Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Influence of the Sampling Period on the Deposition Time Series of Major Ions in Bulk Precipitation

  • 104 Accesses

Abstract

The influence of a change from daily to weekly sampling of bulk precipitation on the obtained deposition values was studied with parallel sampling for 8 months at the station of Virolahti in 2004. Due to dry deposition, the deposition values of the whole period were found to be 5–70% higher from weekly sampling than from daily sampling, the biggest difference being for K+, Ca2+, Mg+ and Na+. The collection efficiencies of the summer sampler and the winter sampler compared to the standard rain gauge were studied from daily sampling in 1991–2003 and weekly sampling in 2004–2008. The performance was best in summer and in winter with rain samples (median value 85–88%), while the median value for daily snow samples was 72%. In winter, the total sum of precipitation collected in the daily sampler and the weekly sampler was 78% and 69%, respectively. The deficit in the weekly sampler in winter was concluded to be due to evaporation, while from the summer sampler no evaporation seemed to occur. Use of the precipitation amount measured by the standard rain gauge when calculating annual precipitation-weighted mean values gave higher mean concentrations than the use of the precipitation measured by the deposition sampler itself, the biggest difference of 8–11% being in the sea-salt ions Cl, Mg+ and Na+. It was concluded that the concentration and deposition values measured by daily and weekly bulk sampling are incompatible, and should not be combined into the same time series.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Dämmgen, U., Erisman, J. W., Cape, J. N., Grünhage, L., & Fowler, D. (2005). Practical considerations for addressing uncertainties in monitoring bulk deposition. Environmental Pollution, 134(3), 535–548.

  2. Directive 2004/107/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 relating to arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air.

  3. EMEP (1996). Manual for sampling and chemical analysis. Revised Nov. 2001. Kjeller, Norwegian Institute for Air Research (EMEP/CCC-Report 1/95). URL: http://www.nilu.no/projects/ccc/manual/index.html.

  4. Erisman, J. W., Möls, H., Fonteijn, P., Geusebroek, M., Draaijers, G., Bleeker, A., et al. (2003). Field intercomparison of precipitation measurements performed within the framework of the Pan European Intensive Monitoring Program of EU/ICP Forest. Environmental Pollution, 125(2), 139–155.

  5. Goodison, B. E., Louie, P. Y. T., & Yang, D. (1998). WMO solid precipitation measurement intercomparison: Final report. Instruments and Observing Methods Rep. 67, WMO/TD-872, World Meteorological Organization.

  6. Karlsson, V., Laurén, M., & Peltoniemi, S. (2000). Stability of major ions and sampling variability in daily bulk precipitation samples. Atmospheric Environment, 34(28), 4859–4865.

  7. Lee, D. S., & Longhurst, J. W. S. (1992). A comparison between wet and bulk deposition at an urban site in the U.K. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 64(3–4), 635–648.

  8. Moldan, F., Wright, R. F., Löfgren, S., Forsius, M., Ruoho-Airola, T., & Skjelkvåle, B. L. (2001). Long-term changes in acidification and recovery at nine calibrated catchments in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 5(3), 339–349.

  9. Staelens, J., De Schrijver, A., Van Avermaet, P., Genouw, G., & Verhoest, N. (2005). A comparison of bulk and wet-only deposition at two adjacent sites in Melle (Belgium). Atmospheric Environment, 39(1), 7–15.

  10. Stoddard, J. L., Jeffries, D. S., Lükewille, A., Clair, T. A., Dillon, P. J., Driscoll, C. T., et al. (1999). Regional trends in aquatic recovery from acidification in North America and Europe. Nature, 401, 575–578.

  11. Vuorenmaa, J., & Forsius, M. (2008). Recovery of acidified Finnish lakes: trends, patterns and dependence of catchment characteristics. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12, 465–478.

  12. WMO GAW (2004). Manual for the GAW Precipitation Chemistry Programme. GAW Report 160, WMO TD No. 1251. URL: ftp://ftp.wmo.int/Documents/PublicWeb/arep/gaw/gaw160.pdf.

  13. Yang, D., Goodison, B. E., Metcalfe, J. R., Golubev, V. S., Bates, R., Pangburn, T., et al. (1998). Accuracy of NWS 8″ standard nonrecording precipitation gauge: Results and application of WMO intercomparison. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 15, 54–68.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Pia Anttila.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leppänen, S., Anttila, P. Influence of the Sampling Period on the Deposition Time Series of Major Ions in Bulk Precipitation. Water Air Soil Pollut 220, 241–251 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-011-0750-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Precipitation sampling
  • Bulk deposition
  • Dry deposition
  • Monitoring