Premium
Comparison of Lysimeter Types in Collecting Microbial Constituents from Sewage Effluent
Author(s) -
Krejsl Jana,
Harrison Rob,
Henry Chuck,
Turner Nedda,
Tone Dennis
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
soil science society of america journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.836
H-Index - 168
eISSN - 1435-0661
pISSN - 0361-5995
DOI - 10.2136/sssaj1994.03615995005800010018x
Subject(s) - lysimeter , fecal coliform , environmental science , groundwater , sewage , water quality , effluent , hydrology (agriculture) , water flow , environmental engineering , soil water , environmental chemistry , soil science , chemistry , geology , ecology , biology , geotechnical engineering
There are no standard methods of determining the impact of septic systems on contamination of groundwater aquifers. Sampling of water for microbiological properties in unsaturated soil is particularly difficult. Successful water sampling devices should collect large amounts of percolating water with minimal change in chemical and biological properties of the water. This laboratory study compared the effectiveness of four types of soil water sampling devices for qualitative sampling of water, using total coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal streptococcus as the primary indicators of water quality. The devices tested were: (i) high‐flow ceramic tension lysimeter, (ii) high‐flow fritted glass tension lysimeter, (iii) sand‐filled lysimeters, and (iv) perforatedtube wells. A constant source of vacuum (0.01 MPa) was applied to all devices to collect water samples. High‐flow ceramic tension lysimeters collected adequate volumes of water (an average of 0.340 L after 6 h) but excessive filtering led to underestimation of microbial numbers (only 6% of total coliform, 2.2% of fecal coliform, and no fecal streptococcus were collected). Perforated‐tube wells did not collect any water under partially saturated soil conditions; collection occurred only below the water table. Sand‐filled lysimeters showed the best combination of volume collection (an average of 0.660 L after 6 h) with good estimation of microbial numbers (90% for total coliform, 83% for fecal coliform, and 45% for fecal streptococcus).