# RE: SOlution Fractions

```Opps.  I sent you the wrong file.  Pl. use this.
There's 3x times the Cl- in B.

*****************************************
* Ranjan S. Muttiah                     *
* Associate Professor                   *
* Texas Agricultural Experiment Station *
* 808 East Blackland Road               *
* Temple, Texas 76502                   *
* Tel: 254-774-6103                     *
* Fax: 254-770-6561                     *
* email: muttiah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx          *
*****************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: David L Parkhurst [mailto:dlpark@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 11:09 AM
To: muttiah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: SOlution Fractions

> The measurements are on A (Sumner,NM) and downstream of A
at B (Acme, NM) on the Pecos.
I put in all the anion/cation measurements at A and
B and get -200.2 for H2O mole transfer (see attached
for input file).

Attached input file has similar analyses for solutions 1 and 2. If there
has been significant evaporation, I would expect to see higher chloride
downstream (~5 times greater). Looks more like loss of water by seepage to
the ground-water system than evaporation.

> Looking at the stream flow record,
there's 80 cfs at A and 15 cfs at B on the days
of measurement.  I'm assuming
that the difference has been lost to evaporation
and channel loss.  The mixing ratio gives soln1:2
of 4.6:1 from the model.

When I run it, I get 1.0 mixing fraction?

> Should I take this to
mean that the model estimates that 3.6 kg (= 200.2/55.5)
of water was lost at B for every kg of water @ A
due to evaporation ? (the recorded stream
flow loss gives 80/15 = 5.7). How should I
interpret the 4.6 ratio ?

It means that 4.6 L of water at A is evaporated to leave 1 L of water at B.
The difference is approximately 3.6 L of water ~ 3.6 kg water ~ 200 moles
of water that has evaporated, which is the mole transfer of H2O(g). I don't
see this when I run your model, but if there is no significant channel
seepage the model would be describing the evaporation process. In this
case, the 4.6:1 should be similar to the flow ratios 5.7:1.

David

David Parkhurst (dlpark@xxxxxxxx)
U.S. Geological Survey
Box 25046, MS 413
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225

Project web page: https://wwwbrr.cr.usgs.gov/projects/GWC_coupled

```

Attachment: Pecos_SumnerAcmeSep1979.pqi
Description: Binary data

Complete Water Resources Division Software