4.7 Article

Dry deposition measured with a water surface sampler: a comparison to modeled results

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
Volume 36, Issue 20, Pages 3267-3276

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00315-1

Keywords

dry deposition; nitric acid; ammonia; water surface sampler; mass transfer coefficient

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, a water surface sampler (WSS) and a knife-leading-edge surrogate surface (KSS) covered with both a Nylasorb filter, and a greased strip were used to directly measure nitrate, sulfate, and ammonium dry fluxes in Chicago between May and October 1997. Concurrently, an annular denuder system was used to measure the ambient concentration of gaseous nitric acid, sulfur dioxide, and ammonia gases. Water evaporation and relative humidity were also simultaneously measured. The measured fluxes and ambient concentrations were used to calculate the mass transfer coefficients of all four species. The measured MTCs of water vapor, ammonia gas, nitric acid and sulfur dioxide were normalized to the square root of their diffusion coefficient and correlated to the wind speed at 10 m above the WSS. The best-fit model was k(A) = D-A(0.5)[(0.98 +/- 0.1)u(10) + (1.26 +/- 0.3)], where k(A) is the air side mass transfer coefficient (cm s(-1)), D-A is the air side diffusion coefficient (cm(2) s(-1)), u(10) is the wind speed 10 m above the WSS (m s(-1)), and the +/- is the 95% confidence interval. Field measured MTCs of water vapor, ammonia gas, nitric acid, and sulfur dioxide were used to examine the applicability of two models, the resistance model and the water evaporation model. Results showed that the resistance model predictions were statistically the same as the measured MTCs to the surrogate surfaces while the predictions of the water evaporation model was statistically smaller than the measured values. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available