Efecto de diferentes diseños de drenajes de filtros de arena en la obturación de goteros utilizando aguas residuales regeneradas
Sand filters are commonly recommended when using reclaimed water in drip irrigation systems, although the effect of their different drainage designs on preventing emitter clogging is unknown. Therefore, this study analyzed the effect of using sand filters with different drainage models on emitter cl...
| Autores: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | capítulo de libro |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2019 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya) |
| Repositorio: | Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:recercat.cat:10256/28468 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10256/28468 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Regatge per degoteig Trickle irrigation Filtres i filtració Filters and filtration Aigua -- Depuració -- Filtració Water -- Purification -- Filtration |
| Sumario: | Sand filters are commonly recommended when using reclaimed water in drip irrigation systems, although the effect of their different drainage designs on preventing emitter clogging is unknown. Therefore, this study analyzed the effect of using sand filters with different drainage models on emitter clogging, operating with reclaimed wastewater for 1000 hours. At the beginning, middle, and end of the experiment, the flow rate of each of the 226 emitters in each of the 12 irrigation laterals was determined. The results indicate a significant reduction (p<0.05) in the measured flow rate: 8% at 500 hours and 11% at 1000 hours compared to the initial value. Emitter position also had a significant effect after 500 hours of operation. The dripper flow rates were significantly lower (p<0.05) only in the last 2 m of the laterals, with the lowest values found in the last two drippers. The number of completely clogged drippers was 1.2% with the porous medium drainage filter, 1.0% with the inserted dome drainage filter, and 0.6% with the collector arm filter |
|---|