A field evaluation of the Hasl wet-dry deposition collector

Bogen, D. C.; Nagourney, Stuart J.; Torquato, C. C.

doi:10.1007/bf02191846

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Weather Bureau rain gage was highly correlated with the volume measured by both the wetfall bucket of the automatic rain collector (r = 0.99) and the Hubbard Brook collector (r = 0.99), but these collectors underestimated the standard rain gage volume by an average of 6% and 8%, respectively, over the range of storms sampled. In a recent comparative study, Bogen et al [1980] also found that this model of automatic rain collector underestimated rainfall by 4%. For ions other than Na and Mg we found rather poor correlations between the total monthly deposition as measured in the Hubbard Brook collector and the sum of wet and dry depositions in the automatic rain collector (Table 3). An initial interpretation of the data suggests that the Hubbard Brook gage and the automatic rain collector differ mainly as a result of different efficiency of collection for elements with a strong dryfall component.…”

Section: Comparison Between Collectorsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…For Na, Mg, and SO4=-S, however, the Hubbard Brook collector yielded higher estimates of deposition than the automatic rain collector over most of the range of depositions recorded. Bogen et al [1980] found that for various ions the automatic rain collector recorded depositions typically 10% lower than other collectors. We made no presumptions as to which collector is the more accurate, but in view of the increased sophistication and interpretation to be gained from the separation of deposition processes, the automatic rain collector seems preferable despite its higher cost.…”

Section: Comparison Between Collectorsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The buckets of this collector were 2 m above the ground. This rain collector 623 was originally designed by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and tested favorably in the trials reported by Galloway and Likens [1976] and Bogen et al [1980]. The plastic buckets were washed with 50% HC1 and rinsed 5 times with deionized water.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Atmospheric deposition processes and their importance as sources of nutrients in a chaparral ecosystem of southern California

Schlesinger¹,

Gray²,

Gilliam³

1982

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Precipitation and dry fallout were collected over a 2-year period in the Santa Ynez Mountains, Santa Barbara County, California, and analyzed for nutrient content. Mean annual depositions of Ca (2.2 kg/ ha), K (0.7 kg/ha), NH4+-N (0.5 kgtha), and NO3--N (1.5 kg/ha) were largely derived from dryfall; depositions of Na (7.2 kgtha), Mg (!.2 kgtha), and SO4=-S (3.6 kgtha) were important in both rainfall and dry fallout. These atmospheric inputs are equal to or larger than the typical annual losses reported in runoff from mature chaparral shrublands, but on the basis of these inputs, more than 70 years may be necessary to replace the nitrogen losses measured in volatilization and runoff after fire. The depositions of NO3--N and SO4=:S at this remote site may be indicative of the natural levels of these ions which, in many other areas of California, are derived from anthropogenic sources. We established a research site on the south slope of the Santa Ynez Mountains (Los Padres National Forest) at 850m elevation and approximately 10 km north of the Pacific Ocean near Santa Barbara, California. The site was 3 km west of the transect of sites used for precipitation collections in related studies [Schlesinger and Hasey, 1980, 1981].While these sites are close to the ocean, the south slope of this mountain range receives little direct deposition of salt spray and marine aerosols [Ogden, 1975, pp. 205-206]. Direct onshore winds are predominant only during the arrival of winter synoptic storms from the Pacific OCean.Since the coastline near Santa Barbara is oriented in an east-

show abstract

Section: Comparison Between Collectorsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Comparison Between Collectorsmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Atmospheric deposition processes and their importance as sources of nutrients in a chaparral ecosystem of southern California

Schlesinger¹,

Gray²,

Gilliam³

1982

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A wet/dry sampler (initially the “HASL collector,” after the US Atomic Energy Commission Health and Safety Lab., New York) as used in studies of acid rain, when the emphasis was on the deposition of anions and cations [see Bogen et al ., ].…”

Section: Historical Originsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dry deposition of particles to canopies—A look back and the road forward

Hicks¹,

Saylor

Baker

2016

JGR Atmospheres

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The so‐called accumulation‐size range of airborne particles is the center of a continuing disagreement about the formulation of dry deposition. Some contemporary meteorological and air quality models use theoretical developments based on early wind tunnel and other controlled experiments, while other models consider the bulk properties of the underlying surface and the ability of atmospheric turbulence to deliver particles to it. This dichotomy arose when the first micrometeorological measurements of particle deposition velocities became available, yielding numbers exceeding the highest expectations of the then‐current models based on assumptions about inertial impaction and interception. The model predictions had previously been shown to be in accord with theoretical treatments of filtration. A common reaction was to distrust the field experimental results, but the experimental findings were supported by subsequent studies. The difference between model predictions and field measurements appears greatest for densely vegetated canopies. Ongoing research is investigating factors that could give rise to the discrepancy, e.g., turbulence intermittency, leaf orientation, leaf morphology, leaf flutter, electrical charges, and a number of phoretic effects. In the meantime, many investigators are faced with a decision as to whether to make use of parameterized field results or theoretical descriptions of behaviors that are not yet well examined. Here the history of the ongoing disagreement is reviewed, and some possible resolutions are presented.

show abstract

“…Many meteorological stations are now equipped with wetfall collectors and bucket collectors which remain closed under dry conditions and open automatically with rainfall. The sampling efficiencies of these collectors compare fairly well with standard precipitation collectors (Bogen et al,1980;Schroder et al, 1985). Open bulk-precipitation collectors of other designs (e.g.…”

Section: Atmospheric Moisture Flux (A) Precipitationmentioning

confidence: 91%