Premium
Boundary effects on solute transport in finite soil columns
Author(s) -
Schwartz R. C.,
McInnes K. J.,
Juo A. S. R.,
Wilding L. P.,
Reddell D. L.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
water resources research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.863
H-Index - 217
eISSN - 1944-7973
pISSN - 0043-1397
DOI - 10.1029/1998wr900080
Subject(s) - inlet , retardation factor , dispersion (optics) , mechanics , boundary layer , tracer , advection , displacement (psychology) , boundary value problem , materials science , flow (mathematics) , nonlinear system , ultisol , geotechnical engineering , soil science , mathematics , chemistry , geology , thermodynamics , soil water , mathematical analysis , chromatography , physics , optics , psychology , column chromatography , quantum mechanics , geomorphology , nuclear physics , psychotherapist
This study investigates the influence of inlet and outlet disturbances and formulated boundary conditions on the estimation of the dispersion coefficient and retardation factor for short soil columns. Unsaturated miscible displacement experiments utilizing a Br − tracer were carried out on undisturbed columns of a fine‐textured Ultisol. Solutions were applied using either a fritted plate or an array of dispensing tips that produced droplets at a prescribed flow rate. One‐ and two‐layer analytical solutions of the advective‐dispersive equation were fitted to effluent concentrations using nonlinear least squares parameter optimization. Comparison of two‐layer simulations with experimental data indicated that the analytical solution with a semi‐infinite interface boundary best approximated effluent concentrations under the conditions of this study. This solution corresponds to a continuous flux concentration and a macroscopically discontinuous resident concentration at the interface between the soil and porous plates. Parameter estimates were not significantly different with respect to the application method used at the inlet. This may be attributed to a less uniform distribution of solution onto the soil surface by the drip apparatus and/or by the presence of stagnant regions within the inlet reservoir and hence increased dispersion within the inlet platen apparatus. Two‐layer simulations indicated that the dispersion coefficient was underestimated by 14–27% when the influence of the inlet and outlet apparatus were not included in the fitted solution of the advective‐dispersive equation. In addition, use of one‐layer analytical solutions caused the retardation factor to be overestimated by no more than the fractional increase in pore volume imparted by the platen apparatus.