Effects of sodium chloride on constitutive relations in variably saturated porous media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though many arid and contaminated sites have high salinity, prediction of effects of salinity on water movement in soils has been based on dilute solution approximations. Here a sensitivity analysis compares predicted liquid and vapor pressure in variably saturated porous media found using both the dilute approximations and a more general formulation that is valid for salt concentrations from zero to saturation. Sodium chloride (NaCl) was selected as a representative salt of environmental importance. Salt‐mineral interactions are not included in the analysis. The dilute approximations neglect the salt‐related changes in specific volume, which translate into nonnegligible pressure effects (i.e., error >1%) under dry conditions, being more pronounced for finer media. The analysis shows that for silt textures, the dilute approximation to the vapor pressure constitutive relation is acceptable for water contents θ > 5%, for sand θ > 1%, and for loam θ > 2%. When computing gradients of vapor pressure resulting from gradients in salt concentration, volume correction is necessary for silt for θ < 10%. Gradients in vapor pressure with changes in water content require volume correction, except under dilute conditions (i.e., <0.5 molal). For concentrated solutions in silt, salt effect errors are not acceptable for prediction of liquid pressure, nor are the effects on gradients negligible. Errors for sand and loam are only marginally better, with acceptable errors generally occurring only for ionic strengths of less than 1 molal. An example of use of the constitutive relations to plot results from experiments is provided to illustrate how the theory may be used to determine which thermodynamic corrections must be incorporated into analyses of the experimental results. Here the volumetric effects of the salt on vapor depression were negligible, though volumetric effects may be nonnegligible for computation of gradients of both vapor and liquid pressures. The method of analysis of nonideal effects developed herein is general, and the resulting corrections to the dilute approximation may be easily implemented in numerical codes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".