Historical Development and Applications of the EPIC and APEX Models, June 2005

The development of the field-scale Erosion Productivity Impact Calculator (EPIC) model was initiated in 1981 to support assessments of soil erosion impacts on soil productivity for soil, climate, and cropping conditions representative of a broad spectrum of U.S. agricultural production regions. The first major application of EPIC was a national analysis performed in support of the 1985 Resources Conservation Act (RCA) assessment. The model has continuously evolved since that time and has been applied for a wide range of field, regional, and national studies both in the U.S. and in other countries. The range of EPIC applications has also expanded greatly over that time, including studies of (1) surface runoff and leaching estimates of nitrogen and phosphorus losses from fertilizer and manure applications, (2) leaching and runoff from simulated pesticide applications, (3) soil erosion losses from wind erosion, (4) climate change impacts on crop yield and erosion, and (5) soil carbon sequestration assessments. The EPIC acronym now stands for Erosion Policy Impact Climate, to reflect the greater diversity of problems to which the model is currently applied. The Agricultural Policy EXtender (APEX) model is essentially a multi-field version of EPIC that was developed in the late 1990s to address environmental problems associated with livestock and other agricultural production systems on a whole-farm or small watershed basis. The APEX model also continues to evolve and to be utilized for a wide variety of environmental assessments. The historical development for both models will be presented, as well as example applications on several different scales.

Use of Reagent Grade Versus Industrial Grade Trichlorethylene in Asphalt Recoveries, MLR-83-05, 1983

This is a continuation of a project initiated a year ago to determine any differences in test results on recovered asphalt cements caused by the use of industrial grade of solvent as compared with the reagent grade. AASHTO specifies the use of reagent grade of trichlorethylene, but the Laboratory uses industrial grade which costs much less. Last year this objective of the project was aborted when it was found that a larger difference in test results was obtained between the two distillation apparatuses than between the two solvents, Then all efforts were directed toward obtaining uniformity in test results between the apparatuses under the east hood as compared with that under the west hood. Considerable progress was made toward this end. (See report under this same title dated April 1982). The objective this year was to again evaluate the results when using both variables (apparatuses and solvents). Another objective developed later in this investigation; this was to determine any differences in test results on recovered asphalt cements caused by the use of reclaimed trichlorethylene (from the distillation process) as compared with the use of industrial grade of solvent. At the present time the reclaimed trichlorethylene is discarded. If the reclaimed solvent could be used for further recoveries, a considerable savings in solvent costs would result.