新提出的和现有的饱和缓冲器设计方法的比较

IF 1.2 4区 农林科学 Q3 AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
Yousef Abdalaal, E. Ghane
{"title":"新提出的和现有的饱和缓冲器设计方法的比较","authors":"Yousef Abdalaal, E. Ghane","doi":"10.13031/ja.15246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Highlights More diverted flow to the buffer does not necessarily mean more nitrate load removal. A design approach should incorporate a nitrate removal component to maximize nitrate load removal. The newly proposed design follows a process-based approach to estimate the annual site-specific nitrate removal. The newly proposed design provided more consistent nitrate load removal regardless of the site conditions. Neglecting exit head loss in the design process leads to an overestimation of diverted flow and nitrate load removal. Abstract. A saturated buffer (SB) is a conservation drainage practice that removes nitrate from subsurface drainage discharge. The reported wide range of nitrate load removal necessitates improvements in design approaches for more consistent performance. There are two SB design approaches: Illinois Natural Resources Conservation Service (Design 1) and McEachran et al. (2020) (Design 2). We proposed a new Design 3 that builds on the previous two designs. In Design 3, the nitrate load removal was simulated for buffer widths ranging from 3 to 30 m with a 0.3-m interval, and the buffer width that maximized the annual nitrate load reduction over the long term was chosen as the SB design. The objective of this study was to identify the best design approaches for maximizing nitrate load removal based on field data. Daily drainage discharge data from two field sites in Michigan were used to design a hypothetical SB length and width for each approach. The designs were compared by applying an identical method to estimate the nitrate load removal for each hypothetical SB system. The method extends Designs 1 and 2 by incorporating a hydrological and nitrate removal component. The results showed that using the minimum recommended buffer width of 9.1 m and the minimum 5% SB design capacity of Design 1 resulted in 25% to 35% of diverted flow to the buffer and 14% to 16% nitrate load removal at the two field sites. However, Design 1 resulted in the lowest nitrate removal compared to Designs 2 and 3 (i.e., 0.3% to 3.4% lower). Designs 2 and 3 consistently provided maximum nitrate load removal regardless of the site conditions, whereas the performance of Design 1 was inconsistent. In conclusion, Designs 2 and 3 were equally good and resulted in higher nitrate load removal compared to Design 1. Keywords: Conservation practice, Exit head loss, Nitrate, Subsurface drainage, Tile drainage, Water quality.","PeriodicalId":29714,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the ASABE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Newly Proposed and Existing Design Approach for Saturated Buffers\",\"authors\":\"Yousef Abdalaal, E. Ghane\",\"doi\":\"10.13031/ja.15246\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Highlights More diverted flow to the buffer does not necessarily mean more nitrate load removal. A design approach should incorporate a nitrate removal component to maximize nitrate load removal. The newly proposed design follows a process-based approach to estimate the annual site-specific nitrate removal. The newly proposed design provided more consistent nitrate load removal regardless of the site conditions. Neglecting exit head loss in the design process leads to an overestimation of diverted flow and nitrate load removal. Abstract. A saturated buffer (SB) is a conservation drainage practice that removes nitrate from subsurface drainage discharge. The reported wide range of nitrate load removal necessitates improvements in design approaches for more consistent performance. There are two SB design approaches: Illinois Natural Resources Conservation Service (Design 1) and McEachran et al. (2020) (Design 2). We proposed a new Design 3 that builds on the previous two designs. In Design 3, the nitrate load removal was simulated for buffer widths ranging from 3 to 30 m with a 0.3-m interval, and the buffer width that maximized the annual nitrate load reduction over the long term was chosen as the SB design. The objective of this study was to identify the best design approaches for maximizing nitrate load removal based on field data. Daily drainage discharge data from two field sites in Michigan were used to design a hypothetical SB length and width for each approach. The designs were compared by applying an identical method to estimate the nitrate load removal for each hypothetical SB system. The method extends Designs 1 and 2 by incorporating a hydrological and nitrate removal component. The results showed that using the minimum recommended buffer width of 9.1 m and the minimum 5% SB design capacity of Design 1 resulted in 25% to 35% of diverted flow to the buffer and 14% to 16% nitrate load removal at the two field sites. However, Design 1 resulted in the lowest nitrate removal compared to Designs 2 and 3 (i.e., 0.3% to 3.4% lower). Designs 2 and 3 consistently provided maximum nitrate load removal regardless of the site conditions, whereas the performance of Design 1 was inconsistent. In conclusion, Designs 2 and 3 were equally good and resulted in higher nitrate load removal compared to Design 1. Keywords: Conservation practice, Exit head loss, Nitrate, Subsurface drainage, Tile drainage, Water quality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29714,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the ASABE\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the ASABE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13031/ja.15246\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the ASABE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13031/ja.15246","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

更多的流向缓冲的分流并不一定意味着更多的硝酸盐负荷去除。设计方法应包括硝酸盐去除组件,以最大限度地去除硝酸盐负荷。新提出的设计遵循基于过程的方法来估计每年特定地点的硝酸盐去除量。新提出的设计提供了更一致的硝酸盐负荷去除,无论现场条件。在设计过程中忽略出口水头损失会导致对分流流量和硝酸盐负荷去除的高估。摘要饱和缓冲(SB)是一种保护性排水方法,可以从地下排水排放中去除硝酸盐。据报道,硝酸盐负荷的广泛去除需要改进设计方法,以获得更一致的性能。有两种SB设计方法:伊利诺伊州自然资源保护局(设计1)和McEachran等人(2020)(设计2)。我们在前两种设计的基础上提出了新的设计3。在设计3中,以0.3 m的间隔模拟3 ~ 30 m的缓冲宽度下的硝酸盐负荷去除,选择长期内最大的年硝酸盐负荷减少缓冲宽度作为SB设计。本研究的目的是根据现场数据确定最大限度地去除硝酸盐负荷的最佳设计方法。利用密歇根州两个试验点的日排水数据,为每种方法设计假设的SB长度和宽度。通过应用相同的方法来估计每个假设的SB系统的硝酸盐负荷去除,对设计进行了比较。该方法通过纳入水文和硝酸盐去除组件扩展了设计1和设计2。结果表明,采用设计1的最小推荐缓冲宽度9.1 m和最小5% SB设计容量,可使两个场址的分流流量减少25% ~ 35%,硝酸盐负荷减少14% ~ 16%。然而,与设计2和3相比,设计1的硝酸盐去除率最低(即低0.3%至3.4%)。无论现场条件如何,设计2和3始终提供最大的硝酸盐负荷去除,而设计1的性能不一致。总之,与设计1相比,设计2和3同样好,并且产生了更高的硝酸盐负荷去除。关键词:涵养工程,出口水头损失,硝酸盐,地下排水,瓷砖排水,水质。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Newly Proposed and Existing Design Approach for Saturated Buffers
Highlights More diverted flow to the buffer does not necessarily mean more nitrate load removal. A design approach should incorporate a nitrate removal component to maximize nitrate load removal. The newly proposed design follows a process-based approach to estimate the annual site-specific nitrate removal. The newly proposed design provided more consistent nitrate load removal regardless of the site conditions. Neglecting exit head loss in the design process leads to an overestimation of diverted flow and nitrate load removal. Abstract. A saturated buffer (SB) is a conservation drainage practice that removes nitrate from subsurface drainage discharge. The reported wide range of nitrate load removal necessitates improvements in design approaches for more consistent performance. There are two SB design approaches: Illinois Natural Resources Conservation Service (Design 1) and McEachran et al. (2020) (Design 2). We proposed a new Design 3 that builds on the previous two designs. In Design 3, the nitrate load removal was simulated for buffer widths ranging from 3 to 30 m with a 0.3-m interval, and the buffer width that maximized the annual nitrate load reduction over the long term was chosen as the SB design. The objective of this study was to identify the best design approaches for maximizing nitrate load removal based on field data. Daily drainage discharge data from two field sites in Michigan were used to design a hypothetical SB length and width for each approach. The designs were compared by applying an identical method to estimate the nitrate load removal for each hypothetical SB system. The method extends Designs 1 and 2 by incorporating a hydrological and nitrate removal component. The results showed that using the minimum recommended buffer width of 9.1 m and the minimum 5% SB design capacity of Design 1 resulted in 25% to 35% of diverted flow to the buffer and 14% to 16% nitrate load removal at the two field sites. However, Design 1 resulted in the lowest nitrate removal compared to Designs 2 and 3 (i.e., 0.3% to 3.4% lower). Designs 2 and 3 consistently provided maximum nitrate load removal regardless of the site conditions, whereas the performance of Design 1 was inconsistent. In conclusion, Designs 2 and 3 were equally good and resulted in higher nitrate load removal compared to Design 1. Keywords: Conservation practice, Exit head loss, Nitrate, Subsurface drainage, Tile drainage, Water quality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信