Premium
Problems Interpreting Samples Taken with Large‐Volume, Falling‐Suction Soil‐Water Samplers
Author(s) -
Anderson Linda Davis
Publication year - 1986
Publication title -
groundwater
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.84
H-Index - 94
eISSN - 1745-6584
pISSN - 0017-467X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1745-6584.1986.tb01692.x
Subject(s) - suction , soil water , environmental science , sampling (signal processing) , volume (thermodynamics) , soil science , precipitation , adsorption , hydrology (agriculture) , geology , geotechnical engineering , chemistry , meteorology , engineering , filter (signal processing) , quantum mechanics , electrical engineering , physics , organic chemistry
Chemical data resulting from sampling heterogeneous, variably saturated soils with large‐volume, falling‐suction samplers must be cautiously interpreted. Nitrate and chromium data from a tannery waste‐disposal project illustrate the difficulties in distinguishing chemical and physical effects of sampling procedures from natural variability. Dramatically different interpretations of soil‐water chemistry can result if precipitation in the porous cup or influence of the sampler on the soil‐fluid flow is ignored. Additional laboratory studies are needed to assess adsorption on and screening of trace metals by the porous cup of the sampler. In the field, redox conditions as well as pH should be carefully monitored, soil structure noted, and pore‐size distribution quantified. Use of numerical simulations could aid in planning monitoring strategies and interpreting results.