Replacing the (inefficient) manual runoff sampling method used in Brazil – a prototype sample splitter
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Scientia Agrícola (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://www.revistas.usp.br/sa/article/view/183588 |
Resumo: | The method used to sample the runoff collected from soil erosion plots can be a significant source of error. In this study, we performed a laboratory experiment to evaluate the efficiency of the runoff sampling method most commonly used in Brazil. It is based on the manual homogenization and sampling of the collected runoff. Using soil material with 583 g kg–1 of sand and 89 g kg–1 of clay, the manual sampling method was tested for its ability to produce representative samples of artificial suspensions with a concentration of 2, 10 and 50 g L–1 of total solids. An underestimation of 30 % or more of the concentration of total solids was observed, with a variation of the same magnitude (CV between 20 and 45 %). We then developed a prototype sample splitter to replace the manual sampling method and tested it using the same artificial suspensions. The splitter was efficient in producing samples representative of the artificial suspensions, even without altering the particle size distribution of the total solids. Both absolute percentage errors (|< 5 %|) and the variation between five replicates (CV < 3 %) were small. The problems with the manual method are due to the inefficient homogenization that facilitates the differential sedimentation of particles of different sizes. If these problems are also found in other areas, then the prototype that we developed is a reasonable alternative. |
id |
USP-18_1a38eb7822e6b3e0636bf8ffbd8dfe37 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:revistas.usp.br:article/183588 |
network_acronym_str |
USP-18 |
network_name_str |
Scientia Agrícola (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Replacing the (inefficient) manual runoff sampling method used in Brazil – a prototype sample splittererosion monitoringsoil losssandy soiluncertaintyThe method used to sample the runoff collected from soil erosion plots can be a significant source of error. In this study, we performed a laboratory experiment to evaluate the efficiency of the runoff sampling method most commonly used in Brazil. It is based on the manual homogenization and sampling of the collected runoff. Using soil material with 583 g kg–1 of sand and 89 g kg–1 of clay, the manual sampling method was tested for its ability to produce representative samples of artificial suspensions with a concentration of 2, 10 and 50 g L–1 of total solids. An underestimation of 30 % or more of the concentration of total solids was observed, with a variation of the same magnitude (CV between 20 and 45 %). We then developed a prototype sample splitter to replace the manual sampling method and tested it using the same artificial suspensions. The splitter was efficient in producing samples representative of the artificial suspensions, even without altering the particle size distribution of the total solids. Both absolute percentage errors (|< 5 %|) and the variation between five replicates (CV < 3 %) were small. The problems with the manual method are due to the inefficient homogenization that facilitates the differential sedimentation of particles of different sizes. If these problems are also found in other areas, then the prototype that we developed is a reasonable alternative.Universidade de São Paulo. Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz2021-03-23info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/sa/article/view/18358810.1590/1678-992X-2019-0117Scientia Agricola; v. 78 n. 4 (2021); e20190117Scientia Agricola; Vol. 78 Núm. 4 (2021); e20190117Scientia Agricola; Vol. 78 No. 4 (2021); e201901171678-992X0103-9016reponame:Scientia Agrícola (Online)instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPenghttps://www.revistas.usp.br/sa/article/view/183588/170130Copyright (c) 2021 Scientia Agricolahttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSamuel-Rosa, Alessandro Moura-Bueno, Jean Michel Dalmolin, Ricardo Simão Diniz 2021-04-09T18:49:26Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/183588Revistahttp://revistas.usp.br/sa/indexPUBhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpscientia@usp.br||alleoni@usp.br1678-992X0103-9016opendoar:2021-04-09T18:49:26Scientia Agrícola (Online) - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Replacing the (inefficient) manual runoff sampling method used in Brazil – a prototype sample splitter |
title |
Replacing the (inefficient) manual runoff sampling method used in Brazil – a prototype sample splitter |
spellingShingle |
Replacing the (inefficient) manual runoff sampling method used in Brazil – a prototype sample splitter Samuel-Rosa, Alessandro erosion monitoring soil loss sandy soil uncertainty |
title_short |
Replacing the (inefficient) manual runoff sampling method used in Brazil – a prototype sample splitter |
title_full |
Replacing the (inefficient) manual runoff sampling method used in Brazil – a prototype sample splitter |
title_fullStr |
Replacing the (inefficient) manual runoff sampling method used in Brazil – a prototype sample splitter |
title_full_unstemmed |
Replacing the (inefficient) manual runoff sampling method used in Brazil – a prototype sample splitter |
title_sort |
Replacing the (inefficient) manual runoff sampling method used in Brazil – a prototype sample splitter |
author |
Samuel-Rosa, Alessandro |
author_facet |
Samuel-Rosa, Alessandro Moura-Bueno, Jean Michel Dalmolin, Ricardo Simão Diniz |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Moura-Bueno, Jean Michel Dalmolin, Ricardo Simão Diniz |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Samuel-Rosa, Alessandro Moura-Bueno, Jean Michel Dalmolin, Ricardo Simão Diniz |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
erosion monitoring soil loss sandy soil uncertainty |
topic |
erosion monitoring soil loss sandy soil uncertainty |
description |
The method used to sample the runoff collected from soil erosion plots can be a significant source of error. In this study, we performed a laboratory experiment to evaluate the efficiency of the runoff sampling method most commonly used in Brazil. It is based on the manual homogenization and sampling of the collected runoff. Using soil material with 583 g kg–1 of sand and 89 g kg–1 of clay, the manual sampling method was tested for its ability to produce representative samples of artificial suspensions with a concentration of 2, 10 and 50 g L–1 of total solids. An underestimation of 30 % or more of the concentration of total solids was observed, with a variation of the same magnitude (CV between 20 and 45 %). We then developed a prototype sample splitter to replace the manual sampling method and tested it using the same artificial suspensions. The splitter was efficient in producing samples representative of the artificial suspensions, even without altering the particle size distribution of the total solids. Both absolute percentage errors (|< 5 %|) and the variation between five replicates (CV < 3 %) were small. The problems with the manual method are due to the inefficient homogenization that facilitates the differential sedimentation of particles of different sizes. If these problems are also found in other areas, then the prototype that we developed is a reasonable alternative. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-03-23 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://www.revistas.usp.br/sa/article/view/183588 10.1590/1678-992X-2019-0117 |
url |
https://www.revistas.usp.br/sa/article/view/183588 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.1590/1678-992X-2019-0117 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.revistas.usp.br/sa/article/view/183588/170130 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Scientia Agricola http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Scientia Agricola http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade de São Paulo. Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade de São Paulo. Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Scientia Agricola; v. 78 n. 4 (2021); e20190117 Scientia Agricola; Vol. 78 Núm. 4 (2021); e20190117 Scientia Agricola; Vol. 78 No. 4 (2021); e20190117 1678-992X 0103-9016 reponame:Scientia Agrícola (Online) instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP) instacron:USP |
instname_str |
Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
instacron_str |
USP |
institution |
USP |
reponame_str |
Scientia Agrícola (Online) |
collection |
Scientia Agrícola (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Scientia Agrícola (Online) - Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
scientia@usp.br||alleoni@usp.br |
_version_ |
1800222794561093632 |