4.7 Article

Isotopic kinetic fractionation of evaporation from small water bodies

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
卷 603, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126974

关键词

Kinetic fractionation; Oxygen and hydrogen isotopes; Local evaporation line; Small water bodies

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2019YFA0607202]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41975143, 41475141, 41830860, 42021004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigates kinetic fractionation of evaporation in small water bodies, showing the significant role of convective turbulence in this process. Replacement of the default ε(k) value greatly improves the LEL model performance. The data does not support the hypothesis that ε(k) decreases with increasing lake size, with an overall mean ε(k) of 9.7‰ for 180 and 8.5‰ for 2H.
The primary objective of this study is to investigate the kinetic fractionation of evaporation of small water bodies. The experiments were performed in outdoor conditions using two evaporation pans and a small fishpond. The work is motivated in part by the high sensitivity of lake evaporation derived from isotopic mass balance to the strength of the kinetic effect. Results show that the kinetic factor epsilon(k) for the oxygen isotopes is inversely related to the water-to-air temperature gradient, indicating the important role of convective turbulence in kinetic fractionation of evaporation. Although the measured epsilon(k) displays a weak correlation with the slope of the local evaporation line (LEL), by replacing the default epsilon(k) value of 14.2 Too (for 180) commonly adopted for lake studies, it greatly improves the performance of a theoretical LEL model. The epsilon(k) data in this study and reported by other authors do not support the hypothesis that epsilon(k) decreases with increasing lake size. The overall mean epsilon(k) is 9.7 parts per thousand for 180 and 8.5 parts per thousand for 2H, based on nine outdoor experimental results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据