4.7 Article

A simulation-based suitability index of the quality and quantity of agricultural drainage water for reuse in irrigation

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 536, 期 -, 页码 79-90

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.029

关键词

Agricultural drainage water; Reuse; Suitability index; QUAL2Kw; Nile delta

资金

  1. Egyptian Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE)
  2. JSPS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The suitability of agricultural drainage water (ADW) for reuse in irrigation was indexed based on a simulation of quality and quantity. The ADW reuse index (DWRI) has two components; the first one indicates the suitability of water quality (QLT) for reuse in irrigation based on the mixing ratio of ADW to canal irrigation water without violating the standards of using mixed water in irrigation, while the second indicates the available water quantity (QNT) based on the ratio of the available ADW to the required reuse discharge to meet the irrigation requirements alongside the drain. The QLT and QNT values ranged from 0 to >= 3 and from 0 to >= 0.40, respectively. Correspondingly, five classes from excellent to poor and from high scarcity to no scarcity were proposed to classify the QLT and QNT values, respectively. This approach was then applied to the Gharbia drain in the Nile Delta, Egypt, combined with QUAL2Kw simulations in the summer and winter of 2012. The QLT values along the drain ranged from 1.11 to 2.91 and 0.68 to 1.73 for summer and winter, respectively. Correspondingly, the QLT classes ranged from good to very good and from fair to good, respectively. In regard to QNT, values ranged from 0.10 to 0.62 and from 0.10 to 0.88 for summer and winter, respectively. Correspondingly, the QNT classes ranged from medium scarcity to no scarcity for both seasons. The demonstration of DWRI in the Gharbia drain suggests that the proposed index presents a simple tool for spatially evaluating the suitability of ADW for reuse in irrigation. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据