Effect of attachment configuration on the trapping efficiency of Vaseline-coated slide catchers for windblown particles


Basaran M., ERPUL G., Ozcan A. U., Bogman P., Cornelis W. M., Gabriels D.

Environmental Earth Sciences, cilt.61, sa.7, ss.1375-1384, 2010 (SCI-Expanded) identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 61 Sayı: 7
  • Basım Tarihi: 2010
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1007/s12665-010-0455-0
  • Dergi Adı: Environmental Earth Sciences
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1375-1384
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Sediment traps, Trap efficiency, Vaseline-coated slide, Wind erosion, Wind tunnel
  • Ankara Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

There are various types of the windblown sediment traps developed for wind tunnel and field studies. One of the main supports expected from these traps is in measuring surface dust concentrations to appropriately derive flux equations. The measurement performance and accuracy of a trap is very important and depends strictly upon the physical characteristics and the behaviors of dust grains with air flows. This paper presents the measurement results of static pressure distribution (SPD) of wind flow around Vaseline-coated slide (VCS) catchers with an aim of finding out whether or not particle trapping efficiency (η) of the VCS is related to the SPD. The SPD was evaluated by a wind reduction coefficient (Rc) in a series of wind tunnel experiments with different VCS settings which have different attachment configurations on a pole. Three VCS configurations were considered: a configuration on a circular plastic pole (CPP) and two configurations on wooden square poles (WSP1 and WSP2, respectively). Thus, the primary contribution of this work was to experimentally analyze the effect of the different attachment configurations on the SPD, and the secondary objective was to determine the effect of the SPD on the η. It was shown that spatial correlation and spatial pattern of the Rc were different in the surrounding area of each configuration, and ANOVA and DUNCAN tests indicated that η(s) of WSP1, WSP2, and CPP were different at the significant level of P ≤ 0.05 with the mean of 0.94 ± 0.09, 0.63 ± 0.14, and 1.13 ± 0.07, respectively. Additionally, the amount of PM20, PM40, PM60, PM80, and PM100 trapped by the configurations of WSP1, WSP2, and CPP considerably varied depending upon the particular aerodynamic circumstances associated with every configuration. © 2010 Springer-Verlag.