SU0002201 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

104 S. F. Barrington, R. Stilborn, R. (iia Moreno ee 1 Table 3. Description of experimental column Treatment Organic liner Soil core I Composition" C/N` Thickness, cm Weight, kg Density Bottom depth depth ensity wet humid em cm wet dry g ml g ml g ml-' g ml-' 1 I. 50%n Straw 22 8 0.108 0-175 0-062 32 30 1.87 1.50 50% B. litter (1.5) - (0-0131) (0.0105) (1.5) (0.6) (0101) (0• 2. 67%n Straw 42 7 0.154 0-126 -084 1 B. manure (2�3) ( 0 0335) (0.0225 130 (0-6) (0-044) 02 30 1-84 48 330.207 0437 0.190 ) ( 32) (31) (1.82 ) (1.51 3. 15% Straw 19 3 B. manure 16 1 0.220.1318 0.0573 00513 85% B. manure (0.8) - ( ) ( ) 0( ) (0.6) ( ) (0• 4. 100%n 5 1274 0510 32 31 1.72 1..38 (0) (0) (0) (1.15) (0.6) (0.083) (0• 5. 15%a Straw 19 4 0207 0.273 0.119 32 30 1.81 1•. 8515% manure (06) (0-034) (0.0144) (0) (1.5) (0.023) ( , . No liner 10" - - - - 31 30 1 74 13 6 i (2.3) (3.2) (0.095) (0 . I Notes: 'On a dry matter basis. °Thc C/N ratio of the soil's organic matter. i B. manure-bccflot manure. _ B. litter-broiler litter. j The value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. i i the columns were monitored by measuring the volu- mes of liquid collected by the reducers at intervals 10-5 over the experimental period. The seepage rate was j calculated as 8 ; /=V/864 x 10'=/A/dt (1) o _ • . ` 'q• where I=seepage rate (m s-'); V=volume of liquid 'E 1e.6 o * � collected under the column over a periocl of time dt (ml); A=cross-sectional area of the soil core (mz); dt=time during which V was collected (days). a •• o� ' _'`For example, a seepage volume of 15 ml collected 8 . •�,• over 7 days gave a seepage rate of 1 x 10-am S-'. to-r o ' \�a Every two weeks, a sample of the seepage was analyzed for pH, TKN, NH4-N, NOs-N, TS and EC (electrical conductivity) using standard methods • .� ��., � �� (APHA, 1990). The treatment seepage rates were statistically ana- to-so so lyzed at a confidence level of 95°10, using the method 40 60 Time(days) of analysis of variance (AOV) as described by Steel Fig. 2. Seepage rate as a function of time. Trea a and Torrie (1980). A block-treatment system was g , treatment 2 --o; treatment 3 -o; used, with the blocks representing the time of sam- ment 4-••-a; treatment 5 ---*; treatment 6- J piing. The new Duncan's multiple range test was ' used to determine which treatment demonstrated a j significantly different seepage rate. rate of 1 x 10-6 m s' at the end of the experim No significant difference was found to exist betw treatments 1 and 2, or between treatments 4 and j RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Treatment 5 performed much better than it Seepage rates ment 3, hence it can be concluded that the addi Treatment 3 (85% beeflot manure and 15% straw) of new wastewater to a submerged soil can gave the lowest seepage rate of 19 x 10-9 m s-' enhance gleization. These results also demons after 83 days (Fig. 2; Table 4). Treatments 4 and 6 the importance of using the seepage liquids to (100% beeflot manure liner and the control) were columns when comparing the sealing performance_ significantly better than treatments 1 and 2 (50% various treatments. Otherwise, those treatments straw and 50% broiler litter; 67% straw and 33% a higher seepage rate receive an additional beeflot manure) which still demonstrated a seepage of wastewater TS and perform as well as the o