Joel,
> A few years ago, I briefly investigated (literature review
> and some wet lab experimentation) the paper chromatography
> approach to soil quality evaluation that was used by E.
> Pfeiffer. While the results were intriguing, the patterns
> that developed did not appear to be repeatable and I moved on
> to other soil quality analysis methods.
I really dig chromatography so I did a lit search in Biosis for "(humus or
humic) and chromatography" from the mid 80's till now. I found nothing on
paper chromatography or "capillary dynamolysis." Paper has been left behind
by media that are more efficient and better defined.
Thirty two hits appeared relevant to the characterization of soil quality
using chromatographic methods on humic fractions. The main methods used
included pyrolysis-gas chromatography, often coupled to a mass-spectrometer,
and gel permeation for characterization of size. Some workers employed
thin-layer, or high-pressure liquid chromatography (much-improved methods
similar to paper chromatography). If anyone is interested, I will send the
abstracts.
This is an area of active research, but apparently "capillary dynamolysis"
is somewhat off the radar screen.
Dale
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 12:00:36 EDT