4.7 Article

Usability of calcium carbide gas pressure method in hydrological sciences

Journal

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
Volume 503, Issue -, Pages 67-76

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.08.044

Keywords

Soil moisture; Ground truthing; Water content; CCGP; Ca carbide

Funding

  1. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) [106M231]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Soil moisture is a key engineering variable with major influence on ecological and hydrological processes as well as in climate, weather, agricultural, civil and geotechnical applications. Methods for quantification of the soil moisture are classified into three main groups: (i) measurement with remote sensing, (ii) estimation via (soil water balance) simulation models, and (iii) measurement in the field (ground based). Remote sensing and simulation modeling require rapid ground truthing with one of the ground based methods. Calcium carbide gas pressure (CCGP) method is a rapid measurement procedure for obtaining soil moisture and relies on the chemical reaction of the calcium carbide reagent with the water in soil pores. However, the method is overlooked in hydrological science applications. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the usability of the CCGP method in comparison with standard oven-drying and dielectric methods in terms of accuracy, time efficiency, operational ease, cost effectiveness and safety for quantification of the soil moisture over a wide range of soil types. The research involved over 250 tests that were carried out on 15 different soil types. It was found that the accuracy of the method is mostly within +/-1% of soil moisture deviation range in comparison to oven-drying, and that CCGP method has significant advantages over dielectric methods in terms of accuracy, cost, operational ease and time efficiency for the purpose of ground truthing. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available