Printer Friendly

Hydrodynamic dispersion of sodium by equilibrium and non-equilibrium methods through undisturbed sandy soil columns from the Adamantina Formation.


The hydrodynamic dispersion coefficient ([D.sub.h]) is one of the most important solute transport parameters, and its correct quantification is essential to accurately estimate groundwater contamination and, therefore, analyze, assess and manage the possible risks related to contaminated sites. Typically, the experimental [D.sub.h] is obtained inversely, by fitting the analytical solution of the differential equation of a transport model, and the convection-dispersion equation (CDE), for specified boundary conditions (Lapidus and Amundson, 1952) to the experimental breakthrough curves (BTC). In addition, [D.sub.h] can be determined directly from column tests, using one of the available methods (Bear, 1961; Ogata & Banks, 1961; Brigham, 1974).

When column tests are performed in soil columns with unpreserved intact structures, these methods work very well (Carmo, Antonino, Netto, & Correa, 2010; Magga et al., 2008) since they were developed empirically from tests in homogeneous soils and, often, non-reactive solutes. In these conditions, the equilibrium advective-dispersive transport model can represent the regular behavior of the solute.

However, those models are based on simplifications that may not accurately reflect natural conditions. It is well known that undisturbed soil columns are subject to the presence of macroporosity, dual-porosity, and other heterogeneities. These characteristics may strongly affect solute transport parameter values by creating non-uniform flow fields with widely different velocities, phenomena often referred to as nonequilibrium transport, i.e. when an immobile (related with micropores) and a mobile (related with macropores) liquid phase is present (van Genuchten & Wierenga, 1976; Brusseau & Rao, 1990; Ray, Ellsworth, Valocchi, & Boast, 1997; Schwartz, Juo, & Mclnnes, 2000; Lamy, Lassabatere, Bechet, & Andrieu, 2009). Usually, for non-equilibrium transport, the CDE is valid in the mobile domain, and diffusion is assumed in the immobile one (van Genuchten and Wierenga, 1976).

Several studies have pointed out that non-equilibrium transport plays an important role in the preferential movement of water and solutes. Thus, non-equilibrium models should be used to more adequately represent transport in heterogeneous media (van Genuchten & Wierenga, 1976; Bibby, 1981; Gerke & Genuchten, 1993; Saxena, Jarvis, & Bergstrom, 1994; Larsson & Jarvis, 1999a; 1999b; Simunek, Jarvis, & van Genuchten, 2003; Lewandowska, Szymkiewicz, & Burzynski, 2004; Jiang, Pang, Buchan, Simunek, & Noonan, 2010).

In this context, this study applied equilibrium and non-equilibrium methods to determine the [D.sub.h] of the sodium ion, comparing both. To achieve this aim, column tests were performed using undisturbed columns of residual sandy soil from the Adamantina Formation (K) in the city of Cabralia Paulista, in the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Five methods that consider equilibrium advective-dispersive transport model and one that considers a non-equilibrium model were used. Our emphasis is on examining the characteristics of each method and the errors resulting from the use of a less suitable method for the studied soil, demonstrating the importance of choosing a correct model for determining the [D.sub.h], and the complexity of this choice.

Material and methods

This study was carried out through the following basic steps: 1) Soil sampling; 2) Soil physical-chemical characterization; 3) Column tests and porosity analysis; 5) Chemical analysis; and 6) Determination of the hydrodynamic dispersion coefficients. These six steps will be detailed after the basic characteristics of the study area section.

Basic characteristics of the study area

The study area is located in Cabralia Paulista city, in the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil. The main pedological soil types identified therein are Oxisol, Ultisol, and Latosol. This area is constituted by the residual soil of sandstones from the Adamantina Formation, Bauru Group (K). The area was chosen because its geological materials are spread at about 117,000 [km.sup.2] in the state of Sao Paulo (Silva, Kiang, & Caetano-Chang, 2003) and are subdivided into several local aquifer units, which are very important in terms of public water supply.

Soil sampling

Disturbed samples were collected from the study area to characterize soil mineralogy and physical, chemical and physicochemical properties. Undisturbed soil columns were carefully collected from handexcavated trenches, using rigid PVC cylinders, for column testing.

Soil physical-chemical characterization

In the laboratory, the disturbed samples were air-dried and sieved through a #10 mesh sieve (2 mm openings). The mineralogical analysis was performed by X-ray diffraction by the powder method in the clay fraction (Azaroff and Buerger, 1953), while the particle size analysis was performed according to the ASTM D422 standard and the density of the solids was determined according to the ASTM D854-10. Subsequently, the following parameters were also determined: pH in [H.sub.2]O and in KCl, Eh and electrical conductivity (EC) (Donagema and Campos, 2011), delta pH (p[H.sub.KCl] - p[H.sub.H2O]) (Mekaru and Uehara, 1972), point of zero charge (PZC) (2p[H.sub.KCl] - p[H.sub.H2O]) (Keng and Uehara, 1974), organic matter content according to the ASTM D2974--00 and cation exchange capacity (CEC). A porosity analysis by mercury intrusion was also performed (Washburn, 1921).

Column tests

The PVC cylinders used for collecting the undisturbed soil samples (150 mm long and with 97.2 mm internal diameter) were used as rigid-wall permeameters, in which column tests were conducted. The soil columns were first slowly saturated from the bottom with distilled water in order to remove entrapped air. This saturation was performed by positioning the bottom of the soil columns at the almost same height as the distilled water level. To ensure complete saturation, the distilled water was allowed to overflow 1 cm on the soil surface during two uninterrupted days. After column saturation, the flow was reversed, and the test was performed under a constant hydraulic gradient of 1.5. This hydraulic gradient can be considered high for real conditions but was chosen to reduce the test time.

The steady state condition was achieved when no flux variation was observed with time. Subsequently, the following water flow parameters were obtained from each column: saturated hydraulic conductivity, [K.sub.sat]; Darcy velocity, q ; flux, O and average linear velocity, v (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Total porosity, n, that represents the total of voids (connected and non-connected pores), was measured by considering the ratio of the pore volume to the total volume of each soil column. On the other hand, connected pores are represented by the effective porosity, [n.sub.e], which is used in the calculation of v. The percentage of pores larger than 10 pm was adopted based on the testing by mercury intrusion porosimetry (Figure 1) (Ahuja et al., 1984).

The pH and electrical conductivity, both of the input solution and of the percolated effluent solution, were monitored. Percolation occurred in a downward flow. Three columns were percolated with NaCl and the effluents were collected at each pore volume and stored in refrigerated plastic containers. The concentration of the initial solution inleted to columns 1, 2 and 3 were, respectively, 0.050, 0.090 and 0.177 [kgm.sup.-3]. At the end of the tests, the columns were percolated using three pore volumes of distilled water, with a pH ranging from 6.8 to 7.2.

Chemical analysis of the solutions

[Na.sup.+] concentrations were determined using a MICRONAL B26 flame photometer after appropriate dilution. Based on the relative concentration data (C/[C.sub.o]) versus the respective pore volume percolated with the effluent, the BTC for the [Na.sup.+] were obtained.

Determination of hydrodynamic dispersion coefficient

The [D.sub.h] was determined using equilibrium methods proposed by: 1) Ogata and Banks (1961); 2) Brigham (1974); 3) Singh (1998); 4) Bear (1961); and 5) Delgado (2007). The non-equilibrium method applied was that proposed by van Genuchten (1981), while the [D.sub.h] was determined using the CFITIM code for the third type boundary condition (constant flux). This code is part of the Windows-based computer software package Studio of Analytical Models (STANMOD). Table 1 displays the methods and their main characteristics.

Results and discussion

Soil characterization and flow parameters

The mineralogy consists of quartz, kaolinite, and gibbsite. Texturally, the soil consists of 79.4 sand, 10.5 clay and 10.1% silt particles (mean values). The specific weight of the solids was consistent with sandy soil values (26.4 kN[m.sup.-3]). Table 2 displays the physical characteristics of each of the undisturbed columns. The columns display physical characteristics and values consistent with the type of soil under investigation. The CEC value (2.903 cmol[kg.sup.-1]) suggests a soil with a low capacity to adsorb cations by electrostatic adsorption. According to the soil salinity classification of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the electrical conductivity values indicate small amounts of dissolved salts (55.70 mS[m.sup.-1]) and a nonsaline soil (Brigham, Reed, & Dew, 1961). The soil has values of 5.23 and 4.20 for the pH in [H.sub.2]O and in KCl, respectively. The soil presented values of 5.23 and 4.20 for pH in [H.sub.2]O and in KCl, respectively. The negative delta pH (-1.03) and PZC lower than the p[H.sub.H2O] (4.18) indicate a predominance of negative charges, which can promote cation adsorption. In addition, the soil contains a small amount of organic matter (1.18%).

The porosimetry results were discussed based on Figure 1 and on the porosimetry analysis report. According to the classification scheme proposed by Koorevaar, Menelik, and Dirksen (1983), in which the diameters of micropores, mesopores, and macropores are, respectively, <30 [micro]m, 30-100 [micro]m and >100 [micro]m, the porosimetry test indicated that the pores consisted of approximately 5 macropores, 50 mesopores, and 45% micropores. Besides that, Figure 1 shows the presence of two primary pore sizes, i.e., diameters of 0.01 to 0.03 [micro]m and 10 to 100 [micro]m, indicating the presence of dual-porosity in the form of two frequency peaks.

A visual analysis indicated that the soil also contains macropores larger than 100 [micro]m that were not identified in the porosimetry analysis, mainly due to the small size of the soil sample analyzed in that analysis, i.e., cylindrical samples of 1 cm in diameter and 2 cm long. These pores range up to 4 mm in diameter and were very important in determining solute transport mechanisms.

The average hydraulic conductivity coefficient is within the range typical of sandy soils (10E-5 m [s.sup.-1]) (Rezanezhad et al., 2012). The mean linear velocity can be considered high (10E-4 m [s.sup.-1]), most likely due to the presence of preferential pathways (McMahon & Thomas, 1974; Dousset, Thevenot, Pot, & Simunek, 2007; Delwiche, Lehmann, & Walter, 2014; Silva, van Lier, Correa, Miranda, & Oliveira, 2016).

Analysis of breakthrough curves

Figure 2 displays the breakthrough curves for [Na.sup.+]. The time of duration of the tests was set as the dimensionless number of pore volume (T = vt [L.sup.-1]), allowing comparisons between the columns. The BTC tails show that at the beginning solute speedily left the soil column, followed by a slow transport and tailing. Thus, [Na.sup.+] concentrations did not reach inflow concentrations in any curve, probably an indication of physical non-equilibrium (Vanderborght, Timmerman, & Feyen, 2000; Dousset et al., 2007; Jarvis, 2007). The observed behaviors can be explained by the presence of dual-porosity in the soil, in which some portions of the solutes can leave the column due to advection and others can be delayed, due to percolation through micropores and non-connected pores, causing the ions to remain in the column throughout the test. This has also been mentioned in other papers (van Genuchten & Wierenga, 1976; Jarvis, 2007; Silva et al., 2016). In addition, according to Gerritse (1996), a non-sigmoidal shape could be due to the presence of heterogeneous adsorption sites in the soil, caused by the small-scale heterogeneity. Finally, the results of the BTC supporting laboratory tests clearly show that the soil samples contain macropores that strongly influences flow and solute transport.

Hydrodynamic dispersion coefficient

Analyzing the porosity and soil characterization, as well as the BTC (Figure 2), a typical non-equilibrium transport behavior is noted, particularly at the early (up to 4 pore volumes--Figure 2) and late (from 8 pore volumes--Figure 2) behavior in the BTC tails. This behavior may be explained by the fact that that the mobile region contains large pores that fill with a solute that left the soil column quickly and appears at an earlier BTC time. Subsequently, a significant tailing occurs at the late time, due to solute diffusion into immobile regions.

This is also demonstrated with the comparison of errors resulting from the fit of the [D.sub.h] values for sodium obtained with the models proposed by Ogata and Banks (1961) (equilibrium) and van Genuchten (1981) (non-equilibrium). The experimental data were best fitted to the non-equilibrium method and the sum of the squares errors was up to five times lower, demonstrating the suitability of the non-equilibrium method for the studied soil. Subsequently, the [D.sub.h] was calculated using all method described in the materials and methods section. Table 3 displays the parameters obtained for each method. The average results of equilibrium methods were compared with those obtained with the non-equilibrium method. The latter method was the most adequate for representing the data, due to the aforementioned analysis. The differences were analyzed based on the study of conceptual models of each method. These results are displayed in Figure 3.

Higher errors were obtained through Ogata and Banks's method (1961), probably due to the fact that the fit of the experimental data using this method is truncated at the zero-initial time, thus assuming that the relative concentration at this time is also zero, or very low and that it increases very slowly. Moreover, the BTC adopted in this method has a sigmoid shape and the inflection point occurs at a relative concentration equal to 0.5, a behavior that was not observed. In addition, this method was developed exclusively for homogeneous soils, which is not the case herein.

Before using the Brigham (1974) method, the dimensionless dispersion was determined for all soil columns. Since the values were 8.9, 6.7 and 9.8 for columns 1, 2 and 3 respectively, this method was deemed suitable. However, the probability plot of the function U did not result in a straight line, demonstrating that the boundary conditions used in this method would not be suitable for representing sodium [D.sub.h] in the studied soil. The probability plots of the U-functions resulted in concave upward lines at high concentrations, a behavior more consistent with the presence of non-connected pores (Brigham, 1974). It is important to mention that this method is based on the Ogata and Banks equation and showed low error values in relation to the van Genuchten model (1981). As this method is not suitable for the studied soil, the low error can be obtained because the fit of the experimental data using this method has a greater degree of freedom compared to the Ogata and Banks method, and it allows the curve to be shifted to a start time different than zero. Thus, a larger amount of data points passes the shifted curve, causing smaller errors than those resulting from the Ogata and Banks method.

The method proposed by Singh (1998), although based on Ogata and Banks, also resulted in small errors, which can be explained by a different mathematical approach used in this method, allowing the consideration of higher concentrations since the beginning of the test, due to the greater degree of freedom of the fit, as occurred with the method proposed by Brigham (1974). Furthermore, with the displacement of the BTC, this method allows the consideration of early and late arrival times resulting from the percolation of the solution by macro and micropores, respectively, therefore justifying their small error values compared to van Genuchten (1981).

The method proposed by Delgado (2007) presented the lowest average errors. In this method, molecular diffusion is considered. In addition, it exhibits a great detail of the flow parameters when considering the Peclet and the Reynolds numbers. Therefore, this method can fairly represent an advective-diffusive transport without delay. However, the equations proposed by Delgado (2007) are based on results of several laboratory tests using nonreactive solutes in homogeneous porous media in terms of porosity and pore size. In addition, the low [D.sub.h] values obtained should be more related to the importance given to the molecular diffusion, with values in the order of 10E-09 [m.sup.2] [s.sup.-1], than to the consideration of two pore regions, unlike the method proposed by van Genuchten (1981).

In the method proposed by Bear (1961) the errors also were low. However, the BTC is not regarded in this method. The determination of the longitudinal hydrodynamic dispersion by Bear's method is performed, essentially, by considering only that the spreading of solute is Fickian and that it is affected only by the velocity differences in the pores, mechanical dispersion, and molecular diffusion. However, the results can also strongly be affected by the longitudinal dispersivity coefficient ([[alpha].sub.l]). Since obtaining [[alpha].sub.l] is often based on empirical relationships, which are not based on the breakthrough curve (Fetter, 1999), and do not take into account the actual behavior of the solute in the soil, this method may lead to inadequate [D.sub.h] estimates.


The interpretation of the results must consider dual-porosity transport models to obtain valid results. Other methods would quite likely produce erroneous results. The analysis of the conceptual models of the methods used to determine the hydrodynamic dispersion led to observations of the limitations of each method and a careful analysis of the obtained values, which are related to the characteristics of the soil. Due to the good fits of experimental data and the soil characteristics, the best method for determining the hydrodynamic dispersion coefficient was that proposed by van Genuchten (1981). It is worth mentioning that the main limitation of this research is that it is site specific. In addition, only a limited amount of soil column was studied. Future research can also be performed by considering different boundary conditions, since this can influence [D.sub.h] values. Lastly, it was concluded that there is no single perfect method for determining soil transport parameters. Modeling of solute transport should be performed with caution and the modeler should evaluate not only the final value but also the conceptual models and the limitations of each method as they relate to the soil under investigation.

Doi: 10.4025/actascitechnol.v41i1.35419

Received on February 14, 2017.

Accepted on November 27, 2017


This research was made possible by the involvement of financial support from the Coordenagao de Aperfeigoamento de Pessoai de Nivei Superior (Capes). The authors would also like to thank teachers and staff of the State Technical School "Astor de Mattos Carvalho" for allowing collecting soil samples in the school's area. We also would like to thank the reviewers for their useful comments, that improved this paper.


Ahuja, L. R., Naney, J. W., Green, R. E., & Nielsen, D. R. (1984). Macroporosity to characterize spatial variability of hydraulic conductivity and effects of land management!!. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 48(4), 699. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1984.03615995004800040001x

Azaroff, L., & Buerger, M. (1953). The powder method in X-ray crystallography. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Bear, J. (1961). Some experiments in dispersion. Journal of Geophysical Research, 66(8), 2455-2467. doi: 10.1029/JZ066i008p02455

Bibby, R. (1981). Mass transport of solutes in dual porosity media. Water Resources Research, 17(4), 1075-1081. doi: 10.1029/WR017i004p01075

Brigham, W. (1974). Mixing equations in short laboratory cores. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 14(1), 1-9. doi: 10.2118/4256-PA

Brigham, W. E., Reed, P. W., & Dew, J. N. (1961). Experiments on mixing during miscible displacement in porous media. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 1(1), 1-8. doi: 10.2118/1430-G

Brusseau, M., & Rao, P. (1990). Modeling solute transport in structured soils: A review. Geoderma, 46(1-3), 169-192. doi: 10.1016/0016-7061(90)90014-Z

Carmo, A. I. d., Antonino, A. C. D. M., Netto, A., & Correa, M. M. (2010). Caracterizagao hidrodispersiva de dois solos da regiao irrigada do Vale do Sao Francisco. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agricola e Ambiental, 14(7), 698-704. doi: 10.1590/S1415-43662010000700003

Delgado, J. (2007). Longitudinal and transverse dispersion in porous media. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 85(9), 1245-1252. doi: 10.1205/cherd07017

Delwiche, K., Lehmann, J., & Walter, M. (2014). Atrazine leaching from biochar-amended soils. Chemosphere, 95, 346-352. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.09.043

Donagema, G., & Campos, D. (2011). Manual de metodos de analise de solo. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Embrapa Solos.

Dousset, S., Thevenot, M., Pot, V., & Simunek, J. (2007). Evaluating equilibrium and non-equilibrium transport of bromide and isoproturon in disturbed and undisturbed soil columns. Journal of Contaminant, 94(3-4), 261-276. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2007.07.002

Fetter, C., 1999. Contaminant hydrogeology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

Freeze, R., & Cherry, J. (1979). Groundwater (p. 604). New Jersey, NJ: PrenticeHall Inc Englewood cliffs.

Gerke, H., & Genuchten, M. (1993). A dual porosity model for simulating the preferential movement of water and solutes in structured porous media. Water Resources Research, 29(2), 305-319. doi: 10.1029/92WR02339

Gerritse, R. G. (1996). Dispersion of cadmium in columns of saturated sandy soils. Journal of Environmental Quality, 25(6), 1344-1349. doi: 10.2134/jeq1996.00472425002500060025x

Jarvis, N. J. (2007). A review of non-equilibrium water fl ow and solute transport in soil macropores: Principles, controlling factors and consequences for water quality. European Journal of Soil Science, 58(3), 523-546. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2007.00915.x

Jiang, S., Pang, L., Buchan, G., Simunek, J., & Noonan, M. (2010). Modeling water flow and bacterial transport in undisturbed lysimeters under irrigations of dairy shed effluent and water using HYDRUS-1D. Water Research, 44(4), 1050-1061. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2009.08.039

Keng, J. C., & Uehara, G. (1974). Chemistry, mineralogy, and taxonomy of oxisols and ultisols. Proceedings of Soil Crop Science Society of Florida, 33, 119-926.

Koorevaar, P., Menelik, G., & Dirksen, C. (1983). Elements of soil physics. In P. Koorevaar, G. Menelik, & C. Dirksen (Eds.), Developments in soil science (p. 1-36). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Science.

Lamy, E., Lassabatere, L., Bechet, B., & Andrieu, H. (2009). Modeling the influence of an artificial macropore in sandy columns on flow and solute transfer. Journal of Hydrology, 376(3-4), 392-402. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.07.048

Lapidus, L., & Amundson, N. (1952). Mathematics of adsorption in beds VI. The effect of longitudinal diffusion in ion exchange and chromatographic columns. The Journal of Physical Chemistry, 56(8), 984-988. doi: 10.1021/j150500a014

Larsson, M., & Jarvis, N. (1999a). A dual-porosity model to quantify macropore flow effects on nitrate leaching. Journal of Environmental Quality, 28(4), 1298-1307. doi: 10.2134/jeq1999.00472425002800040034x

Larsson, M., & Jarvis, N. (1999b). Evaluation of a dual-porosity model to predict field-scale solute transport in a macroporous soil. Journal of Hydrology, 215(1-4), 153-171. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00267-4

Lewandowska, J., Szymkiewicz, A., & Burzynski, K. (2004). Modeling of unsaturated water flow in double-porosity soils by the homogenization approach. Advances in Water, 27(3), 283-296. doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2003.12.004

Magga, Z., Tzovolou, D. N., Theodoropoulou, M. A., Dalkarani, T., Pikios, K., & Tsakiroglou, C. D. (2008). Soil column experiments used as a means to assess transport, sorption, and biodegradation of pesticides in groundwater. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B, 43(8), 732-741. doi: 10.1080/03601230802388868.

McMahon, M., & Thomas, G. (1974). Chloride and tritiated water flow in disturbed and undisturbed soil cores. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 38(5), 727-732. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1974.03615995003800050014x

Mekaru, T., & Uehara, G. (1972). Anion adsorption in ferruginous tropical soils. Soil Science Society of America, 36(2), 296-300. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1972.03615995003600020027x

Ogata, A., & Banks, R. B. (1961). A solution of the differential equation of longitudinal dispersion in porous media (Geological Survey Professional Papers, 411A). Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. doi: 10.3133/pp411A

Silva, F. P., Kiang, C. H., & Caetano-Chang, M. R. (2003). Perfis de referenda do grupo Bauru ( K ) no Estado de Sao Paulo. Geociencias UNESP, 22(esp.), 21-32.

Ray, C., Ellsworth, T., Valocchi, A., & Boast, C. (1997). An improved dual porosity model for chemical transport in macroporous soils. Journal of Hydrology, 193(1-4), 270-292. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03141-1

Rezanezhad, F., Price, J. S., & Craig, J. R. (2012). The effects of dual porosity on transport and retardation in peat: A laboratory experiment. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 92(5), 723-732. doi: 10.4141/cjss2011-050

Saxena, R., Jarvis, N., & Bergstrom, L. (1994). Interpreting non-steady state tracer breakthrough experiments in sand and clay soils using a dual-porosity model. Journal of Hydrology, 162(3-4), 279-298. doi: 10.1016/0022-1694(94)90232-1

Schwartz, R., Juo, A., & Mclnnes, K. (2000). Estimating parameters for a dual-porosity model to describe non- equilibrium, reactive transport in a fine-textured soil. Journal of Hydrology, 229(3-4), 149-167. doi: 10.1016/S0022- 1694(00)00164-5

Silva, L. P., van Lier, O. J., Correa, M. M., Miranda, J. H., & Oliveira, L. A. (2016). Retention and solute transport properties in disturbed and undisturbed soil samples. Revista Brasileira de Ciencia Do Solo, 40, e0151045. doi: 10.1590/18069657rbcs20151045

Simunek, J., Jarvis, N., & van Genuchten, M. (2003). Review and comparison of models for describing non-equilibrium and preferential flow and transport in the vadose zone. Journal of Hydrology, 272(1), 14-35. doi: 10.1016/S0022- 1694(02)00252-4

Singh, S. (1998). Estimation of dispersion coefficient from data on soil column test. In Annals of IXNational Symposium on Hydrogeology (p. 1-26). Roorkee, IN.

van Genuchten, M. T. (1981). Non-equilibrium transport parameters form miscible displacement experiments (Research report no. 119). Riverside, CA: Salinity Laboratory, USDA, ARS.

van Genuchten, M. T., & Wierenga, P. J. (1976). Mass transfer studies in sorbing porous media I. Analytical solutions. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 40(4), 473-481. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1976.03615995004000040011x

Vanderborght, J., Timmerman, A., & Feyen, J. (2000). Solute transport for steady-state and transient flow in soils with and without macropores. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 64(4), 1305-1317. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2000.6441305x

Washburn, E. W. (1921). Note on a method of determining the distribution of pore sizes in a porous material. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 7(4), 115-116.

Vanessa Almeida de Godoy (1,2) *, Gian Franco Napa-Garcia (3) and Lazaro Valentin Zuquette (1)

(1) Departamento de Engenharia, Escola de Engenharia de Sao Carlos, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Avenida Trabalhador Sao- Carlense, 400, 13566-590, Sao Carlos, Sao Paulo, Brazil. (2) Instituto de Pesquisas de Engenharia da Agua e do Ambiente, Grupo de Hidrogeologia, Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Cami de Vera, s/n., 46022, Valencia, Espanha. (3) Instituto Tecnologico Vale, Ouro Preto, Minas Gerais, Brazil. * Author for correspondence. E-mail:

Caption: Figure 1. Porosimetry tests results--pore diameter versus frequency.

Caption: Figure 2. [Na.sup.+] breakthrough curves.
Table 1. Characteristics of the methods used to obtain the
hydrodynamic dispersion coefficient.

Method                   Main Characteristics Equation

Ogata and Banks         Model used for equilibrium of a
(1961)                one-dimensional transport situation
                       with good approximation. Considers
                           isotropic and homogeneous
                        geological material. Can present
                      problems in short columns, that is,
                        when the mixed zone is about the
                        same length as the porous medium
                           and, so, the dimensionless
                      dispersion, g = (v L [D.sub.h.sup.-
                                 1]), is small.

                           [mathematical expression
                               not reproducible]

Bear (1961)           Simple and fast method. Can present
                          problems due to dispersivity
                         coefficient values adopted and
                       procedure to obtain it. Considers
                        equilibrium advective-dispersive
                      transport. The [D.sub.h] is commonly
                         estimated from the BTC and the
                        dispersivity is then obtained by
                           the Bear (1961) equation.

                       [D.sub.h] = [a.sub.l]v + [D.sup.*]

Brigham (1974)        Based on the Ogata and Banks (1961)
                       method, but uses a different part
                       of the BTC. Considers equilibrium
                        advective-dispersive transport.
                          Adequate for short columns.
                        Considers sorption aspects. Very
                                  easy to use.

                        [D.sub.h] = v L[([[U.sub.84] -

Delgado (2007)          Empirical method with a specific
                          equation for different flow
                       conditions. Considers a molecular
                       diffusion coefficient and Peclet,
                         Reynolds, and Schmidt numbers.
                        Valid for homogeneous geological
                       materials in terms of porosity and
                          particle size. Considers the
                          equilibrium transport model.
                         Depends on the linear average
                         velocity to obtain the Peclet
                       number. Depends on the tortuosity
                       coefficient and, consequently, on
                          the values of the effective
                       molecular diffusion coefficient.

                           [mathematical expression
                               not reproducible]

Singh (1998)            Identical to the Ogata and Banks
                        (1691) equation, presenting the
                        same characteristics. Easier and
                        simpler than the Ogata and Banks
                          (1961) method. [D.sub.h] is
                      directly obtained from BTC. A small
                       variation in the BTC could affect
                               [D.sub.h] values.

                          [D.sub.h] = [L.sup.2]/4[pi]

van Genuchten              Considers non-equilibrium
(1981) CFITIM           advective-dispersive transport.
code (1)                  Directly considers sorption
                         aspects. Allows for the joint
                          calculation of [D.sub.h] and
                      [R.sub.d]. Formulated only in terms
                             of linear adsorption.

                           [mathematical expression
                               not reproducible]

                      G(T) depends on the imposed initial
                        and boundary conditions (see van
                                Genuchten 1981)

(1) based on van Genuchten and Wierenga (1976) equations,
adopting the third type of boundary condition. Formulations
for others boundary conditions are discussed in detail by
van Genuchten (1981).

where: [t.sub.0] and m are directly determined from the BTC, where
[t.sub.0] is time corresponding to C [C.sub.0.sup.-1] = 0.5 [T] and
m is the slope of the tangent line to the BTC at t = [t.sub.0]
[[T.sup.-1]]; [I.sub.0] and [I.sub.1] are modified Bessel
functions; L is the distance between the source to the measurement
point [L] when concentrations are measured at the end of the
column; L is the length of the column; v is the average linear
velocity [[LT.sup.-1]]; t is the time [T]; [[alpha].sub.l] is the
longitudinal dispersivity coefficient [L]; [U.sub.i] is a function
of U when the effluent contains i% of the fluid (see Bringham,
1974) [ ] in a probability plot; erfc is the complementary error
function (see Freeze & Cherry, 1979); [D.sup.*] is the coefficient
of effective molecular diffusion (D/[tau], where D is the diffusion
coefficient [[L.sup.2][T.sup.-1]] and [tau] is the tortuosity
factor [ ]); Pe is the Peclet number [ ]; Pe' is the effective
Peclet number Pe/[D.sup.*] [ ]; Re is the Reynolds number [ ]; s is
the Schmidt number; [theta] is the volumetric water content [ ] for
unsaturated soils and porosity (n) for saturated soils, a is the
mass transfer coefficient and determines the rate of exchange
between the two phases; [K.sub.d] is the partition coefficient
[[L.sup.3] [M.sup.-1]]; the subscript m refers to mobile liquid
region; [rho] is the soil density [M [L.sup.-3]]; f defines the
mass fraction of solid phase assigned to the dynamic region [M];

Table 2. Physical characteristics of the soil column.

Column        V (a)       w (b) (%)      [rho] (c)
           ([m.sup.3])                 (kg[m.sup.-3])

1            1.12E-3        10.42          1423.5
2            1.12E-3        10.60          1498.1
3            1.12E-3        10.51          1434.1

Column      [[rho].sub.d] (d)     e (e)   n (f) (%)    [n.sub.e]
              (kg[m.sup.-3])                             (g) (%)

1                 1289.3          1.05      51.40          21
2                 1346.8          0.97      49.25          21
3                 1315.9          1.01      50.41          21

(a): volume; (b): gravimetric water content; (c): soil density;
(d): bulk density; (e): void ratio; (f): porosity; (g):
effective porosity.

Table 3. Parameters obtained for each of the six methods
applied herein.

                                    Column 1


Ogata and Banks (1961)              L           [R.sub.d]
                                  0.15             7.77
Bear (1961)                  [[alpha].sub.l]        v
                                  0.015            5.93
Brigham (1974)                      v               L
                                  5.93             0.15
Delgado (2007)                  [D.sup.*]           Pe
                                   3.3             4.9
Singh (1998)                        L               m
                                  0.15             6.9
van Genuchtem (1981)            [R.sub.d]           Pe
                                  5.35            28.23

                                           Column 1


Ogata and Banks (1961)           v                      [D.sub.h]
                                5.9                        1.6
Bear (1961)                  [D.sup.*]                  [D.sub.h]
                                3.3                        0.3
Brigham (1974)              [U.sub.84]    [U.sub.16]    [D.sub.h]
                               3.70          1.02          3.2
Delgado (2007)                  Sc            Re        [D.sub.h]
                                7.5          0.22          0.02
Singh (1998)                 [t.sub.o]                  [D.sub.h]
                                5.0                        0.3
van Genuchtem (1981)          [beta]        [OMEGA]     [D.sub.h]
                                .35           .98         0.002

                                       Column 2


Ogata and Banks (1961)              L           [R.sub.d]
                                  0.15             5.26
Bear (1961)                  [[alpha].sub.l]        v
                                  0.015            2.99
Brigham (1974)                      v               L
                                  2.99             0.15
Delgado (2007)                  [D.sup.*]           Pe
                                  3.33             5.6
Singh (1998)                        L               m
                                  0.15             0.12
van Genuchtem (1981)            [R.sub.d]           Pe
                                  3.58             1.32

                                          Column 2


Ogata and Banks (1961)           v                      [D.sub.h]
                                 3                         2.7
Bear (1961)                  [D.sup.*]                  [D.sub.h]
                               3.33                        0.4
Brigham (1974)              [U.sub.84]    [U.sub.16]    [D.sub.h]
                               3.64          0.54          3.7
Delgado (2007)                  Sc            Re        [D.sub.h]
                                7.5          0.25          0.03
Singh (1998)                 [t.sub.o]                  [D.sub.h]
                                3.3                        0.34
van Genuchtem (1981)          [beta]        [OMEGA]     [D.sub.h]
                                .03          28.7          0.05

                                       Column 3


Ogata and Banks (1961)              L           [R.sub.d]
                                  0.15             4.05
Bear (1961)                  [[alpha].sub.l]        v
                                  0.015            5.6
Brigham (1974)                      v               L
                                  5.61             0.15
Delgado (2007)                  [D.sup.*]           Pe
                                   3.3             7.2
Singh (1998)                        L               m
                                  0.15             0.26
van Genuchtem (1981)            [R.sub.d]           Pe
                                  2.10             1.95

                                          Column 3


Ogata and Banks (1961)           v                      [D.sub.h]
                                5.6                        2.6
Bear (1961)                  [D.sup.*]                  [D.sub.h]
                                3.3                        0.5
Brigham (1974)              [U.sub.84]    [U.sub.16]    [D.sub.h]
                               3.59          1.04          4.7
Delgado (2007)                  Sc            Re        [D.sub.h]
                                7.5          0.31          0.03
Singh (1998)                 [t.sub.o]                  [D.sub.h]
                                1.9                        0.33
van Genuchtem (1981)          [beta]        [OMEGA]     [D.sub.h]
                                .77           .03          0.04

[D.sup.*] (m [s.sup.-2]) [E-10]; Dh (m [s.sup.-2]) [E-5]; v
(m [s.sup.-1]) [E-5]; L (m); to (s) [E+3]; m ([s.sup.-1]) [E-5];
al (m); Pe () [E+3]; Sc ()[E+3].

Figure 3. Differences between mean [D.sub.h] values obtained by the
six methods applied herein.

[D.sub.h] (log) (m/[s.sup.2])

           Brigham      Singh     Ogata and      Bear       Delgado
           (1974)      (1998)       Banks       (1961)      (2007)

Others    4.70E-06    3.17E-06     2.31E-05    3.93E-06    2.68E-07


Others     2.96E-07
COPYRIGHT 2019 Universidade Estadual de Maringa
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2019 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:de Godoy, Vanessa Almeida; Napa-Garcia, Gian Franco; Zuquette, Lazaro Valentin
Publication:Acta Scientiarum. Technology (UEM)
Date:Jan 1, 2019
Previous Article:Hygroscopic behavior of acerola powder obtained by spray-drying.
Next Article:Purification of phenolic compounds from genipap (Genipa americana L.) extract by the ultrasound assisted ultrafiltration process.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters