Skip to Main Content
Skip Nav Destination
ASTM Selected Technical Papers
Testing of Peats and Organic Soils
By
PM Jarrett
PM Jarrett
1
Royal Military College of Canada
,
Kingston, Ontario
;
symposium chairman and editor
Search for other works by this author on:
ISBN-10:
0-8031-0254-2
ISBN:
978-0-8031-0254-5
No. of Pages:
249
Publisher:
ASTM International
Publication date:
1983

Organic soil materials are characterized by the National Cooperative Soil Survey as fibric, hemic, or sapric, using the rubbed fiber volume and the sodium pyrophosphate extract color (SPEC) as differentiae. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) defines fuel-grade peat as having a minimum gross calorific value of 8000 Btu/oven-dry lb (18.6 J/kg), and a maximum ash content of 25% by weight. The object of this study was to determine the nature of the correlations between the unrubbed and rubbed fiber volume, SPEC, calorific value, and percent ash parameters for selected organic soil materials.

Thirty-four samples of the most common kinds of materials collected as part of the Peat Resource Estimation in Michigan research project were selected for characterization. Fiber volumes and pyrophosphate solubility were determined in duplicate after procedures of the National Soil Survey Laboratory of the Soil Conservation Service. Calorific value and ash content were determined in accordance with ASTM Test for Gross Calorific Value of Solid Fuel by the Isothermal-Jacket Bomb Calorimeter (D 3286-77) and ASTM Test for Ash in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke (D 3174-73). Correlation analyses were performed between these five data sets.

The correlation between rubbed fiber and calorific value was not significant (α = 0.05). Unrubbed fiber and SPEC were significantly correlated with calorific value (r = 0.363, r = 0.530), while a much stronger correlation existed between the ash content and calorific value (r = −0.869). The results suggest that the ash content of the materials is a very useful indicator of the calorific value, much more so than the other parameters studied.

Other systems of characterizing organic soil materials for fuel used by other peat resource estimation projects are compared with the system used in Michigan. Ash content and calorific value data reported by these projects are compared with the aforementioned findings.

1.
Staff
Soil Survey
,
Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys
,
Agricultural Handbook 436
,
U.S. Government Printing Office
,
Washington, D.C.
,
1975
, pp. 65-70.
2.
The System of Soil Classification for Canada
,” Publication 1466,
Canada Department of Agriculture
,
1974
, p. 29.
3.
Manual on the Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis
,”
McKeague
J. A.
, Ed., prepared by the
subcommittee [of Canada Soil Survey Committee] on methods of analysis
,
Canadian Society of Soil Science
,
Ottawa, Ontario
,
1978
, pp. 56-59.
4.
Lynn
,
W. C.
,
McKinzie
,
W. E.
, and
Grossman
,
R. B.
, “
Field Laboratory Tests for Characterization of Histosols
,” in
Histosols
, SSSA Special Publication 6,
Aandahl
A. R.
et al, Eds.,
1974
, pp. 11-31.
5.
Levesque
,
M. P.
and
Mathur
,
S. P.
,
Canadian Journal of Soil Science
, Vol.
59
,
1979
, pp. 397-400.
6.
Stanek
,
W.
and
Silc
,
T.
,
Canadian Journal of Soil Science
, Vol.
57
,
1977
, pp. 109-117.
7.
Levesque
,
M. P.
and
Dinel
,
H.
,
Canadian Journal of Soil Science
, Vol.
57
,
1977
, pp. 187-195.
8.
Lynn
,
W. C.
 et al
, “
Histosol Determinations [revised 26 Sept. 1977]
,” unpublished procedures, available from the
National Soil Survey Laboratory of the Soil Conservation Service
,
Lincoln, Neb.
9.
European Peat Technology
.”
The Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
,
1976
, pp. 14-15.
10.
Peat Resource Estimation in Michigan—Second Year Report
,”
Michigan Energy and Resource Research Association
,
Detroit
,
1981
.
11.
Peat Resource Estimation in South Carolina—Final Report (Year 1)
,”
South Carolina Energy Research Institute
,
Columbia
,
1980
.
12.
Davis
,
J.
,
Anderson
,
W.
, and
Cameron
,
C.
, “
Peat Resource Estimation, State of Maine—Final Report, Phase One
,”
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy
,
1980
; available from State of Maine Office of Energy Resources, Augusta.
13.
Severson
,
L. S.
,
Mooers
,
H. D.
, and
Malterer
,
T. J.
, “
Inventory of Peat Resources, Koochiching County, Minnesota
,”
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Minerals
,
St. Paul
,
1980
.
14.
Proceedings of the U.S. Department of Energy First Technical Contractor's Conference on Peat
,
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy
, 11–12 March 1980,
Rockville
,
Md.
, p. 21.
15.
Moon
,
J. W.
,
Beck
,
M. W.
,
Schoemann
,
L. R.
, and
Veatch
,
J. O.
, “
Soil Survey of Menominee County, Michigan
,” Soil Survey Report 31, Series 1925,
1925
,
Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, U.S. Department of Agriculture
, Washington, D.C.
16.
Munsell Soil Color Charts
,”
Munsell Color Company, MacBeth Division of Kollmorgen Corporation
,
Baltimore, Md.
,
1975
.
17.
Zar
,
J. H.
,
Biostatistical Analysis
,
Prentice-Hall
,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
,
1974
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this chapter.
Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal