Hydraulische Leitfähigkeit von Valonia utricularis / Hydraulic Conductivity of Valonia utricularis

1971 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 1302-1311 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Steudle ◽  
U. Zimmermann

A method is described for the simultaneous determination of rapid changes of the cell turgor pressure (hydrostatic pressure) in algal cells (cell size must be at least 3 mm in diameter), and of the net volume flow across the cell membrane arising after a change of the cell turgor pressure or of the osmotic pressure in the outside medium. On the basis of the equations of irreversible thermodynamics it is possible to calculate the hydraulic conductivity of the cell membrane from these measurements, as it is theoretically shown.The hydraulic conductivities of the marine alga Valonia utricularis determined in two independent ways (by osmotic and hydrostatic experiments) are equal. For exosmosis, Lpex (hydrostatic) and Lpex (osmotic) amounted to (9,6 ± 1,0) ·10-7 and (9,8 ± 1,9) · 10-7 respectively cm · sec-1 · atm-1, and for endomosis, Lpen (hydrostatic) was (9,4 ± 1,1) ·10-7 cm · sec-1 · atm-1.A polarity in the water movement across the cell membranes as discussed in the literature could not be found for Valonia utricularis.

2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 147-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoming Zhou ◽  
Frank Gao ◽  
Zhiquan Shu ◽  
Jae-Hyun Chung ◽  
Shelly Heimfeld ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 213 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl-Andree Binder ◽  
Frank Heisler ◽  
Markus Westhoff ◽  
Lars H. Wegner ◽  
Ulrich Zimmermann

1982 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 461 ◽  
Author(s):  
SD Tyerman ◽  
E Steudle

Hydraulic conductivity (Lp), volumetric elastic modulus (ε) and reflection coefficients (δ) have been determined for cells from isolated strips of the lower epidermis of leaves of Tradescantia virginiana using the pressure probe. Lp was (6.4 � 4.5) × 10-8 ms-1 Mpa-1 [(6.4 � 4.5) × 10-7 cm s-1 bar-1; mean � s.d., n = 15 cells] and was independent of the cell turgor pressure (P) and of osmotic pressure of the bathing medium. P in Johnson's solution (π° = 0.09 MPa) was 0.42-0.67 MPa (4.2-6.7 bar), which was somewhat larger than in the intact tissue. ε increased linearly with increasing P in the pressure range from zero to full turgor. Reflection coefficients of some non-electrolytes were determined by measuring the ΔP in response to a change in external osmotic pressure (Δπ°) after the addition of the solutes. The data were corrected for solute flow. For sucrose, mannitol, urea, acetamide, formamide, glycerol and ethylene glycol, δ was close to unity and the cells behaved like ideal osmometers. For the monohydroxyalcohols n-propanol ( δ = -0.58), isopropanol (δ = 0.26), ethanol (δ = 0.25) and methanol (δ = 0.15), rather low reflection coefficients were found which were even negative for some solutes and cells. Values of δ obtained from measuring the inital water (volume) flow were in agreement with those determined from the ΔP/Δπ° ratios. For the rapidly permeating substances, the changes in turgor after the addition of solute were transient and the equilibration of solutes between cell and medium could be measured using the probe. Although unstirred layers may affect the equilibration of solute it should, in principle, be possible to use the technique for the determination of permeability coefficients of membranes of higher plant cells.


Author(s):  
Guglielmo Federico Antonio Brunetti ◽  
Samuele De Bartolo ◽  
Carmine Fallico ◽  
Ferdinando Frega ◽  
Maria Fernanda Rivera Velásquez ◽  
...  

AbstractThe spatial variability of the aquifers' hydraulic properties can be satisfactorily described by means of scaling laws. The latter enable one to relate the small (typically laboratory) scale to the larger (typically formation/regional) ones, therefore leading de facto to an upscaling procedure. In the present study, we are concerned with the spatial variability of the hydraulic conductivity K into a strongly heterogeneous porous formation. A strategy, allowing one to identify correctly the single/multiple scaling of K, is applied for the first time to a large caisson, where the medium was packed. In particular, we show how to identify the various scaling ranges with special emphasis on the determination of the related cut-off limits. Finally, we illustrate how the heterogeneity enhances with the increasing scale of observation, by identifying the proper law accounting for the transition from the laboratory to the field scale. Results of the present study are of paramount utility for the proper design of pumping tests in formations where the degree of spatial variability of the hydraulic conductivity does not allow regarding them as “weakly heterogeneous”, as well as for the study of dispersion mechanisms.


Water ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
pp. 1131
Author(s):  
Soonkie Nam ◽  
Marte Gutierrez ◽  
Panayiotis Diplas ◽  
John Petrie

This paper critically compares the use of laboratory tests against in situ tests combined with numerical seepage modeling to determine the hydraulic conductivity of natural soil deposits. Laboratory determination of hydraulic conductivity used the constant head permeability and oedometer tests on undisturbed Shelby tube and block soil samples. The auger hole method and Guelph permeameter tests were performed in the field. Groundwater table elevations in natural soil deposits with different hydraulic conductivity values were predicted using finite element seepage modeling and compared with field measurements to assess the various test results. Hydraulic conductivity values obtained by the auger hole method provide predictions that best match the groundwater table’s observed location at the field site. This observation indicates that hydraulic conductivity determined by the in situ test represents the actual conditions in the field better than that determined in a laboratory setting. The differences between the laboratory and in situ hydraulic conductivity values can be attributed to factors such as sample disturbance, soil anisotropy, fissures and cracks, and soil structure in addition to the conceptual and procedural differences in testing methods and effects of sample size.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document