The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A critical review of data on field‐scale dispersion in aquifers
Abstract
A critical review of dispersivity observations from 59 different field sites was developed by compiling extensive tabulations of information on aquifer type, hydraulic properties, flow configuration, type of monitoring network, tracer, method of data interpretation, overall scale of observation and longitudinal, horizontal transverse and vertical transverse dispersivities from original sources. This information was then used to classify the dispersivity data into three reliability classes. Overall, the data indicate a trend of systematic increase of the longitudinal dispersivity with observation scale but the trend is much less clear when the reliability of the data is considered. The longitudinal dispersivities ranged from 10−2 to 10 4 m for scales ranging from 10−1 to 10 5 m, but the largest scale for high reliability data was only 250 m. When the data are classified according to porous versus fractured media there does not appear to be any significant difference between these aquifer types. At a given scale, the longitudinal dispersivity values are found to range over 2–3 orders of magnitude and the higher reliability data tend to fall in the lower portion of this range. It is not appropriate to represent the longitudinal dispersivity data by a single universal line. The variations in dispersivity reflect the influence of differing degrees of aquifer heterogeneity at different sites. The data on transverse dispersivities are more limited but clearly indicate that vertical transverse dispersivities are typically an order of magnitude smaller than horizontal transverse dispersivities. Reanalyses of data from several of the field sites show that improved interpretations most often lead to smaller dispersivities. Overall, it is concluded that longitudinal dispersivities in the lower part of the indicated range are more likely to be realistic for field applications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Biogeochemistry of landfill leachate plumes
Christensen, T. H., Kjeldsen, P., Bjerg, P. L., Jensen, D. L., Christensen, J. B., Baun, A., Albrechtsen, H.-J., & Heron, G. (2001) · Applied Geochemistry · doi:10.1016/s0883-2927(00)00082-2 · Cited by 1,382
A review and evaluation of catchment transit time modeling
McGuire, K. J., & McDonnell, J. J. (2006) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.04.020 · Cited by 915
Physically based modeling in catchment hydrology at 50: Survey and outlook
Paniconi, C., & Putti, M. (2015) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1002/2015wr017780 · Cited by 374
Grolimund, D., Borkovec, M., Barmettler, K., & Sticher, H. (1996) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es960246x · Cited by 339
Improving fresh groundwater supply—problems and solutions
Oude Essink, G. H. P. (2001) · Ocean & Coastal Management · doi:10.1016/s0964-5691(01)00057-6 · Cited by 256
Metadata
- Authors
- Gelhar, L. W., Welty, C., & Rehfeldt, K. R.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 1992-07
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1955-1974
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W1993930401
- Cited by
- 1,962
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 35.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A critical review of data on field‐scale dispersion in aquifers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/92wr00607
- The paper
- Gelhar, L. W., Welty, C., & Rehfeldt, K. R. (1992). A critical review of data on field‐scale dispersion in aquifers. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/92wr00607
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.