HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (12) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lentz, R. D. Articles by Mackey, B. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lentz, R. D. Articles by Mackey, B. E. Agricola Articles by Lentz, R. D. Articles by Mackey, B. E. Related Collections Water Quality Surface Water Quality Best Management Practices Water Pollution Irrigation

Fate and Efficacy of Polyacrylamide Applied in Furrow Irrigation

Full-Advance and Continuous Treatments

^a USDA-ARS, Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research Lab., 3793 N 3600 E, Kimberly, ID 83341
^b USDA-ARS-PWA, 800 Buchanan St., Albany, CA 94710

View larger version (32K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Field plot showing sampling locations in furrows and tail-ditch streams.

View larger version (42K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Polyacrylamide (PAM) concentrations in Initial-10 furrow streams, by sampling position and time. Polyacrylamide was being applied at 2 h into the irrigation, but was stopped approximately 30 min prior to the 3-h sample time. Note break and change in y axis scale. MDL, method detection limit.

View larger version (40K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Polyacrylamide (PAM) concentrations in Cont-1 furrow streams by sampling position and time for similar monitored irrigations. MDL, method detection limit.

View larger version (56K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Polyacrylamide (PAM) concentrations in tail-ditch streams by sampling position and time for Irrigation 2 and Irrigations 4, 5, and 6. Note break and change in x axis scale. MDL, method detection limit.

View larger version (39K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Mean polyacrylamide (PAM) mass-loss rate for treated furrow streams by sampling position and time. Note y axis break and scale change for Initial-10 2 h.

View larger version (49K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Rates of overall polyacrylamide (PAM) mass loss at each furrow and tail-ditch sampling position for Irrigation 2 and Irrigations 4, 5, and 6, where furrow loss rates represent the total PAM loss rate from all furrows from each PAM treatment (12 total).

View larger version (38K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Cumulative polyacrylamide (PAM) mass losses from all treated furrow streams at each furrow sampling position, and at tail-ditch positions (mean values for Irrigations 2, 4, 5, and 6.)

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Cumulative polyacrylamide (PAM) loss from the end of Initial-10 furrows, Irrigation 1, including cumulative PAM loss prior to and after PAM shutoff (vertical columns).