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 Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lapen, D. R. Articles by McLaughlin, N. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Lapen, D. R. Articles by McLaughlin, N. Agricola Articles by Lapen, D. R. Articles by McLaughlin, N. Related Collections Water Quality Preferential Flow Microorganisms Tillage Vadose Zone Processes and Chemical Transport Municipal Waste

Effect of Liquid Municipal Biosolid Application Method on Tile and Ground Water Quality

^a Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1A 0C6
^b Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, London, ON
^c Univ. of Guelph-Kemptville, Kemptville, ON
^d National Swine Research & Information Center, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA
^e Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, Stratford, ON
^f Ontario Ministry of Environment, Toronto, ON

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Layout of treatment and control plots (not to scale). Note: control plots were located approximately 500 m south of the treatment plots to minimize potential for cross-plot contamination. T1-6 and C1-2 = number for treatment tiles (T) and number for control tiles (C); A and SS = AerWay and surface spreading plus incorporation, respectively.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Tile effluent sampling/monitoring system used for treatment plots. Tile effluent splash plates installed around the collection cup/funnel system to ensure all tile flow was directed to the tipping bucket are not illustrated for clarity purposes. Control plot tile effluent/discharge monitoring followed the approach given in Akhand et al. (2006).

View larger version (24K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Hourly total precipitation and average hourly temperature recorded at the site for the study period.

View larger version (24K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Tile drain water quality parameters, in (mg) or (cfu) per 15 min for samples collected during the LMB application-induced tile hydrograph event (JD 294–295). Note: LMB applications on the plots did not occur simultaneously.

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Tile drain E. coli and C. perfringens, in cfu per 15 min, over the study period (JD > 295). Data were averaged by treatment and by tile hydrograph event (or baseflow sampling time). First-order exponential decay models (Y = predicted mass load, x = day) were fit to the E. coli data (model significant at p < 0.1); but models for C. perfringens data were not significant (p > 0.1). Error bars represent standard error.

View larger version (33K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Selected multi-parameter sonde data for treatment tiles for liquid municipal biosolid application-induced hydrograph event. ORP = oxidation reduction potential, Sp. Cond. = specific conductivity.

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Selected nutrient and bacteria concentrations in ground water collected from 1.2 m piezometers. Data were averaged by treatment for each sampling event. Error bars represent standard error. First-order exponential decay models (Y = predicted concentration, x = day) were fit to the E. coli and C. perfringens data. Both models were significant (p < 0.1).

View larger version (20K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Selected nutrient and bacteria concentrations in ground water collected from 2.0 m piezometers. Data were averaged by treatment for each sampling event. Error bars represent standard error. First-order exponential decay models (Y = predicted concentration, x = day) were fit to the E. coli and C. perfringens data. Only the E. coli model was significant (p < 0.1).