4.7 Article

Resuspension of small particles from tree surfaces

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
Volume 35, Issue 22, Pages 3799-3809

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00161-3

Keywords

aerosol particles; spruce canopy; wind tunnel; resuspension rate; inhalation hazard

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A detailed study of resuspension of 1.85 mum MMAD silica particles from five horizontal layers within a small scale spruce canopy was carried out in a wind tunnel in which saplings were exposed to a constant free stream wind speed of 5 m s(-1). This provided quantitative estimates of the potential for a tree canopy contaminated with an aerosol deposit to provide (i) an airborne inhalation hazard within the forest environment and (ii) a secondary source of airborne contamination after an initial deposition event. Resuspension occurred with a flux of 1.05 x 10(-7) gm(-2) s(-1) from spruce saplings initially contaminated at a level of 4.1 X 10(-2) gm(-2). An average resuspension. rate (Lambda) of 4.88 x 10(-7) s(-1) was obtained for the canopy as a whole, Values of A were significantly different (ANOVA, p < 0.001) between canopy layers and was markedly greater at the top of the canopy than lower down although there was a slight increase in Lambda at the base of the canopy. The resuspended silica particles deposited onto the soil surface at an average rate of about 5.3 x 10(-8) mug cm(-2) s(-1). It is concluded that resuspension under wind velocities similar to that used in the reported experiments is likely to pose a relatively small inhalation hazard to humans and a relatively minor source of secondary contamination of adjacent areas. Furthermore, resuspension rates are likely to diminish rapidly with time. The results are discussed in relation to the growing interest in the tree planting schemes in urban areas to reduce the impacts of air pollution. (C) 2001 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