The response of reworked aerosols to climate through estimation of inter-particle forces

Original Paper

Abstract

This paper describes the first use of inter-particle force measurement in reworked aerosols to better understand the mechanics of dust deflation and its consequent ecological ramifications. Dust is likely to carry hydrocarbons and micro-organisms including human pathogens and cultured microbes and thereby is a threat to plants, animals and human. Present-day global aerosol emissions are substantially greater than in 1850; however, the projected influx rates are highly disputable. This uncertainty, in part, has roots in the lack of understanding of deflation mechanisms. A growing body of literature shows that whether carbon emission continues to increase, plant transpiration drops and soil water retention enhances, allowing more greenery to grow and less dust to flux. On the other hand, a small but important body of geochemistry literature shows that increasing emission and global temperature leads to extreme climates, decalcification of surface soils containing soluble carbonate polymorphs and hence a greater chance of deflation. The consistency of loosely packed reworked silt provides background data against which the resistance of dust’s bonding components (carbonates and water) can be compared. The use of macro-scale phenomenological approaches to measure dust consistency is trivial. Instead, consistency can be measured in terms of inter-particle stress state. This paper describes a semi-empirical parametrisation of the inter-particle cohesion forces in terms of the balance of contact-level forces at the instant of particle motion. We put forward the hypothesis that the loss of Ca2+-based pedogenic salts is responsible for much of the dust influx and surficial drying pays a less significant role.

Keywords

Dust Deflation Menisci Pedogenic Inter-particle forces 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project was partially supported by 2654 Action 2 - Lot 16b EU grant with additional support with facilities through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). We also appreciate the assistance of staff at the School of Geography, University of Lecesiter for helping with Laser Diffraction Spectrometry analysis and the staff at Civil Engineering and Geosciences school, Newcastle University for their helpful comments through the invited talk delivered at the GEST seminar series.

Supplementary material

13762_2016_958_MOESM1_ESM.docx (25 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 25 kb)

References

  1. Alfaro SC, Gaudichet A, Gomes L, Maille M (1998) Mineral aerosol production by wind erosion: aerosol particle sizes and binding energies. Geophys Res Lett 25:991–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrade JE, Tu X (2009) Multiscale framework for behavior prediction in granular media. Mech Mater 41:652–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arya LM, Paris JF (1981) A physicoempirical model to predict the soil moisture characteristic from particle-size distribution and bulk density data. Soil Sci Am J 45:1023–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arya LM, Paris JF (1982) Reply to comments on: A physicoempirical model to predict the soil moisture characteristic from particle-size distribution and bulk density data. Soil Sci Soc Am J 46:1348–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arya LM, Leij FJ, Van Genuchten MT, Shouse PJ (1999) Scaling parameter to predict the soil water characteristic from particle-size distribution data. Soil Sci Soc Am J 63:210–519Google Scholar
  6. Assadi A (2014) Micromechanics of collapse in loess. The University of Birmingham, BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  7. Assadi A, Jefferson I (2013) Collapsibility in calcareous clayey loess: a factor of stress-hydraulic history. Int J GEOMATE 5(1):620–627Google Scholar
  8. Assadi A, Yasrobi SS (2012) Drainage controlled uniaxial swelling cell. In: Proceedings of the ICE—geotechnical engineering, vol 166Google Scholar
  9. Assadi A, Jefferson I, O’Hara-Dhand K, Smalley I (2014) Micromechanics of quartz sand breakage in a fractal context. Geomorphology 211:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Assallay AM (1998) Structure and hydrocollapse behaviour of loess. Loughborough University, LoughboroughGoogle Scholar
  11. ASTM (2014) D4546-14 standard test methods for one-dimensional swell or collapse of soilsGoogle Scholar
  12. Bagnold RA (1941) The physics of blown sand and desert dunes. Methuen, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Bear J (1972) Dynamics of fluids in porous media. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. BS (1990) BS 1377-5:1990 methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. Compressibility, permeability and durability testsGoogle Scholar
  15. Claudin P, Bouchaud JP, Cates ME, Wittmer JP (1998) Models of stress fluctuations in granular media. Phys Rev E 57:4441–4457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cornelis WM, Gabriels D, Hartmann R (2004) A parameterisation for the threshold shear velocity to initiate deflation of dry and wet sediment. Geomorphology 59:43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Creyssels M, Dupont P, Ould el Moctar A, Valance A, Cantat I, Jenkins JT, Pasini JM, Rasmussen KR (2009) Saltating particles in a turbulent boundary layer: experiment and theory. J Fluid Mech 625:47–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cundall PA, Strack ODL (1979) Discrete numerical-model for granular assemblies. Geotechnique 29:47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cundall PA, Strack ODL (1983) Modelling of microscopic mechanisms in granular material. In: Jenkins JT, Satake M (eds) US–Japan seminar on new models and constitutive relationships in the mechanics of granular materialsGoogle Scholar
  20. Dantu P (1957) Contribution a l’etude mecanique et geometrique des milieux pulverulents. In: 4th international conference of soil mechanics, pp 144–148Google Scholar
  21. Fredlund DG, Rahardjo H (1993) Soil mechanics for unsaturated soils. Wiley, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ginoux P, Prospero JM, Torres O, Chin M (2004) Long-term simulation of global dust distribution with the GOCART model: correlation with North Atlantic Oscillation. Environ Model Softw 19(2):113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goossens D (2004) Effect of soil crusting on the emission and transport of wind-eroded sediment: field measurement on loamy soil. Geomorphology 58:145–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Graf WH (1984) Hydraulics of sediment transport. Water Resources Publications, Highlands RanchGoogle Scholar
  25. Guo N, Zhao J (2013) The signature of shear-induced anisotropy in granular media. Comput Geotech 47:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harireche O, Faramarzi A, Alani AM (2013) A toroidal approximation of capillary forces in polydisperes granular assemblies. Granular matter 15:573–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haverkamp R, Parlange (1982) Comments on: A physicoempirical model to predict the soil moisture characteristic from particle-size distribution and bulk density data. Soil Sci Soc Am J 46:1348–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ishizuka M, Mikami M, Leys J, Yamada Y, Heidenreich S, Shao Y, McTainsh GH (2008) Effects of soil moisture and dried raindroplet crust on saltation and dust emission. J Geophys Res 113:D24212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lamb H (1994) Hydrodynamics. Trinity College, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Maher BA, Prospero JM, Mackie D, Gaiero D, Hesse PP, Balkanski Y (2010) Global connections between aeolian dust, climate and ocean biogeochemistry at the present day and at the last glacial maximum. Earth Sci Rev 99:61–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marticorena B, Bergametti G, Callot Aumont B, N’Doume C, Legrand M (1997) Modelling the atmospheric dust cycle 2. Simulation of Saharan dust sources. J Geophys Res 102(D4):4387–4404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mikami T, Kamiya H, Horio M (1998) Numerical simulation of cohesive powder behavior in a fluidized bed. Chem Eng Sci 53:1927–1940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller RL, Tegen I, Perlwitz J (2004) Surface radiative forcing by soil dust aerosols and the hydrologic cycle. J Geophys Res Atmos 109(D4):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Noborio K (2001) Measurement of soil water content and electrical conductivity by time domain reflectometry: a review. Comput Electron Agric 31:213–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Hara-Dhand K, Assadi A, Jefferson I, Smalley I (2013) The control of loess grain shape on size distribution data. In: Neild J, Wilson R (eds) 19th Windy Day: UK aeolian research community meeting, University of SouthamptonGoogle Scholar
  36. Ostojic S, Somfai E, Nienhuis B (2006) Scale invariance and universality of force networks in static granular matter. Nature 439:828–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ravi S, Zobeck TM, Over TM, Okin GS, D’Odorico P (2006) On the effect of moisture bonding forces in air-dry soils on threshold friction velocity of wind erosion. Sedimentology 53:597–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Santamarina JC (2003) Soil behavior at the microscale: particle forces. In: Germaine JT, Sheahan TC, Whitman RV (eds) Soil behavior and soft ground construction. Geotechnical Special Publication. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp 25–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shao Y et al (2011) Dust cycle: an emerging core theme in Earth system science. Aeolian Res 2:181–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smalley IJ (1970) Cohesion of small particles and the intrinsic resistance of simple soil systems to wind erosion. J Soil Sci 21:154–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Soulié F, Cherblanc F, El Youssoufi MS, Saix C (2006) Influence of liquid bridges on the mechanical behaviour of polydisperse granular materials. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 30:213–228. doi: 10.1002/nag.476 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Svirčev Z et al (2013) Importance of biological loess crusts for loess formation in semi-arid environments. Quat Int 296:206–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thornton C, Barnes DJ (1986) Computer simulated deformation of compact granular assemblies. Acta Mech 64:45–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. USEPA (2013) Particulate matter (PM). United States Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The School of Architecture, Computing and EngineeringUniversity of East LondonLondonEngland, UK
  2. 2.College of Engineering and Physical SciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamEngland, UK

Personalised recommendations