Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32978959›Full record

ReviewGround water2021

Review of Laboratory Scale Models of Karst Aquifers: Approaches, Similitude, and Requirements.

Zargham Mohammadi, Walter A Illman, Malcolm Field

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ground water, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Zargham Mohammadi
Walter A IllmanDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 200 University Ave. W, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Malcolm FieldNational Center for Environmental Assessment, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 20460, USA.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review focuses on investigations of groundwater flow and solute transport in karst aquifers through laboratory scale models (LSMs). In particular, LSMs have been used to generate new data under different hydraulic and contaminant transport conditions, testing of new approaches for site characterization, and providing new insights into flow and transport processes through complex karst aquifers. Due to the increasing need for LSMs to investigate a wide range of issues, associated with flow and solute migration karst aquifers this review attempts to classify, and introduce a framework for constructing a karst aquifer physical model that is more representative of field conditions. The LSMs are categorized into four groups: sand box, rock block, pipe/fracture network, and pipe-matrix coupling. These groups are compared and their advantages and disadvantages highlighted. The capabilities of such models have been extensively improved by new developments in experimental methods and measurement devices. Newer technologies such as 3D printing, computed tomography scanning, X-rays, nuclear magnetic resonance, novel geophysical techniques, and use of nanomaterials allow for greater flexibilities in conducting experiments. In order for LSMs to be representative of karst aquifers, a few requirements are introduced: (1) the ability to simulate heterogeneous distributions of karst hydraulic parameters, (2) establish Darcian and non-Darcian flow regimes and exchange between the matrix and conduits, (3) placement of adequate sampling points and intervals, and (4) achieving some degree of geometric, kinematic, and dynamic similitude to represent field conditions.

Indexed as

GroundwaterLaboratoriesModels, TheoreticalResearch DesignWater Movements

Identifiers

PMID32978959
PMCPMC8291341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.