Abstract

Improvements to the routine methods for the determination of actual acidity in suspension for acid sulfate soils (ASS) are introduced. The titratable sulfidic acidity (TSA) results using an improved peroxide-based method were compared with the theoretical acidity predicted by the chromium reducible sulfur method for 9 acid sulfate soils. The regression between these 2 measures of sulfidic acidity was highly significant, the slope of the regression line not significantly different from unity (P = 0.05) and the intercept not significantly different from zero. This contrasts with results of other workers using earlier peroxide oxidation methods, where TSA substantially underestimated the theoretical acidity predicted by reduced inorganic sulfur analysis. Comparison was made between the 2 principal measurements from the improved peroxide method (TSA and S_POS), with S_POS converted to theoretical sulfidic acidity to allow comparison. The relationship between these 2 measurements was highly significant. The effects of titration in suspension, as well as raising titration end points to pH 6.5, were investigated, principally with respect to the titratable actual acidity (TAA) result. TAA results obtained by KCl extraction were compared with those obtained using BaCl₂, MgCl₂, and water extraction. TAA in 1 M KCl suspensions titrated to pH 6.5 agreed well with titratable actual acidity measured using the 25-h extraction approach of the Lin et al. (2000a) BaCl₂ method. Both BaCl₂ and KCl solutions were ineffective at fully recovering acidity from synthetic jarosite without repeated extraction and titration. The application of correction factors for the estimation of total actual acidity in ASS is not supported by the results of this investigation. Acid sulfate soils that contain substantial quantities of jarosite or other acid-producing but relatively insoluble sulfate minerals continue to prove problematic to chemically analyse; however, an approach for estimating this component is discussed.