Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 61, Issue 7, pp 1375–1384 | Cite as

Effect of attachment configuration on the trapping efficiency of Vaseline-coated slide catchers for windblown particles

  • Mustafa BasaranEmail author
  • Gunay Erpul
  • A. Ugur Ozcan
  • Pieter Bogman
  • Wim M. Cornelis
  • Donald Gabriels
Original Article

Abstract

There are various types of the windblown sediment traps developed for wind tunnel and field studies. One of the main supports expected from these traps is in measuring surface dust concentrations to appropriately derive flux equations. The measurement performance and accuracy of a trap is very important and depends strictly upon the physical characteristics and the behaviors of dust grains with air flows. This paper presents the measurement results of static pressure distribution (SPD) of wind flow around Vaseline-coated slide (VCS) catchers with an aim of finding out whether or not particle trapping efficiency (η) of the VCS is related to the SPD. The SPD was evaluated by a wind reduction coefficient (R c) in a series of wind tunnel experiments with different VCS settings which have different attachment configurations on a pole. Three VCS configurations were considered: a configuration on a circular plastic pole (CPP) and two configurations on wooden square poles (WSP1 and WSP2, respectively). Thus, the primary contribution of this work was to experimentally analyze the effect of the different attachment configurations on the SPD, and the secondary objective was to determine the effect of the SPD on the η. It was shown that spatial correlation and spatial pattern of the R c were different in the surrounding area of each configuration, and ANOVA and DUNCAN tests indicated that η(s) of WSP1, WSP2, and CPP were different at the significant level of P ≤ 0.05 with the mean of 0.94 ± 0.09, 0.63 ± 0.14, and 1.13 ± 0.07, respectively. Additionally, the amount of PM20, PM40, PM60, PM80, and PM100 trapped by the configurations of WSP1, WSP2, and CPP considerably varied depending upon the particular aerodynamic circumstances associated with every configuration.

Keywords

Vaseline-coated slide Wind erosion Wind tunnel Sediment traps Trap efficiency 

Abbreviations

SPD

Static pressure distribution

Rc

Wind reduction coefficient

η

Catch efficiency

VCS

Vaseline-coated slide

CPP

Circular plastic pole arrangement of a VCS with a horizontal frame on a pole

WSP1

Wooden square pole arrangement of a VCS with pushpins on a pole

WSP2

Wooden square pole arrangement of a VCS with a vertical frame on a pole

PM

Particulate matter

References

  1. Bagnold RA (1941) The physics of blown sand and desert dunes. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagnold RA (1954) Physical aspects of dry deserts. In: Cloudsley-Thompson JL (ed) Biology of deserts. Institute of Biology, London, pp 7–12Google Scholar
  3. Chandler DG, Saxton KE, Kjelgaard J, Busacca AJ (2002) A technique to measure fine-dust emission potentials during wind erosion. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:1127–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cornelis W, Gabriels D (2003) Optimal windbreak design for wind-erosion control. J Arid Environ 61:315–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cornelis W, Erpul G, Gabriels D (2004) The I.C.E. wind tunnel for wind and water interaction research. In: Visser S, Cornelis W (eds) Wind and rain interaction in erosion. Wageningen University Research Center, Wageningen, pp 195–224Google Scholar
  6. De Ploey J (1980) Some field measurements and experimental data on wind-blown sands. In: De Boodt M, Gabriels D (eds) Assessment of erosion. Wiley, Chichester, pp 143–151Google Scholar
  7. Drew RT, Lippmann M (1978) Calibration of air sampling instruments. In: Air sampling instruments for evaluation of atmospheric contaminants, vol I, 5th edn. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, pp 1–138Google Scholar
  8. Fryrear DW (1986) A field dust sampler. J Soil Water Conserv 41(2):117–120Google Scholar
  9. Gabriels D, Cornelis WM, Pollet I, Van Coillie T, Ouessar M (1997) The I.C.E. wind tunnel for wind and water erosion studies. Soil Technol 10:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gillette DA, Walker TR (1977) Characteristics of airborne particles produced by wind erosion of sandy soil, High Plains of west Texas. Soil Sci 123:97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goossens D, Offer ZY (2000) Wind tunnel and field calibration of six Aeolian dust samplers. Atmos Environ 34(7):1043–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goossens D, Riksen MJPM (2004) Wind erosion and dust dynamics at the commencement of the 21st century. In: Goossens D, Rinksen MJPM (eds) Wind erosion and dust dynamics: observations, simulations, modelling. ESW Publications, Wageningen, pp 7–13Google Scholar
  13. Goossens D, Offer ZY, London G (2000) Wind tunnel and field calibration of five Aeolian sand traps. Geomorphology 35:233–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jackson DWT (1996) A new instantaneous Aeolian sand trap design for field use. Sedimentology 43(5):791–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Journel AG, Huijbregts CS (1978) Mining Geostatistics. Academic Press, New York, p 600Google Scholar
  16. Kind RJ (1992) Concentration and mass flux of particles in eolian suspension near tailings disposal sites or similar sources. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 41–44:217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leatherman SP (1978) A new Aeolian sand trap design. Sedimentology 25(2):303–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loosmore GA, Hunt JR (2000) Dust resuspension without saltation. J Geophys Res 105:663–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Matheron G (1965) Principles of geostatistics. Econ Geol 58:1246–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nickling WG, Neuman CM (1997) Wind tunnel evaluation of a wedge-shaped aeolian sediment trap. Geomorphology 18:333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Niemeyer TC, Gillette DA, Deluisi JJ, Kim YJ, Niemeyer WF, Ley T, Gill TE, Ono D (1999) Optical depth, size distribution and flux of dust from Owens Lake, California. Earth Surf Process Landforms 24:463–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shao Y (2000) Physics and modelling of wind erosion. Kluwer, Boston, p 393Google Scholar
  23. Shao Y, Rupach MR, Findlater PA (1993) Effect of saltation bombardment on the entrainment of dust by wind. J Geophys Res 98:12719–12726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spaan WP, van den Abeele GD (1991) Wind-borne particle measurements with acoustic sensors. Soil Technol 4(1):51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Soil Survey Staff (1999) Soil taxonomy. A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys, 2nd edn. USDA, NRCS, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. Sterk G, Raats PAC (1996) Comparison of models describing the vertical distribution of wind-eroded sediment. Soil Sci Soc Am J 60(6):1914–1919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Visser SM, Sterk G, Ribolzi O (2004) Techniques for simultaneous quantification of wind and water erosion in semi-arid regions. J Arid Environ 59:699–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Williams G (1964) Some aspects of the aeolian saltation load. Sedimentology 3:257–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilson SJ, Cooke RU (1980) Wind erosion. In: Kirkby MJ, Morgan RPC (eds) Soil erosion. Wiley, Chichester, pp 217–252Google Scholar
  30. Youssef F, Erpul G, Bogman P, Cornelis WM, Gabriels D (2008) Determination of efficiency of Vaseline slide and Wilson and Cook sediment traps by wind tunnel experiments. Environ Geol 55:741–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zobeck TM (2002) Field measurement of erosion by wind. Encyclopedia of soil science. New York, Marcel Dekker, pp 503–507Google Scholar
  32. Zobeck TM, Van Pelt RS (2006) Wind-induced dust generation and transport mechanics on a bare agricultural field. J Hazard Mater 132:26–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zobeck TM, Sterk G, Funk R, Rajot JL, Stout JE, Van Pelt RS (2003) Measurement and data analysis methods for field-scale wind erosion studies and model validation. Earth Surf Proc Land 28:1163–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mustafa Basaran
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gunay Erpul
    • 2
  • A. Ugur Ozcan
    • 4
  • Pieter Bogman
    • 3
  • Wim M. Cornelis
    • 3
  • Donald Gabriels
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Soil Science, Seyrani Faculty of AgricultureErciyes UniversityKayseriTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Soil Science, Faculty of AgricultureAnkara UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Soil Management and Soil Care, Faculty of Bioscience EngineeringGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  4. 4.Department of Forest Engineering, Faculty of ForestryKaratekin UniversityÇankırıTurkey

Personalised recommendations