Hubbry Logo
Soil testSoil testMain
Open search
Soil test
Community hub
Soil test
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Soil test
Soil test
Soil test
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A horticulture student taking a soil sample in a garden near Lawrenceville, Georgia

A soil test is a laboratory or in-situ analysis to determine the chemical, physical or biological characteristics of a soil. Possibly the most widely conducted soil tests are those performed to estimate the plant-available concentrations of nutrients in order to provide fertilizer recommendations in agriculture. In geotechnical engineering, soil tests can be used to determine the current physical state of the soil, the seepage properties, the shear strength and the deformation properties of the soil. Other soil tests may be used in geochemical or ecological investigations.

Agricultural soil tests

[edit]

In agriculture, a soil test commonly refers to the analysis of a soil sample to determine nutrient content, composition, and other characteristics such as the acidity. A soil test can determine fertility, or the expected growth potential of the soil which indicates nutrient deficiencies, potential toxicities from excessive fertility and inhibitions from the presence of non-essential trace minerals. The test is used to mimic the function of roots to assimilate minerals. The expected rate of growth is modeled by the Law of the Maximum.[1]

Labs, such as those at Iowa State and Colorado State University, recommend that a soil test contains 10-20 sample points for every 40 acres (160,000 m2) of field. Tap water or chemicals can change the composition of the soil, and may need to be tested separately. As soil nutrients vary with depth and soil components change with time, the depth and timing of a sample may also affect results.

Composite sampling can be performed by combining soil from several locations prior to analysis. This is a common procedure, but should be used judiciously to avoid skewing results. This procedure must be done so that government sampling requirements are met. A reference map should be created to record the location and quantity of field samples in order to properly interpret test results.

Geographic distribution of samples for precision agriculture

[edit]

In precision agriculture, soil samples may be geolocated using GPS technology in order to estimate the geospatial distribution of nutrients in the sampled area. The geolocated samples are collected using a distribution and resolution that allows for the estimation of the geospatial variability of the soil area where the crop will be grown. Many different distributions and resolutions are used, depending upon many factors including the goals of the geospatial nutrient analysis and cost of sample collection and analysis.[2][3]

For example, in the United States corn and soybean growing regions a grid distribution with a resolution of 2.5 acres per grid (one sample for each 2.5 acre grid) is offered by many precision agriculture soil test service providers. This is generally referred to as grid soil testing.

Storage, handling, and moving

[edit]

Soil chemistry changes over time, as biological and which chemical processes break down or combine compounds over time. These processes change once the soil is removed from its natural ecosystem (flora and fauna that penetrate the sampled area) and environment (temperature, moisture, and solar light/radiation cycles). As a result, the chemical composition analysis accuracy can be improved if the soil is analyzed soon after its extraction — usually within a relative time period of 24 hours. The chemical changes in the soil can be slowed during storage and transportation by freezing it. Air drying can also preserve the soil sample for many months.

Lab testing

[edit]
Soil testing in progress

Soil testing is often performed by commercial labs that offer a variety of tests, targeting groups of compounds and minerals. Laboratory tests often check for plant nutrients in three categories:

The amount of plant-available phosphorus is most often measured with a chemical extraction method, and different countries have different standard methods. Just in Europe, more than 10 different soil phosphorus tests are currently in use and the results from these different tests are not directly comparable.[4]

Do-it-yourself kits usually only test for the three "major nutrients", and for soil acidity or pH level. Do-it-yourself kits are often sold at farming cooperatives, university labs, private labs, and some hardware and gardening stores. Electrical meters that measure pH, water content, and sometimes nutrient content of the soil are also available at many hardware stores. Laboratory tests are more accurate than tests with do-it-yourself kits and electrical meters. An example soil sample report is provided for reference by Wallace Laboratories LLC.

In order to avoid complex and expensive analytical techniques, prediction based on regression equations relating to more easily measurable parameters can be provided by pedotransfer functions. For instance, soil bulk density can be predicted using easily measured soil properties such as soil texture, pH and organic matter.[5]

Soil testing is used to facilitate fertilizer composition and dosage selection for land employed in both agricultural and horticultural industries.

Prepaid mail-in kits for soil and ground water testing are available to facilitate the packaging and delivery of samples to a laboratory. Similarly, in 2004, laboratories began providing fertilizer recommendations along with the soil composition report.

Lab tests are more accurate and often utilize very precise flow injection technology (or Near InfraRed (NIR) scanning[6][7]). In addition, lab tests frequently include professional interpretation of results and recommendations. Provisory statements included in a lab report may outline any anomalies, exceptions, and shortcomings in the sampling, analytical process or results.

Some laboratories analyze for all 13 mineral nutrients and a dozen non-essential, potentially toxic minerals utilizing the "universal soil extractant" (ammonium bicarbonate DTPA).[8]

Engineering soil testing

[edit]

In geotechnical engineering, a soil test can be used to determine the physical characteristics of a soil, such as its water content, void ratio or bulk density. Soil testing can also provide information related to the shear strength, rate of consolidation and permeability of the soil. The following is a non-exhaustive list of engineering soil tests.

Soil contaminants

[edit]

Common mineral soil contaminants include arsenic, barium, cadmium, copper, mercury, lead, and zinc.

Lead is a particularly dangerous soil component. The following table from the University of Minnesota categorizes typical soil concentration levels and their associated health risks.[9]

Children and pregnant women should avoid contact with soil estimated total lead levels above 300 ppm
Lead Level Extracted lead (ppm) Estimated total lead (ppm)
Low <43 <500
Medium 43-126 500-1000
High 126-480 1000-3000
Very high >480 >3000

The following is a non-exhaustive list of recommendations to limit exposure to lead in garden soils:

  1. Locate gardens away from old painted structures and heavily traveled roads
  2. Give planting preferences to fruiting crops (tomatoes, squash, peas, sunflowers, corn, etc.)
  3. Incorporate organic materials such as finished compost, humus, and peat moss
  4. Lime soil as recommended by soil test (a pH of 6.5 minimizes lead availability)
  5. Discard old and outer leaves before eating leafy vegetables; peel root crops; wash all produce
  6. Keep dust to a minimum by maintaining a mulched and/or moist soil surface

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Soil test

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A soil test is a or in-situ to determine the chemical, physical, or biological characteristics of soil. These tests are essential across various fields, including , , and . In , soil tests primarily assess nutrient levels (such as , , calcium, magnesium, sodium, , , , and ), , and other properties like humic matter or exchangeable acidity to guide and lime applications for optimal growth. They evaluate macronutrients and micronutrients using methods like Mehlich-3 extraction, while is measured on a 0-14 scale (7 being neutral). is often not tested due to its variability from and microbial activity. Geotechnical soil tests focus on physical properties, such as soil strength, , permeability, and compaction, to inform foundation , , and . Environmental soil tests detect contaminants (e.g., like , , lead), assess , , and to support remediation and regulatory compliance. By providing data-driven insights, soil testing enhances , ensures , protects ecosystems, and minimizes environmental impacts like nutrient runoff.

Fundamentals

Definition and Objectives

A soil test is a chemical, physical, or biological of soil samples to determine properties such as content, levels, texture, contaminants, or mechanical strength. This process involves laboratory or in-situ examinations that reveal the soil's composition and suitability for specific uses, enabling informed in various fields. Soil consists of four primary components: minerals (approximately 45%), organic matter (about 5%), water (around 25%), and air (roughly 25%), which collectively influence its fertility, structure, and behavior. Testing is essential because variations in these components can lead to issues like nutrient deficiencies that stunt plant growth or inadequate bearing capacity that compromises structural stability, underscoring the need for analysis to prevent such problems. The primary objectives of soil testing span multiple disciplines, including assessing to optimize crop production through targeted nutrient and adjustments, evaluating geotechnical properties like and compaction for safe foundations, and identifying pollutants to protect and support sustainable . In , it aims to enhance yields while minimizing overuse; in , it ensures site stability to avoid failures; and in environmental contexts, it mitigates risks for ecosystems and human health. Early foundations of soil testing trace back to the 19th century, with Justus von Liebig's 1840 work on plant mineral nutrition establishing the principle that nutrient availability limits growth, paving the way for modern analytical approaches.

Types of Soil Tests

In the context of and environmental management, tests are broadly classified into chemical, physical, and biological categories, each assessing distinct properties. Mechanical tests form an additional category specific to decisions. Chemical tests evaluate soil composition, including availability, , , and contaminant levels, which are crucial for fertility management and pollution detection. For instance, the Mehlich-3 extraction method uses a multi-acid solution to quantify plant-available macronutrients like (P), (K), and micronutrients such as (Zn) in acidic to neutral soils, providing a standardized measure for recommendations. These tests often employ spectrometry for precise quantification of elements like , contrasting with simpler qualitative approaches such as color charts that offer approximate acidity readings via visual comparison. Physical tests examine , texture, , and water-holding capacity, influencing root growth, erosion resistance, and compaction suitability. A key example is the , which determines the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of soil under controlled energy application, ensuring stable foundations in construction. Biological tests assess microbial activity, enzyme levels, and decomposition, reflecting and nutrient cycling. Common methods include measuring or microbial biomass carbon, which indicate active biological processes supporting . Mechanical tests focus on soil strength and deformability, essential for geotechnical stability. The unconfined compression test applies axial load to cohesive soil samples to measure undrained , helping predict behavior under load without lateral confinement. Emerging molecular tests, such as of the soil , have gained prominence since the 2010s for holistic assessment, revealing functional microbial communities that influence soil resilience and suppression beyond traditional indicators. Qualitative approaches, like indicator dyes for rapid field pH estimation, provide quick overviews but lack precision, whereas quantitative methods, including atomic absorption spectrometry for metal concentrations, deliver numerical data for and detailed analysis.

Agricultural Soil Testing

Sampling Techniques

Soil sampling in agricultural contexts is essential for obtaining representative data on levels, , and other properties to support precise application and . Effective techniques account for field variability to ensure samples reflect true conditions, minimizing errors that could lead to over- or under-fertilization. Core sampling methods include grid sampling, particularly suited for , where fields are divided into small, uniform grids of 1 to 2.5 acres to capture spatial variability and enable variable-rate applications. In contrast, or random sampling is applied in more uniform fields, involving a systematic traversal pattern or haphazard point selection to form composite samples that average out minor variations without the need for intensive mapping. Common tools for collection include soil augers and probes, which allow clean extraction of soil cores with minimal disturbance; probes are preferred for their speed and ability to reach consistent depths in various soil types. Standard sampling depths target the at 0 to 6 inches for assessing macronutrients like and , while deeper sampling up to 24 inches may be used in the root zone for profiling or in soils with stratified layers. Geographic strategies have evolved with GPS-guided sampling, introduced in during the 1990s, which uses global navigation satellite systems to pinpoint sample locations and map soil heterogeneity for targeted management zones. This approach supports variable-rate technology by correlating soil data with yield maps, improving resource efficiency on heterogeneous fields. Accuracy depends on several factors, including optimal timing such as post-harvest periods when nutrient levels stabilize after crop uptake, and avoidance of areas recently amended with lime, fertilizers, or to prevent skewed results. Composite sampling enhances reliability by mixing 10 to 20 subsamples from within each defined area or grid, reducing the impact of localized anomalies and providing a more representative average. In the 2020s, advancements like drone- and satellite-assisted have integrated to identify high-variability zones for targeted sampling on large-scale farms, using multispectral to guide locations and optimize efficiency. Emerging research includes prototypes of automated drones for direct soil extraction, such as the STaPLE drone, enabling broader coverage and with GIS for real-time decision-making.

Laboratory Analysis

Laboratory analysis of agricultural soil samples involves standardized chemical extraction procedures to quantify plant-available nutrients and key properties such as pH. For phosphorus, the Olsen method uses a sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO₃) extractant at pH 8.5 to target phosphorus sorbed onto calcium and magnesium compounds, particularly effective in neutral to alkaline soils. Potassium is typically extracted using 1 M neutral ammonium acetate, which displaces exchangeable cations from soil colloids without altering soil pH significantly. Soil pH is measured by preparing a 1:1 soil-water slurry and inserting a glass pH electrode into the mixture until the reading stabilizes, calibrated against standard buffers for accuracy. Analytical instruments play a crucial role in detecting extracted nutrients at trace levels. (AAS) is commonly employed for micronutrients like , iron, , and , where atoms in the vapor phase absorb light at specific wavelengths to quantify concentrations. For multi-element analysis, optical emission (ICP-OES) ionizes the sample in a high-temperature plasma and measures emitted light spectra, enabling simultaneous detection of macro- and micronutrients such as , , calcium, and magnesium. A key standard index derived from these analyses is the cation exchange capacity (CEC), which indicates the soil's ability to retain positively charged nutrients. In routine soil testing, CEC is calculated by summing the concentrations of exchangeable base cations (calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium) extracted via ammonium acetate, converted to milliequivalents per 100 grams of soil (meq/100g) using their equivalent weights: CEC = (Ca in mg/kg / 200) + (Mg in mg/kg / 121) + (K in mg/kg / 391) + (Na in mg/kg / 230), where the denominators derive from atomic weights divided by valence (e.g., Ca atomic weight 40 / valence 2 = 20, but adjusted to meq basis as 40/2 * 5 for 100g scaling). This summation method estimates effective CEC at the soil's natural pH, excluding hydrogen and aluminum ions prominent in acidic conditions, providing a practical measure for nutrient management without full saturation displacement. Typical laboratory turnaround for agricultural analysis ranges from 1 to 2 weeks, depending on sample volume and testing scope. Costs generally fall between $10 and $50 per sample in 2025 USD, covering basic nutrient extraction and . Extractant methods have inherent limitations due to soil-specific interactions. For instance, the Mehlich-3 extractant, a multi-nutrient solution, can overestimate availability in high-pH, soils because its acidic components (acetic and nitric acids) dissolve sparingly soluble calcium phosphates not readily available to . Similarly, the Olsen method may underestimate in highly alkaline conditions if fails to fully mobilize occluded forms.

Interpretation and Recommendations

Interpretation of agricultural soil test results involves comparing measured concentrations and against established sufficiency levels tailored to specific , enabling farmers to identify deficiencies or excesses that could limit yield. Sufficiency levels represent the soil thresholds above which crop growth is not further improved by additional fertilization, and these vary by , , and testing method. For instance, levels above 20 ppm are considered sufficient for corn production in many Midwestern soils, as determined by Mehlich-3 extraction, beyond which yield responses to added P are minimal. Sufficiency charts, such as those developed by land-grant universities, categorize levels into low, medium, and high for major like corn, soybeans, and , guiding whether buildup (to increase soil reserves) or maintenance (to replace crop removal) fertilization is needed. Soil pH interpretation focuses on its impact on nutrient availability, with most crops requiring a range of 6.0 to 7.0 for optimal uptake; acidic soils (pH <6.0) often necessitate lime applications to neutralize excess hydrogen ions and aluminum toxicity. Lime requirement (LR) is calculated using buffer methods that measure reserve acidity, such as the formula: LR (tons/acre) = Ac × [(target pH - current pH) / (6.6 - current pH)] - RC, where Ac is the exchangeable acidity from the soil test, target pH is crop-specific (e.g., 6.5), current pH is measured, and RC is residual credit for prior applications. For example, a soil with current pH 5.5, target pH 6.5, Ac = 1.2 meq/100g, and RC = 0 would require about 0.76 tons/acre of lime (assuming 100% calcium carbonate equivalent). These calculations ensure precise liming to avoid over-application, which can induce micronutrient deficiencies. Fertilizer prescriptions translate test results into application rates, distinguishing between buildup for deficient soils and maintenance to sustain levels, often using crop-specific equations that incorporate yield goals and soil credits. Historically, a yield-goal approach for corn used N recommendation (lbs/acre) = (yield goal in bushels/acre × 1.2) - soil test N, but as of 2025, many Midwestern guidelines employ the Maximum Return to Nitrogen (MRTN) model to determine economic optimum rates based on yield response curves and prices. For instance, optimum rates have increased by about 2.7 kg N/ha per year from 1991 to 2021, with typical EONR around 160-200 lbs/acre depending on and . Similar approaches apply to and , with rates calibrated to avoid environmental runoff while maximizing economic returns. Advanced software tools enhance interpretation by modeling nutrient interactions and optimizing prescriptions; the QUEFTS (Quantitative Evaluation of the Fertility of Tropical Soils) model, for example, balances NPK supply from and fertilizers against demand to predict attainable yields and required inputs, particularly useful in variable soils. QUEFTS uses test data to estimate potential uptake, assuming linear responses up to maximum dilution rates, and has been calibrated for major crops like and to recommend integrated NPK applications that minimize imbalances. A practical case involves interpreting low potassium in sandy soils, which are prone to leaching due to low ; for corn on a sandy soil testing below 80 ppm exchangeable K, recommendations often include 50-100 lbs K₂O/acre to build reserves and support yield, applied as or pre-plant to counteract losses from rainfall. This targeted application can increase corn yields by 10-20 bushels/acre in deficient conditions while preventing luxury uptake in subsequent seasons.

Geotechnical Engineering Soil Testing

Field Testing Methods

Field testing methods in involve in-situ techniques to evaluate soil mechanical properties directly at the site, providing essential data for foundation design and stability assessments without the need for extensive sample extraction. These methods assess parameters such as penetration resistance, , and soil stiffness under natural conditions, which are critical for predicting soil behavior under load. The (SPT) is a widely used primary method where a split-barrel sampler is driven into the using a 140-pound dropped from 30 inches, and the blow count N represents the number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches after an initial 6-inch seating drive. This N-value serves as an index of and strength, particularly in granular soils, and is standardized under ASTM D1586. The Cone Penetration Test (CPT) complements SPT by pushing a cone-tipped penetrometer into the soil at a constant rate of about 2 cm/s, measuring tip resistance qc (typically in MPa) and sleeve friction to profile soil stratigraphy and strength continuously with depth. CPT provides high-resolution data suitable for soft to medium-dense soils, as outlined in established guidelines. Other notable tests include the vane shear test, which determines undrained in soft clays by rotating a four-bladed vane inserted into the and measuring the required for failure, ideal for cohesive soils with strengths below 100 kPa. The plate load test evaluates modulus and by applying incremental loads to a plate on the ground surface and recording settlements, offering direct insights into load-settlement for shallow foundations. Equipment for these tests typically includes portable rigs, such as truck- or track-mounted hydraulic for SPT and vane shear, and specialized CPT push rigs that ensure site accessibility in varied terrains. Modern systems incorporate data logging devices for real-time recording of parameters like blow counts, resistances, and depths, enhancing accuracy and efficiency during operations. Tests are conducted at spacings of 50-100 feet across the site, with individual soundings extending to depths of 100 feet or more for foundation investigations, depending on structure size and variability; intervals for SPT within boreholes are typically every 5 feet starting from 5 feet below grade. These in-situ methods offer advantages such as direct measurement of undisturbed response, rapid execution, and cost-effectiveness compared to extensive , though they face limitations in very soft soils where equipment stability is challenging or in rocky conditions that hinder penetration. Field data from these tests often requires confirmation through methods on retrieved samples to validate mechanical properties under controlled conditions.

Laboratory Testing Methods

Laboratory testing methods in geotechnical engineering involve controlled analyses of soil samples retrieved from field investigations to quantify mechanical properties essential for foundation design, , and earthwork performance. These tests, conducted under standardized conditions, provide precise measurements of soil behavior under simulated stresses, contrasting with the variability inherent in in-situ field tests. Samples are typically undisturbed or remolded to represent site conditions, enabling the determination of parameters like , , and classification indices. Prior to testing, soil samples undergo preparation to ensure uniformity and compliance with standards. This includes air-drying or oven-drying to control moisture content, followed by sieving through appropriate meshes—such as the No. 4 (4.75 mm) or No. 200 (75 μm) sieve—to remove coarse particles and aggregates while retaining the fine fraction for analysis. Moisture content is adjusted to target levels, often verified via oven-drying at 105–110°C, as outlined in compaction and classification protocols. These steps, per ASTM D698, facilitate reproducible test conditions for cohesive and granular soils. Classification tests, such as the , assess the plasticity and workability of fine-grained by defining boundaries between solid, semi-solid, plastic, and liquid states. The liquid limit () is determined using the Casagrande cup method, where a soil paste is placed in a cup, grooved with a standard tool, and subjected to 25 blows from a falling cup until the groove closes over 13 mm; the at this point is the LL. The plastic limit (PL) is the lowest at which soil can be rolled into a 3.2 mm thread without crumbling. The plasticity index (PI) is then calculated as PI = LL - PL, aiding in soil classification per systems like the . These limits correlate with engineering behavior, such as shrinkage potential and . Strength tests evaluate resistance to shear , with the triaxial compression test being a method for both cohesive and granular soils. In this test, a cylindrical specimen is encased in a rubber , subjected to confining in a cell, consolidated (drained or undrained), and then axially loaded to while measuring stress and strain. Stress-strain curves are generated from axial deformation data, revealing peak strength, post-peak behavior, and modulus values. parameters are interpreted using the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, expressed as τ=c+σtan⁡ϕ\tau = c + \sigma \tan \phi, where τ\tau is shear strength, cc is cohesion, σ\sigma is normal stress, and ϕ\phi is the friction angle; multiple tests at varying confining pressures yield the envelope. This approach, standardized in ASTM D4767 for consolidated undrained conditions on cohesive soils, underpins stability analyses. Compressibility tests quantify volume change under sustained loading, critical for settlement predictions in fine-grained soils. The oedometer test confines a soil specimen laterally in a ring while applying incremental vertical loads, measuring deformation over time to capture primary consolidation due to pore water expulsion. The consolidation coefficient cvc_v, indicating the rate of this process, is derived from Terzaghi's one-dimensional consolidation theory using methods like the square root of time or log time plots. The formula is cv=TH2tc_v = \frac{T H^2}{t}, where TT is the dimensionless time factor (e.g., 0.197 for 50% consolidation in the log time method), HH is the drainage path length (half the specimen thickness for double drainage), and tt is the corresponding time; higher cvc_v values denote faster consolidation. This test, per ASTM D2435, provides the compression index and secondary compression ratio for long-term settlement estimation. Advancements in laboratory testing include automated triaxial systems, which integrate computer-controlled loading, , and real-time to enhance precision and reduce manual intervention. These systems, featuring servo-hydraulic actuators and software for stress path control, have been widely adopted since the mid-2010s, enabling efficient multi-specimen testing and complex simulations like cyclic loading. Such improves and throughput in geotechnical labs, particularly for large-scale projects.

Applications in Site Investigation

Soil tests play a crucial role in site investigations for projects, providing essential data to ensure and safety. These tests yield parameters such as , , and penetration resistance, which inform the design of , retaining structures, and earthworks by assessing load-bearing capabilities and potential ground movements. In practice, results from field and laboratory tests are integrated to develop ground models that guide decisions, minimizing risks like excessive settlement or failure under load. A primary application is in determining the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations, as formulated by Terzaghi's theory. The equation for ultimate bearing capacity qultq_{ult} under general shear failure for a strip footing is given by: qult=cNc+γDNq+0.5γBNγq_{ult} = c N_c + \gamma D N_q + 0.5 \gamma B N_\gamma where cc is the cohesion of the soil, NcN_c, NqN_q, and NγN_\gamma are bearing capacity factors dependent on the soil's friction angle ϕ\phi, γ\gamma is the effective unit weight of the soil, DD is the depth of the foundation, and BB is the width of the foundation. This equation allows engineers to calculate safe allowable pressures for structures like buildings and bridges, incorporating soil test data such as undrained shear strength from triaxial tests or friction angles from direct shear tests. Risk assessment relies heavily on soil test outcomes to predict long-term performance. Settlement predictions are derived from consolidation test data, typically obtained via oedometer tests, which measure the coefficient of consolidation cvc_v and compression index CcC_c to estimate primary and secondary settlements under applied loads using Terzaghi's one-dimensional consolidation theory. For seismic-prone areas, liquefaction potential is evaluated using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values, where corrected N-values (N_{1,60}) below a threshold (often around 15-30 depending on fines content and depth) indicate susceptibility when compared against cyclic stress ratios from earthquake shaking. This approach, refined over decades, helps in designing mitigation measures like ground improvement. In projects, soil tests ensure embankments achieve adequate compaction to prevent differential settlement. For instance, specifications often require relative compaction exceeding 95% of the maximum dry density (per AASHTO T 99 or T 180 tests) for stable subgrades and fills, verified through field density tests like the sand cone method. Similarly, for skyscrapers, (CPT) data provides continuous soil profiles to design deep pile foundations, where tip resistance qtq_t and sleeve friction inform pile capacity and length, enabling load distribution in variable urban soils. Soil test data is increasingly integrated with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to create 3D subsurface models for , enhancing visualization of and geotechnical risks across sites. Since 2020, has augmented this by automating borehole log interpretation and interpolating soil properties, improving accuracy in predictive modeling for large-scale developments. Compliance with standards ensures safety factors are applied appropriately. Eurocode 7 mandates partial factors on soil parameters and actions for ultimate limit state designs, typically requiring verification of with factors of 1.0-1.4 on resistances. In the U.S., AASHTO LRFD specifications use resistance factors (e.g., 0.35-0.70 for ) calibrated for load and resistance factor , incorporating site-specific soil test results to achieve reliable geotechnical performance.

Environmental Soil Testing

Contaminant Detection

Contaminant detection in soil testing focuses on identifying and quantifying pollutants to assess environmental risks, particularly in areas affected by industrial activities, , or waste disposal. These tests target chemical hazards that can leach into or bioaccumulate in ecosystems, employing standardized protocols to ensure reliable results for and remediation planning. Common contaminants include , organic compounds, and pesticides, each requiring specific extraction and analytical methods to achieve accurate detection. Heavy metals such as lead (Pb), (Cd), (As), and (Cr) are primary targets due to their persistence and toxicity. Soil samples are typically prepared using EPA Method 3050B, which involves acid digestion with and to solubilize metals for subsequent analysis. This method extracts total recoverable metals, enabling quantification of bioavailable fractions that pose risks to human health and ecosystems. For example, digestion followed by flame atomic absorption spectroscopy (FLAA) or optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) is standard for higher concentration levels, while graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) or ICP-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) targets trace amounts. Organic pollutants, notably polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), are detected through extraction techniques like accelerated solvent extraction or QuEChERS, followed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). PAHs, formed from incomplete combustion of organic matter, are separated by GC and identified via mass spectral libraries, with GC-MS offering high sensitivity for individual congeners like naphthalene and benzopyrene. Pesticides, including organochlorines and organophosphates, are similarly analyzed using EPA Method 1699, which employs GC-MS for multi-residue screening after solvent extraction, achieving detection of over 200 compounds at low microgram-per-kilogram levels. Sampling strategies for contaminants emphasize representativeness to capture spatial variability. Composite sampling, where multiple subsamples from a defined area are combined, provides an average concentration and reduces variability compared to discrete grab samples, which capture point-specific hotspots but may miss broader patterns. For leaching risks, depth profiling involves collecting samples at incremental depths (e.g., 0-15 cm, 15-30 cm, and deeper), as contaminants like nitrates or migrate downward, influencing potential. Detection techniques range from field-portable to laboratory-based for efficiency and precision. (XRF) spectrometry enables rapid, non-destructive field screening of , with handheld devices providing results in seconds for elements like Pb and As at concentrations above 10 mg/kg, though matrix effects require lab confirmation. For trace-level analysis, ICP-MS excels with detection limits below 1 ppb (0.001 ppm) for most metals in digested soil extracts, far surpassing ICP-OES and allowing quantification of environmentally relevant low concentrations. Results are interpreted against established thresholds to evaluate risk. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) provide benchmarks, such as 0.68 mg/kg for inorganic in residential , based on a target cancer risk of 1 in 1,000,000 and updated toxicity factors as of November 2023. Exceedances trigger further investigation or remediation, with levels adjusted for site-specific factors like exposure pathways. Emerging technologies include nanomaterial-based sensors for real-time volatile organic compound (VOC) detection, such as carbon nanotube composites integrated into electrochemical or optical platforms, prototyped in 2024 for on-site soil monitoring with sub-ppm sensitivity. These sensors enhance rapid assessment by detecting VOCs like from contamination, complementing traditional methods.

Soil Health Assessment

Soil health assessment evaluates the biological and physical properties of to determine its capacity to sustain ecosystems, support plant growth, and maintain long-term productivity, distinct from chemical contaminant analysis. These assessments focus on indicators of vitality, such as content, which ideally exceeds 3% to enhance nutrient cycling and water retention, as established by guidelines from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). counts serve as a key biological indicator, with populations above 100 per square meter signaling robust and organic , according to guidelines from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Enzyme activity, particularly dehydrogenase assays measuring microbial metabolic processes, provides insights into microbial health; levels above 1-5 μg TPF/g /hour indicate active biological communities. Common tests for include measuring respiration rates through the CO2 burst method, where soil samples are incubated to quantify microbial CO2 , typically ranging from 20-50 mg CO2-C/kg /day in healthy soils, as validated in protocols from the . Aggregate stability tests assess physical structure and resistance by evaluating how well particles bind under wet sieving; aggregates greater than 50% by weight correlate with reduced runoff and improved infiltration, per methods outlined by the (FAO). Holistic indices integrate multiple parameters for a comprehensive . The Soil Quality Index (SQI) combines factors like , texture, and biological metrics into a scored assessment, where values above 0.6 denote sustainable conditions, as developed in seminal work by Andrews et al. (2004). Microbial biomass carbon, quantified via the fumigation-extraction method, estimates living microbial mass at 200-500 μg C/g in fertile systems, offering a measure of biological capital. Recent trends emphasize advanced techniques like to profile fungal and bacterial diversity, with standardized protocols emerging post-2020 for applications, enabling detection of beneficial microbiomes through that boosts soil resilience. For instance, in assessing , measurements exceeding 1.6 g/cm³ indicate restricted root growth and reduced water infiltration, harming overall vitality, as demonstrated in field studies by the European Soil Bureau Network.

Regulatory and Remediation Aspects

In the United States, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), enacted in 1980 and commonly known as , establishes the primary legal framework for identifying, assessing, and remediating at sites that threaten human health or the environment. This legislation empowers the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct cleanups, enforce liability on responsible parties, and fund responses through a trust financed by industry taxes, with over 1,300 sites addressed to date. CERCLA emphasizes remedial investigations based on soil testing to determine action levels, prioritizing risk reduction through containment, treatment, or removal of contaminants like and organics. In the , the Soil Monitoring and Resilience Directive, initially proposed as the Soil Framework Directive in 2006 and adopted by the in September 2025 and by the in October 2025, provides a harmonized approach to soil protection by mandating regular monitoring of and establishing risk-based thresholds for contaminants. This directive requires member states to assess physical, chemical, and biological soil properties using standardized methods, aiming to achieve healthy soils across the EU by 2050 while addressing degradation from , , and land take. It sets non-binding EU-wide target values and allows national trigger values tailored to local risks, facilitating targeted remediation for sites exceeding thresholds. Remediation planning relies heavily on soil test results to select appropriate strategies, balancing efficacy, cost, and sustainability. For heavy metal contamination, employs plants such as Thlaspi caerulescens to uptake and stabilize pollutants in roots or shoots, reducing without extensive excavation and promoting restoration over 1-5 years. This method is particularly suited for large-area sites, as demonstrated in field trials where metal concentrations decreased by 20-50% in treated soils. For organic contaminants like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), soil washing uses , , or chelating agents to separate fines from coarser particles, achieving up to 90% removal efficiency for adsorbed pollutants. Costs for soil washing typically range from $75 to $200 per ton of treated soil, influenced by factors such as , contaminant load, and recycling, with cost-benefit analyses often favoring it over for volumes exceeding 10,000 tons due to lower long-term environmental impacts. Post-remediation monitoring ensures the durability of cleanup efforts through systematic repeat sampling, typically conducted annually or biennially for at least five years, to confirm contaminant levels remain below regulatory thresholds and to identify migration pathways. In brownfield , integrates real-time soil testing data to adjust strategies, such as enhancing barriers or reapplying treatments if residuals exceed 10% of initial concentrations, thereby minimizing recontamination risks while supporting economic . This approach, endorsed by interstate technical councils, has been applied at over 50 U.S. sites to achieve closure under risk-based standards. Global regulatory variations reflect differing priorities, with international frameworks emphasizing urban soil risks from industrial legacies. The 1978 Love Canal incident in New York, where improper disposal of 21,000 tons of chemicals contaminated residential soils and groundwater with carcinogens like , exposed over 900 families to health hazards and catalyzed CERCLA's passage as a landmark response to uncontrolled waste dumping. Organizations like the (WHO) advocate for global monitoring of urban soil contaminants, particularly , to mitigate exposure pathways in densely populated areas, aligning with broader strategies. As of 2025, regulatory updates have expanded testing protocols to include as emerging contaminants, integrated into standard panels under the EU Soil Monitoring and Resilience Directive, which mandates their assessment alongside PFAS and pesticides using risk-based thresholds. This aligns with ISO 24187:2023, which outlines principles for analysis in environmental matrices like , enabling detection limits as low as 0.01% by weight through standardized sampling and spectroscopic methods to support remediation planning.

Procedures and Standards

Sample Collection and Handling

Soil sample collection begins with universal protocols to ensure representative and uncontaminated samples. Tools must be cleaned thoroughly before use to prevent cross-contamination from previous sites or residues, often achieved by rinsing with deionized water and brushing with a . Samples are typically collected using augers, probes, or spades to avoid introducing metals or plastics that could alter chemical analyses. Each sample must be labeled immediately with the collection date, GPS coordinates for precise location tracking, and site identifiers to maintain throughout the process. Preservation techniques vary by analyte to minimize degradation or loss during transport and storage. For nutrient and pH analyses, samples are often air-dried at room temperature to stabilize inorganic components, then sieved to 2 mm to remove debris. Biological samples, such as those for microbial activity, require refrigeration at 4°C to slow enzymatic reactions, with holding times not exceeding 14 days. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil demand freezing at -20°C or immediate extraction using methods like EPA 5035 to prevent volatilization losses. Transportation occurs in non-reactive containers, such as glass jars for VOCs or high-density polyethylene for general use, sealed to exclude air and moisture. Chain of custody procedures are essential, particularly for legal or regulatory samples, to document the sample's history and integrity. A accompanies each sample, recording the collector's name, date and time of transfer, recipient details, and any observations, with signatures required at each handover. This documentation ensures admissibility in court and prevents tampering claims, with samples stored under controlled conditions until analysis. Storage limits are analyte-specific; for instance, microbial tests must commence within 14 days of collection to avoid viability loss. Common errors in handling include volatilization of organics due to exposure to air during subsampling and unintended moisture changes from improper drying or humid storage, which can skew nutrient and texture results. Mitigation involves field measurement and correction of moisture content using gravimetric methods before preservation, alongside minimizing headspace in containers. Cross-contamination from unclean tools or unlabeled samples can also introduce artifacts, emphasizing the need for dedicated equipment per site. Best practices incorporate safety measures aligned with OSHA standards for hazardous sites, including (PPE) such as gloves, respirators, and protective clothing to guard against contaminants. Site-specific hazard evaluations under 29 CFR 1910.120 guide activities, with air monitoring for toxins and protocols if applicable. USDA guidelines from 2023 recommend packaging in leak-proof, sturdy containers for shipping.

Quality Control Measures

Quality control measures in soil testing are essential protocols designed to validate the reliability, accuracy, and of analytical results, minimizing errors that could affect geotechnical, environmental, or agricultural assessments. These measures encompass a range of internal and external checks, statistical evaluations, and ongoing audits to ensure that test outcomes meet standardized criteria and support informed in applications such as site investigation and evaluation. Internal quality control in soil testing laboratories routinely incorporates the analysis of duplicates, spikes, and blanks to monitor precision and detect or procedural biases. Duplicates, typically comprising at least 10% of samples (e.g., every tenth sample plus the first and last), are re-analyzed to assess variability, with results expected to fall within 8% relative difference to confirm method . Spikes involve adding known concentrations of analytes to samples to verify recovery rates and accuracy, particularly for tests requiring or extraction, such as or contaminant . Blanks, processed alongside samples using identical and procedures, help identify background from or . Additionally, proficiency testing through inter-laboratory comparisons, such as those coordinated by programs like the North American Proficiency Testing (NAPT), distributes blind samples to multiple labs for standardized evaluation, enabling benchmarking and identification of systematic deviations across facilities. Statistical validation of soil test results relies on metrics like the relative standard deviation (RSD) calculated from replicate analyses to quantify precision, where lower RSD values indicate higher . These criteria are applied to QC samples, with labs maintaining control charts to track trends and flag outliers when results deviate from established limits, such as warning levels at 2 standard deviations from the mean. To mitigate error sources, laboratories prioritize regular of analytical instruments, such as spectrometers or meters used in soil testing, ensuring measurements are to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reference standards through documented chains under ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation. This guarantees that instrument performance aligns with national metrology benchmarks, reducing systematic biases in parameters like or heavy metal concentrations. Audits and digital tracking systems further uphold quality by facilitating systematic reviews and . Annual internal review procedural adherence, QC sample performance, and corrective actions, while external proficiency assessments provide independent verification. Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS) are widely implemented to automate sample tracking, generate audit trails, and ensure real-time documentation of all analyses, enhancing from receipt to reporting. Emerging improvements in include AI-driven in soil test datasets, which analyzes patterns in large-scale results to identify outliers or inconsistencies, such as unexpected variability in contaminant levels. As of 2025, this technology is gaining adoption in advanced labs for predictive , processing thousands of tests to flag potential errors before final reporting. Maintaining sample during collection and handling is a prerequisite that complements these lab-based measures by preventing initial degradation.

Accreditation and Guidelines

Accreditation for soil testing laboratories is primarily governed by ISO/IEC 17025, an international standard that ensures the competence of testing and laboratories through requirements for systems, technical proficiency, and impartiality. This standard is widely adopted for soil testing, including geotechnical, environmental, and agricultural analyses, with accrediting bodies such as the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) and ANSI National Accreditation Board (ANAB) providing certification for soil-specific scopes. Standardized methods are developed by organizations like , which publishes detailed protocols such as ASTM D4972 for measuring in water or suspensions to assess acidity or . In the United States, national standards include those from the USDA (NRCS) for agricultural testing, focusing on nutrient levels and to support crop management; the EPA's SW-846 compendium for environmental soil analysis, providing methods like 9045D for in wastes and soils; and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) for engineering applications, such as under M 145 for pavement design. As of April 2025, NRCS Technical Note 470-16 provides guidance on lab testing to support conservation planning. The certification process under ISO 17025 involves rigorous on-site audits by accrediting bodies to evaluate laboratory operations, equipment calibration, and method validation, alongside requirements for personnel training in standardized procedures to maintain technical competency. audits occur annually or biennially, with full reassessments leading to renewal every two years to verify ongoing compliance. Global harmonization efforts, led by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) since 2010, include the development of protocols for proficiency testing in laboratories, promoting consistent sampling and analysis across environmental matrices like soils. In 2025, updates to soil testing guidelines, such as those from the Soil & Climate Initiative, incorporate climate-resilient practices by standardizing methodologies for assessing under changing environmental conditions, including frameworks. Compliance with these accreditation and guideline frameworks enhances legal defensibility of test results in regulatory contexts, reducing risks of disputes over data validity in environmental assessments or agricultural certifications.

References

  1. https://geopard.tech/blog/what-is-the-process-of-soil-testing/
  2. https://extension.psu.edu/soil-testing/
  3. https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/hyg-1132
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/soil-testing
  5. https://www.pacelabs.com/analytical-environmental/solids/soil-sediment/
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/soil-testing
  7. https://www.aimil.com/blog/what-is-soil-testing-and-how-is-it-done-for-bridges-buildings-and-dams/
  8. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/Soils2023_Day1_BasicSoilProperties.pdf
  9. https://eos.com/blog/soil-testing/
  10. https://g3soilworks.com/2024/05/29/the-critical-role-of-soil-testing-in-construction-ensuring-safety-and-durability/
  11. https://www.csceng.com/regular-soil-testing-in-contaminated-sites/
  12. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2136/sssaj1999.6351055x
  13. https://extension.usu.edu/crops/research/soil-sampling-guide-for-crops
  14. https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/anr-0206
  15. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/SS620
  16. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=university_honors_program
  17. https://www.geoengineer.org/education/laboratory-testing/compaction-test
  18. https://www.astm.org/d2166-06.html
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9280627/
  20. https://extension.missouri.edu/publications/g9070
  21. https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/AY/AY-368-w.pdf
  22. https://geopard.tech/blog/soil-sampling-random-grid-and-zone-based/
  23. https://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/a-field-guide-to-soil-sampling
  24. https://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/farm_soil_sampling
  25. https://www.cropnutrition.com/nutrient-management/soil-sampling/
  26. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/precision-farming-comes-into-its-own
  27. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2134/agronj2018.12.0779
  28. https://www.canolacouncil.org/canola-watch/fundamentals/soil-sampling/
  29. https://saskpulse.com/resources/soil-sampling-101/
  30. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/16/24/4688
  31. https://farmonaut.com/precision-farming/agriculture-uav-secrets-7-shocking-drone-farming-wins
  32. https://ag.purdue.edu/news/2024/09/satellites-and-soils-nifa-and-agseed-grants-fund-remote-sensing-data-collection-and-machine-learning-models-to-predict-soil-properties.html
  33. https://blueskies.nianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-GBS-Technical-Paper-South-Dakota-State-University.pdf
  34. https://vric.ucdavis.edu/pdf/fertilization_Soiltestingfornutrientavailability2007.pdf
  35. https://agcrops.osu.edu/sites/agcrops/files/imce/fertility/Recommended%2520Chemical%2520Soil%2520Test%2520Procedures.pdf
  36. https://www.ohio.edu/cas/plant-biology/research/facilities-laboratories/forest-soil-ecology-lab/soil-phglass-electrode
  37. https://aesl.ces.uga.edu/sera6/PUB/MethodsManualFinalSERA6.pdf
  38. https://labmodules.soilweb.ca/instrumentation/
  39. https://www.udel.edu/content/dam/udelImages/canr/pdfs/extension/factsheets/soiltest-recs/CHAP9-2009-2018.pdf
  40. https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/anr-81
  41. https://soiltest.cfans.umn.edu/
  42. https://homeguide.com/costs/soil-test-cost
  43. https://blog-crop-news.extension.umn.edu/2021/02/what-is-best-soil-test-option-for.html
  44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229895207_Limitations_of_the_Olsen_method_to_assess_available_phosphorus_in_reclaimed_marsh_soils
  45. https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/agf-0515
  46. https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/fertilization-based-on-sufficiency-build-up-and-maintenance-concept.html
  47. https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/soil-acidity-and-liming-basic-information-for-farmers-and-gardeners
  48. https://extension.purdue.edu/news/county/whitley/2021/02/what-is-the-perfect-nitrogen-rate-for-corn.html
  49. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-55314-7
  50. https://extension.sdstate.edu/sites/default/files/2023-03/P-00039-2023.pdf
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001670619390060X
  52. https://extension.illinois.edu/crops/soil-potassium
  53. https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/mands/geologyfieldmanual-vol2/Chapter22.pdf
  54. https://www.astm.org/d1586_d1586m-18e01.html
  55. https://www.txdot.gov/manuals/brg/geo_lrfd/chapter-3/standard-field-testing-and-sampling/standard-penetration-test--spt-.html
  56. https://www.cpt-robertson.com/PublicationsPDF/CPT-Guide-7th-Final-SMALL.pdf
  57. https://asct-1.itrcweb.org/3-5-cone-penetrometer-testing/
  58. https://www.geoengineer.org/education/site-characterization-in-situ-testing-general/in-situ-vane-shear-test
  59. https://www.tensarinternational.com/resources/articles/plate-load-testing-size-matters
  60. https://www.insitutek.com/products/plate-load-test/
  61. https://www.conetec.com/equipment/drilling
  62. https://www.pagani-geotechnical.com/en/prodotti
  63. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/10/7/265
  64. https://www.vertekcpt.com/geotechnical-testing-types/
  65. https://www.g-i.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/which-in-situ-test-should-I-use-failmezger-and-bullock-2008.pdf
  66. https://www.astm.org/d0698-12r21.html
  67. https://www.astm.org/d2216-19.html
  68. https://www.astm.org/d4318-17e01.html
  69. https://www.astm.org/d4767-11r20.html
  70. https://gfzpublic.gfz.de/rest/items/item_238341_2/component/file_238340/content
  71. https://www.astm.org/d2435_d2435m-11r20.html
  72. https://www.gcts.com/product/triaxial-test-soil/
  73. https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/FHWA-NHI-16-072.pdf
  74. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470172766
  75. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001662
  76. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41062-016-0010-2
  77. https://www.geplus.co.uk/features/artificial-intelligence-in-practice-geotechnical-engineering-23-09-2025/
  78. https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/EN-Eurocodes/eurocode-7-geotechnical-design
  79. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-06/documents/epa-3050b.pdf
  80. https://www.epa.gov/esam/epa-method-3050b-acid-digestion-sediments-sludges-and-soils
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10179879/
  82. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-10/documents/method_1699_2007.pdf
  83. https://ism-2.itrcweb.org/nature-of-soil-sampling/
  84. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016706109003553
  85. https://www.bruker.com/en/landingpages/bna/portable-xrf-soil-analyzer.html
  86. https://www.agilent.com/en/product/atomic-spectroscopy/inductively-coupled-plasma-mass-spectrometry-icp-ms/what-is-icp-ms-icp-ms-faqs
  87. https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables
  88. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2024/ta/d3ta07171e
  89. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview
  90. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-regulations
  91. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/09/29/council-adopts-new-rules-for-healthier-and-more-resilient-european-soils/
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653522012814
  93. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=10002Z8F.TXT
  94. https://rmcs-1.itrcweb.org/4-adaptive-site-management/
  95. https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/aboutepa/love-canal-tragedy.html
  96. https://www.who.int/health-topics/urban-health
  97. https://www.iso.org/standard/78033.html
  98. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-06/documents/Soil-Sampling.pdf
  99. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/Sampling_Soils_for_Nutrient_Management_SD-FS-50.pdf
  100. https://nutnet.org/soil-sampling
  101. https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/holding-time-preservation
  102. https://www.astm.org/Standards/D6282.htm
  103. https://www.eurofinsus.com/media/447768/appendix-d-section-5-attachment-holdtime-container-list_2016-july.pdf
  104. https://www.mass.gov/doc/wsc-99-415-preservation-techniques-for-volatile-organic-compound-voc-soil-sample-analyses-0/download
  105. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=9101NMU3.TXT
  106. https://www.ams-samplers.com/blog/best-practices-for-accurate-soil-sampling-in-the-field/
  107. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/all-in-one.pdf
  108. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.120
  109. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/KSSL-Sample-Submission-Protocol.pdf
  110. https://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/glosolan-old/soil-analysis/quality-assurance-and-quality-control/en/
  111. https://anlab.ucdavis.edu/lab-information/qa-qc
  112. https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/HYG-1133
  113. https://www.ucr-rifs.com/assets/Docs/SATES/2019_SATES_Phase_II_Bench-Scale_Treatability_Study_Amend_Design_Work_Plan_with_Addendum_1.pdf
  114. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1415_web.pdf
  115. https://continentaltesting.com/instrument-calibration-services/
  116. https://www.lablynx.com/resources/articles/soil-testing-labs-offer-insights-beyond-crop-maintenance/
  117. https://www.outsourcedpharma.com/doc/a-lims-audit-framework-what-to-audit-how-to-prepare-0001
  118. https://www.fugro.com/news/long-reads/2025/transforming-soil-lab-testing-with-ai-technology
  119. https://a2la.org/accreditation/geotechnical-testing/
  120. https://anab.ansi.org/accreditation/environmental-iso-iec-17025-laboratory/
  121. https://www.astm.org/d4972-19.html
  122. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/stelprdb1167377-soil-testing.pdf
  123. https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/sw-846-test-method-9045d-soil-and-waste-ph
  124. https://transportation.org/technical-training-solutions/wp-content/uploads/sites/64/2023/02/AT-TC3CN025-18-T1-JA021.pdf
  125. https://directives.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files2/1748890495/TN%2520470-16%2520Soil%2520Health%2520Testing%2520to%2520Support%2520Conservation%2520Planning.pdf
  126. https://www.iasonline.org/services/testing-laboratories/
  127. https://www.eurofinsus.com/food-testing/resources/all-you-need-to-know-about-iso-170252017-accredited-laboratories/
  128. https://iupac.org/project/2009-010-3-500/
  129. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/65aecab2fe409d1346eca1bc/t/68095425412f047677ffe029/1745441829484/Soil%2BTesting%2BMethodology_04.2025.pdf
  130. https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/basic-information-about-how-use-sw-846
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.