% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Weihermller:59957,
      author       = {Weihermüller, L. and Siemens, J. and Deurer, M. and
                      Knoblauch, S. and Rupp, H. and Göttlein, A. and Pütz, T.},
      title        = {{I}n-situ soil water extraction: {A} {R}eview},
      journal      = {Journal of environmental quality},
      volume       = {36},
      issn         = {0047-2425},
      address      = {Madison, Wis.},
      publisher    = {ASA [u.a.]},
      reportid     = {PreJuSER-59957},
      pages        = {1735 - 1748},
      year         = {2007},
      note         = {Record converted from VDB: 12.11.2012},
      abstract     = {The knowledge of the composition and fluxes of vadose zone
                      water is essential for a wide range of scientific and
                      practical fields, including water-use management, pesticide
                      registration, fate of xenobiotics, monitoring of disposal
                      from mining and industries, nutrient management of
                      agricultural and forest ecosystems, ecology, and
                      environmental protection. Nowadays, water and solute flow
                      can be monitored using either in situ methods or minimally
                      invasive geophysical measurements. In situ information,
                      however, is necessary to interpret most geophysical data
                      sets and to determine the chemical composition of seepage
                      water. Therefore, we present a comprehensive review of in
                      situ soil water extraction methods to monitor solute
                      concentration, solute transport, and to calculate mass
                      balances in natural soils. We distinguished six different
                      sampling devices: porous cups, porous plates, capillary
                      wicks, pan lysimeters, resin boxes, and lysimeters. For each
                      of the six sampling devices we discuss the basic principles,
                      the advantages and disadvantages, and limits of data
                      acquisition. We also give decision guidance for the
                      selection of the appropriate sampling system. The choice of
                      material is addressed in terms of potential contamination,
                      filtering, and sorption of the target substances. The
                      information provided in this review will support scientists
                      and professionals in optimizing their experimental set-up
                      for meeting their specific goals.},
      keywords     = {Colloids / Research Design / Sensitivity and Specificity /
                      Soil / Solutions / Water / Colloids (NLM Chemicals) / Soil
                      (NLM Chemicals) / Solutions (NLM Chemicals) / Water (NLM
                      Chemicals) / J (WoSType)},
      cin          = {ICG-4},
      ddc          = {333.7},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)VDB793},
      pnm          = {Terrestrische Umwelt},
      pid          = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407},
      shelfmark    = {Environmental Sciences},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:17965376},
      UT           = {WOS:000250972400021},
      doi          = {10.2134/jeq2007.0218},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/59957},
}