Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 37, Issue 1–2, pp 139–147

Atmospheric deposition sampler intercomparison

  • Richard C. Graham
  • John K. Robertson
  • Leroy Schroder
Article
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

Two wet/dry atmospheric deposition sampler types were compared for 1 yr. The resistance required to open each of ten collectors was determined. Additionally, the opening and closing history of each sampler was recorded using a microdatalogger with a resolution of 1 min. The frequency distribution of amount of time that a collector was open was used to evaluate the comparability of opening and closing of each collector. Weekly amounts of rainfall for each of the collectors was used to determine the efficiency of collection as compared to a Belfort 5–780 weighing rain gauge. The performance of a collector as determined by the efficiency of collection and also by the distribution of frequencies of times that a sampler was exposed to precipitation were statistically different for the different sampler configurations.

Disclaimer. Publication, does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of Department of the Army and the US Military Academy, nor does mention of trade names or commerical products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Not subject to copyright restrictions, work of US Government.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bailey, R. G.: 1916 Description of the Ecoregions of the United States, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1391.Google Scholar
  2. Bogen D.C., Stuart, J. J., and Torquato, C.: 1980 Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 13, 453.Google Scholar
  3. DePena, R. G., Pena, J. A., and Bowersox, V. C.: 1980, ‘Precipitation Study Intercomparison Report’, Dept. of Meteorology, Penn State Univ., University Park, PA, 57 p.Google Scholar
  4. Galloway, J. N. and Likens, G. E.: 1976, Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 6, 241.Google Scholar
  5. Goodison, B. E.: 1978, J. Appl. Meteor. 17, 1542.Google Scholar
  6. Hammond, E. H.: 1965, Physical Subdivision, Scale 1 : 17000000, Map 65, US National Atlas, US Geological Survay.Google Scholar
  7. Hesson, J. and Robertson, J. K.: 1982, Application of Water Quality Models to a Small Forested Watershed: I. The Nondesignated 208 Area Screening Model, EPA Report 600/3-82-029; NITS PB82-24520, 96 p.Google Scholar
  8. Robertson, J. R and Wojciechowski, D.: 1987, NADP/NTN Site Directory, 1000 p.Google Scholar
  9. Schroder, L. J., Linthurst R. A., Ellson, J. E., and Vozzo, S. F.: 1985, Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 24, 177.Google Scholar
  10. Volchock, H. L. and Graveson, R. T.: 1976, ‘Wet/Dry Fallout Collection’, in Proceedings of the Second Federal Conference of the Great Lakes, Great Lakes Basin Commission, pp. 256–264.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© by Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard C. Graham
    • 1
  • John K. Robertson
    • 1
  • Leroy Schroder
    • 2
  1. 1.Science Research LaboratoryUS Military AcademyWest PointUSA
  2. 2.US Geological SurveyArvada

Personalised recommendations