19

SAMPLE PREPARATION FOR PEAT MATERIAL

ANALYSIS

Masganti

Riau Assessment Institute for Agricultural Technology

Abstract. Sample preparation is an important step in analysis of chemical properties of

peat material. Hydrophobicity is one important properties, because this trait can lead to
reduce accuracy of the analysis. Water in peat material is easy to loss by heating. Long
time drying or heating peat material during preparation can cause the peat material to be
hydrophobic, therefore reactivity to water or extractant solution become low. That
condition makes seriously problem in analyzing soil chemical properties, because less or
no reaction between extractant solution and solid peat material produces inaccurate or less
accurate analysis results. The purpose of this paper was to talk about duration of drying
peat material become hydrophobic at: (a) drying under room temperature and (b) heating
in the oven at 50oC. Duration of peat material preparation by drying at room temperature
was suggested less than 36 hours long, while drying it using oven at 50oC should not
longer than 5 hours.

INTRODUCTION
Soil analysis is important step in determining strategy of land development. In
laboratorium, soil analysis starts from preparation of soil samples. Proper preparation of
soil samples for chemical analysis was one important step to obtain actual quality of the
soil (Tan 1996). Method of soil sample preparation, which is inaccurate, causes deviation
in the analysis values of soil chemical properties, thus causing error in determining
strategies of land management, particularly with regard to determination of type and
amount of fertilizer needed. This situation leads to low efficiency and effectiveness of
fertilization (Masganti 2003), so the maximum level of crop productivity was not
achieved. Masganti et al. (2001) and Masganti (2005; 2006) reported that peat material
analyzed under hydrophilic condition has chemical properties in contrast with peat
material analyzed under hydrophobic condition.
Hydrophobic is one of the peat soil properties closely related to moisture content.
Hydrophobic was a condition in which soil surface presents a weak binding energy with
water or a condition of the soil surface on which a water drop did not spread (Valat et al.
1991; Louis et al. 1998). Presence of aromatic hydrocarbon covering peat colloid is
believed to result in low water holding capacity of the peat material. In the hydrophilic
condition, the peat soil had a high capability to absorb water so that when analyzed led to
contact with the extracting solution could take place intensively (Masganti 2005; 2006).

197

Masganti

Water in peat material was easy to lose through heating (Kwak et al. 1986; Valat et
al. 1991; Von Wadruszka 1998). Drying in soil preparation causes peat material to
become hydrophobic (Masganti et al. 2001; Masganti 2005; 2006). In the preparation of
peat material, drying or heating for a long time can cause the peat material to be
hydrophobic.
Under hydrophobic condition, reactivity of the peat material to water or extractant
solution was low. That condition makes serious problem in analysizing soil chemical
properties. Less or no reaction between extractant solution and solid peat material
produced not accurate or inaccurate analysis results of soil chemical properties (Masganti
et al. 2001; Masganti 2005; 2006).
The purpose of this paper was to provide information about the condition of peat
material becomes hydrophobic in sample preparation process if (a) dried at room
temperature and (b) heated in an oven at 50oC.

METHOD OF PEAT SAMPLE PREPARATION

Drying at Room Temperature
Drying of peat material in room temperature reduces its water content. This was
understandable because the water bound by peat material was easily lost due to heating
(Von Wandruszka 1998). In addition, drying also leads to differences in the decrease rate
in water content of peat material. In this study the drying of peat material was performed
at room temperature of 25-27oC with 75-80% relative humidity (Table 1).
Table 1. Effect of drying duration at room temperature on water content of peat material
Soil Laboratory, Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Gadjah
Mada University, 2001)
Duration of drying time
hours
6
12
18
24
36
48
60
72
84
96

Water Content
Sapric Peat
Fibric Peat
.. %
262
210
168
134
103
76
53#
50
46
44

Note : # = water content of peat material to become hydrophobic

198

487
367
272
193
128
71#
65
60
54
46

Sample Preparation for Peat Material Analysis

Drying of the peat material at room temperature led to appear hydrophobicity.

Sapric peat material became hydrophobic after 60 hours drying with a water content of
53%, while fibric peat material became hydrophobic after 48 hours drying with a water
content of 71%. Based on these results, this study suggested that drying peat material at
room temperature for 48 hours (fibric peat) or for 60 hours (sapric peat). Thus, through
preparation of peat material, drying could be performed at room temperature for 36 hours.
Peat material heating in oven at 50oC
Table 2 showes that water contents of peat material heated in oven at 50oC to
become hydrophobic were 42% for sapric after d 480 minutes and 61% for fibric after 360
minutes. These numbers showed that if peat material was heated, hydrophobicity of fibric
peat material appeared earlier than that of sapric one. More decomposed peat material
contained more colloids (Stevenson 1994; Tan 1994), so the water was bound more
strongly. This condition was caused only by longer heating which could cause damage to
structure of the bond between water and solid peat material, while the damage of water
bound by chemicals had not occurred at a new beginning (Valat et al. 1991; Stevenson
1994).
Physically, the peat material becomes hydrophobic when wetted with water does
not absorb water or appears to be wet, and the peat material will float when put in water.
Before reaching the hydrophobic condition, heating causes decline rate of peat
material to hold water increases until it reaches its peak during hydrophobic. After the
peat material becoming hydrophobic, the reduction rate in holding water decreased and
relatively constant (Notohadiprawiro 2000).
According to Kwak et al. (1986), about 40-70% water in peat material was bound
by van der Waals attraction, and 10-15% bound by chemical binding. The water bound by
the van der Waals attraction was easy to lose by heating, while the water bound by
chemical binding needed more energy to lose (Von Wandruszka 1998).
More water losses led to changes in the molecular colloid structure of peat
material. This condition caused the colloids to interact to form a new more stable structure
(Valat et al. 1991). The structural changes were not reversible and had a low affinity to
moisture.
The appearance of hydrophobicity of more decomposed peat material at lower
water levels also related to higher levels of ash content (Valat et al. 1991; Sabiham 2000).
Peat material with a high ash content had more minerals content, so that more water was
bound by chemical binding. Thus for the same drying duration, water loss at fibric peat
material was higher than that at sapric peat material, although water holding capacity of

199

Masganti

fibric peat material was higher than sapric peat material (Andriesse 1988; Pohan et al.
1991; Nugroho and Widodo 2001).
Water reduction velocity of fibric peat material was higher than that of sapric peat
material (Table 2). This was due to fibric peat material contained higher cellulose and
hemicellulose than sapric peat material did (Valat et al. 1991; Stevenson 1994; Sabiham
2001). Cellulose and hemicellulose are hydrophilic and identified as organic components,
which were easier to change by heating (Tan 1997). Drying of peat material for a long
time destroys structure of both components, so reduces water holding capacity of the peat
material.
Table 2. Water content of peat material after heating in oven temperature of 50oC (Soil
Laboratory, Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Gadjah Mada
University, 2002)
Stage of peat
decompostion

Drying duration (minutes)

Symbol

Water content (%)

Sapric

270
360
480
540

SL1
SL2
SL3
SL4

155
79
42#
34

Fibric

90
210
360
420

FL1
FL2
FL3
FL4

320
153
61#
46

Note : # = water content of peat material to become hydrophobic

Differences in rate of peat water loss also related to content of humic and fulvic
acids in peat material. According to Valat et al. (1991), Vermer (1996), and Masganti
(2003), sapric peat material contained higher humic acid than fibric peat material did, but
lower in fulvic acid. Heating caused the fulvic acid changes faster or easier because of a
lower molecular weight (Stevenson 1994; Spark et al. 1997; Tan 1997).
The decrease rate in water content of fibric peat material was faster than that of
sapric peat material by heating and also related to the contents of total acidity, carboxylic,
and OH-phenolic in peat material (Harris et al. 1998; Sabiham 2000). Changes in those
chemical properties of peat material caused by heating were higher in fibric peat material
than those in sapric peat material. Higher changes in chemical properties henced faster
decreases in water content. Thus the appearance of hydrophobicity closely related to
velocity of reducing these chemical properties of the peat material.
In order to keep peat material remains in the hydrophilic condition, it is suggested
that preparation of peat material by heating in oven at 50oC should not longer than 300
minutes or 5 hours.

200

Sample Preparation for Peat Material Analysis

CONCLUSION
Preparation of peat material both at room temperature and in oven at 50oC caused the peat
material became hydrophobic.
Duration preparation of peat samples by drying at room temperature was suggested
at a maximum of 36 hours. When the preparation through heating in oven at 50oC, the
duration should not longer than 5 hours.

REFERENCES
Andriesse, J.P. 1988. Nature and Management of Tropical Peat Soils. Soil Resources,
Management & Conservation Cervice. FAO Land and Water Development
Division. FAO, Rome. 165 p.
Haris, A., D. Herudjito, S. Sabiham, and S.H. Adimidjaja. 1998. Physico-chemical
properties of peat material in relation to irreversible drying process (in Indonesia)
Kalimantan Agrikultura 5(2) : 91-99.
Kwak, J.T.C., A.L. Ayub, and J.D. Sheppard. 1986. The role of colloid science in peat
dewatering : principle and dewatering studies. Peat and Water. pp. 95-118.
Louis, W.D., C.J. Ritsema, K. Oostindie, and O.H. Boersma. 1998. Effects of drying
temperature on the severity of soil water repellency. Soil Science 163(10) : 780796.
Masganti, T. Notohadikusumo, A. Maas, and B. Radjagukguk. 2001. Hydrophobicity and
its impact on chemical properties of peat. In Rieley, J.O. and S.E. Page (Eds.).
Jakarta Symposium Proceeding on Peatlands for People: Natural Resources
Functions and Sustainable Management. pp: 109-113.
Masganti. 2003. The Study on Increasing Effort of Phosphate Supplying Capacity in
Oligotrophic Peat (in Indonesia). PhD. Thesis. Gadjah Mada University,
Yogyakarta. 355 p.
Masganti. 2005. Hydrophobicity and result of chemical analysis of peat material (in
Indonesia). Jurnal Tanah dan Air 6(2): 69-74.
Masganti. 2006. Sample preparation and hydrophobicity of peat material. Tropical
Peatlands 6(6):10-14.
Notohadiprawiro, T. 2000. Soil and Environment (in Indonesia). Center for Land
Resources Studies, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta. 187 p.
Nugroho, K. and B. Widodo. 2001. The effect of dry-wet condition to peat soil physical
characteristic of different degree of decomposition. In Rieley, J.O. and S.E. Page
(Eds.). Jakarta Symposium Proceeding on Peatlands for People: Natural Resources
Functions and Sustainable Management. Pp: 94-102.

201

Masganti

Pohan, A., S. Soekodarmodjo, and B.D. Kertonegoro. 1991. Research on Physical Aspect
of Peat Material Relation to Irreversible Process (in Indonesia). Research Report.
Pascasarjana Programe, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta. 28 p.
Sabiham, S. 2000. Critical moisture content of Central Kalimantan peat in relation to
irreversible process (in Indonesia). J. Tanah Trop. 6(11):21-30.
Sabiham, S. 2001. Stability Condition and Processes of Destabilization of the Indonesian
Tropical Peats. Directorate Generale of Higher Education, Ministry of National
Education. 63 p.
Spark, K.M., J.D. Wells, and B.B. Johnson. 1997. The interaction of humic acid with
heavy metals. Aus. J. Soil Res. 35(1) : 89-101.
Stevenson, F.J. 1994. Humus Chemistry : genesis, composition and reaction. Second
Edition. John Willey & Sons Inc., New York. 496 p.
Tan, K.H. 1994. Environmental Soil Science. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York. 304 p.
Tan, K.H. 1996. Soil Sampling, Preparation, and Analysis. Marcel Dekker Inc., New
York. 408 p.
Tan, K.H. 1997. Soil mineral degradation by organic matter (in Indonesia). In Huang,
P.M. and M. Schnitzer (Eds.). Interaction Between Soil Mineral and Organic and
Mycroba (in Indonesia). Transleted by, D.H. Goenadi. First Edition. Gadjah Mada
University Press, Yogyakarta. pp.: 1-31.
Valat, B., C. Jouany, and L.M. Riviere. 1991. Characterization of the wetting properties of
air-dried peats and composts. Soil Science 152 (2) : 100-107.
Vermer, R. 1996. Interaction Between Humic Acid and Hematite and their Effects on
Metal Ion Speciation. Phd. Thesis, Landbouw Universiteit, Wageningen. 199 p.
Von Wandruszka, R. 1998. The micellar model humic acid: evidence from pyrene
flouresence measurement. Soil Sci. 163(12): 921-930.

202