Field comparison of dry deposition samplers for collection of atmospheric mineral dust: results from single-particle characterization

Waza, Andebo; Schneiders, Kilian; May, Jan; Rodríguez, Sergio; Epple, Bernd; Kandler, Konrad

Frequently, passive dry deposition collectors are used to sample atmospheric dust deposition. However, there exists a multitude of different instruments with different, usually not well-characterized sampling efficiencies. As a result, the acquired data might be considerably biased with respect to their size representativity and, as a consequence, also composition. In this study, individual particle analysis by automated scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy-dispersive X-ray analysis was used to characterize different, commonly used passive samplers with respect to their size-resolved deposition rate and concentration. This study focuses on the microphysical properties, i.e., the aerosol concentration and deposition rates as well as the particle size distributions. In addition, computational fluid dynamics modeling was used in parallel to achieve deposition velocities from a theoretical point of view.

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)-calculated deposition rate measurements made using different passive samplers show a disagreement among the samplers. Modified Wilson and Cooke (MWAC) and Big Spring Number Eight (BSNE) – both horizontal flux samplers – collect considerably more material than the flat plate and Sigma-2 samplers, which are vertical flux samplers. The collection efficiency of MWAC increases for large particles in comparison to Sigma-2 with increasing wind speed, while such an increase is less observed in the case of BSNE. A positive correlation is found between deposition rate and PMinline-formula10 concentration measurements by an optical particle spectrometer. The results indicate that a BSNE and Sigma-2 can be good options for PMinline-formula10 measurement, whereas MWAC and flat-plate samplers are not a suitable choice. A negative correlation was observed in between dust deposition rate and wind speed. Deposition velocities calculated from different classical deposition models do not agree with deposition velocities estimated using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. The deposition velocity estimated from CFD was often higher than the values derived from classical deposition velocity models. Moreover, the modeled deposition velocity ratios between different samplers do not agree with the observations.



Waza, Andebo / Schneiders, Kilian / May, Jan / et al: Field comparison of dry deposition samplers for collection of atmospheric mineral dust: results from single-particle characterization. 2019. Copernicus Publications.


12 Monate:

Grafik öffnen


Rechteinhaber: Andebo Waza et al.

Nutzung und Vervielfältigung: