The Robinson pipette method (Pipette) is accurate and precise but time consuming. Bouyoucos (1936) proposed a more rapid and simpler procedure called the hydrometer method. Both analytical techniques are sedimentation procedures accepted as standard techniques for particle-size analysis. The sand, silt, and clay contents of several soil samples were determined using the Pipette method as a control and compared with the Bouyoucus, the Bouyoucos Modified (Bouyoucos_M) and the Bouyoucos Modified with gravimetric determination of the sand content (Bouyoucos_M-T) methods. Data obtained from these procedures was used to assess soil textural class, the soil erodibility coefficient (K), the water retained at field capacity (FC) and the permanent wilting point (PWP). In the Bouyoucos_M method, the soil organic matter (SOM) was destroyed and the dispersingagent concentration was increased. In the Bouyoucos_M-T method, the sand was quantified gravimetrically by sieving samples through a 53 \u00b5m mesh. The hydrometer and Pipette methods measurements correlated well. The Bouyoucos and the Bouyoucus-M methods overestimated the sand content. The performance of the Bouyoucos_M-T method did not differ from that of the Pipette method. Compared with the Pipette method, the Bouyoucus method underestimated the clay content, and the Bouyoucos_M method did not differ from the Pipette method. The values obtained with the Bouyoucos_M and the Bouyoucos methods underestimated the FC and the PWP, and Bouyoucos_M-T method did not differ from estimations based on the Pipette method data. The assessed K value was underestimated with the Bouyoucos_M method. The Bouyoucos and the Bouyoucos_M-T methods estimated the K values similar to the Pipette method. The Bouyucus_M-T method is suitable for determining the soil texture and inferring soil properties but is unacceptable for assessing the class texture for soil taxonomic classification.\u00a0El m\u00e9todo de la Pipeta de Robinson (Pipeta) es exacto y preciso, pero insume mucho tiempo. Bouyoucos (1936) propuso el m\u00e9todo del hidr\u00f3metro como m\u00e1s r\u00e1pido y simple. Ambos m\u00e9todos de sedimentaci\u00f3n se aceptan para el\u00a0 an\u00e1lisis textural del suelo. Se compar\u00f3 el contenido de arena, limo y arcilla de varias muestras de suelo. Se asumi\u00f3 el m\u00e9todo de la Pipeta como control y se compar\u00f3 con: Bouyoucus; una modificaci\u00f3n de Bouyoucos, con destrucci\u00f3n de materia org\u00e1nica y mayor concentraci\u00f3n de dispersante (Bouyoucos_M); y Bouyoucos_M con determinaci\u00f3n gravim\u00e9trica de arena previo tamizado de las muestras con malla de 53 \u00b5m (Bouyoucos_M-T). Los datos se emplearon para evaluar: clase textural; coeficiente de erodabilidad (K); agua retenida a capacidad de campo (CC); y el punto de marchitez permanente (PMP). Hubo buena correlaci\u00f3n entre las mediciones con hidr\u00f3metro y la Pipeta. El m\u00e9todo Bouyoucos o Bouyoucus-M sobreestim\u00f3 el contenido de arena, pero Bouyoucos_M-T no difiri\u00f3. Bouyoucus subestim\u00f3 el contenido de arcilla y Bouyoucos_M no difiri\u00f3. Con los datos de Bouyoucos_M y Bouyoucos se subestimaron FC y PWP; con Bouyoucos_M-T no hubo diferencias de las estimaciones al comparar con la Pipeta. Se subestim\u00f3 el coeficiente K al utilizar los datos de Bouyoucos_M. Con Bouyoucos o Bouyoucos_M-T, los valores estimados de K no difirieron de los estimados a partir de la Pipeta. Bouyucus_M-T fue adecuado para inferir las propiedades del suelo, pero inaceptable para adjudicar la clase textural con el fin de clasificar suelo con fines taxon\u00f3micos.\u00a0<\/p>","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","format":"standard","class_list":["post-611974","tnc_col_611521_item","type-tnc_col_611521_item","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n