Paper No. J05111 of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA). Discussions are open until February 1, 2008.
Evaluating the “Catch-Can” Test for Measuring Lawn Sprinkler Application Rates1
Article first published online: 28 JUN 2007
JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association
Volume 43, Issue 4, pages 938–946, August 2007
How to Cite
Lesmeister, C., Pochop, L., Kerr, G., Wulff, S. S. and Johnson, D. (2007), Evaluating the “Catch-Can” Test for Measuring Lawn Sprinkler Application Rates. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 43: 938–946. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00075.x
- Issue published online: 28 JUN 2007
- Article first published online: 28 JUN 2007
- Received July 29, 2005; accepted October 26, 2006.
- lawn irrigation;
- municipal water;
- irrigation efficiency;
- outdoor water use;
- sprinkler irrigation;
- water conservation
Abstract: The effectiveness of measuring lawn sprinkler application rates using the catch-can test was evaluated. A survey of sources recommending the catch-can test for measuring application rates show that catch-can test procedures differ in the collector type, collector placement, number of collectors, and test duration. Analyses of catch-can tests were performed to address these procedural differences, with emphasis on the type and number of collectors required to provide a reasonable level of confidence in test results. The accuracy of the catch-can test generally improves as the number of randomly placed collectors increases. In order to achieve an accuracy of ±25% for 90 out of 100 catch-can tests, the number of randomly placed collectors required ranged from 6 to over 50 for hand-move systems, while for in-ground systems, the number of randomly placed collectors required ranged from 2 to 8, depending on the pressure and percent overlap of the water distribution pattern. As long as a reasonable number of collectors were used when performing a catch-can test, no consistent differences were observed in catch-can test results due to type of collectors when using tuna fish cans, soup cans, or coffee mugs.