Field evaluation of the performance of different irrigation emitter types using treated wastewater

Abstract

Experimental tests are carried out to evaluate the impact of treated wastewater (TWW) on the discharge of five different types of emitters which are commonly used. Two water qualities, fresh water (FW) and treated wastewater, and five types of emitters, GR, Nein (NE), Edin (ED), Corona (CO), and Rain Bird (RB) are tested. The values of chemical properties for FW show mostly low clogging potential on emitter performance. The clogging potential for TWW varied from low to medium. The exception was for pH where there was severe clogging potential for both water types. The performance of emitters was tested by measuring the emitter discharge and estimating the average emitter discharge (Qavg), coefficient of variation (CV), emission uniformity coefficient (EU), and Christiansen uniformity coefficient (CU). The average discharges for different types of emitters were analyzed and compared at P ≤ 0.05. The CO and RB emitter types did not show any signs of clogging whereas the GR, NE, and ED emitter types showed signs of clogging. The results of CV, EU, and CU values showed that the performances of emitter types GR, NE, ED were classified as low or moderate clogging potential. In contrast, the CO and RB emitters were classified as moderate or high clogging potential.

Impact of irrigation water quality and envelope materials around drip line on emitter performance in subsurface drip irrigation

“…Also, the average discharge differs with emitter type, water quality, and operational time. Another study (Al‐Mefleh et al, ) found that the effect of water quality type (FW and TWW), operational time, and type of emitter on emitter discharge was not significant.…”

“…(Liu and Huang, ) in their study found a very small difference in the concentration of Fe in FW and TWW and that the presence of Fe had low clogging potential. On the other hand, (Al‐Mefleh et al, ) found that the Fe concentration in FW had medium clogging potential, whereas that in TWW had severe clogging potential that would adversely affect emitter performance. However, according to (Capra and Scicolone, ), only an EC value of 0.62 dS/m for FW and 1.8 dS/m for TWW posed a moderate potential risk of emitter clogging.…”

“…A range of water quality parameters can be analysed to determine the potential for emitter clogging. Some studies (Capra and Scicolone, ; Liu and Huang, ; Li et al, ; Al‐Mefleh et al, ) have investigated the following water quality parameters: pH, total iron, hydrogen sulfide, suspended solids, dissolved solids, manganese, calcium, magnesium, and the number of bacteria. The potential for clogging varies depending on the emitter’s dimension, the position of the lateral lines, and flow type, which can be either laminar or turbulent (de Kreij et al, ).…”

“…It has also been reported that emitter performance depends on the emitter type, the duration of system operation, and the quality of water used for irrigation (Liu and Huang, ). A recent study found that while the water type (FW or TWW) had no significant effect on emitter discharge, operational time and emitter type had a significant effect on emitter discharge (Al‐Mefleh et al, ).…”

“…Some field studies (Ebrahimi et al, ; Al‐Mefleh et al, ) have been conducted to determine the impact of water quality on SDI emitter performance. Others (Al‐Mefleh and Abu‐Zreig, ; Qiaosheng et al, ) have examined the wetting pattern produced by SD and SDI.…”