the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Technical note: Transit times of reactive tracers under time-variable hydrologic conditions
Abstract. Water transit time distributions (TTDs) have been widely used in hydrology to characterize catchment behavior. TTDs are also widely used to predict tracer transport, but the actual transit times of tracers, which may differ from those of water because of different physical processes and tracer input patterns, remain largely unexplored. Here, we address the TTDs of tracers transported by water and subjected to linear processes of sorption, degradation and interaction with evapotranspiration. We focus on the special case of randomly sampled systems (which are mathematically similar to well-mixed systems), for which analytical solutions can be derived. Through the analytical solutions and their numerical implementation under time-variable flow conditions, we explore how reactive transport parameters impact tracer TTDs. Results show that sorption delays tracers as much as a larger water storage does. Evapotranspiration can both increase tracer transit times (in the case of evapoconcentration) or decrease them (in the case of net evaporation extraction), while degradation can be seen as an additional output flux that always shortens tracer transit times. Combinations of randomly-sampled systems are widely used as transport models and we show how tracer TTDs may differ from water TTDs in the building blocks of such models. Distinguishing the TTDs of tracer from those of water is important for an improved understanding of water quality dynamics and the circulation of solutes at the catchment scale.
- Preprint
(1274 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3554', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Nov 2025
The paper addresses the non-stationary theory of transit time distribution under simplified assumptions, derives analytical solutions for a simplified case, explains them, and presents some conceptual applications. Overall, I believe the paper has merit. The concepts developed, while not entirely novel, have not yet broken through to the broader hydrological community's consciousness. However, the applications require clarification of several aspects to be truly useful. I find value in the paper, but for the sake of reproducibility, I recommend that the authors more clearly specify the conditions under which the simulations were conducted. I recommend minor revisions.Detailed CommentsPage 8 - Equation (17): Is the so-called "mass-normalized breakthrough curve" not simply the discharge at time T+t_i generated by the input at time t_i? Additionally, how can one determine the partition coefficient at any finite time? More practically, how can this be approximated given that the partition is not known in advance? This concern extends to systems with multiple partition coefficients. It would also be valuable to understand the seasonal variation of these coefficients, as I assume ET, for instance, varies seasonally. Furthermore, how was ET determined?Page 9 - Line 233: The information that the models were implemented in Python is not essential. More relevant would be information about code availability and licensing. I consider code availability an important step toward understanding implementation details, which can be technically challenging.Page 9 - Line 239: The authors state they use the Kirchner 2016b model as a foundation. I would therefore expect the overall TTD model to address convolutions of two reservoirs, not just one. Have the authors done this? This point remains unclear and requires clarification. A treatment of this specific subject can be found, for instance, in Rigon and Bancheri (2021). That said, there is nothing inherently wrong with addressing a simpler system.Reference Rigon, Riccardo, and Marialaura Bancheri. 2021. "On the Relations between the Hydrological Dynamical Systems of Water Budget, Travel Time, Response Time and Tracer Concentrations." Hydrological Processes 35 (1). https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14007.Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-3554-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3554', Ype van der Velde, 28 Nov 2025
Review of: “Technical note: Transit times of reactive tracers under time-variable hydrologic conditions” by Raphael Miazza and Paolo Benettin
This technical note describes how the transit time approach developed for tracking water ages through catchments can be extended to yield transit times of reactive tracers. I find this paper a well written and valuable addition to the theory development around transit time distributions of water and solutes. This study applies the theory of transittime distributions for water to solutes and combines it with assumptions from advective-diffusion solute transport modelling (Retardation: constant equilibrium between dissolved and sorbed concentration, linear decay, fractionation). As such it is a novel contribution. In the attach I list a couple of suggestions that in my opinion could improve the manuscript.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,876 | 62 | 20 | 1,958 | 22 | 18 |
- HTML: 1,876
- PDF: 62
- XML: 20
- Total: 1,958
- BibTeX: 22
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1