JEQ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (19)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Raupach, M.R.
Right arrow Articles by Edge, V.E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Raupach, M.R.
Right arrow Articles by Edge, V.E.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Raupach, M.R.
Right arrow Articles by Edge, V.E.
Related Collections
Right arrow Water Quality
Right arrow Cotton
Right arrow Agricultural Pesticides
Right arrow Water Pollution

Endosulfan Transport

II. Modeling Airborne Dispersal and Deposition by Spray and Vapor

M.R. Raupacha, P.R. Briggsa, N. Ahmadb and V.E. Edgec

a CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, GPO Box 1666, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
b Australian Water Technologies, Sydney, NSW, Australia
c NSW Agriculture, Locked Bag 21, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia



View larger version (25K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Results from particle dispersion model for four different particle size distributions (log-normal with median particle diameter = 80, 160, 240, and 320 µm and standard deviation ln(1.8) throughout). Conditions assumed throughout: canopy height hc = 0.50 m; leaf dimension dc = 0.01 m; field length xp = 1000 m; spray release height hs = 2 m; initial plume height {sigma}Z0 = 1 m; atmospheric stability is neutral (D); wind speed ur = 2 m s-1. Panels: (a) depleting mass fraction s(x); (b) deposition -ds/dx = -s'(x) for a laterally uniform unit line source; (c) drift deposition fraction fdrift(x) for a plane source from Eq. [12].

 


View larger version (22K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Test of the single-layer model for the deposition velocity Wd, Eq. [15], against wind tunnel measurements of particle deposition to a sticky grass surface by Chamberlain (1967). Predictions are of Wd as a function of particle diameter d for vegetation of height 0.06 m and leaf area index 1, using the model of Raupach (1992)(1994) to calculate roughness length and other canopy aerodynamic properties. Data and predictions are for three wind speeds giving friction velocities of 0.35, 0.70, and 1.40 m s-1. The solid line is the predicted terminal velocity Wt as a function of d (Malcolm and Raupach, 1991).

 


View larger version (17K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Contributions of the three terms Wt (settling), Gimp (impaction), and Gbrow (Brownian diffusion) to the deposition velocity Wd. Conditions as in Figure 1 with u* = 1.40 m s-1.

 


View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. The deposition velocity of endosulfan vapor to water, from the Deacon model, Eq. [18]. Assumed parameters: {rho}a = 1.2 kg m-3, {rho}w = 1000 kg m-3, {nu}a = 1.5 x 10-5 m2 s-1, {nu}w = 1 x 10-6 m2 s-1, {kappa}a = 4.8 x 10-6 m2 s-1, {kappa}w = 5.3 x 10-10 m2 s-1.

 


View larger version (35K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. Layout of the field experiment at Auscott Warren, 1994–1995.

 


View larger version (29K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. Predicted and measured endosulfan air concentrations ({alpha}, ß, {gamma}, total) at stations within Field 4 and at S200m outside Field 4.

 


View larger version (25K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7. Predicted and measured endosulfan water concentrations ({alpha}, ß, {gamma}, total) at four westward receptor locations for Sprays 1 and 2.

 


View larger version (15K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 8. Time-averaged comparison (over 5 d) of measured and modeled total endosulfan concentrations at 13 receptor points, for Sprays 1 and 2.

 


View larger version (23K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 9. Time-averaged comparison (over 5 d) of measured and modeled endosulfan species concentrations ({alpha}, ß, {gamma}, total) at 13 receptor points, for (a) Spray 1; (b) Spray 2.

 


View larger version (21K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 10. Comparison of particle dispersion (spray drift) model with data from Bird et al. (1996)(standard case) for three wind speeds u. Parameters: canopy height hc = 0.15 m; leaf dimension dc = 0.005 m; field length xp = 274 m; spray release height hs = 2.5 m; initial plume height {sigma}Z0 = 1 m; median particle diameter = 250 µm; particle size distribution is log-normal with standard deviation ln(1.7); atmospheric stability is neutral (D) or slightly unstable (C).

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Vadose Zone Journal Journal of Plant Registrations
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Copyright © 2001 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.