Advertisement

Simulating Zn, Cd and Ni Transport in Disturbed and Undisturbed Soil Columns: Comparison of Alternative Models

  • Samira Morsali
  • Hossein BabazadehEmail author
  • Shahram Shahmohammadi-Kalalagh
  • Hossein Sedghi
Research paper

Abstract

This study compared four solute transport models for three heavy metals, i.e. Zn, Cd and Ni, in two disturbed and undisturbed loamy soil columns. The models include convection–dispersion equation (CDE), mobile–immobile model (MIM), fractional advection–dispersion equation (FADE) and the continuous time random walk model (CTRW). The experiments were carried out for each metal at three initial concentrations (C0 = 50, 100 and 150 mg L−1) and three replications in both soil columns. The results indicated that CDE, MIM, FADE and CTRW, with r2 > 0.98 and RMSE < 0.06, were capable of describing the BTCs of these heavy metals adequately. Compared to FADE and CTRW, CDE and MIM had better BTC fits with higher r2 values and lower RMSE values in both soil columns. The models in the disturbed soil had a better fit than the undisturbed soil. As C0 was increased, the retardation factor (R) of Zn, Cd and Ni decreased. Regardless of the type of soil column, R reveals the trend: Zn > Ni > Cd. The hydrodynamic dispersion coefficient (D) in the undisturbed soil was higher than the disturbed soil. The spreading parameter (β) of CTRW and the fractional differentiation orders (α) in FADE were approximately 1.0 and 1.7, respectively. Consequently, the heavy metal transport within both soil columns were anomalous or non-Fickian transport. However, CDE and MIM, which are based on Fickian diffusion law, were more appropriate for simulating heavy metal transport through two soil columns in comparison with CTRW and FADE.

Article Highlights

  • Simulation of solute transport for three heavy metals, i.e. Zn, Cd and Ni.

  • Comparison of solute behavior in disturbed and undisturbed loamy soil columns.

  • Apply convection–dispersion equation (CDE), mobile–immobile model (MIM), fractional advection–dispersion equation (FADE) and the continuous time random walk model (CTRW).

  • Apply models in different initial concentration.

  • Sensitivity analysis of the most influential factors on the model output.

Keywords

Fractional differentiation orders Heavy metals Hydrodynamic dispersion Retardation factor Spreading parameter introduction 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bear J (1972) Dynamic of fluids in porous media. American Elsevier Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Benson DA (1998) The fractional advection–dispersion equation: development and application, Ph.D. thesis, University of Nevada, RenoGoogle Scholar
  3. Benson DA, Wheatcraft SW, Meerschaert MM (2000a) Application of fractional advection–dispersion equation. Water Resour Res 36(6):1403–1412Google Scholar
  4. Benson DA, Wheatcraft SW, Meerschaert MM (2000b) The fractional—order governing equation of Levy motion. Water Resour Res 36(6):1413–1423Google Scholar
  5. Berkowitz B, Scher H (1995) On characterization of anomalous dispersion in porous and fractured media. Water Resour Res 31(6):1461–1466Google Scholar
  6. Berkowitz B, Scher H (1997) Anomalous transport in random fracture networks. Phys Rev Lett 79(20):4038–4041Google Scholar
  7. Berkowitz B, Scher H (1998) Theory of anomalous chemical transport in fracture networks. Phys Rev E Stat Phys Plasmas Fluids Relat Interdiscip Top 575:5858–5869Google Scholar
  8. Berkowitz B, Scher H (2001) The role of probabilistic approaches to transport theory in heterogeneous media. Transp Porous Media 42:241–263Google Scholar
  9. Berkowitz B, Scher H (2008) Exploring the nature of non-Fickian transport in laboratory experiments. Adv Water Resour 32(5):750–755Google Scholar
  10. Berkowitz B, Scher H, Silliman E (2000) Anomalous transport in laboratory-scale, heterogeneous porous media. Water Resour Res 36(1):149–158Google Scholar
  11. Berkowitz B, Klafter J, Metzler R, Scher R (2002) Physical pictures of transport in heterogeneous media: advection–dispersion, random walk and fractional derivative formulations. Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2001wr001030 Google Scholar
  12. Berkowitz B, Cortis A, Dentz M, Scher H (2006a) Modeling non-Fickian transport in geological formations as, a continuous time random walk. Rev Geophys 44(2):1–49Google Scholar
  13. Berkowitz B, Cortis A, Dentz M, Scher H (2006b) Modeling non-Fickian transport in geological formations as a continuous time random walk. Rev Geophys 44:RG2003.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2005rg000178 Google Scholar
  14. Berkowitz B, Emmanuel S, Scher H (2008) Non-Fickian transport and multiplerate mass transfer in porous media. Water Resour Res 44(3):W03402.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2007wr005906 Google Scholar
  15. Bijeljic B, Blunt MJ (2006) Pore-scale modeling and continuous time random walk analysis of dispersion in porous media. Water Resour Res 42:W01202.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2005wr004578 Google Scholar
  16. Bromly M, Hinz C (2004) Non-Fickian transport in laboratory experiments. Adv Res 40:W07402.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2003w@002579 Google Scholar
  17. Brummer GW (1986) Heavy metal species, mobility and availability in soils. In: Bemhard M, Brinckman FE, Sadler PJ (eds) The importance of chemical speciation in environmental processes. Springer, Berlin, pp 169–172Google Scholar
  18. Brusseau ML, Larsen T, Christensen TH (1991) Rate-limited sorption and non-equilibrium transport of organic chemicals in low organic carbon aquifer materials. Water Resour Res 27(6):1137–1145Google Scholar
  19. Camur MZ, Yazicigil H (2005) Laboratory determination of multicomponent effective diffusion coefficients for heavy metals in a compacted clay. Turk J Earth Sci 14(1):91–103Google Scholar
  20. Cortis A, Berkowitz B (2004) Anomalous transport in “classical soil and sand columns. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:1539–1548Google Scholar
  21. Cortis A, Gallo C, Scher H, Berkowitz B (2004) Numerical simulation of non-Fickian transport in geological formations with multiple-scale heterogeneities. Water Resour Res 40(4):1–16Google Scholar
  22. Cortis A, Harter T, Hou L, Atwill ER, Packman A, Green P (2006) Transport of Cryptosporidium parvum in porous media: Long-term elution experiments and continuous time random walk filtration modeling. Water Resour Res 42:W12S13.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2006wr004897 Google Scholar
  23. Deng ZQ, de Lima JLMP, de Lima MIP, Singh VP (2006) A fractional dispersion model for overland solute transport. Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2005wr004146 (to view the published open abstract, go to http://dx.doi.org and enter the DOI)Google Scholar
  24. Dentz M, Cortis A, Scher H, Berkowitz B (2004) Time behavior of solute transport in heterogeneous media: transition from anomalous to normal transport. Adv Water Resour Res 27:155–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2003.11.002 Google Scholar
  25. Gao F, Zhan H, Feng Sh, Huang G, Mao X (2009) Comparison of alternative models for simulating anomalous solute transport in a large heterogeneous soil column. J Hydrol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.036 Google Scholar
  26. Huang G, Huang Q, Zhan H, Chen J, Xiong Y, Feng S (2005) Modeling containment transport in homogeneous porous media with fractional advection–dispersion equation. Sci China Ser D Earth Sci 48:295–302Google Scholar
  27. Huang G, Huang Q, Zhan H (2006) Evidence of one-dimensional scale-dependent fractional advection–dispersion. J Contam Hydrol 85(1–2):53–71Google Scholar
  28. Jury WA (1982) Simulate of solute transport using a transfer functionmodel. Water Resour Res 18:363–368Google Scholar
  29. Levy M, Berkowitz B (2003) Measurement and analysis of non-Fickian dispersion in heterogeneous porous media. J Contam Hydrol 64:203–226Google Scholar
  30. Li N, Ren L (2009) Application of continuous time random walk theory to non-equilibrium transport in soil. J Contam Hydrol 108(3):134–151Google Scholar
  31. Liu HF, Genard M, Guichard S, Bertin N (2007) Model-assisted analysis of tomato fruit growth in relation to carbon and water fluxes. J Exp Bot 58(13):3567–3580Google Scholar
  32. Mao M, Ren L (2004) Simulating non-equilibrium transport of atrazine through saturated soil. Groundwater 42:500–508Google Scholar
  33. Montroll EW, Weiss JGH (1965) Random walks on lattices. II. Math Phys 6:167Google Scholar
  34. Moradi G, Mehdinejadiani B (2018) Modelling solute transport in homogeneous and heterogeneous porous media using spatial fractional advection–dispersion equation. Soil Water Res 13(1):18–28.  https://doi.org/10.17221/245/2016-swr Google Scholar
  35. Pechepsky Y, Benon D, Rawls W (2000) Simulating scale-dependent solute transport in soils with the fractional advective–dispersive equation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64(3):1234–1243Google Scholar
  36. Saadati Z, Delbari M, Panahi M, Amiri E (2018) Simulation of sugar beet growth under water stress using AquaCrop model. J Water Soil Resour Conserv 7(3):1–18Google Scholar
  37. Shahmohammadi-Kalalagh SH (2011) Isotherm and kinetic studies on adsorption of Pb, Zn and Cu by kaolinite. Casp J Environ Sci 9(2):243–255Google Scholar
  38. Shahmohammadi-Kalalagh SH (2015) Modeling contaminant transport in saturated soil column with the continuous time random walk. J Porous Media 18(12):1–6Google Scholar
  39. Shahmohammadi-Kalalagh SH, Beyrami H (2015) Modeling bromide transport in undisturbed soil columns with the continuous time random walk. Geotech Geol Eng 33:1511–1518.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-015-9917-1 Google Scholar
  40. Simunek J, Jarvis N, Van Genuchten M, Garenas A (2003) Review and comparison of models for describing non-equilibrium and preferential flow and transport in vadose zone. J Hydrol 272:14–35Google Scholar
  41. Tiwari PR, Bala Ramudha P, Srivastava RK, Gupta MK (2007) Sorption and desorption studies of metallic zinc on an alluvial soil. Iran J Environ Health Sci Eng. 3:139–146Google Scholar
  42. Toride N, Leij FJ, van Genuchten MT (1995) The CXTFIT code for estimating transport parameters from laboratory or field tracer experiments. US Salinity Lab report 137. GEBJ Salinity Laboratory—USDA-ARS, Riverside, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  43. Toride N, Leij FJ, Van Genuchten MT (1999) The CXTFIT Cod for estimating transport parameters from laboratory or field tracer experiments. Version 2.0. Research report 137. US Salinity Laboratory, USDA, ARS, Reverside, CAGoogle Scholar
  44. Tyler LD, McBride MB (1982) Mobility and extractability of cadmium, copper, nickel and zinc in organic and mineral soil columns. Soil Sci 134:198–205Google Scholar
  45. Van Genuchten MTh, Wieregna PJ (1976) Mass transfer studies in sorbing porous media: I. Analytical solutions. Soil Sci Soc Am J 40(4):473–480Google Scholar
  46. Van Genuchten MT, Wierenga PJ (1977) Mass transfer studies in sorbing porous media: II. Experimental evaluation with tritium (3H2O). Soil Sci Soc Am J 41(2):272–278Google Scholar
  47. Ventrella D, Mohnaty BP, Simunek J, Losavio N, Vam Genuchten MTh (2000) Water and chloride transport in a fine-textured soil: field experiments and modeling. Soil Sci Soc Am 165(8):624–631Google Scholar
  48. Xiong Y, Huang G, Huang Q (2006) Modeling solute transport in one-dimensional homogeneous and heterogeneous soil columns with continuous time random walk. J Contam Hydrol 86(3–4):163–175Google Scholar
  49. Zhang XW, Crawford JK, Deeks LI, Stutter M, Bengough A, Glyn M, Young I (2005) A mass balance based numerical method for the fractional advection–dispersion equation: theory and application. Water Resources Research. 41(7):W07029.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2004wr003818 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© University of Tehran 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Water Sciences and EngineeringScience and Research Branch, Islamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Water Sciences and EngineeringTabriz Branch, Islamic Azad UniversityTabrizIran

Personalised recommendations