Spreading rate and dispersion behavior of evaporation-suppressant monolayer on open water surfaces: Part 2 – Under wind stress

Wandel, Andrew P.; Brink, Gavin; Hancock, Nicola; Pather, Selvan

doi:10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2017.05.006

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Monolayer products will be most effective if applied when wind turbulence induces a cold surface film, and when a wind speed of less than 3 m s −1 favors the formation of a condensed surface film (Pittaway, Martínez‐Alvarez, et al., 2015). Each specific monolayer formulation has a characteristic spreading angle and velocity, which will determine how readily complete surface coverage is achieved and maintained (Brink et al., 2017; Wandel et al., 2017). Multiple product applicators or application sites at intervals around the storage are required to ensure the maintenance of complete surface coverage on large water storages (>10 ha; Craig, 2008).…”

Section: Mode Of Action Environmental Impact and Performance Of Monom...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further research is required to determine if the rapid increase in microlayer pH after the application of monolayer formulations containing hydrated lime is detrimental to surface‐active aquatic invertebrates and fish (Hancock et al., 2011). The number of applicators required to achieve full surface coverage (Wandel et al., 2017) may limit monolayer use to storages with a surface area of ≤100 ha (Table 6). Smart selection and application strategies, commercial access to programmed applicators, and objective data on potential water savings in different climatic regions will improve the uptake of this technology.…”

Section: Product Suitability Recommendations For Water Managersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaporative loss and environmental impact of covers on water storages: A review

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Commercial products to reduce evaporation from water storages have been developed since the 1960s. Categorised as suspended and floating continuous covers, floating modular covers, and monomolecular (monolayer) and multimolecular chemical films, product adoption by agricultural water managers is low. The role of evaporation reduction in improving water use efficiency is well established, but information on the suitability of product categories for farm water storages is lacking. We reviewed the environmental and operational performance of commercial evaporation reduction products using published and supplier information on design, mode of action, installation, operation, maintenance, the evaporation reduction achieved, and the impact on water quality, to analyze the suitability of the five product classes for water storages ranging in size from ≤2 to 100 ha. Span loading, cable tensioning and anchorage limit continuous covers to storages ≤2 ha. The cover fabric must reduce light transmittance by 80%, to reduce evaporation by 71%. Ballasting, tethering, and removal during dry times limit the use of continuous floating covers to storages ≤2 ha, managed close to full capacity. Floating modules must cover 88% of the surface to reduce evaporation by 70%, limiting their use to storages of ≤5 ha. Monolayer application is more flexible, but smart product selection and automated application strategies are required to improve performance. The number of application sites required to achieve full surface coverage limits monolayer use to storages ≤100 ha. Higher rates of application and poor self-spreading may limit multimolecular films to storages ≤10 ha.

show abstract

Section: Mode Of Action Environmental Impact and Performance Of Monom...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Product Suitability Recommendations For Water Managersmentioning

confidence: 99%