VZJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online 27 February 2007
Published in Vadose Zone J 6:175-185 (2007)
DOI: 10.2136/vzj2006.0033
© 2007 Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mostafa, M.
Right arrow Articles by Van Geel, P. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Mostafa, M.
Right arrow Articles by Van Geel, P. J.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Mostafa, M.
Right arrow Articles by Van Geel, P. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Hydraulic Conductivity/Relative Permeability
Right arrow Coupled Flow/Transport Models
Right arrow Vadose Zone Processes and Chemical Transport

Conceptual Models and Simulations for Biological Clogging in Unsaturated Soils

M. Mostafa and P. J. Van Geel*

Dep. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carleton Univ., Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5B6

Figure 1
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. Conceptual relationship between the pore size distribution and the van Genuchten relationship for the soil moisture curve.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. Conceptual visualization of clogging scenario for Model no. 1.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3. Capillary pressure (Pc)–saturation (Se) relationship for Model no. 1 that shows effective total saturation (Set) at a certain point as the sum of effective water (Sew) and microbial saturation (Sem).

 

Figure 4
View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4. Conceptual visualization of clogging scenario for Model no. 3.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 5. Substrate concentration profiles with time for peat soil using Model no. 1 (initial concentration C0 = 2000 mg/L).

 

Figure 6
View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 6. Saturation profiles for peat soil using Model no. 1 (continuous loading).

 

Figure 7
View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 7. Saturation profiles for peat soil using Model no. 2 (continuous loading).

 

Figure 8
View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 8. Saturation profiles for peat soil using Model no. 3 (continuous loading).

 

Figure 9
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 9. Comparison between the (1 – Sem [effective microbial saturation]) factor from Model no. 2 and the flow reduction factor using a van Genuchten n value of 1.3 for Model no. 3.

 

Figure 10
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 10. Comparison between the (1 – Sem [effective microbial saturation]) factor for Model no. 2 and the flow reduction factor using a van Genuchten n value of 3.0 for Model no. 3.

 

Figure 11
View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 11. Relative permeability (kr) and effective total, water, and microbial saturations vs. time for the top 0.5 cm of the peat column using Model no. 1 with a van Genuchten n value of 1.3.

 

Figure 12
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 12. Relative permeability (kr) and effective total, water, and microbial saturations vs. time for the top 0.5 cm of the peat column using Model no. 2 with a van Genuchten n value of 1.3.

 

Figure 13
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 13. Relative permeability (kr) and effective total, water and microbial saturations vs. time for the top 0.5 cm of the peat column using Model no. 3 with a van Genuchten n value of 1.3.

 

Figure 14
View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 14. Actual saturation profile for sand soil using Model no. 1 (continuous loading).

 

Figure 15
View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 15. Saturation profiles for sand soil using Model no. 2 (continuous loading).

 

Figure 16
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 16. Saturation profiles for peat column using Model no. 1 (pulse loading).

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education		 Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality		 The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2007 by the Soil Science Society of America.