A comparison of two cloudwater/fogwater collectors: The rotating arm collector and the caltech active strand cloudwater collector |
| |
| Institution: | 2. Institute of Atmospheric Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China.;1. Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Institute of Coastal Research, Max-Planck-Strasse 1, 21502 Geesthacht, Germany;2. State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 10084, China;3. Yantai Institute of Coastal Zone Research, Chinese Academy of Science, Yantai, Shandong 264003, China;4. Key Laboratory of Cities'' Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change in Shanghai, China Meteorological Administration, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China;5. Collaborative Innovation Center of Atmospheric Environment and Equipment Technology, Nanjing 210000, China;1. Peking University People''s Hospital, Peking University Institute of Hematology, Beijing, China;2. Peking-Tsinghua Center for Life Sciences, Beijing, China;3. Beijing Key Laboratory of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, Beijing, China |
| |
| Abstract: | A side-by-side comparison of the Rotating Arm Collector (RAC) and the Caltech Active Strand Cloudwater Collector (CASCC) was conducted at an elevated coastal site near the eastern end of the Santa Barbara Channel in southern California. The CASCC was observed to collect cloudwater at rates of up to 8.5 ml min−1. The ratio of cloudwater collection rates was found to be close to the theoretical prediction of 4.2:1 (CASCC:RAC) over a wide range of liquid water contents (LWC). At low LWC, however, this ratio climbed rapidly, possibly reflecting a predominance of small droplets under these conditions, coupled with a greater collection efficiency of small droplets by the CASCC. Cloudwater samples collected by the RAC had significantly higher concentrations of Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+ and Cl− than those collected by the CASCC. These higher concentrations may be due to differences in the chemical composition of large vs small droplets. No significant differences were observed in concentrations of NO3−, SO42− or NH4+ in samples collected by the two instruments. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
