Busted: Humic and Fluvic acids do Not occur in nature

[pop22]

I submitted a request for other sources for this information from the author, I'll post his reply and links if he provides them

 

[pop22]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humic_acid

And in that link:

"Decomposition products of dead plant materials form intimate associations with minerals, making it difficult to isolate and characterize soil organic constituents. 18th century soil chemists successfully used alkaline extraction to isolate a portion of the organic constituents in soil. This led to the theory that a 'humification' process created 'humic substances'; most commonly 'humic acid', 'fulvic acid', and 'humin'.[10]However, these humic substances have not been observed in soil"

 

[pop22]

And good discussion everyone!

 

[Ozone69]

Well, the author does say in closing that it's hardly settled science just yet...

Is this the end to the humus story? Probably not. The paper I am discussing is very new and not all scientists agree with it. It is quite possible that in another 2 years I will write about humus again and change the story, but I don’t think so. The issues with the old humus story are now clearly explained, and the new theory fits the data we have.

 

[Arthur]

Here we argue that the available evidence does not support the formation of large-molecular-size and persistent ‘humic substances’ in soils.

"We argue" is not a fact, but theory. Am cool with exploring it further, but to say we haven't found it so it doesn't exist... nothing is gained from that.

 

[Hippy_BiotabsF70]

Sorry but my point is, whatever it says in that article you’re quoting is just opinion and here say. No new “science” has been done as far as I know. No new physical study was made, all they studied was existing data. And then gave their opinion on it, dressed up as a “science paper”. It’s more like journalism in my opinion.

It’s like an English literature exam. Read this article and write something about it. That’s basically what the authors have done I am fairly sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hippy_BiotabsF70]

You can’t bust a myth with a theory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fryge]

I think that's a bit harsh on review papers.

review papers aren't just copy-paste, literature study is a thing on it's own that can be just as valuable as experiments. it also really depends what branch of science you're looking at how common literature study is vs experiments.
for example, history is mostly review papers(I think, I've actually not read many history papers), yet would you dismiss all of the historical sciences because they are only looking at existing sources?

I've read the first part of the nature article now(I have free access trough my university), but it seems like a good article(which being published in nature already implies), with some good points.

for example, this paragraph tells about the terms having different meanings depending on which branch of science you're in, with such confusion it makes sense to take a good look at the combined evidence and see how much sense the existing theory actually makes.

Among the strongest arguments in favour of discarding the notion of ‘humic substances’ is the absence of any agreement within the broader scientific community on how such materials are defined. ‘Humic substances’ may be described in the soil sciences in three different ways: strictly operationally according to what can be extracted with an alkaline solution, with further subcategories of ‘humic’ and ‘fulvic’ acids as well as unextractable ‘humins’; as an existing substance that is not merely an operational construct; or as a combination of the two (Box 1). Different research communities use the same vocabulary with very different connotations, to the point of being contradictory: in soil science, ‘humic substances’ are thought to have large molecular masses12; in the environmental sciences, they are characterized as small fragments13; and a classic textbook of aquatic geochemistry describes them as compounds of variable mass and composition14.

 

[Hippy_BiotabsF70]

Agreed mate (above) but it being a seemingly decent article doesn’t change a thing for me personally. Still just a review essentially, an opinion, no facts.

As for me dismissing history? Not a good choice there I don’t think buddy? History is just as problematic as myths. It all depends who’s telling it and from who’s perspective. Clearly.

I don’t mean to sound argumentative or anything, it’s just my nature not to accept anything much unless I’ve experienced it myself. Or it’s pretty darn clear it’s real (gravity for example).

But I still stand by my statement, you can’t bust a myth with a theory. Perhaps opinion would’ve been a better last word there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[johnp540]

Found a really good read on this.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...yC64QFgg9MAM&usg=AOvVaw1X2UQAp-8WrDEQ3kW0hbUg
It's a download in PDF.
I would say they occur in nature.