Boundary-Layer Meteorology

, Volume 34, Issue 1–2, pp 103–121

An experimental study of sulfur and NOx fluxes over grassland

  • B. B. Hicks
  • M. L. Wesely
  • R. L. Coulter
  • R. L. Hart
  • J. L. Durham
  • R. Speer
  • D. H. Stedman
Research Note
  • 60 Downloads

Abstract

Three independent sulfur sensors were used in a study of sulfur eddy fluxes to a field of wheat stubble and mixed grasses, conducted in Southern Ohio in September, 1979. Two of these sensors were modified commercial instruments; one operated with a prefilter to measure gaseous sulfur compounds and the other with a denuder system to provide submicron particulate sulfur data. The third sensor was a prototype system, used to measure total sulfur fluxes. The data obtained indicated that the deposition velocity for gaseous sulfur almost always exceeded that for particulate sulfur; average surface conductances were about 1.0 cm s−1 for gaseous sulfur in the daytime and about 0.4 cm s−1 for particulate sulfur. The data indicate that nighttime values were probably much lower. The total sulfur sensor provided support for these conclusions. The boundary-layer quantity ln(z0/zH)was found to be 2.75 ± 0.55, in close agreement with expectations and thus providing some assurance that the site was adequate for eddy flux studies. However, fluxes derived using a prototype NOx sensor were widely scattered, partially as a consequence of sensor noise but also possibly because of the effects of nearby sources of natural nitrogen compounds.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chamberlain, A. C.: 1980, ‘Dry Deposition of Sulfur Dioxide’, in D. S. Shriner, C. R. Richmond, and S. E. Lindberg (eds.), Atmospheric Sulfur Deposition, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 185–197.Google Scholar
  2. Durham, J. L., Spiller, L. L., Eatough, D. J., and Hansen, L. D.: 1984, ‘Dimethyl and Methyl Hydrogen Sulfate in the Atmosphere’, in V. P. Aneja (ed.), Proceedings, Conference on Environmental Impact of Natural Emissions, Air Pollution Control Association, pp. 263–274.Google Scholar
  3. Dyer, A. J.: 1974, ‘A Review of Flux-Profile Relationships’, Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 7, 363–372.Google Scholar
  4. Garland, J. A.: 1978, ‘Dry and Wet Removal of Sulfur from the Atmosphere’, Atmos. Environ. 12, 349–362.Google Scholar
  5. Garland, J. A. and Cox, L. C.: 1982, ‘Deposition of Small Particles to Grass’, Atmos. Environ. 16, 2699–2702.Google Scholar
  6. Garland, J. A. and Branson, J. R.: 1977, ‘The Deposition of Sulfur Dioxide to Pine Forest Assessed by a Radioactive Tracer Method’, Tellus 29, 445–454.Google Scholar
  7. Garratt, J. R. and Hicks, B. B.: 1973, ‘Momentum, Heat and Water Vapour Transfer to and from Natural and Artificial Surfaces’, Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 99, 680–687.Google Scholar
  8. Hadjetofi, A. and Wilson, M. J. G.: 1979, ‘Fast-Response Measurements of Air Pollution’, Atmos. Environ. 13, 755–760.Google Scholar
  9. Hicks, B. B.: 1970, ‘The Measurement of Atmospheric Fluxes Near the Surface: A Generalized Approach’, J. Appl. Meteorol. 9, 386–388.Google Scholar
  10. Hicks, B. B.: 1972, ‘Propeller Anemometers as Sensors of Atmospheric Turbulence’, Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 3, 214–228.Google Scholar
  11. Hicks, B. B. and Wesely, M. L.: 1980, ‘Turbulent Transfer Processes to a Surface and Interaction with Vegetation’, in D. S. Shriner, C. R. Richmond, and S. E. Lindberg, eds., Atmospheric Sulfur Deposition, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 199–207.Google Scholar
  12. Hicks, B. B., Wesely, M. L., Durham, J. L., and Brown, M. A.: 1982, ‘Some Direct Measurements of Atmospheric Sulfur Fluxes over a Pine Plantation’, Atmos. Environ. 2899–2903.Google Scholar
  13. Huebert, B. J.: 1983, ‘Discussion on ‘An Eddy-Correlation Measurement of NO2 Flux to Vegetation and Comparison to O3 Flux’’, Atmos. Environ. 17, 1600.Google Scholar
  14. Huntzicker, J. J., Hoffman, R. S., and Ling, C.: 1978, ‘Continuous Measurement and Speciation of Sulfur-Containing Aerosols by Flame Photometry’, Atmos. Environ. 12, 83–88.Google Scholar
  15. Kaimal, J. C., Wyngaard, J. C., Izumi, Y., and Coté, O. R.: 1972, ‘Spectral Characteristics of Surface-Layer Turbulence’, Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 98, 563–589.Google Scholar
  16. Logan, J. A.: 1983, ‘Nitrogen Oxides in the Troposphere: Global and Regional Budgets’, J. Geophys. Res. 88, 10 785–10 807.Google Scholar
  17. Slinn, W. G. N.: 1982: ‘Predictions for Particle Deposition to Vegetative Canopies’, Atmos. Environ. 16, 1785–1794.Google Scholar
  18. Wesely, M. L. and Hicks, B. B.: 1977, ‘Some Factors that Affect the Deposition Rates of Sulfur Dioxide and Similar Gases on Vegetation’, J. Air Poll. Contr. Assoc. 27, 1110–1116.Google Scholar
  19. Wesely, M. L. and Hart, R. L.: 1983, ‘Variability of Short-Term Eddy-Correlation Estimates of Mass Exchange’, in B. A. Hutchison, B. B. Hicks, L. W. Gray, K. L. Parttu, and J. B. Stewart (eds.), Forest Environmental Measurements Conference Proceedings, D. Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht, Holland (in press).Google Scholar
  20. Wesely, M. L., Eastman, J. A., Stedman, D. H., and Yalvac, E. D.: 1982, ‘An Eddy-Correlation Measurement of NO2 Flux to Vegetation and Comparison to O3 Flux’, Atmos. Environ. 16, 815–820.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. B. Hicks
    • 1
  • M. L. Wesely
    • 2
  • R. L. Coulter
    • 2
  • R. L. Hart
    • 2
  • J. L. Durham
    • 3
  • R. Speer
    • 3
  • D. H. Stedman
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.NOAA/ARATDDOak RidgeUSA
  2. 2.Atmospheric Physics SectionRERD, Argonne National LaboratoryArgonneUSA
  3. 3.Aerosol Research BranchESRL, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  4. 4.Department of ChemistryThe University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  5. 5.University of DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations