Advertisement

Lumped-Parameter Models for Solute Transport with Runoff

  • Vyacheslav G. Rumynin
Part of the Theory and Applications of Transport in Porous Media book series (TATP, volume 26)

Abstract

The use of lumped-parameter models is justified when runoff solute content at a hillslope or catchment outlet is governed by the kinetics of soil solute release (or solute removal from the contaminated soil surface) into runoff, rather than overland flow dynamics (variations in the velocities and thickness). Such models allow the infiltration (rainwater flowing downwards into the soil) and capillary effects at the interphase between the soil and water flowing over its surface to be described in detail and soil column inhomogeneity to be taken into account. In such cases, the inertia of water flow, resulting in a time lag between rainfall excess and the slope or catchment outlet discharge can be accounted for in effective parameters in linear or nonlinear flow kinetic equations or such inertia can be neglected completely with the response of the outlet discharge to the rainfall event assumed instantaneous.

Keywords

Solute Transport Overland Flow Outflow Rate Concentration Function Residence Time Distribution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Agnese С, Baiamonte G, Corrao C (2001) A simple model of hillslope response for overland flow generation. Hydrol Process 15:3225–3238. doi: 10.1002/hyp.182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alaoui A, Caduff U, Gerke HH et al (2011) Preferential flow effects on infiltration and runoff in grassland and forest soils. Vadose Zone J 10:367–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bear J (1972) Dynamics of fluids in porous media. Dover Publication Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bulgakov AA, Konoplev AV, Shveikin YuV et al (1999) Experimental study and prediction of dissolved radionuclide wash-off by surface runoff from non-agricultural watersheds contaminated forests. Recent Developments in Risk Identification and Future Perspectives Part 1, NATO Science Series 2: Environ Secur 58:102–112Google Scholar
  5. Cambray RS, Playford K, Lewis GN et al (1987) Radioactive fallout in air and rain: results for 1985 and 1986. United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Environmental and Medical Sciences Division. Department of the Environment, London (UK)Google Scholar
  6. Carlsson S (1978) A model for the movement and loss of 137Cs in a small watershed. Health Phys 34:33–73Google Scholar
  7. Elshamy ME, Mathias SA, Butler AP (2007) Demonstration of radionuclide transport modelling under field conditions: 50-year simulation of caesium migration in soil. Research report number: Imperial/NRP_016. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Imperial College, p 47Google Scholar
  8. Evrard O, Chartin C, Onda Y et al (2013) Evolution of radioactive dose rates in fresh sediment deposits along coastal rivers draining Fukushima contamination plume. Scientific Reports 3. Article number: 3079. doi: 10.1038/srep03079
  9. Garcia-Sanchez L, Konoplev A (2009) Watershed wash-off of atmospherically deposited radionuclides: a review of normalized entrainment coefficients. J Environ Radioact 100(9):774–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garcia-Sanchez L, Konoplev A, Bulgakov A (2005) Radionuclide entrainment coefficients by wash-off derived from plot experiments near Chernobyl. J Radioprot Suppl 40:519–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gjettermann B, Nielsen KL, Petersen CT et al (1997) Preferential flow in sandy loam soils as affected by irrigation intensity. Soil Technol 11:139–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. He Q, Walling DE, Owens PN (1996) Interpreting the 137Cs profiles observed in several small lakes and reservoirs in southern England. Chem Geol 129:115–131Google Scholar
  13. Helton JC, Iman RL, Brown JB et al (1985) Sensitivity analysis of the asymptotic behavior of a model for the environmental movement of radionuclides. Ecol Model 28:243–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heppell CM, Chapman AS (2006) Analysis of a two-component hydrograph separation model to predict herbicide runoff in drained soils. Agric Water Manag 79:177–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Konoplev AV, Bulgakov A, Popov V et al (1992) Behaviour of long-lived Chernobyl radionuclides in a soil-water system. J Analy 117:1041–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McGrath GS, Hinz C, Sivapalan M et al (2010) Identifying a rainfall event threshold triggering herbicide leaching by preferential flow. Water Resour Res. doi: 10.1029/2008WR007506 Google Scholar
  17. Monte L, Brittain JE, Håkanson L et al (2004) Review and assessment of models for predicting the migration of radionuclides from catchments. J Environ Radioact 75:83–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pearce AJ, Stewart MK, Sklash MG (1986) Storm runoff generation in humid headwater catchments: where does the water come from? Water Resour Res 22(8):1263–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Poręba GJ (2006) Caesium-137 as a soil erosion tracer: a review. Geochronometria 25:37–46Google Scholar
  20. Richey GD, McDonnell JJ, Erbe WM et al. (1998) Hydrograph separation based on chemical and isotopic concentrations a critical appraisal of published studies from New Zealand, North America and Europe. J Hydrol (NZ) 37(2):95–111Google Scholar
  21. Rose CW, Parlange JY, Sander GC et al (1983) Kinematic flow approximation to runoff on a plane: an approximate analytical solution. J Hydrol 62:363–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rumynin VG (2011) Subsurface solute transport models and case histories (with applications to radionuclide migration), vol 25, Series: Theory and applications of transport in porous media. Springer, Dordrecht, p 815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Singh VP (1996) Kinematic wave modeling in water resources: Surface-water hydrology. New York. Wiley-Interscience, p 1400Google Scholar
  24. Smith JT, Belova NV, Bulgakov AA et al (2005) The “AQUASCOPE” simplified model for predicting 89, 90Sr, 131I, and 134,137Cs in surface waters after a large-scale radioactive fallout. Health Phys 89(6):628–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith JT, Wright SM, Cross MA et al (2004) Global analysis of the riverine transport of 90Sr and 137Cs. Environ Sci Technol 38:850–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steenhuis TS, Boll J, Selker JS et al (1994) A simple equation for predicting preferential flow solute concentrations. J Environ Qual 23:1058–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ueda S, Hasegawa H, Kakiuchi H (2013) Fluvial discharges of radiocaesium from watersheds contaminated by the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident, Japan. J Environ Radioact 118:96–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wallach R (1991) Runoff contamination by soil chemicals-time scales approach. Water Resour Res 27:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wallach R, van Genuchten MT (1990) A physically based model for predicting solute transfer from soil to rainfall-induced runoff. Water Resour Res 26(9):2119–2126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wallach R, William AJ, William FS (1988) Transfer of chemical from soil solution to surface runoff: a diffusion-based soil model. J Soil Sci Soc Am 52:612–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yu B, Rose CW, Ciesiolka CCA, Cakurs U (2000) The relationship between runoff rate and lag time and the effects of surface treatments at the plot scale. Hydrol Sci J des Sci Hydrol 45(5):709–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang XC, Norton LD, Lei T et al (1999) Coupling mixinf zone concept with convection-diffusion equation to predict chemical transfer to surface runoff. Trans ASAE 42(4):987–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vyacheslav G. Rumynin
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Environmental GeologyThe Russian Academy of SciencesSaint PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.Institute of Earth SciencesSaint Petersburg State UniversitySaint PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations