4.5 Article

Assessing fog water collection in the coastal mountain range of Antofagasta, Chile

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARID ENVIRONMENTS
卷 198, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2021.104679

关键词

Fog; Fog water; Water collection

资金

  1. Antofagasta Regional Government [30488878-0]
  2. National Forest Corporation CONAF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fog water collection can serve as an alternative source of water supply in areas with limited water resources, but the amount collected is affected by season and meteorological conditions. The orientation of collectors and the frequency of foggy days in the area are among the main factors influencing the differences in yield between collectors.
Fog water collection can be an alternative source of water supply in areas with limited water resources. Fog water is usually collected with plastic meshes mounted on wooden or metal frames arranged perpendicular to winds carrying fog. This study assessed fog water collection at the coastal mountain range of Antofagasta, Chile, with the purpose of analyzing the relationship between collected water and local meteorological conditions. For this, four standard 1-m(2) fog collectors with meteorological instrumentation were located at different places in the study area. From August 2019 to February 2020, the collectors recorded data on collected water and atmospheric variables, including wind speed, wind direction, relative humidity, and ambient temperature. The results indicate that fog water collection ranged between 0.16 +/- 0.02 and 0.37 +/- 0.05 L m(-2) day(-1) averaged over the entire period. The collection was notably reduced in summer, with values generally <0.09 L m(-2) day(-1), due to fewer days with fog collection events. More than half of the collected water was obtained in less than 8% of the study days. The frequency of foggy days and orientation of the collectors were among the main factors explaining the differences in yield between the collectors.

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

4.5
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