Evaluation of Several Vacuum Solution Samplers in Sand and Silt Loam at Several Water Potentials |
| |
| Authors: | PE McGuire B Lowery |
| |
| Institution: | Patrick E. McGuire received a Ph.D. (1990) in soil physics, an M.S. (1975) in soil science, an M.S. (1975) in water resources management, and a B.S. (1970) in soil science, all from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is employed as a soil scientist at SEC DONOHUE (4738 N. 40th St., Sheboygan, WI 53083).;Birl Lowery received a Ph.D. (1980) in soil physics from Oregon State University, an M.A. (1975) in agricultural engineering technology from Mississippi State University, and a B.S. (1973) in agricultural education from Alcorn State University. He is associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Soil Science (1525 Observatory Dr., Madison, WI 53706). |
| |
| Abstract: | Until recently, there was little information available on the water collection capabilities of pore water samplers. This study was conducted to evaluate the performance of ceramic, fritted-glass, stainless steel, and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) porous samplers in sand and silt loam soil columns over a range of soil water potentials. Soil solution intake for samplers was determined by application of constant and falling vacuums. Constant vacuum was applied for a three-day period when soils were at field moisture capacity. The PTFE samplers did not function when tested with a constant or falling vacuum. With a 50-kPa constant vacuum, the ceramic sampler collected the greatest sample volume (average 20 mL) from the sand. With a constant 25-kPa vacuum, the stainless steel sampler collected the greatest sample volume (average 81 mL) from the silt loam soil. Sampler performance with a fixed volume of vacuum was evaluated by applying 100 kPa vacuum to a 1-liter reservoir. With this falling vacuum, samplers were tested until no further solution was collected over a 10-day test period. With a falling vacuum, fritted-glass and stainless steel samplers, with relatively larger pores and greater hydraulic conductance, collected a greater volume of sample and at a faster rate than ceramic samplers in sand soil that was nearly saturated. When the volume was normalized with respect to sampler surface area, for the falling vacuum tests in silt loam soil at field moisture capacity, the volume collected by fritted glass was significantly higher than those from other samplers. In sand at field moisture capacity or silt loam at soil water tensions ≧30 kPa, ceramic samplers maintained vacuums near 70 kPa and collected more sample than the other samplers during the 10-day test period. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
