4 Estuarine Mixing

Initial concepts: tides and salinity

Tide-resolving models
Tidal-average models
Tracers for model calibration
Mixing diagrams
Residence time
Dual tracers
What is an estuary?
A semi-enclosed coastal body of water
which has a free connection with the
open sea and within which sea water is
measurably diluted with fresh water
derived from land drainage (Pritchard,
1952)
Where the river meets the ocean
Like a river but with tides and salinity
gradients
Tidal motion
Tidal Channel Ocean

η(t)
2ao

Tt
Head
2ξo
ao = tidal amplitude
Mouth
2ao = tidal range
Gravitational and centrifugal
Tt = tidal period acceleration (E with M & S)
2ξo = tidal excursion Ocean range ~ 0.5 m
Coastal waters may have
much larger ranges
Equilibrium tide; moon only
Low
Water surface

M High E High

Low

At any time: 2 high and 2 low tides;

At any location: ~ 2 high and 2 low tides per day
Combined sun and moon
T=6.8d

Lunar
29.5d month

S 27.3d
13.6d

20.5d

Sun and moon aligned (full and new moon) => spring tide;
Sun and moon opposed (1st and 3rd quarters) => neap tide
Because the earth revolves, period of spring-neap cycle =
365d/[(365/27.3)-1] = 29.5 days

Number of full moon’s per year

And because the moon revolves
Lunar day
24.8

E 24 h M

Lunar day = 29.5 d /(29.5 – 1) = 24.8 hours

Dominant (lunar semi-diurnal tidal) period is 12.4 h
Also a diurnal period
Because of the earth’s
declination higher latitudes tend
“Side” View to experience a single (diurnal)
cycle per rotation
In general a number of tidal
constituents are required to
compose an accurate tidal
signal
L
“Top” View
H H
L
 Full Moon Last Quarter New Moon First Quarter

Moon Phase
Los Angles, California
(outer harbor)
Tidal displacement above reference

o o
33 43' N, 118 16' W
12.4 hr

5 Mixed tide (with

strong semi-diurnal
0 component; lower
latitude)
14.7d

St. Michael, Alaska Diurnal tide (higher

(on the being sea)
o o
63 29' N, 162 02' W latitude)
24.8 hr
5 Spring-neap cycle

5 10 15 20 25 30
Date in July 1963 Ippen, 1969
Figure by MIT OCW.
Idealized (linear) tidal motion
η(t)

Qf

η (t ) = a cos(ωt ) ω = 2π/Tt 2ξo

Qf
u (t ) = + u max cos(ωt + φ )
A
u max Tt
ξ (t ) = u t + sin(ωt + φ )
2π

u max Tt Tidal excursion

2ξ o ( x) =
π
Pu ( x) = Vu ,high ( x) − Vu ,lowh Upstream tidal prism
 Pu(x) x L
High Tide
Low Tide

2ξο(x)

High Tide
Vu(x)

Low Tide

2ξ(x)

Pu(x)

0 x L
 Now introduce salinity
River Estuary Ocean
Tidal, Salinity
Qf Freshwater Intrusion

+ + +

Head of Tide Mouth

10 20 30
S=0 S=35 psu

PSU = practical salinity unit,

an operational definition of salinity (mass fraction: ppt, o/oo or g/kg)
Equation of State (Gill, 1982; ch 6)
ρ = ρ (T ) + ∆ρ ( S ) + ∆ρ (TSS ) (Also pressure at deep depths)

⎡ T + 288.9414 ⎤
ρ (T ) = 1000⎢1 − (T − 3.9863) 2 ⎥
⎣ 508929.2(T + 68.12963) ⎦
∆ρ ( S ) = AS + BS 3 / 2 + CS 2

A = 0.824493 − 4.0899 x10 −3 T + 7.6438 x10 −5 T 2 − 8.2467 x10 −7 T 3 + 5.3875 x10 −9 T

B = −5.72466 x10 −3 + 1.0227 x10 − 4 T − 1.6546 x10 −6 T 2
C = 4.8314 x10 − 4

⎡ 1 ⎤
∆ρ (TSS ) = TSS ⎢1 − x10 −3

⎣ SG ⎥⎦

ρ = kg/m3, T in oC, S in PSU (g/kg), TSS in mg/L

 Seawater Density ( σ1 Units )

48
-10
Fischer, et al. (1979)
44 -8

40 -6

-4 σt = 1000*(ρ-1)
36 -2

0 (ρ in g/cm3)
32 2
Temperature (oC)

28 6
8

10
24
12
14
20 16

18

16 20

22

12 24

26

8 28

30

0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
SALINITY (% )
Figure by MIT OCW.
 Seawater Density ( σ1 Units )

48
-10

Example:
44 -8

Salt water – Freshwater

40
density difference ∆ρ o ρ
-6

-4

36 -2

32 2
Ocean salinity
Temperature (oC)

28 6
8
~ 35 psu
24
10

12
Freshwater salinity
0 psu
14
20 16

18

16
Temperatures 0 to 30C
20

22

12
∆ρ o ρ = [28-0]/1000=0.028
24

26

8 28

30 (0C)
4
= [22-(-4)]/1000=0.026
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 (30C)
SALINITY (% )

Figure by MIT OCW.

Estuary classification
10 20 30
S=0 S=35 psu

Well mixed: isohaline lines approach vertical (Delaware R)

Partially mixed: isohaline lines slant
Vertically stratified (salt wedge): isohaline lines approach horizontal
(Mississippi R.)

Desire to classify to know what type of model/analysis to use;

several options available; none is perfect
Estuary classification, cont’d
Densimetric Estuary number (Harleman & Abraham, 1966;
Thatcher & Harleman, 1972)

2
Pt Fd Pt = tidal prism; Q f = freshwater flow rate;
Ed =
Q f Tt Tt = tidal period

uo Fd is a densimetric Froude number

Fd =
g (∆ρ o / ρ )h
u o = maximum tidal velocity; h = estuary depth;
∆ρ o /ρ = salt water − fresh water density difference
Estuary classification, cont’d
Estuary Richardson number (Fischer, 1972; 1979)

∆ρ o gQ f / W
R= W = estuary width;
ρu t 3

−1
u t = RMS tidal velocity ≅ 0.71u o
~ Ed
R ~ potential energy rate/kinetic energy rate

R < 0.08 well-mixed

0.08 < R < 0.8 partially stratified
0.8 < R vertically stratified (salt wedge)

Example later
Estuary classification, cont’d
The definitions are related
3
ut
E d ~ R −1 ~ 2
u f ud

Each involves 3 velocities:

u t = RMS tidal velocity Tends to mix estuary

u f = fresh water velocity = Q f /A Tends to stratify estuary
u d = density velocity = g(∆ρ o /ρ )h Tends to stratify estuary
 Hanson-Rattray (1966)
10

2 Semi-empirical
-1
10
x

1
Predicts
3.3

-1
P=
< - Salinity stratification

10
=
P

salinity stratification
10 -2

„
x
-1

3
3.

-3
Fm = 10

-2

δS -1
δS S o = ( S b − S s ) S
=

Fm = 10
-2
P

10

S0 10
Fm = 10

=
P
Fm = 1

-3

Increases w/ P, decreases w/ Fm
10

-4

-4
-3
x

Fm = 10

10
3

10
3.

Velocity stratification
x
=
=

3
P
P

3.

10-2 „
=
P

u s /u f =tidal average surf vel /

tidal and depth aver vel

10-3 2 3
Decreases w/ Fm
us
1 10
uf
10 10
uf uf
Velocity stratification ->
P= ; Fm =
ut ud
Figure by MIT OCW.
Tide resolving models
Well-mixed (1-D) estuary

∂c ∂c 1 ∂ ⎛ ∂c ⎞ q L (c L − c ) ′
+ u (t ) = ⎜ AE L (t ) ⎟ + + ∑ ri + ∑ re
∂t ∂x A ∂x ⎝ ∂x ⎠ A

Major difference between river and well-mixed estuary are

1) u is time-varying, 2) EL is constrained by reversing tide.

Look at 2) first
Characteristic dispersion time scales
(Fischer et al., 1979)
EL ~ Uc2Tc ~ u*2Tc
For rivers, two possible time scales, Tc:
„ Ttm ~ B2/ET and Tvm ~ h2/Ez
„ Ttm >> Tvm => EL ~ u*2 Ttm
(after transverse mixing)
For estuaries, additional possibility: Tc = Tt/2
„ Ttm >> Tt/2 ~ Tvm => EL ~ u*2 Ttm or u*2 Tt/2

Previous example, B = 100 m, H = 5 m, u = 1 m/s

Tvm = 750 s, Ttm = 34000 s, Tt/2= 22000 s (6.2 h)
Dispersion in reversing flow

“narrow” channel

B
t=0 Tc=Ttm 0.5Tt
2
u* B 2
Dispersion governed by Ttm, EL ~
ET
Dispersion in reversing flow, cont’d
“narrow” channel

B
t=0 Ttm 2
0.5Tt
2
u* B
Dispersion governed by Ttm, E L ~
ET

“wide” channel

B
l ~ ET Tc

Tc = 0.5Tt
t=0 2 2 2
2⎛ l ⎞ u* ET Tt
Dispersion governed by Tt, E ~ u * ⎜ ⎟ t
T ~
L
⎝ ⎠
B B2
Effects of reversing u(t)
Mass continuously injected at x = 0

C
land ocean

High Low
tide tide

x
0

2ξo
An actual simulation Harleman, 1971

1.0

0.5 N = 400.0 N = 400.5

H.W.S L.W.S

N = 30.0 N = 30.5

0.0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Figure by MIT OCW.

x / 2ξ o
Continuous injection at x = 0; output after 30, 400 tidal
periods (high slack) and 30.5 and 400.5 tidal cycles (low slack)
Tidal-average models
Perhaps we don’t care to resolve intra-
tidal time-dependence
Strong non-uniformities prevent
resolution of intra-tidal variability
Long term calculations more efficient
with tidal-average time step
However, averaging obscures physics
Tidal-average models, cont’d
Analogous, in principle, to time and cross-sectional averaging

u = u + u ′′′
Triple bars imply tidal average

c = c + c ′′′

Insert into GE and tidal-average

∂c ∂ c 1 ∂ ⎛⎜ ∂ c ⎞⎟ Structurally similar to
+u = ⎜ AE L ⎟ + ∑ ri + ∑ re equation for river
∂t ∂x A ∂x ⎜ ∂x ⎟ transport => similar
⎝ ⎠
solutions
Tidal average Tidal average
velocity disp coef
Tidal average dispersion
Tidal pumping (shown)
„ Asymmetric ebb (a) & flood (b)
„ Tidal averaging => mean
Ebb velocity (c)
„ Trans mixing + trans velocity
gradients => dispersion!

Similar drivers
Flood „ Tidal trapping
„ Coriolis + density
„ Depth-dependent tidal reversal

Net
EL ~ (2ξo)2/Tt
General result
A B C

c
Conservative Tracer;
3 injection locations
x
c
Non-conservative
tracer; middle location
x
c
Non-conservative
tracer; 3 locations
x
Comments
For conservative tracer, c(x)
„ Is independent of xd for x > xd
„ Decrease with xd for x < xd
If you must pollute, do it downstream
(more discussion later)
Several specific solutions in notes
Conclusion applies loosely even if not 1-D

Signell, MWRA
(1999)
 One example q" =
m&
A
Rectangular channel; no through flow

d ⎛ dc ⎞
0= ⎜ E L ⎟ − kc
dx ⎝ dc ⎠
E L ~ ( 2ξ o ) 2 / Tt = αx 2

dc 2
2d c
0 xd L x
0 = 2αx + αx − kc
dx 2
dx
Solution
q ′′ ⎡ x −1 2−κ 2 x −1 2+κ 2 ⎤
c + ( x, x d ) − c L = ⎢ 1 2−κ 2 − κ 1 2−κ 2 ⎥ x > xd
ακ ⎣ x d L xd ⎦
κ = 1 + 4k / α
q " ⎡ x −1 2+κ 2 x −1 2+κ 2 ⎤
c _( x, x d ) − c L = ⎢ 1 2+κ 2 − κ 1 2−κ 2 ⎥ x < xd
ακ ⎣ x d L xd ⎦
WE4-1 Proposed relocation of
Gillette’s Intake
Proposal to shorten Fort Point Channel
as part of the Big Dig threatened to limit
Gillette’s cooling water source
Details
Boston Harbor
1700m 1700m

2ao=2.9 m;
h=6 m;
k=0.1 day-1

700 Discharge (xd)

600 Intake (xi)
400

Qo = 1.4 m3/s;
∆To = 6C
0

“Existing” Channel “Modified” Channel

Proposed remedies: move discharge and/or intake downstream.

How far?
Results of analysis
3

2.5
Existing
Mod Chan
Temperature (C)

2
MC + Disch

1.5

0.5
xd
0
0 400 m 500 1000 1500 2000
Distance (m)

Existing: Ti (x=600) ~ 0.8C; Modified: Ti ~ 2.4C

Moving intake 400 m downstream (x=600) yields Ti ~ 0.8C
Moving discharge 300 m downstream (x=900) also yields Ti ~ 0.8C
Tidal Prism Method
High tide
Treats whole channel as single
Low tide
well-mixed box Qf

Mass that leaves on ebb does

not returns
Pf
Except for harbors/short
= Qf
Tt
channels, this overestimates
flushing; underestimates c. Pctp
= m&
Hence common to “discount” P Tt
by defining the effective volume
P’ of “clean” water. E.g., P’ =
m& Tt
ctp =
0.5 P P
Formal ways to compute return P = total tidal prism
factor using phase of circulation f = “freshness” =(So-Sn)/So
outside harbor
Modified Tidal Prism Method
Divides channel into segments of length 2ξo
Assumes EL = (2ξo)2/Tf <=> net ds transport during Tt is Pn
2ξo,n Vn+1=Vn+Pn
High tide
Pn
Qf Low tide
Vn

Pn f n
= Qf fn = “freshness” =(So-Sn)/So
Tt
Pn cn
= m& mass injected continuously upstream of
Tt section n (behaves like freshwater)
m& Tt
cn =
Pn
Comments
Modified Tidal Prism Method has been
modified and re-modified many times
Ad-hoc assumption => not always
agreement with data
Non-conservative contaminates reduced in
concentration by χ
r
χ=
1 − (1 − r )e − kTt
r = 2a / h
Salinity as tracer to measure EL
Steady, tidal average flow

d
(u f AS ) = d ( AE L dS )
dx dx ds

Integrate with
S = dS/dx at head, x=0
uf S
EL =
dS / dx

Example: Delaware R (WE 4-2)

 Measured salinity profiles
DRBC RIVER MILES DRBC RIVER MILES
74.6 55.9 37.3 18.8 0.0 74.6 55.9 37.3 18.8 0.0
2.0 2.0
C&D

C&D
3.0 3.0
Cheater

Cheater
6 14 18
10 22
4.0 4.0 2
26
5.0 2.0
6.0 10.0 14.0 18.0 22.0 26.0 5.0 4 20
8
PRESSURE (db)

4.0 16

PRESSURE (db)
6.0 8.0 12.0 12 24
16.0
20.0
6.0
24.0 28.0
7.0 7.0
8.0 8.0
9.0 9.0
10.0 10.0
11.0 11.0
12.0 12.0
140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 100.0 40.0 20.0 0.0
Salinity profiles show
140.0 120.0 80.0 60.0

DISTANCE FROM BAY MOUTH (km) DISTANCE FROM BAY MOUTH (km)

October 1986 April 1987 river to be well-mixed.

74.6
DRBC RIVER MILES
55.9 37.3 18.8 0.0 74.6
DRBC RIVER MILES
55.9 37.3 18.8 0.0
Should it be?
2.0 2.0

C&D What is EL?

C&D

3.0
Cheater

3.0
Cheater

8
12 16 24 12
20
4.0 2 4.0
16
22
5.0 4
26 5.0
10 26
4
PRESSURE (db)

22 2
PRESSURE (db)

6.0 6 6.0 18
18
14 24
7.0 14 7.0
6 10
8.0 8.0
20
9.0 9.0

10.0 10.0 8
28.0

11.0 11.0

12.0 12.0
140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0
DISTANCE FROM BAY MOUTH (km) DISTANCE FROM BAY MOUTH (km)
Figure by MIT OCW.

Kawabe et al. (1990)

November 1987 April 1988
 Å Head DRBC RIVER MILES Mouth (ocean)
74.6 55.9 37.3 18.8 0.0
2.0

C&D
3.0

Cheater
8
12 16 20 24
4.0 2

5.0 4
26
10
22
PRESSURE (db)

6.0 6 18
7.0 14

8.0 November 1987

9.0
10.0

11.0

12.0 Figure by MIT OCW.

140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0
~ h (m) DISTANCE FROM BAY MOUTH (km)

uf S (Q f / A) S
EL = ≅ Qf = 260 m3/s; A = 1.5x104 m2;
dS / dx ∆S / ∆x
(260)(8) S = 8 psu (80 km);
≅
(1.5 x10 4 )(8) / 20000) ∆S/∆x = (12-4) psu/20 km (70-90 km)
≅ 350 m 2 / s
Should river be well-mixed?

∆ρ Qf
g
ρ W
R= 3
ut
(0.025)(10)(260) / 4000
≅ 3
≅ 0.02 < 0.08 Yes!
1
Box models

Qf Qf Qf Qf

Q12 Q23 Q34

c1 c2 c3 c4

Q f + f 2 Q1, 2 = f 1 (Q1, 2 + Q f )
f1 (Q1, 2 + Q f ) + f 3 Q2,3 = f 2 (Q1, 2 + Q2,3 + Q f )
f 2 (Q2,3 + Q f ) + f 4 Q2,3 = f 3 (Q2,3 + Q3, 4 + Q f )

n equations in n unknowns; boxes dictated by geometry

 Salinity as direct measure of c

Qf x

0 xd L

Use measured salinity distribution S(x) resulting from

river discharge Qf entering at head (x=0) to infer
concentration distribution c(x) of mass entering
continuously at downstream location xd.
Qf x
0 xd L

S/So

1 S/So

0
0 xd L
Qf x
0 xd L

S/So, f Freshness: ND concentration

f = (So-Sx)/So
of fresh water

1 f S/So

0
0 xd L
Qf x
0 xd L

Effective downestuary transport rate, Qeff

Qf Hypothetical flow rate necessary to transport

Qeff =
fx freshness downstream by advection only (no
tidal dispersion)
df
Qeff f = Q f = Q f f − EL A
dx

E L A df
Qeff = Q f − dx Qeff really accounts for both
f advection and dispersion
Qf x
0 xd L

S/So, f Qeff = Qf/f Qeff/Qf Qeff/Qf

1 f S/So
2

0 0
0 xd L
Qf x
0 xd L

Downstream from xd, mass is transported like freshness

Qeff f = Q f Qeff c = m&

cx m&
=
fx Qf
Concentration at xd
⎛ So − S x ⎞ m& ⎛ So − Sd ⎞ m&
c x = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ c d = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ So ⎠ Qf ⎝ So ⎠ Qf
Qf x
0 xd L

S/So, f ⎛ S − Sx ⎞ m& Qeff/Qf Qeff/Qf

c x = ⎜⎜ o ⎟⎟
⎝ So ⎠ Qf
c 4

1 f S/So
2

0 0
0 xd L
Qf x
0 xd L

Upstream from xd, mass is transported like salinity

cx S x
=
cd S d

S o − S d m& S x
cx =
So Q f Sd

cd
Qf x
0 xd L

S/So, f c = S o − S d m& S x Qeff/Qf Qeff/Qf

x
So Q f Sd

c 4

1 f S/So
2

0 0
0 xd L
 (Conservative) Mixing Diagrams
Concentration of
c conservative contaminant
discharged at head (using
cmax freshness as tracer)
⎛ So − S x ⎞ m&
c x = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ So ⎠ Qf
x
c x = a − bS x
m&
0 S a= = c max
So
Qf
0
aka C-S (or T-S, etc.) diagram, or property-salinity diagram
Uses for Property-S diagrams
Determine end-member concentration
and loading (So, Qf known, but not m
& )
Identify extraneous sources (we think
we know m& = Q f co but cmax > co)
Distinguish different water masses
Predict quality of mixed water masses
Detect non-conservative behavior
Determining end member c
1) Extrapolate to get cmax
c
2) m& = Q f c max

3) If cmax > measured co,

difference is extraneous
source(s)

0
0 So
Distinguishing water masses

N-S diagram for Massachusetts Bay, Kelly (1993)

Used to identify coastal water vs offshore waters
Non-conservative
c
behavior
cmax

0 S
0 So
Non-conservative
c
behavior
cmax
+

-
0 S
0 So
Non-conservative
c
behavior
cmax
+

-
0 S
0 So
Note that conservative mixing curve is only linear if
conditions are steady and there is a single source
Two conservative sources look
like one NC source

2
0
0 So
Two conservative sources look
like one NC source

1 1+2

2
0
0 So
Transient Conditions
200 WE4-2 Nitrate-Salinity
100
X Fall diagrams in Delaware R

200
Ciufuentes, et al. (1990)
Summer
100
Solid lines are predictions for
conservative tracer & salinity at 4
Nitrate (µM)

200
Spring times (not linear because river flow
100 varies in space and time)

200
Symbols are data for nitrate &
Water salinity
100
Why the discrepancy in fall, spring?
0 16 32
Salinity (% )

Figure by MIT OCW.

Residence times
Why? Compare with k-1
„ tres >> k-1 => reactions are important
„ tres << k-1 => reaction not important
Also to determine if model has reached
steady state
Approaches
„ Continuous tracer
„ Instantaneous tracer
Related time scales
Continuous tracer release; c(x,y,z)
monitored after steady state

∫ cdV
t res = 0

m&
=
M
m&
m&
SS inventory over renewal rate;
heuristic interpretation
Types of Tracers
m&
Advantages and Disadvantages of each

Deliberate tracer (e.g., dye)

Tracer of opportunity (e.g. trace metals
from WWTP)
Freshwater inflow (freshwater fraction
approach; residence time sometimes
called flushing time)
V

∫ fdV
t res = 0

Qf
 WE 4-4 Trace metals to calculate
residences times for Boston Harbor
Residence Time in Boston Harbor 3.4 Days
2500
10 Days
Zn
2000

Cu
1500
Cr

2 Days
1000

Ni
500 Pb
Cd
PCB PAH
0
0 Hg 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
cV
t res = Total Load to Harbor (kg/yr)
m& (Thousands)

(2.5 x10 −6 kg / m 3 )(6.3 x10 2 m 3 )

= 5
= 3.4d Figure by MIT OCW.

(1.7 x10 kg / yr ) /(365d / yr )

Shea and Kelly, 1992
Comments
Ignore re-entries (by convention)
If multiple sources, tres is average time
weighted by mass inflow rate
Assumes steady-state, but “fix-ups”
applicable to transient loading
Residence time reflects injection
location; not property of water body…
unless well mixed, in which case:
cV
c( x, y, z ) = c = const t res =
m&
Tres depends on discharge location
A B C

∫ cdV M
c t res = 0
=
m& m&

x tres A > tres B > tres C

c

x
c

x
Instantaneous Release; c(x,y,z,t)
monitored over time
Unit mass

m& m* f*

1
1

0 t 0 t 0 t
Rate of injection Mass remaining in system Mass leaving rate
∞
dm *
f * (t ) = −
dt ∫ f * (t )dt = 1
0
Instantaneous release, cont’d
f* is also distribution of residence times (mass leaving no longer
resides). By definition, tres is mean (first temporal moment) of f*
∞ ∞ ∞
dm& ∞
t res = ∫ f *tdt − ∫ tdt = −m * t 0 + ∫ m * (t )dt
0 0
dt 0

1st moment of f* 0th moment of m*

For mass of arbitrary loading Mo (not necessarily one)

∞ ∞

∫ f (t )tdt ∫ M (t )dt M(t) = mass remaining

t res = 0
= 0
f(t) is mass leaving rate
Mo Mo
Thus two more operational definitions of residence time: 1st
temporal moment of f(t) and 0th temporal moment of M(t)
 WE 4-5 Residence time of CSO
effluent in Fort Point Channel
Rhodamine WT injected instantaneously at channel head on three dates;
results for one survey:

N Boston

Inner Harbor
18
ft

18
ft Northern Ave.

Congress St.

Summer St.
18
ft

Gillette

Dorchester Ave.
Broadway Meters
Adams, et al. (1998) Dye 100 0 500
BOS 070

Figure by MIT OCW.

Fort Point Channel dye release, cont’d

12

10
Total Mass of Dye (Kg)

8 ∞
6
∫ M (t )dt
4
t res = 0
≅ 2.7 day
2 Mo
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
TIME (Hours after injection)

Figure by MIT OCW.

tres
Adams, et al. (1998)
Comments
f(t) can be obtained from time rate of
change of M(t); or from measurements
of mass leaving (at mouth)
Residence times for continuous and
instantaneous releases are equivalent
f(t) of f*(t) conveniently used to assess
first order mass loss.
∞
F = ∫ f * (t )e − kt dt F = total fraction of mass that leaves
0
WE 4-6 Residence time of bacteria in CSO
effluent in Fort Point Channel (Adams et al., 1995)
40 1.6

35 1.4

1.2
Residence time distributions f(t)
Mass loss from FPC (%/10hrs)

30
f*(t) 1990 determined from distributions of
1
25
m(t).
20 0.8

0.6
Indicator bacteria “disappear”
15
1
(die or settle) at rates of 0.25
10 0.4
0.25
to 2 d-1
5 0.5 0.2
2
0 What fraction of bacteria would
0 50 100
Time (h)
150 200
disappear for 1990 conditions?

∞ Figure by MIT OCW.

F = ∫ f * (t )e − kt dt Fraction (of viable bacteria) that leave

0
Fraction that are removed within channel
1− F
k=2.0 d-1 => F=0.15 (85% removed); k=0.25 d-1=> F=0.55 (45% removed)
 Relative advantages of 3 approaches?
M (t) f (t) C(V)
Mo

t t V
Instantaneous Instantaneous Continuous

∞ V
∞

∫ M (t )dt ∫ f (t )tdt ∫ cdV

t1 = 0
t2 = 0
t3 = 0
Mo Mo m&
Amount of tracer (e.g., dye) required?
Effort to dispense?
Number of surveys and their spatial extent?
Total duration of study?
Other related time scales
Flushing time use to describe decay of initial
concentration distribution (convenient for
numerical models); used by EPA for WQ in
marinas (see example)
Age of water (oceanography): time since
tracer entered ocean or was last at surface
(complement of tres)
Concepts often used interchangeably, but in
general different; be careful
Dual Tracers
Used to empirically distinguish fate from transport: introduce two
tracers (one conservative; one reactive) instantaneously. Applies
to any time of water body, but consider well mixed tidal channel

dM c Mass of conservative tracer

= −k f M c
dt declines due to tidal flushing
dM nc Mass of NC tracer declines due
= −k f M nc − kM nc
dt to tidal flushing and decay

d ⎛ M nc ⎞ = −k ⎛ M nc ⎞ Ratio of masses declines due to

⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ decay
dt ⎝ M c⎠ ⎝ M c⎠

=⎡ ⎤ e − kt
M nc M nc
M c ⎢⎣ M c ⎥⎦ o
WE 4-7 Fort Point Channel again

2 R Best-fitted line
Fluorescent pigment
1.8
1.6
particles (yellow DayGlo
1.4 paint) were injected with
1.2
1
dye. Pigment particles
0.8
settle as well as flush.
R
0.6 k3 = 0.25 d-1 R = (Mp/Mpo)/(Md/Mdo)

0.4
k = ksettle = 0.25 d-1
k = ws/h

0.2
ws = kh = (0.25d-1)(6m)
0 20 40 60 80
Time (hr) =1.5 m d-1
More in Chapter 9
Figure by MIT OCW.

Adams, et al. (1998)