B and C), and
24.69 cm2 (Sampler D) for which the real soil sample sizes are 7.94 cm
2, 13.70 cm
2, and 25.32 cm
2,
respectively.
The results obtained in this study confirm the effect of soil sampler devices on the structure
of soil samples, and that the compaction caused during soil sampling causes significant
modifications in soil bulk density. Through the CT technique it was possible to confirm this
compaction and to perform a detailed analysis of soil bulk density distribution along soil samples.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank R.C.J. Arthur and R.P. Camponez do Brasil for the help during
soil sampling procedure and to FAPESP (grant no. 02/05066-5) for the financial support.
13
References
Balogun FA, Cruvinel PE (2003) Compton scattering tomography in soil compaction study.
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research – Section A 505, 502-507.
Baveye P, Rogasik H, Wendroth O, Onasch I, Crawford JW (2002) Effect of sampling volume on
the measurement of soil physical properties: simulation with X-ray tomography data.
Measurement Science Technology 13, 775-784.
Borgia GC, Bortolotti V, Fantazzini P (2001) Changes of the local pore scale structure quantified in
heterogeneous porous media by 1H magnetic resonance relaxation tomography. Journal of
Applied Physics 90, 1155-1163.
Camponez do Brasil RP (2000) ’Influência das técnicas de coleta de amostras na determinação das
propriedades físicas do solo.’ (MSc. Thesis, ESALQ/USP-Brazil)
Crestana S, Mascarenhas S, Pozzi-Mucelli RS (1985) Static and dynamic 3-dimensional studies of
water in soil using computed tomographic scanning. Soil Science 140, 326-332.
Crestana S, Cesareo R, Mascarenhas S (1986) Using a computed tomography miniscanner in soil
science. Soil Science 142, 56-61.
Ferraz ESB, Mansell RS (1979) Determining water content and bulk density of soil by gamma ray
attenuation methods. Technical Bulletin, No. 807, IFAS, USA.
Hainsworth JM, Aylmore LAG (1983) The use of computer-assisted tomography to determine
spatial distribution of soil water content. Australian Journal of Soil Research 21, 435-443.
Herman GT (1980) ‘Image Reconstruction from Projections.’ (Academic Press: London)
Hounsfield GN (1973) Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography). 1. Description of
system. British Journal of Radiology 46, 1016-1022.
14
Jenneson PM, Gilboy WB, Morton EJ, Gregory PJ (2003) An X-ray micro-tomography system
optimized for the low-dose study of living organisms. Applied Radiation and Isotopes 58, 177-
181.
MICROVIS (2000) ’Microvis – Programa de Reconstrução e Visualização de Imagens
Tomográficas, Guia do Usuário.’ (EMBRAPA/CNPDIA: São Carlos, Brasil)
Paulus MJ, Sari-Sarraf H, Gleason SS, Bobrek M, Hicks JS, Johnson DK, Behel JK, Thompson LH,
Allen WC (1999) A new X-ray computed tomography system for laboratory mouse imaging.
IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 46, 558-564.
Pedrotti A, Pauletto EA, Crestana S, Cruvinel PE, Vaz CMP, Naime JM, da Silva AM (2003)
Planossol soil sample size for computerized tomography measurement of physical parameters.
Scientia Agrícola 60, 735-740.
Perret J, Prasher SO, Kantzas A, Langford C (1999) Three-Dimensional quantification of
macropore networks in undisturbed soil cores. Soil Science Society American Journal 63, 1530-
1543.
Petrovic AM, Siebert JE, Rieke PE (1982) Soil bulk density analysis in three dimensions by
computed tomographic scanning. Soil Science Society American Journal 46, 445-450.
Pires LF, Macedo JR, Souza MD, Bacchi OOS, Reichardt K (2002) Gamma-ray computed
tomography to characterize soil surface sealing. Applied Radiation and Isotopes 57, 375-380.
Pires LF, Macedo JR, Souza MD, Bacchi OOS, Reichardt K (2003) Gamma-ray computed
tomography to investigate compaction on sewage-sludge-treated soil. Applied Radiation and
Isotopes 59, 17-25.
Pires LF, Arthur RC, Camponez do Brasil RP, Correchel V, Bacchi OOS, Reichardt K (2004) The
use of gamma ray computed tomography to investigate soil compaction due to core sampling
devices. Brazilian Journal of Physics (in press)
15
Rogasik H, Crawford JW, Wendroth O, Young IM, Joschko M, Ritz K (1999) Discrimination of
Soil Phases by Dual Energy X-ray Tomography. Soil Science Society of American Journal 63,
741-751.
Stampanoni M, Borchert G, Abela R, Ruegsegger P (2003) Nanotomography based on double
asymmetrical Bragg diffraction. Applied Physics Letters 82, 2922-2924.
Treimer W, Strobl M, Hilger A, Seifert C, Feye-Treimer U (2003) Refraction as imaging signal for
computerized (neutron) tomography. Applied Physics Letters 83, 398-400.
VandenBygaart AJ, Protz R (1999) The representative elementary area (REA) in studies of
quantitative soil micromorphology. Geoderma 89, 333-346.
Vaz CMP, Crestana S, Mascarenhas S, Cruvinel PE, Reichardt K, Stolf R (1989) Computed
tomography miniscanner for studying tillage induced soil compaction. Soil Technology 2, 313-
321.
Wildenschild D, Hopmans JW, Vaz CMP, Rivers ML, Rikard D, Christensen BSB (2002) Using X-
ray computed tomography in hydrology: systems, resolutions, and limitations. Journal of
Hydrology 267, 285-297.