Abstract
The polyethylene bucket commonly used as a dry deposition collector was evaluated and compared to a variety of other surrogate surfaces. Since SO/sub 2/, NO/sub 2/, and HNO/sub 3/ were not collected by a dry bucket, it most likely underestimates gaseous dry deposition to many natural surfaces. Deposition was similar to buckets with high walls compared to buckets with 1-cm walls, indicating a minor influence of the walls on particle deposition. At the suburban site used for this study, dry deposition to a bucket accounted for a significant fraction of total deposition: 24% of SO/sub 4//sup 2 -/, 29% of NO/sub 3//sup -/, and over half of Ca/sup 2 +/, Mg/sup 2 +/, Na/sup +/, and K/sup +/ total deposition. The bucket was compared to seven other surrogate surfaces. It collected more dry deposited material than Teflon, foil, or coated foil surfaces. However, it generally collected less than a nylon filter, quartz-fiber filter, a glass-fiber filter, or a water surface. Deposition appeared to be strongly influenced by the affinity of the surface for gases and the retention characteristics of the surface for particles.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
