Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11765/11683
Field comparison of dry deposition samplers for collection of atmospheric mineral dust: results from single-particle characterization
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWaza, Andeboes_ES
dc.contributor.authorSchneiders, Kilianes_ES
dc.contributor.authorMay, Janes_ES
dc.contributor.authorRodríguez González, Sergioes_ES
dc.contributor.authorEpple, Berndes_ES
dc.contributor.authorKandler, Konrades_ES
dc.date.accessioned2020-04-27T10:36:35Z-
dc.date.available2020-04-27T10:36:35Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationAtmospheric Measurement Techniques. 2019, 12(12), p. 6647–6665es_ES
dc.identifier.issn1867-1381-
dc.identifier.issn1867-8548-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11765/11683-
dc.description.abstractFrequently, passive dry deposition collectors are used to sample atmospheric dust deposition. However, there exists a multitude of different instruments with different, usually not well-characterized sampling efficiencies. As a result, the acquired data might be considerably biased with respect to their size representativity and, as a consequence, also composition. In this study, individual particle analysis by automated scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy-dispersive X-ray analysis was used to characterize different, commonly used passive samplers with respect to their size-resolved deposition rate and concentration. This study focuses on the microphysical properties, i.e., the aerosol concentration and deposition rates as well as the particle size distributions. In addition, computational fluid dynamics modeling was used in parallel to achieve deposition velocities from a theoretical point of view. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)-calculated deposition rate measurements made using different passive samplers show a disagreement among the samplers. Modified Wilson and Cooke (MWAC) and Big Spring Number Eight (BSNE) – both horizontal flux samplers – collect considerably more material than the flat plate and Sigma-2 samplers, which are vertical flux samplers. The collection efficiency of MWAC increases for large particles in comparison to Sigma-2 with increasing wind speed, while such an increase is less observed in the case of BSNE. A positive correlation is found between deposition rate and PM10 concentration measurements by an optical particle spectrometer. The results indicate that a BSNE and Sigma-2 can be good options for PM10 measurement, whereas MWAC and flat-plate samplers are not a suitable choice. A negative correlation was observed in between dust deposition rate and wind speed. Deposition velocities calculated from different classical deposition models do not agree with deposition velocities estimated using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. The deposition velocity estimated from CFD was often higher than the values derived from classical deposition velocity models. Moreover, the modeled deposition velocity ratios between different samplers do not agree with the observations.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipThis research has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) (grant nos. 264907654, 264912134 and 416816480 (KA 2280)).es_ES
dc.language.isospaes_ES
dc.publisherEuropean Geosciences Uniones_ES
dc.rightsLicencia CC: Reconocimiento CC BYes_ES
dc.subjectMineral dustes_ES
dc.subjectDust deposition samplerses_ES
dc.subjectDeposition modeles_ES
dc.titleField comparison of dry deposition samplers for collection of atmospheric mineral dust: results from single-particle characterizationes_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-6647-2019es_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
Appears in Collections:Artículos científicos 2019-2021


Files in This Item:
  File Description SizeFormat 
amt-12-6647-2019.pdf
6,41 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
amt-12-6647-2019-supp...
5 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show simple item record



Items in Arcimís are protected by Creative Commons License, unless otherwise indicated.

Arcimís Repository
Nota Legal Contacto y sugerencias