Advertisement

Investigation of infiltration rate for soil-biochar composites of water hyacinth

  • Phani Gopal
  • Sanandam Bordoloi
  • Raval Ratnam
  • Peng LinEmail author
  • Weiling Cai
  • Poly Buragohain
  • Ankit Garg
  • S. Sreedeep
Research Article - Hydrology
  • 52 Downloads

Abstract

The objective of this short communication is to investigate the interactive effects of CIF, suction and volumetric water content (VWC) on infiltration rate for compacted soil–biochar (BC) composites (0%, 5% and 10%). The biochar was produced from an invasive weed Eichhornia crassipes. Soil parameters such as suction (ψ), VWC, CIF and infiltration rate were monitored simultaneously for 63 days (9 drying–wetting cycles) in those composites. This was followed by statistical modeling using artificial neural networks. Results showed that increase in WH BC content reduced the infiltration rates. The role of CIF in determining the infiltration rate reduced (50–38%) with the addition of BC to soil. Suction played an equal role (36–35%), both for bare soil and for WH BC composites, in determining the infiltration rate. Significance of VWC in determining rate of infiltration increases (14–27%) as the BC content increases. This is more likely, as the addition of BC enhanced the water retention capacity.

Keywords

Biochar Cracked soil Interactive effects Infiltration Natural field work ANN 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11600_2018_237_MOESM1_ESM.docx (30 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 30 kb)

References

  1. Ahmed MB, Zhou JL, Ngo HH, Guo W (2016) Insight into biochar properties and its cost analysis. Biomass Bioenergy 84:76–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed MB, Zhou JL, Ngo HH, Guo W, Johir MAH, Belhaj D (2017) Competitive sorption affinity of sulfonamides and chloramphenicol antibiotics toward functionalized biochar for water and wastewater treatment. Bioresour Technol 238:306–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmed MB, Zhou JL, Ngo HH, Johir MAH, Sornalingam K (2018) Sorptive removal of phenolic endocrine disruptors by functionalized biochar: competitive interaction mechanism, removal efficacy and application in wastewater. Chem Eng J 335:801–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alaoui A, Goetz B (2008) Dye tracer and infiltration experiments to investigate macropore flow. Geoderma 144(1–2):279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Angulo-Jaramillo R, Bagarello V, Iovino M, Lassabatere L (2016) Infiltration measurements for soil hydraulic characterization. Springer, BaselCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asai H, Samson BK, Stephan HM, Songyikhangsuthor K, Homma K, Kiyono Y, Horie T (2009) Biochar amendment techniques for upland rice production in Northern Laos: 1. Soil physical properties, leaf SPAD and grain yield. Field Crop Res 111(1–2):81–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Assouline S (2013) Infiltration into soils: conceptual approaches and solutions. Water Resour Res 49(4):1755–1772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ASTM E1755-01 (2007) Standard test method for ash in biomassGoogle Scholar
  9. Awokuse TO, Xie R (2015) Does agriculture really matter for economic growth in developing countries? Can J Agric Econ/Revue canadienne d’agroeconomie 63(1):77–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barnes RT, Gallagher ME, Masiello CA, Liu Z, Dugan B (2014) Biochar-induced changes in soil hydraulic conductivity and dissolved nutrient fluxes constrained by laboratory experiments. PLoS ONE 9(9):108340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bianchi A, Masseroni D, Thalheimer M, de Medici LO, Facchi A (2017) Field irrigation management through soil water potential measurements: a review. Ital J Agrometeorol-Riv Ital Di Agrometeorol 22(2):25–38Google Scholar
  12. Bordoloi S, Hussain R, Garg A, Sreedeep S, Zhou WH (2017) Infiltration characteristics of natural fiber reinforced soil. Transp Geotech 12:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bordoloi S, Garg A, Sreedeep S, Peng L, Mei G (2018) Investigation of cracking and water availability of soil-biochar composite synthesized from invasive weed water hyacinth. Bioresour Technol 263:665–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chapman TJP (2008) The relevance of developer costs in geotechnical risk management. In: Proceedings of the 2nd British geotechnical association international conference on foundations-ICOFGoogle Scholar
  15. Chemerys V, Baltrėnaitė E (2018) Influence of intrinsic properties of lignocellulosic feedstock on adsorptive properties of biochar. J Environ Eng 144(9):04018075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Das O, Sarmah AK, Bhattacharyya D (2016) Biocomposites from waste derived biochars: mechanical, thermal, chemical, and morphological properties. Waste Manage 49:560–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Decagon Devices (2013) Minidisk infiltrometer user’s manual version 10. Decagon Devices, PullmanGoogle Scholar
  18. Decagon Devices (2016) MPS-2 & MPS-6. Dielectric water potential sensors. Decagon Devices, PullmanGoogle Scholar
  19. Ding Y, Liu Y, Liu S, Huang X, Li Z, Tan X, Zeng G, Zhou L (2017) Potential benefits from biochar application for agricultural use: a review. Pedosphere.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(17)60375-8
  20. Fodor N, Sándor R, Orfanus T, Lichner L, Rajkai K (2011) Evaluation method dependency of measured saturated hydraulic conductivity. Geoderma 165(1):60–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gadi VK, Bordoloi S, Garg A, Sahoo L, Berretta C, Sekharan S (2017) Effect of shoot parameters on cracking in vegetated soil. Environ Geotech 5:1–8Google Scholar
  22. Garg A, Li J, Berretta C, Garg A (2017a) A new computational approach for estimation of wilting point for green infrastructure. J Measur 111:351–358.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.07.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garg A, Vijayaraghavan V, Zhang J, Lam JSL (2017b) Robust model design for evaluation of power characteristics of the cleaner energy system. Renew Energy 112:302–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garg A, Vijayaraghavan V, Zhang J, Li S, Liang X (2017c) Design of robust battery capacity model for electric vehicle by incorporation of uncertainties. Int J Energy Res 41:1436–1451.  https://doi.org/10.1002/er.3723 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garg A, Bordoloi S, Mondal S, Ni JJ, Sreedeep S (2018) Investigation of mechanical factor of soil reinforced with four types of fibers: an integrated experimental and extreme learning machine approach. J Nat Fibers.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2018.1521763
  26. Goering HK, Van Soest PJ (1970) Forage fiber analysis. USDA agricultural research service. Handbook number 379. US Department of Agriculture, Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. Gogoi D, Bordoloi N, Goswami R, Narzari R, Saikia R, Sut D, Gogoi L, Kataki R (2017) Effect of torrefaction on yield and quality of pyrolytic products of arecanut husk: an agro-processing wastes. Bioresour Technol 242:36–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haykin S (1999) Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation. Prentice Hall, ScarboroughGoogle Scholar
  29. Jenkins SH (1930) The determination of cellulose in straws. Biochem J 24(5):1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kirkham MB (2005) Principles of soil and plant water relations. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, pp 145–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lehmann J, Gaunt J, Rondon M (2006) Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems— a review. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 11:395–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Li JH, Zhang LM (2010) Geometric parameters and REV of a crack network in soil. Comput Geotech 37(4):466–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Li JH, Zhang LM, Wang Y, Fredlund DG (2009) Permeability tensor and representative elementary volume of saturated cracked soil. Can Geotech J 46(8):928–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Li JH, Li L, Chen R, Li DQ (2016a) Cracking and vertical preferential flow through landfill clay liners. Eng Geol 206:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Li F, Shen K, Long X, Wen J, Xie X, Zeng X, Liang Y, Wei Y, Lin Z, Huang W, Zhong R (2016b) Preparation and characterization of biochars from Eichornia crassipes for cadmium removal in aqueous solutions. PLoS ONE 11(2):0148132Google Scholar
  36. Lichner L, Orfánus T, Nováková K, Šír M, Tesař M (2007) The impact of vegetation on hydraulic conductivity of sandy soil. Soil Water Res 2:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liu Z, Dugan B, Masiello CA, Gonnermann HM (2017) Biochar particle size, shape, and porosity act together to influence soil water properties. PLoS ONE 12(6):e0179079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. López-Vicente M, Álvarez S (2018) Influence of DEM resolution on modelling hydrological connectivity in a complex agricultural catchment with woody crops. Earth Surf Process Landf 43(7):1403–1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Malik A (2007) Environmental challenge vis a vis opportunity: the case of water hyacinth. Environ Int 33(1):122–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maran JP, Sivakumar V, Thirugnanasambandham K, Sridhar R (2013) Artificial neural network and response surface methodology modeling in mass transfer parameters predictions during osmotic dehydration of Carica papaya L. Alex Eng J 52(3):507–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Masto RE, Kumar S, Rout TK, Sarkar P, George J, Ram LC (2013) Biochar from water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) and its impact on soil biological activity. CATENA 111:64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Methacanon P, Weerawatsophon U, Sumransin N, Prahsarn C, Bergado DT (2010) Properties and potential application of the selected natural fibers as limited life geotextiles. Carbohydr Polym 82(4):1090–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM (2016) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  44. Nagata Y, Chu KH (2003) Optimization of a fermentation medium using neural networks and genetic algorithms. Biotechnol Lett 25(21):1837–1842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. National Asphalt Pavement Association (2018) Retrieved from http://www.asphaltpavement.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=517&Itemid=1149
  46. Ng CW, Menzies B (2007) Advanced unsaturated soil mechanics and engineering. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  47. Ng CW, Coo JL, Chen ZK, Chen R (2016) Water infiltration into a new three-layer landfill cover system. J Environ Eng 142(5):04016007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Patel KA, Brahmbhatt PK (2016) A comparative study of the RSM and ANN models for predicting surface roughness in roller burnishing. Proc Technol 23:391–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reddy KR, Xie T, Dastgheibi S (2014) Evaluation of biochar as a potential filter media for the removal of mixed contaminants from urban storm water runoff. J Environ Eng 140(12):04014043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Technical Association of the Pulp, & Paper Industry (1992) TAPPI test methods. TappiGoogle Scholar
  51. Téllez TR, López EMDR, Granado GL, Pérez EA, López RM, Guzmán JMS (2008) The water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes: an invasive plant in the Guadiana River Basin (Spain). Aquat Invasions 3(1):42–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tripathy A, Pramanik S, Manna A, Bhuyan S, Azrin Shah NF, Radzi Z, Abu Osman NA (2016) Design and development for capacitive humidity sensor applications of lead-free Ca, Mg, Fe, Ti-oxides-based electro-ceramics with improved sensing properties via physisorption. Sensors 16(7):1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vu TM, Doan DP, Van HT, Nguyen TV, Vigneswaran S, Ngo HH (2017) Removing ammonium from water using modified corncob-biochar. Sci Total Environ 579:612–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wei D, Ngo HH, Guo W, Xu W, Du B, Khan MS, Wei Q (2018) Biosorption performance evaluation of heavy metal onto aerobic granular sludge-derived biochar in the presence of effluent organic matter via batch and fluorescence approaches. Bioresour Technol 249:410–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wu S, He H, Inthapanya X, Yang C, Lu L, Zeng G, Han Z (2017) Role of biochar on composting of organic wastes and remediation of contaminated soils—a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(20):16560–16577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yesiller N, Miller CJ, Inci G, Yaldo K (2000) Desiccation and cracking behavior of three compacted landfill liner soils. Eng Geol 57(1–2):105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang YY, Zhang DY, Barrett SC (2010) Genetic uniformity characterizes the invasive spread of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), a clonal aquatic plant. Mol Ecol 19(9):1774–1786CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences & Polish Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phani Gopal
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sanandam Bordoloi
    • 1
    • 3
  • Raval Ratnam
    • 1
    • 2
  • Peng Lin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Weiling Cai
    • 1
  • Poly Buragohain
    • 2
  • Ankit Garg
    • 1
  • S. Sreedeep
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringShantou UniversityShantouChina
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringMahindra École CentraleHyderabadIndia
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations