Clogging rate of pressure compensating emitters in irrigation with rainbow trout fish farm effluent
- PDF / 2,958,494 Bytes
- 11 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 2 Downloads / 147 Views
ORIGINAL PAPER
Clogging rate of pressure compensating emitters in irrigation with rainbow trout fish farm effluent Eisa Maroufpoor1 · Younes Aminpour2 · Barzan Bahrami Kamangar3 · Jaume Puig Bargués4 Received: 10 February 2020 / Accepted: 27 August 2020 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract One of the most fertilizing effluents for irrigation are those from fish farms. In drip irrigation systems, emitter clogging is the biggest problem of the effluent application. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to assess the clogging rate of a drip irrigation system using the effluent of a rainbow trout farm. A control treatment with the input fish farm freshwater and two more using fish farm effluent, with and without irrigation lateral drainage, were tested. Pressure compensating emitters Microflapper with nominal discharges of 4 and 8 L/h (M4, M8) and Netafim with discharges of 4, 8, and 12 L/h (N4, N8, and N12) were used. For each treatment, 42 irrigations events were carried out with a total of 336 h over a 4-month period. Each irrigation event lasted 8 h every 3 days. Clogging rate, Christiansen uniformity (CU) and emission uniformity (EU) coefficients were utilized for assessing the hydraulic performance of emitters. There was no emitter completely clogged during the experiment. However, as the clogging rate gradually increased, lateral discharges during the irrigation season decreased to a maximum of 57% of the initial value in some laterals. Evolution of the clogging rate was unstable, especially in the control treatment. N4 emitter show the best performance regardless of the quality of irrigation water. The clogging rates of M4 and N8 emitters were significantly (p 25
< 70 70–81 >81
< 71 71–89 > 89
Irrigation Science
Fig. 2 Evolution of emitter clogging rate for control (treatment no. 1), effluent without (treatment no. 2) and with (treatment no. 3) lateral drainage
Figure 3 illustrates the average clogging rate of the 4 lastirrigation events for the different emitters and treatments. Due to the important changes of clogging rate in each irrigation event, computing the average of the four last irrigation events was considered to be more representative of the clogging status at the end of the experiment than using only values from the last event. For the control treatment, the clogging rate of the N4, N8 and M4 emitters was lower than
the critical limit, with no significant differences (p > 0.05). In this treatment, the clogging rate of N12 and M8 emitters ranged from 30 to 35%. For the effluent treatments, N4 emitter had the lowest the clogging rate, which was below the critical limit. For these treatments, the clogging rates of other emitters were in the range of 30–43%, with no significant differences (p > 0.05). Although drainage at the end of laterals reduced the clogging rate in all emitters (except N4),
13
Irrigation Science
Fig. 3 Average and standard error bars for emitter clogging rate (Cr) for the 4 last irrigation events for the different emitters and tre
Data Loading...
