{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031023784901758014, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009307135470527405, 'mean_word_length': 5.368421052631579, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Using electric resistivity tomography in a small scale catchment to evaluate the effectiveness of surfactans in water repellent soils of Western Australia

The experiment used a physical, bench-scale catchment model (0.7 m x 0.7 m), where soils were arranged with a ridge and furrow shape similar to agricultural practices. It quantified irrigation, surface runoff, interflow and basal flow volumes. Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) was used to measure the sub-surface electrical resistivity which is influenced by the amount of water in the soil. Three WRS from Western Australia were tested: very severely repellent (MED score 4.2 from South Stirling), moderate–severely repellent (MED score 2.4 from Badgingarra), and low repellence (MED score 1 from Dandaragan). Two different surfactants were compared to an untreated control, with application in furrow according to common agricultural practice at two replications and multiple wetting and drying cycles.