Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Vinod Tripathi

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
1ximum reduction in fl ow rate (9.46%) was observed with filter T1 under subsurface drip while the minimur 28%) with combination filter. Reduction in flow rate with T2 was 6.83%, which is between the values of T1 1 T3 as mentioned a bove (Fig. 1). Effect of filtration system as well as emitter placements are factor: ponsible for emitter flow rate and subsequently emitter clogging. The results from statistical analysis revealec t, after the end of cro the beginning of the th filter. It is obvious ter continuous use of t p season, there was significant effect of filter, emitter placement and their interaction. experiment there was no significant effect of emitter placement and their interaction because emitters were new at the beginning and had negligible chance of clogging. he system, clogging takes place and effect of different filtration systems starts affecting flow rate. After flus hing, filtration systems were significantly different but emitter placement was non- nificant. But interaction of filtration system with emitter placement was significant (P< 0.01). Good filtratior tem can control these inconsistent results. This indicated clogging to be a dynamic phenomenon and tc unge with space and time (Ravina et al.,1992).

Figure 1 1ximum reduction in fl ow rate (9.46%) was observed with filter T1 under subsurface drip while the minimur 28%) with combination filter. Reduction in flow rate with T2 was 6.83%, which is between the values of T1 1 T3 as mentioned a bove (Fig. 1). Effect of filtration system as well as emitter placements are factor: ponsible for emitter flow rate and subsequently emitter clogging. The results from statistical analysis revealec t, after the end of cro the beginning of the th filter. It is obvious ter continuous use of t p season, there was significant effect of filter, emitter placement and their interaction. experiment there was no significant effect of emitter placement and their interaction because emitters were new at the beginning and had negligible chance of clogging. he system, clogging takes place and effect of different filtration systems starts affecting flow rate. After flus hing, filtration systems were significantly different but emitter placement was non- nificant. But interaction of filtration system with emitter placement was significant (P< 0.01). Good filtratior tem can control these inconsistent results. This indicated clogging to be a dynamic phenomenon and tc unge with space and time (Ravina et al.,1992).

Related Figures (4)

Table 1.Filtration efficiency and P value for difference in filtration of different water Removal of turbidity was highest with combination filter (T3) but it was close to T2. It can be seen that T1-T3 were significantly different (P=0.019) but T2-T3 were not significantly different (P=0.267). Effect of filtration systems was not significantly different for removal of COs, Ca, and total solids from the groundwater. The small filtration efficiencies by filters were in agreement with other published works (Adin and Elimelech, 1989: Ribeiro et al., 2008). Capra and Scicolone (2004) observed similar performance by disk and media filters. In sand filters, the smaller effective size of sand particles has effect on the sand filtration efficiency (Ives,1980). The combined filtration system always gave better results than individual filters e.g. T1 and T2. Evaluation of Emitter Flow Rate
Table 1.Filtration efficiency and P value for difference in filtration of different water Removal of turbidity was highest with combination filter (T3) but it was close to T2. It can be seen that T1-T3 were significantly different (P=0.019) but T2-T3 were not significantly different (P=0.267). Effect of filtration systems was not significantly different for removal of COs, Ca, and total solids from the groundwater. The small filtration efficiencies by filters were in agreement with other published works (Adin and Elimelech, 1989: Ribeiro et al., 2008). Capra and Scicolone (2004) observed similar performance by disk and media filters. In sand filters, the smaller effective size of sand particles has effect on the sand filtration efficiency (Ives,1980). The combined filtration system always gave better results than individual filters e.g. T1 and T2. Evaluation of Emitter Flow Rate
Table 2.Significance level (P-value) of the statistical model and of each factor and interaction for emitter flow rate.
Table 2.Significance level (P-value) of the statistical model and of each factor and interaction for emitter flow rate.
Figure 1. Effect of flushing and different filtration systems on reduction in emitter discharge.
Figure 1. Effect of flushing and different filtration systems on reduction in emitter discharge.
At the end of season, surface and subsurface drip with combination filters shows highest UC 96.27% and 94.86%, respectively. It indicates that irrigation water with combination filters can give better fi tration in comparison with single filters. Significant improvement in UC was observed after flushing of the system. Higher improvement in UC was observed in subsurface drip in comparison to surface drip after flushing (Table 3). The main reason for higher improvements in the UC of emitters due to way out of ingested external soi particles above the laterals, which may stuck in the biofilm at the emitter outlet leading to increased clogging. Installation of air/vacuum relief valves at the high elevation points can help prevent soil ingestion in subsurface drip irrigation system (Lamm and Camp, 2007). Acidification and chlorination have been found to be e ffective in reducing clogging caused by biofilm growth (Ravina et al.,1997); Tajrishy et al.,1994).Chemical treatments such as acidification can be also used for increasing chlorination effectiveness (Nakayama et al., 2007).
At the end of season, surface and subsurface drip with combination filters shows highest UC 96.27% and 94.86%, respectively. It indicates that irrigation water with combination filters can give better fi tration in comparison with single filters. Significant improvement in UC was observed after flushing of the system. Higher improvement in UC was observed in subsurface drip in comparison to surface drip after flushing (Table 3). The main reason for higher improvements in the UC of emitters due to way out of ingested external soi particles above the laterals, which may stuck in the biofilm at the emitter outlet leading to increased clogging. Installation of air/vacuum relief valves at the high elevation points can help prevent soil ingestion in subsurface drip irrigation system (Lamm and Camp, 2007). Acidification and chlorination have been found to be e ffective in reducing clogging caused by biofilm growth (Ravina et al.,1997); Tajrishy et al.,1994).Chemical treatments such as acidification can be also used for increasing chlorination effectiveness (Nakayama et al., 2007).
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved