Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 192

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of chemical methods of assessing potentially available organic nitrogen in soil

Gianello, C., Bremner, J. M.·1986·Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

Abstract

We recently developed two rapid and precise chemical methods of assessing potentially available organic N in soils. One method involves determination of the ammonia‐N produced by steam distillation of the soil sample with pH 11.2 phosphate‐borate buffer solution for 8 min. The other involves determination of the ammonium‐N produced by treatment of the soil sample with 2M KCl solution at 100°C for 4 hours. Studies using 33 Brazilian soils showed that the results obtained by these methods were highly correlated with those obtained by anaerobic and aerobic incubation methods of assessing potentially available organic N in soil. The two methods were further evaluated by applying them to 30 Iowa soils and by comparing their results and those obtained by other chemical methods with the results of the incubation methods considered to be the best laboratory methods currently available for assessment of potentially available organic N in soil. The chemical methods used included the acid KMnO4 method, the alkaline KMnO4 method, the CaCl2‐autoclave method, and the NaHCO3 UV method. The incubation methods used involved determination of the ammonium‐N produced by incubation of the soil sample under anaerobic conditions for 1 week or determination of the (ammonium + nitrate + nitrite)‐N produced by incubation of the sample under aerobic conditions for 2 and 12 weeks. The data obtained showed that the results of the two chemical methods evaluated were highly correlated with those obtained by the incubation techniques used for comparison and that the correlations observed with these two methods were higher than those observed with the previously proposed chemical methods. It is concluded that these two rapid and simple methods are the best chemical methods thus far developed for laboratory assessment of potentially available organic N in soil.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00103628609367709

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Metadata

Authors
Gianello, C., & Bremner, J. M.
Venue
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis
Published
1986-02
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
215-236
ISSN
  • 0010-3624 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2416
OpenAlex
W1999135640
Cited by
192
References
0
FWCI
5.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of chemical methods of assessing potentially available organic nitrogen in soil. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00103628609367709
The paper
Gianello, C., & Bremner, J. M. (1986). Comparison of chemical methods of assessing potentially available organic nitrogen in soil. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103628609367709

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.