VZJ sign up for etocs
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Erratum for Pace et al., Vadose Zone J 2 (4) 664-676.
Published online 16 November 2005
Published in Vadose Zone J 4:1220-1223 (2005)
DOI: 10.2136/vzj2003.0100er
© 2005 Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
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 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 Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pace, M. N.
Right arrow Articles by Bjornstad, B. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Pace, M. N.
Right arrow Articles by Bjornstad, B. N.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Pace, M. N.
Right arrow Articles by Bjornstad, B. N.

ERRATA

Quantifying the Effects of Small-scale Heterogeneities on Flow and Transport in Undisturbed Core from the Hanford Formation

M. N. Pace, M. A. Mayes, P. M. Jardine, T. L. Mehlhorn, J. M. Zachara and B. N. Bjornstad


Vadose Zone J. 2:664–676 (2003)

A conversion error was found in the calculation for pore volume in several of the unsaturated transport experiment spreadsheets. Figures 8, 9, and 10 have changed only in the PV axis. The relative concentrations remain the same as in the original paper. Modeling results have also changed. These changes are presented in the revised Table 5. The results now show no preferential flow in the unsaturated vertical core, but still significant tracer separation due to matrix diffusion. Preferential flow is still observed in the horizontal core, just not as much as in the original manuscript. The effect of matrix diffusion is the same in both cores as in the original manuscript. The MIM model was used to fit the data from the horizontal core with a retardation factor of 1 for the nonreactive tracers. The CDE was used for the vertical core. The corrected model fit information is in Table 5.



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 8. Observed tracer effluent concentrations involving the displacement of Br– through saturated and unsaturated cores. (a) Breakthrough curve (BTC) for the horizontal core under saturated and unsaturated conditions. (b) BTC for the vertical core under saturated and unsaturated conditions.

 


View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 9. (a) Observed (symbols) and model fitted (lines) tracer effluent concentrations involving the displacement of Br–, PFBA, and PIPES through the unsaturated horizontal core. Modeled Br– concentrations are shown with the model parameters provided in Table 5. Modeled PFBA and PIPES concentrations were omitted to improve clarity of figure. (b) Observed initial tracer breakthrough showing separation and crossover of tracers. (c) Observed tracer concentration during washout showing separation and crossover of tracers.

 


View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 10. (a) Observed (symbols) and model fitted (lines) tracer effluent concentrations involving the displacement of Br–, PFBA, and PIPES through the unsaturated vertical core. Modeled Br– concentrations are shown. Modeled PFBA and PIPES were omitted to improve clarity of figure. (b) Separation of tracers before the flow interruption (dashed line) in the unsaturated vertical core experiment. Model parameters are provided in Table 5.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 5. Modeling results of undisturbed Hanford Formation saturated and unsaturated breakthrough curve data. Due to similarities, model fits of PFBA and PIPES during saturated flow were omitted.{dagger}

 
The original conclusions are still valid. The only major difference is that no preferential flow was observed in the vertical core under a range of moisture contents whereas preferential flow does occur in the horizontal core. Again, these differences are due to the heterogeneity present in the cores. The observations suggest the preference for flow along bedding versus flow across bedding in the Hanford formation.





This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
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 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 Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pace, M. N.
Right arrow Articles by Bjornstad, B. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Pace, M. N.
Right arrow Articles by Bjornstad, B. N.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Pace, M. N.
Right arrow Articles by Bjornstad, B. N.

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