Geoderma 87 1998.

3146

Methodologies for the analysis and characterization

of gypsum in soils: A review
Jaume Porta

Departament de Medi ambient i Ciencies

del Sol,
`
` Uniersitat de Lleida, Lleida, Catalonia, Spain
Received 21 September 1996; accepted 1 October 1997

Abstract
This paper reviews the main methodologies and techniques that have been used to characterize
gypsum in soils, especially in gypsiferous soils of semiarid and arid regions and range from the
identification of gypsum in soil surveys in the field to the study of gypsum in the laboratory.
Many methods of gypsum identification and determination have been developed, each one with its
own limitations. The paper reviews the study of gypsum from different points of view, complementary and necessary to obtain a general overview of the methodologies used to study gypsum in
soils. q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: gypsiferous soils; soil analysis; micromorphology

1. Introduction
Since the late 1970s, the interest in the study of soils with gypsum CaSO4 P
2H 2 O. has substantially increased Porta, 1975; Porta et al., 1977; Stoops and
Alaiwi, 1981; Nettleton et al., 1982; Halitim and Robert, 1987; Arricibita et al.,
1988; Benayas et al., 1988; Gumuzzio and Casas, 1988; Carter and Inskeep,
1988; Porta and Herrero, 1988; Porta and Herrero, 1990; Eswaran and Zi-Tong,
1991; Herrero et al., 1992; Poch, 1992 and other important papers. , primarily
due to the extent of the presence of gypsum in soils in semiarid and arid
countries in the world. Further, interest is spurred as the behaviour of soils with

Fax: q31-973-702613; E-mail: jaume.porta@rectorat.udl.es

0016-7061r98r$ - see front matter q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 1 6 - 7 0 6 1 9 8 . 0 0 0 6 7 - 6

32

J. Porta r Geoderma 87 (1998) 3146

gypsum is different from soils where silicate minerals prevail: when gypsum is
the main component of the soil, it controls its behaviour. Therefore, it has been
necessary to introduce specific methodologies and study techniques for soils
with gypsum.
The distribution of gypsiferous soils in North and East Africa, Southern
Europe and southwest Asia has been mapped on a small scale by Alphen and
Ros
1991. and in the world by Eswaran and Zi-Tong 1991.. Gypsiferous
materials were mapped in Spain by Riba and Macau 1962. . Nettleton et al.
1982. reported on counties in the eastern part of the United States. Gypsum
materials and gypsiferous soils have also been reported in Argentina by Romero
1985. and in Mexico by Grande 1967. . In the Soviet Union gypsiferous soils
have been reported by many authors.
The presence of gypsum as a widespread soil component in semiarid and arid
regions is due to its solubility. Although having a relatively low solubility in
aqueous systems, gypsum can be dissolved and its ions translocated in the soil
or from one place in the landscape to an other. Further precipitation of Ca2q and
SO42y as gypsum leads to the formation of lenticular gypsum in the soil. The
low rainfall in these areas prevents the leaching of the gypsum accumulated in
the soil.

2. Identification of the gypsum in the field

2.1. Detection of gypsum in the field: qualitatie chemical test
Gypsum in soil can be uniformly distributed, isolated in the soil matrix, or
concentrated in special pedofeatures in some horizons. When uniformly distributed, it will be only possible to detect gypsum by identifying SO42y ions
through a qualitative chemical test for sulphates. The procedure is as follows: a
sample of the horizon is shaken with water in a test tube. The development of
turbidity when adding a few drops 1 M BaCl 2 to the supernatant indicates the
presence of gypsum, if no other soluble sulphates are present in the sample
Porta et al., 1986. .
2.2. Morphologic inestigation
When gypsum crystals occur in aggregates, gypsum can be identified by the
observation of these special pedofeatures. Gypsum accumulations in soil have
been described by several authors Herrero et al., 1992.. In the field it is
possible to identify vermiform gypsum, that appears to the naked eye as small
whole veins, several millimeters long and about 1 mm thick. Under a magnifying glass, the veins are yellowish white, and lack the mycelial appearance that

J. Porta r Geoderma 87 (1998) 3146

33

they formerly had. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish vermiform gypsum

from pseudomycelia of calcium carbonate. When it is possible to sample some
white vein material, the sulphate test 1 M BaSO4 . and calcium carbonate test
HCl 11%. can help to avoid this confusion. Through a magnifying glass the
pseudomycelia of calcium carbonate seem more white and it is not possible to
identified single grains. The veins of gypsum are more yellowish than those of
calcium carbonate and gypsum appears as sugar sized grains. In thin section,
vermicular gypsum consists of lenticular gypsum infilling or channel coating
features, while pseudomycelia consist in aciculate crystals wiskers. Porta et al.,
1994..
The depth of accumulation of gypsum in the soil is in relation to the depth of
water penetration in a xeric, ustic or aridic soil moisture regime. The accumulation of gypsum at greater depths than expected can be linked to the presence of
vertical cracks, as happens in some Vertisols Podwojewski, 1995. .

3. Analysis of soils with gypsum

3.1. Oen-drying of gypsiferous samples
When analyzing samples of soils with gypsum, the standard method to obtain
oven-dried samples for further analyses is not convenient. When the sample is
heated to 1058C, part of the crystal water of gypsum CaSO4 P 2H 2 O. is lost, and
bassanite CaSO4 P 0.5H 2 O. is produced. With increasing temperatures all gypsum is transformed into anhydrite CaSO4 .. Due to the fact that the crystal water
amounts to a 20.91% of the weight of gypsum Eswaran and Zi-Tong, 1991. , the
error when calculating the weight of the dried soil sample can be important
depending on the total gypsum content in the sample Nelson et al., 1978; Porta
et al., 1986.. Therefore, in order to compare properties of gypsiferous and
non-gypsiferous soils, it is recommended not exceed 40508C when drying the
samples to avoid gypsum transformation. It is not unusual in literature to find
gypsum refereed as CaSO4 , a mistake that must always be avoided.
3.2. Particle-size analysis
The determination of particle-size distribution of gypsum-rich samples is
problematic if standard methods of soil analysis are used. The semi-soluble
nature of gypsum is responsible as it acts as a flocculating agent, and a stable
clay and silt suspension is not attained; further, its lower density, shape and the
presence of water in the crystal Hesse, 1976; Vieillefon, 1979; Porta et al.,
1986; Poch, 1992. are problematic to particle size technique. Nevertheless, when

34

J. Porta r Geoderma 87 (1998) 3146

gypsum is a main component of the soil, the removal of gypsum leads to

meaningless results, unrelated to the actual physical behaviour of the soil,
because gypsum is an actual component of it. Hesse 1976. and Vieillefon
1979. proposed a method based on the blockage of gypsum dissolution,
consisting of coating gypsum particles with a thin layer of BaSO4 after
treatment of the sample with BaCl 2 and increasing the amount of dispersing
agent. This method gave satisfactory results when it is used with gypsic horizon
samples Poch, 1992..
In many cases, gypsum content may be very low less than 10% and not
significantly changing texture. but still causing flocculation during PSD procedures. In these situations, it may be the best approach to remove gypsum prior to
PSD rather than the barium sulfate treatment. Some methodologies have been
proposed to removal gypsum before soil texture analysis Stern et al., 1989;
Rivers et al., 1982 and others..
Removal of gypsum and carbonate may offer other advantages for pedogenic
studies where establishment of uniformity of parent material is needed for
reconstruction, gypsum and carbonate will need to be removed prior PSD or
heavy metals or Ti, Zr. analysis. A technique for rapidly removing gypsum
from highly gypsiferous soil samples based on using a resin may be used, it has
no significant effect on the particle-size distribution Stern et al., 1989. .

4. Identification and determination of gypsum content

4.1. Wet chemical methods
The use of wet chemical methods is widespread. The dissolution of gypsum
in water is the basis of many methods to determine gypsum content in soil.
When all the gypsum of the sample has been dissolved, it is possible to analyze
SO42y content or Ca2q content to calculate the original amount of gypsum in the
sample. The presence of other sources of SO42y or Ca2q and the loss of calcium
by adsorption on the exchange complex can interfere results.
In opinion of Loveday and McIntre 1974. none of the existing methods can
be regarded as providing an accurate determination of gypsum, because of
uncertainty the contributions of Ca2q and SO42y from sources other than
gypsum. Some authors propose a selective removal of the non-gypsic soluble
sulphates by ethanol prior to gypsum dissolution, and the expression equivalent
gypsum content has been proposed accordingly Porta et al., 1986. to express
gypsum content when it is calculated from the total sulphate content, adopting
an expression similar to CaCO 3 equivalent.
In the wet chemical methods, all the gypsum of the sample must be dissolved.
Due to its low solubility in water 2.6 g ly1 at 258C. a low soil:water ratio will

J. Porta r Geoderma 87 (1998) 3146

35

be required. Moreover, the dissolution rate of gypsum in water increases as the

fineness of the crystals increases Nelson, 1982. . Therefore, when gypsum
crystals are large the solubility of gypsum is low, and the total dissolution might
not be reached. The relatively low solubility of gypsum in aqueous systems
suggests that it may be present as crystalline material in water-saturated soil
paste Lagerwerff et al., 1965.. For these reasons the ratio soil:water must be
low, and contact time between soil and water long enough to dissolve all the
gypsum ISRIC, 1987.. If EC s is less than 2.2 dS my1, then all the gypsum
present in the sample should be dissolved without problems in the extract
gypsum content less than 0.2%.; if EC s is 2.2 dS my1 and both Ca2q and
SO42y are present in concentrations about 3032 cmol ly1, then the saturation
extract is likely to be saturated with gypsum and a more dilute extract is
required to dissolve it completely Loveday and McIntre, 1974.. If EC s is more
than 2.2 dS my1 and Ca2q and SO42y are present in concentrations more than
3032 cmol ly1, then other salts more soluble than gypsum are present.
Other methodologies using Naq and Cly resins to dissolve all the gypsum in
the sample Stern et al., 1989. result in soluble Ca2q and SO42y which can be
measured as indicated below.
4.1.1. Determination of Ca 2 q from dissolution of gypsum in water
The dissolved gypsum by shaking the sample with water may be selectively
precipitated from the extract by adding acetone. The precipitate is redissolved in
water and the gypsum is determined by measuring the Ca2q concentration in the
solution Bower and Huss, 1948; Hesse, 1971 in ISRIC, 1987. . Calcium ions
from other soluble salts will interfere with the results common-ion effect and
salt effect., and the content of gypsum would be overestimated in these cases.
Other phenomena, the loss of Ca2q to the exchange complex exchange error.,
would lead to the underestimation of gypsum content Lagerwerff et al., 1965;
Skarie et al., 1987. .
4.1.2. Determination of SO42 y from dissolution of gypsum in acid
A hot dissolution of gypsum in concentrated HCl precipitation of sulphate ion
with Ba2q and gravimetric determination of barium sulphate are the basic lines
of this method Porta et al., 1986.. This method assures the solubilization of all
the gypsum in the sample, even if it is coated by CaCO 3 Keren and Kanschansky, 1981. . It is a standard method for the determination of sulphates, but it is
long and tedious. The presence of sulphates from other soluble salts will
interfere with the results.
4.1.3. Determination of SO42 y from diluted soil water extract
The standard method for gypsum determination is the one proposed by
Nelson 1982.. This method involves the preparation of a soilwater extract that

36

J. Porta r Geoderma 87 (1998) 3146

is diluted enough to dissolve all the gypsum present in the sample. The sulphate
ions in the extract are determined by turbidometry or with a Pb specific ion
electrode Goertzen and Oster, 1972. . If the non-gypsum sulphate is substracted
from the total sulphate content an estimation of the sulphate that is associated
with gypsum will be obtained. The fractions can be obtained using different
soilwater saturation extracts. The simpler turbidometric methods Chesnin and
Yien, 1950. were characterized by Dick and Tabatabai 1979. as having poor
accuracy and low reproducibility for soil extracts.
The methylene blue method Johnson and Nishita, 1952. is the most sensitive
method for determining SO42y, but requires considerable analytical skill and may
detect organic S as well as inorganic SO42y Dick and Tabatabai, 1979. .
4.1.4. Electroconductometric determination of gypsum
The amount of gypsum dissolved can be determined by a rapid conductance
method Bower and Huss, 1948; Richards, 1954. in which sulphate ions from
calcium sulphate dissolved in water soil extract. is precipitate with calcium
from calcium chloride in acetone. The precipitate is redissolved in water, when
the precipitate is completely dissolved, the electric conductivity is measured. A
correlation exists between CaS0 4 and electrical conductivity. For a saturated
aqueous solution of pure gypsum at 258C, the electrical conductivity is 2.2 dS
my1, equivalent to 30.5 cmol ly1. In presence of Ca2q or SO42y coming from
sources other than gypsum, the solubility of gypsum is less common-ion
effect. , whereas, in the presence of other ions, the solubility is greater salt
effect. Lagerwerff et al., 1965.. These authors modified the method of Bower
and Huss to avoid exchange error by determining gypsum on the basis of sulfate
associated with calcium; this minimizes errors due to acetone and to occluded
ions. In salt-affected soils salts can interference with electroconductometric
measurements Abrisqueta et al., 1962; Schleiff, 1979. .
4.1.5. Determination of SO42 y by ion chromatography
The current trend in most laboratories is to analyze SO42y by ion chromatography Dick and Tabatabai, 1979; Marko-Varga et al., 1984; Nieto and Frankenberger, 1985.. Chromatographic analysis separates various anions in a exchange
column according to their selectivity for a given exchange resin. This method
not only provides an improved sensitivity over previous methods, but also
allows for the simultaneous determination of several inorganic anions Skarie et
al., 1987. .
The gypsum content calculated in two ways, based either on Ca2q or SO42y,
measured by single-column ion chromatography in a sufficiently dilute extract to
dissolve completely the gypsum present in the soil sample, shows some different
results Skarie et al., 1987. . For highly chloridic soils, gypsum contents based
on Ca2q determination are essentially equal to results based on SO42y data, but
for sulphatic soils, gypsum contents calculated from Ca2q measurements are

J. Porta r Geoderma 87 (1998) 3146

37

generally lower than those from SO42y, due to the adsorption of Ca2q on the
exchange complex exchange error. during the extraction process.
4.2. Thermograimetric methods
Thermogravimetric analysis DTA. is based on the loss of weight when a
sample containing gypsum is heated. The lost of weight is due to the dehydratation of gypsum. Total conversion of gypsum to anhydrite is attained at about
2008C. These methods are recommended when the content of gypsum is high
Eswaran and Zi-Tong, 1991. and it yields better results than the standard
acetone method Poch, 1992. . It can be considered a good semi-quantitative
method, which commonly overestimates gypsum content. Artieda 1993. recommends the use of methods based on the loss of water by oven-heating when the
sample contains more than 8% of gypsum.
4.3. Determination by X-ray diffraction techniques
Gypsum can be identified by X-ray diffraction techniques Khan and Webster, 1968; Porta, 1975. on oriented samples sedimentation technique. . The
X-ray diffractometry can be used for qualitative identification of gypsum and the
method of Schultz 1964. for semi-quantitative estimates of bulk mineralogy.
Nevertheless, this method is inaccurate for a quantitative determination, because
of the preferred orientation of gypsum crystallites. This method requires numerous replications of sample and a tedious counting procedure Skarie et al.,
1987..

5. Organization of gypsum in the soil

5.1. Micromorphological approach
Visible light microscopy utilizing plain transmitted light PTL. and crossed
polar light XPL., is one of the most accepted methodologies in the study of soil
gypsum. During the preparation of a thin sections samples should not be heated,
because of the transformation of gypsum into bassanite and anhydrite when the
temperature is greater than 508C. The presence of bassanite in thin sections
might be an artifact. Pedogenic anhydrite is only found under extremely high
temperatures in arid climates.
Thin sections can be described using the system of Bullock et al. 1985., but
specific terminology and criteria have been established to complement it Herrero, 1987. , for a more precise thin section description. Brewers approach
Brewer and Sleeman, 1960, Brewer, 1976. based on skeleton grains and plasma

38

J. Porta r Geoderma 87 (1998) 3146

concepts is not appropriate to describe gypsiferous soils Barzanji, 1973;

Barzanji and Stoops, 1974; Herrero, 1987. . Due to its solubility, gypsum would
be considered as plasma, yet its crystal size larger than 2 mm. and their role as
a support for some translocation phenomena, render it more skeleton grains
Porta and Herrero, 1988. .
Specific terms with their precise meanings can be found in Porta and Herrero
1990. and Herrero et al. 1992. : lenticular gypsum, microcrystalline gypsum,
gypsic fabric, lenticular gypsic fabric, microgypsic fabric, isles fabric and
queras. According to the criteria proposed by Herrero 1987, 1991. , lenticular or
microcrystalline gypsum found in infillings, coatings or nodules is considered as
a pedofeature, as those crystals included in the groundmass when gypsum is a
minor component in the thin section. On the contrary, it is considered as a
component of the groundmass when gypsum lenticular or microcrystalline. is
the main constituent of the thin section gypsic groundmass. . The isles fabric
concept has been introduced to describe a network of gypsum between isolated
masses of fine non-gypsiferous material. This concept was introduced in order to
avoid the designation of masses of fine material as aggregates, in horizons that
have a massive structure in the field Herrero and Porta, 1987..
5.2. SEM
Scanning electron microscopy SEM. analysis in combination with an energy
dispersive X-ray analyzer EDXRA. has been used to study microfabrics of soils
with gypsum, after gold-metallization, as well for chemical analysis Herrero,
1987; Poch, 1992. . SEM at low magnifications 1000= . allowed the observation of micrometric organization of the material. Submicroscopy is strongly
dependent on previous sample selection procedures and sample preparation
Bisdom et al., 1990. .
5.3. Digital imaging processing
The applications of image analysis to soil micromorphology from the first by
Jongerius et al. 1972. up to the present day have significantly increased. Image
processing and analysis techniques play an important role in the quantification
of gypsiferous soil fabric, crystal size distributions, pore size distributions and
other features working with digitized images from photomicrographs Poch,
1992..
6. Pedogenic process investigation
The main pedogenic processes in soils with gypsum are the addition, dissolution, transfer and reprecipitation of gypsum by meteoric and groundwaters,
linked with a strongly seasonal rainfall regime.

J. Porta r Geoderma 87 (1998) 3146

39

6.1. Source of gypsum in soil in basins without gypsum

Formation of lenticular gypsum in soils of areas without gypsum outcrops,
with basic rocks that contain no gypsum or with other rock outcrops without
gypsum can be investigated by the sulphur isotopic ratio 34 Sr32 S as a tracer to
identify the origin of the gypsum. Sources of the sulphur can be either oceanic
from sea sprays Ledgard and Upsdell, 1991. , can be due to volcanic activity,
being the sulphur introduced in soils by atmospheric precipitation deposited by
rainfall, or can be continental, where sulphides disseminated in various subsurface deposits are oxidized and sulphate ions are redistributed by groundwater
Podwojewski and Arnold, 1994. .
Isotopic analyses of SO 2 that is obtained by heating gypsum can be performed using a mass spectrometer. The d34 S analysis can suggests the main
source of gypsum in the soil, because the isotopic composition of marine and
continental sulphates generally are different. The d34 S of sea water about
20.9 Rees et al., 1978. can be compared with the isotopic composition of
gypsum in the soil. The sea spray sulphate should have the same d34 S value as
sea water, assuming that only mechanical transport takes place Krouse, 1980. .
Lenticular gypsum coming from oxidation of sulphides has been studied
using the methodology in Vertisols of New Caledonia by Podwojewski 1995. .
In the arid zone of South Central Australia much of the desert loam parent
material and gypsum is windblown Chartres, 1983. and later dissolved, translocated and recrystallized from a gypsum-saturated solution Akpokodje, 1984. .
6.2. Source of gypsum in soil in basins with gypsum
In many semiarid and arid areas, the presence of evaporitic basins with
gypsiferous marls or gypsum outcrops suggests the origin of gypsum in the soil.
Gypsum coming from these sources can be transported by superficial water
runoff, water flows and alluvial sediments. and by groundwater, as in the
Giguela
alluvial plain in the Central Spain Porta, 1975. and in South Tunisia
Pouget, 1968.; by wind eolian deposits. as in some arid regions of Jordan
Taimeh, 1992. , in Algeria Vieillefon, 1976; Halitim, 1985. or in White Sands
New Mexico.; by also by mass movement mudflow. , as occurs in some
landscapes in Northeastern Spain Herrero et al., 1992. . To assess the main
source, several study techniques has been used, mainly geomorphologic ones.
6.3. Geomorphologic approach
Landscapes with gypsiferous soils are associated with xeric, aridic and ustic
soil water regime or with a near-surface ground water, related to non-leaching

40

J. Porta r Geoderma 87 (1998) 3146

processes. Soils with gypsum are found in alluvial plains, in distal positions of
alluvial fans, in hillslopes with gyprock outcrops, in areas under the influence of
winds coming from the sea, among other. The geomorphologic approach has
been widely applied to establish relationships between soils and landscape in
order to understand the origin of gypsum, weathering processes, soil genesis and
the control of landforms by gypsum. The mobilization of gypsum, as colluvium
gypsum and mudflows of detritical gypsum, has been identified as a relevant
landscape process and an important way of mobilizing gypsum, as opposed to
the classical transport of gypsum in solution or by wind Herrero et al., 1992..
6.4. Criteria for interpreting gypsum crystal morphology
Lenticular crystals of gypsum are classical features that have been described
in early micromorphological studies. The gypsum crystal size is variable in a
single profile and in some soils a general downward coarsening has been
observed Bellanca and Neri, 1993. . The dominant morphology is represented
by single pyramidal crystals. The sections of lenses are lozenge-shaped. Only
equatorial sections are pseudohexagonal Porta and Herrero, 1990. . Gypsum
pyramidal forms are common in terrestrial muds and soils where their growth is
favoured by the presence of organic compounds Porta, 1986; Cody and Cody,
1988..
The lenticular habit of gypsum also indicates high CarSO4 ratios of the soil
solution and relatively high temperatures during its growth Cody and Cody,
1988; Rosen and Warren, 1990. . High CarSO4 ratios are due to the presence of
Ca ions released by carbonate minerals or by the dissolution of gypsum.
Lenticular gypsum crystals can be completely surrounded by the clayey carbonate matrix. Matrix inclusions along growth surfaces indicate that the gypsum
was growing displacively in the soil Bellanca and Neri, 1993. . The multiple
crystal nucleation may be the result of rapid evaporation of the solution
migrating through the soil Watson, 1985.. In horizons with gypsic fabric
Herrero, 1987; Porta and Herrero, 1990. gypsum forms the whole or most
important part of the horizon gysic groundmass. .
In soils with water tables rich in sulphate and calcium ions, gypsum accumulations can occur within the depth of water table fluctuation, normally as
aggregates of lenticular crystals, as desert rose Pouget, 1968.. The relicts from
gyprocks in the soils are characterized by the presence of non-lenticular gypsum
Orti, 1977.. Fibrous gypsum is not common in soils, being inherited from
parent material.
Gypsum may occur as cemented materials in soils Stoops and Alaiwi, 1981;
Nettleton et al., 1982. in arid areas with less than 200 mm annual rainfall
Watson, 1988.. This cemented form of gypsum may be interpreted as inherited
when it is present in soils of semiarid or more humid areas and generally it is
involved in dissolution processes as in AlgerriBalaguer area Lleida, Catalonia,

J. Porta r Geoderma 87 (1998) 3146

41

Spain. . The most characteristic feature of this petrogypsic form, when studied
with petrografic microscopy or SEM, is the polygonal pattern of the gypsum
crystal boundaries Stoops, 1987., described as a nearly continuous interlocking
network of equigranular, subhedral rhomboidal crystals Nettleton et al., 1982. .
Eswaran et al. 1981. reported on masses of very fine, lenticular crystals of
gypsum, very closely packed in petrogypsic horizons.
6.5. Geochemical behaior of gypsum
6.5.1. Stability and ealuation of gypsum transformation
The geochemical approach deals with models using data from the ionic
composition of in situ soil solution to describe the stability and evaluation of
mineral transformation. The use of models is especially appropriated for minerals that readily attain equilibrium with the in situ soil solutions. Gypsum has
been reported to attain equilibrium conditions over a short period of time
Miller, 1989.. The geochemical approach is usually combined with conventional observations. The disagreement between some models and mineral characterization for gypsum in some soils can be attributed to the influence of unique
micro- or paleo-environments Arocena et al., 1994. .
6.5.2. Solubility of gypsum in aqueous solutions of mixed electrolytes
Gypsum as a main component of soils in semiarid and arid zones can be
present in salt- affected soils, or saline phases of gypsiferous soils of these areas.
The geochemical behaviour of gypsum will be affected by the presence of these
ions in soil water. The solubility of gypsum in aqueous salt solutions containing
Ca2q, Mg 2q, Naq, Cly and SO42y has been investigated experimentally using
different ways of calculating the single ion activity coefficients and different ion
pairs. A sensitivity analysis approach can be used to determine which is the best
fitting equation to represent the single ion activity coefficient and which ion
pairs need to be included Bennett and Adams, 1972; Arslan and Dutt, 1993 and
other..
The dissolution-exchange reactions appear simple, but the actual process
involves simultaneous mineral dissolution, cation exchange and solute movement Gupta and Abrol, 1995.. Dissolution aksi increases with SAR, ionic
strength, ion-pair association, and C MgrCCa ratio Tanji, 1969; Oster and
Rhoades, 1975; Oster, 1982. . The dissolution rate of gypsum is controlled by
film diffusion and is a function of the difference between the solution concentration at saturation and solution concentration at a particular time Kemper et al.,
1975.. Increasing the flow velocity the dissolution rate of gypsum decreased,
due to reduction in contact time between gypsum and flowing solution Keren
and OConnor, 1982.. It has been demonstrated that the dissolution reaction of
gypsum is dependent on contact time and solution velocity and is not controlled

42

J. Porta r Geoderma 87 (1998) 3146

by the solubility product relationship as was assumed in the equilibrium models

Tanji et al., 1972; Oster and Frenkel, 1980. . It has been concluded Gobran and
Miyamoto, 1985. that whereas the first-order reaction equation Kemper et al.,
1975. is suitable up to about 50% of gypsum solubility, a second-order reaction
can describe gypsum dissolution processes in the entire range.
Hydrological models for water flow, both saturated and variably saturated,
and models describing chemical processes in earth materials have been mostly
described independently with a simplified treatment of the complementary
processes. Realistic models of the vadose zone requires representation not only
of physical and chemical processes but also biological processes as microbial
respiration and plant water uptake Suarez and Simunek, 1990. . Representation
of water flow using Richards equation is often not satisfactory for description
flow in natural environments. Many field scale simulations require three-dimensional representation of water flow.
Much of the research on multicomponent solute transport is focuses on the
saturated zone. The precipitationrdissolution of gypsum has been described by
Suarez and Simunek 1990.. The progress in model development is hindered by
the severe lack of detailed field experiments which are needed to critically
evaluated the existing models Suarez and Simunek, 1990..

References
Abrisqueta, C., Artes,
del metodo
de Bower y Huss para la
F., Romero, M., Estudio crtico

determinacion
del yeso en los suelos calizos de Murcia. An. Edaf. y Agribiol., CSIC, Madrid,
XXI, 712, 1962, pp. 531539.
Akpokodje, E.G., 1984. The influence of rock weathering on the genesis of gypsum and carbonate
in some australian arid zone soils. Aust. J. Soil Res. 22, 243251.
Alphen, J.G. van, de los Ros,
F., 1991. Gypsiferous Soils. ILRI, Wageningen.
Arocena, J.M., Pawluk, S., Dudas, M.J., 1994. Mineral transformations in some sandy soils from
Alberta, Canada. Geoderma 61, 1738.
Arricibita, F.J., Iniguez,
J., Val, R.M., 1988. Estudio de los Gypsiorthids de Navarra. Ann. Edafol.

Agrobiol. 47, 199220, CSIC, Madrid.

Arslan, A., Dutt, G.R., 1993. Solubility of gypsum and its prediction in aqueous solutions of
mixed electrolytes. Soil Sci. 155 1., 3746.
Artieda, O., 1993, Factores geologicos
que inciden en el desarrollo de los suelos en un medio

semiarido.
El caso de Quinto Zaragaoza.. Tesis de licenciatura. Universidad de Zaragoza, 305

pp., mapas y anejos.

Barzanji, A.F., 1973. Gypsiferous soils of Iraq. Thesis. Ghent, Belgium, 199 pp.
Barzanji, A.F., Stoops, G., 1974. Fabric and mineralogy of gypsum accumulations in some soils of
Iraq. Trans. 10th Int. Congress of Soil Sci. VII, pp. 271277.
Bellanca, A., Neri, R., 1993. Dissolution and precipitation of gypsum and carbonate minerals in
soils on evaporite deposits, central Sicily, isotope geochemistry and microfabric analysis.
Geoderma 59, 263277.
Benayas, J., Guerra, A., Batlle, J., Gumuzzio, J., 1988. Micromorfologa
de algunos suelos con

J. Porta r Geoderma 87 (1998) 3146

43

Toledo Ciudad Real.. Ann. Edafol.

acumulaciones de yeso en la region
central espanola

Agrobiol. 47, 221241, CSIC. Madrid.

Bennett, A.C., Adams, F., 1972. Solubility and solubility products of gypsum in soil solutions and
other aqueous solutions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 36, 288291.
Bisdom, E.B.A., Tessier, D., Scoute, J.F.Th., 1990. Micromorphological techniques in research
and teaching Submicroscopy.. In: Douglas, L.A. Ed.., Soil Micromorphology. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp. 581603.
Bower, C.A., Huss, R.B., 1948. Rapid conductimetric method for estimating gypsum in soils. Soil
Sci. 66, 199204.
Brewer, R., 1976. Fabric and mineral analysis of soils. Krieger Publishing, Huntington, NY, 482
pp.
Brewer, R., Sleeman, J.R., 1960. Soil structure and fabric, their definition and description. J. Soil
Sci. 11, 172185.
Bullock, P., Fedoroff,
N., Jongerius, A., Stoops, G., Tursina, T., 1985. Handbook for Thin Section

Description. Waine Res. Publ., Wolverhampton, England.

Carter, B.J., Inskeep, W.P., 1988. Accumulation of pedogenic gypsum in western Oklahoma soils.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52, 11071113.
Cody, R.D., Cody, A.M., 1988. Gypsum nucleation and crystal morphology in analog saline
terrestrial environments. J. Sediment. Petrol. 58, 247255.
Chartres, C.J., 1983. The pedogenesis of desert loam soils in Barrier Range, western New South
Wales. Aust. J. Soil Res. 21, 114.
Chesnin, L., Yien, 1950. Turbidometric determination of available sulfates. Soil Sci. Am. Soc.
Proc. 14, 149151.
Dick, W.A., Tabatabai, M.A., 1979. Ion chromatographic determination of sulfate and nitrate in
soils. Sil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43, 899904.
Eswaran, H., Zi-Tong, G., 1991, Properties, Genesis, Classification, and Distribution of Soils with
Gypsum. SSSA, Special Publication no. 26, 89119. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Madison.
Gobran, G.R., Miyamoto, 1985. Dissolution rate of gypsum in aqueous salt solutions. Soil Sci.
140, 8994.
Goertzen, J.O., Oster, J.D., 1972. Potentiometric titration of sulfate in water and soil extracts
using a lead electrode. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 36, 691693.
Grande, P., 1967. Morfologa
de suelos yesferos
de Matehuala S. Luis Potos..
y genesis

Geologa
y Metalurgia 3, 556.
Gumuzzio, J., Casas, J., 1988. Accumulations of soluble salts and gypsum in soils of the Central
Region, Spain. Cah. ORSTOM, Ser.
24 3., 215226.
Pedol.

Gupta, R.K., Abrol, P., 1995. Salt-Affected Soils, Their Reclamation and Management for Crop
Production. Advances in Soil Science.
Halitim, A., 1985. Contribution a` letude
des zones arides. Hautes Plaines steppiques de lAlgerie.

These.
Rennes, 384 pp.
Halitim, A., Robert, M., 1987. Interaction du gypse avec les autres constituants du sol. In:
Fedoroff, N., et al. Ed.., Soil micromorphology. AFES, Paris, pp. 179186.
Herrero, J., 1987. Suelos sobre los yesos Paleogenos
Barbastro-Balaguer-Tora.

Doctoral Thesis,
Univ. Zaragoza, 468 pp.
Herrero, J., 1991. Morfologa
de suelos sobre yesos. INITAA, Madrid, 447 pp.
y genesis

Herrero, J., Porta, J., 1987. Gypsiferous soils in the North-East of Spain. In: Fedoroff et al. Eds..,
Soil Micromorphology. AFES, Plaisir, France, pp. 179186.
Herrero, J., Porta, J., Fedoroff, N., 1992. Hypergypsic soil micromorphology and landscape
relationships in northeastern Spain. Soil Sci. Am. J. 56 4., 11881194.
Hesse, P.R., 1976. Particle size distribution in gypsic soils. Plant and Soil 44, 241247.

44

J. Porta r Geoderma 87 (1998) 3146

ISRIC, 1987. Procedures for soils analysis. International Soil Reference and Information Centre,
Wageningen.
Johnson, C.M., Nishita, H., 1952. Microestimation of sulfur in plant materials, soils, and irrigation
waters. Anal. Chem. 24, 736742.
Kemper, W.D., Olsen, J., DeMooy, C.J., 1975. Dissolution rate of gypsum in flowing water. Soil.
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 39, 458463.
Keren, R., Kanschansky, P., 1981. Coating of calcium carbonate on gypsum particle surface. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45, 12421244.
Keren, R., OConnor, G.A., 1982. Gypsum dissolution and sodic soil reclamation as affected by
water flow velocity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46, 726732.
Khan, S.U., Webster, G.R., 1968. Determination of gypsum in solonetzic soils by an X-ray
technique. Analyst 93, 400402.
Krouse, H.R., 1980. Sulphur isotopes in our environment. In: Fritz, P., Fontes, Ch. Eds..,
Handbook of Environmental Isotopes Geochemistry, Vol. 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 435471.
Lagerwerff, J.V., Akin, G.W., Moses, S.W., 1965. Detection and determination of gypsum in
soils. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 29, 535540.
Ledgard, S.F., Upsdell, M.P., 1991. Sulphur inputs from rainfall throughout New Zeland. New
Zealand J. Agric. Res. 34, 105111.
Loveday, J., McIntre, S., 1974. Methods for analysis of irrigated soils. Tech. Com. no. 54 of the
Commonwealth Bureau of Soils, pp. 135137.
Marko-Varga, G., Csiky, Y., Jonsson, J.A., 1984. Ion chromatographic determination of nitrate
and sulfate in natural water containing hunic substances. Anal. Chem. 56, 20662069.
Miller, J.J., 1989. The origin of dryland salinity near Nobleford, Alberta. PhD Dissertation, Univ.
of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Nelson, R.E., 1982. Carbonate and gypsum. In: Page, A.L. et al. Ed.., Methods of soil analysis,
Part 2, 2nd edn. SSSA, Agronomy Monograph, Vol. 9. Madison, WI, pp. 181197.
Nelson, R.E., Klameth, L.C., Nettleton, W.D., 1978. Determining soil gypsum content and
expressing properties of gypsiferous soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42, 659661.
Nettleton, W.D., Nelson, R.E., Brasher, B.R., Derr, P.S., 1982. Gypsiferous soils in the Western
United States. In: Acid Sulfate Weathering, pp. 147168.
Nieto, K.F., Frankenberger, W.T. Jr., 1985. Single column ion chromatography; I. Analysis of
inorganic anions in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49, 587592.
Orti, F., 1977. Aproximacion
de las microestructuras de las rocas de yeso
al estudio petrografico

secundario y su origen. Inst. Inv. Geol. Diputacion

de Barcelona 32, 87152.
Oster, J.D., 1982. Gypsum usage in irrigated agriculture, a review. Fertil. Res. 3, 7389.
Oster, J.D., Rhoades, J.D., 1975. Calculated drainage water composition and salt burdens resulting
from irrigation with river waters in Western States. J. Environ. Qual. 4, 7379.
Oster, J.D., Frenkel, H., 1980. The chemistry of the reclamation of sodic soils with gypsum and
lime. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44, 4145.
Poch, R.M., 1992. Fabric and physical properties of soils with gysic and hypergypsic horizons of
the Ebro Valley. Thesis, Universiteit of Gent.
Podwojewski, P., 1995. The occurrence and interpretation of carbonate and sulfate minerals in a
sequence of Vertisols in New Caledonia. Geoderma 65, 223248.
Podwojewski, P., Arnold, M., 1994. The origin of gypsum in Vertisols in New Caledonia
determined by isotopic composition of sulphur. Geoderma 63, 179195.
Porta, J., 1975. Redistribuciones ionicas
en suelos salinos, Influencia sobre la vegetacion

halofila

y las posibilidades de recuperacion

de los suelos con horizonte gypsico y otros suelos
halomorfos de las margenes
del ro
Tesis doctoral, ETSIA, Madrid, 261 pp.

Giguela.

Porta, J., 1986. Edafogenesis

en suelos yesferos
en medio semiarido.
Unpublished, ETSEA,

Lleida, 136 pp.

J. Porta r Geoderma 87 (1998) 3146

45

Porta, J., Herrero, J., 1988. Micromorfologa

de suelos con yeso. Ann. Edafol. Agrobiol. 47,
179197, CSIC. Madrid.
Porta, J., Herrero, J., 1990. Micromorphology and genesis of soils enriched with gypsum. In:
Douglas, L.A. Ed.., Soil Micromorphology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 321339.
Porta, J., Lopez-Acevedo,
M., Roquero, C., 1977. Morfologa

y clasificacion
de algunos Gypsiorthids en Espana.
Ann. INIA, Ser. General 5, 85111.
Porta, J., Lopez-Acevedo,
M., Rodriguez, R. 1986. Tecnicas
y experimentos en Edafologa.

AEAC, Barcelona.
Porta, J., Lopez-Acevedo,
M., Roquero, C., 1994. Edafologa

para la agricultura y el medio

ambiente. Ediciones Mundi. Prensa. Madrid, 807 pp.
Pouget, M., 1968. Contribution a` letude
des croutes
gypseux de nappe dans le

et encroutements

Sud Tunisien. Cah. ORSTOM, Ser.

VI 34., 309365.
Pedologie

Rees, C.E., Jenkins, W.J., Monsters, J.J., 1978. The sulphur isotopic composition of ocean water
sulphate. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 42, 377381.
Riba, O., Macau, F., 1962. Situacion,
y extension
en
caractersticas

de los terrenos yesferos

Espana:
Servicio Geologico
de Obras Publicas,
Madrid,
I. Col. Int. O.P. en terrenos yesferos.

33 pp q mapa.
Richards, L.A. Ed.., 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. U.S.S.
Laboratory. USDA Handb. 60, 160 pp.
Rivers, D.E., Hallmark, C.T., West, L.T., Dress, R., 1982. A technique for rapid removal of
gypsum from soil samples. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46, 13381340.
Romero, S., 1985. Estudio geologico-economico
del area
yesfera
de Piedras Blancas. Tesis,

Universidad Nacional de La Plata, 54 pp.

Rosen, M.R., Warren, J.K., 1990. The origin and significance of groundwater-seepage gypsum
from Bristol Dry Lake California, U.S.A. Sedimentology 37, 983996.
Schleiff, U., 1979. Determination of gypsum by measurement of electrical conductivity in water
extracts of soils in Saudi Arabia. Mitteilgn. Dtsch. Bodenkundl. Gesellsch. 29, 9931000.
Schultz, L.G., 1964. Quantitative interpretation of mineral composition from X-ray and chemical
data for the Pierre Shale. U.S. Geol. Surv., Prof. Pap., 391-C-31 pp.
Skarie, R.L., Arndt, J.L., Richardson, J.L., 1987. Sulfate and gypsum determinations in saline
soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51, 901903.
Stern, R., Alperovitch, N., Levy, G.J., 1989. Rapid removal of gypsum by resin prior to particle
size distribution analysis in soils. Soil Sci. 148 6., 448451.
Stoops, G., 1987. Curso de micromorfologa
de suelos. ETSEA, Lleida.
Stoops, G., Alaiwi, M., 1981. Gypsum in arid Soils, morphology and genesis. In: Beinroth, F.H.,
Osman, A. Eds.., Proc. 3th Int. Soil Classif. Workshop, ACSAD, Damascus, pp. 175198.
Suarez, D.L., Simunek, J., 1990. Solute transport modeling under variably saturated water flow
conditions.
Tanji, K.K., 1969. Solubility of gypsum in aqueous electrolytes as affected by ion association and
ionic strengths up to 0.15 cm and at 258C. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 3, 656661.
Tanji, K.K., Doneen, L.D., Ferry, G.V., Ayers, R.S., 1972. Computer simulation analysis on
reclamation of salt-affected soils in San Joaquin Valley, California. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 36,
127133.
Taimeh, A., 1992. Formation of gypsic horizons in some arid regions soils of Jordan. Soil Sci. 153
6., 486490.
Vieillefon, J., 1976. Inventaire critique dels sols gypseux en Tunisie. Etude preliminaire. ORSTOM,
Mission Tunisie.
Vieillefon, J., 1979. Contribution a` lamelioration
de letude
des sols gypseux. Cah. ORSTOM,

ser.
XVII 3., 195223.
Pedol.

46

J. Porta r Geoderma 87 (1998) 3146

Watson, A., 1985. Structure, chemistry and origin of gypsum in southern Tunisia and in central
Namib Desert. Sedimentology 32, 855875.
Watson, A., 1988. Desert gypsum crusts as paleoenvironmental indicators, a micropetrographic
study of crusts from southern Tunisia and the central Namib Desert. J. Arid Environ. 15,
1942.