the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Microstructural Heterogeneity Drives Tracer-Specific Systematic Bias in Darcy-Scale Flux Estimation
Abstract. Complex microstructures are commonly simplified to a single continuum for interpreting Darcy-scale heat and solute transport, and tracers are often treated as interchangeable proxies for flux estimation. However, the specific impacts of microstructural heterogeneity on tracer-specific bias regimes remain poorly understood. We conducted controlled laboratory solute and heat tracer experiments using four sands with distinct grain size distributions, combined with micro-CT imaging and topological analysis of a controlled endmember pair. Although Darcy-scale analytical models reproduced observed breakthrough curves with excellent fidelity (mean R² > 0.99, NRMSE < 0.037), tracer-derived fluxes systematically underestimated independently measured Darcy fluxes in a tracer-specific manner. Solute fluxes were linearly underestimated by ~25 % in the more heterogeneous sands, correlating with right-skewed pore-size distributions (skewness = 0.781) and non-Gaussian breakthrough behavior. In contrast, heat fluxes were nonlinearly and velocity-dependently underestimated, reaching up to 45 % (including 19 % spatial variability in volumetric heat capacity) in the most heterogeneous medium, with the solute-to-heat divergence ratio increasing with flow velocity. Micro-CT analysis revealed that the sand mixture possessed a more negative Euler number (−9,210 vs. −6,288) and exhibited representative elementary volume instability, indicating that tortuous pore connectivity amplifies local thermal non-equilibrium under fast flow. Conventional geostatistical metrics (e.g., Matérn smoothness) failed to distinguish these structural differences. These findings demonstrate that microstructural heterogeneity imposes physics-dependent, systematic biases that are invisible to standard continuum models and geostatistical descriptors, and that heat tracers become less reliable than solute tracers under high-velocity heterogeneous conditions. Process-aware metrics linking pore-network topology to transport behavior are needed to resolve these upscaling failures.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Hydrology and Earth System Sciences.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(2574 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 04 Dec 2026)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3736', Giacomo Medici, 10 Sep 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Kang-Kun Lee, 16 Oct 2026
reply
Dear Giacomo Medici,
We appreciate the insightful and constructive comments.
Please find attached our detailed replies.
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Kang-Kun Lee, 16 Oct 2026
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3736', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Sep 2026
reply
General comments:
The paper presents flow-through experiments on sand packs, with inert solute and heat used as tracers. Experiments are complemented with micro-CT imaging and analyses of the samples' microstructure to extract measures of pore-scale heterogeneity. Key findings include: (1) more heterogeneous samples (sand mixture, SM) exhibit more anomalous signatures in the data, compared to homogeneous samples (S4); (2) the two tracers are not interchangeable, since the outcomes they produce differ quantitatively and qualitatively; and (3) better structural descriptors than those used herein (Euler number and smoothness parameter) are needed to link the micro and macro scales. Overall, the manuscript is clearly written and the experiments are valuable. That said, a few larger questions stand out that the authors might benefit from considering.Specific comments:
(1) The authors fit the ADE to measured breakthrough profiles, obtain the fitted tracer velocities, and find that these underestimate the Darcy velocities measured directly in the experiments. The retardation was also noted to be more pronounced for the heat tracer, and to increase nonlinearly with injection rate. I think this is expected, given the form of the ADE assumed, which contains no budget for tracer that might become immobile, or semi-mobile, by diffusing either into dead-end zones or into the grains themselves (in the case of heat). If such budgeting had been included in the governing Eq. 1, through a dual-medium representation, I suspect the fitted velocities would indeed match those measured in the experiments -- e.g., velocity could be constrained to the experimental value while the fit focuses on determining the mobile-immobile transfer coefficient. Such a coefficient would also explain the nonlinear increase in retardation for heat at high injection rates, which likely also breaks the model's local equilibrium assumption. As the authors correctly note, a good fit ensures consistency but not that the right model was chosen. I encourage discussion on why Eq. 1, rather than a dual-medium model, was chosen, whether a dual-medium model would make these observations less surprising, and whether that would not constitute the "upscaling" avenue they advocate.
(2) The metrics chosen for quantifying pore-scale heterogeneity must have been selected on the rationale that they bear the strongest relationship to the measurements made. That rationale was not articulated. Concretely: why the Euler number, and why the smoothness parameter? The Euler number is a topological measure of the porous medium, which tells one how connected the pore space is. But it says nothing about velocity variations (Line 524). Here is a thought experiment: pick a set of pores/nodes along a straight line as the porous medium. Now connect adjacent pores with curved pipes of identical radius and length that leave the originating pore at angle theta with respect to the pore-to-pore line, and enter the target pore at the same angle. In 3D, one can add an arbitrary number of pipes this way without changing the velocity variation (it remains a Dirac delta, since all pipes have the same resistance and the same pressure drop), while increasing connectivity (via coordination number) arbitrarily, driving the Euler number as negative as one pleases. Similarly, a real porous medium can be highly connected (e.g., a high-porosity fibrous medium) while its velocity variation is very small. The smoothness/roughness parameter was also a surprising choice of metric, which the authors eventually found does not exert primary control on the results (Line 595). Why was it expected to in the first place, over other factors such as the mobile/immobile conceptualization?
Technical corrections:(1) I would rephrase "urgently" in Line 603. It somewhat overstates the need.
(2) Some words are split across lines, e.g., "relationship" in Line 335.
(3) All figures are clear, but a bit busy and blurry. For example, the histograms in Fig. 7 might look cleaner as box plots, and Fig. 8 is a bit cluttered. Perhaps panels c-j could be moved to an appendix if they support, but do not directly serve, the key takeaway.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3736-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Kang-Kun Lee, 16 Oct 2026
reply
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate the referee’s positive assessment of our manuscript and the insightful comments.
Please find attached our detailed replies.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Kang-Kun Lee, 16 Oct 2026
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 240 | 118 | 39 | 397 | 31 | 30 |
- HTML: 240
- PDF: 118
- XML: 39
- Total: 397
- BibTeX: 31
- EndNote: 30
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General comments
Very good research on the parallel between solute and heat transport in geological porous media. You can follow my suggestions to improve your manuscript.
Specific comments
Lines 30-76. The discussion is not very long. You can better highlight your novelties in contaminant hydrology, as well as in geothermal energy research.
Lines 30-31. You can insert recent reviews that combine discussion on solute, and heat transport:
- Kurylyk, B.L., Irvine, D.J., Bense, V.F., 2019. Theory, tools, and multidisciplinary applications for tracing groundwater fluxes from temperature profiles. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 6(1), p.e1329.
- Lupi, F., Agbotui, P. Y., Medici, G. 2026. Hydraulic Conductivity in the Mesozoic units of the Umbria-Marche succession (Italy); insights towards a sustainable management of carbonate aquifers worldwide. Sustainability, 18, 9297; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18189297.
Line 38. “Small-scale heterogeneities”. How small? Can you disclose a range?
Line 38. “Small-scale heterogeneities”. Think about introducing sedimentological terms if you are in an alluvial environment. Point and alternate bars, and channel fills are appropriate here.
Line 39. Be more specific on the intergranular porosity. Effective porosity with the Darcian flux?
Line 190. I don’t think you need equation 10.
Line 283. 21 equations are too many for this manuscript. I would reduce the number.
Line 390. Please, avoid the footnote. There is no need in this case.
Line 614. “Research and industrial contexts” better?
Figures and tables
Figures 1b, and c. Increase the graphic resolution.
Figure 5. Do you need regression lines on the graphs?
Figure 1A. This is a good conceptual figure. I would move in the main body of the manuscript.
Table 1. Expand caption.
Table 2. Same here. Expand the caption.