Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Solar Energy 86 (2012) 307–318 www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

UV solar radiation on a tilted and horizontal plane: Analysis and comparison of 4 years of measurements
L.C. Navntoft a,b,⇑, P. Fernandez-Ibanez c, F. Garreta a ˜
´ ´ Universidad Tecnologica Nacional – Facultad Regional Buenos Aires – Departamento de Ingenierıa Civil – Laboratorio de Estudios sobre ´ ´ Energıa Solar, (UTN-FRBA-LESES), Mozart 2300, 1407 Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina b ´ ´ ´ ´ Instituto de Investigacion e Ingenierıa Ambiental (3iA), Universidad Nacional de San Martın, Peatonal Belgrano 3563, B1650ANQ San Martın, Argentina c ´ Plataforma Solar de Almerıa, Carretera Senes km 4, 04002 Tabernas, Spain Received 9 February 2011; received in revised form 19 September 2011; accepted 5 October 2011 Available online 28 October 2011 Communicated by: Associate Editor Frank Vignola
a

Abstract In the global wavelength range (300–3000 nm), it is known that a plane with a slope equal to the latitude of the location, receives more annual energy than the horizontal plane, mainly due to the increase in direct irradiation on the interest plane. The UV (280–400 nm) spectra at the earth surface, has a larger component of diffuse and a minor component of direct solar radiation compared to the global wavelength range, therefore the increase in annual energy due to plane inclination should also be different. This work, analyzes 4 years of ´ solar UV radiation measurements performed on tilted and horizontal planes located at the Plataforma Solar de Almerıa, Spain. The monthly mean ratio of tilted/horizontal solar UV irradiation varies with the time of the year, reaching values of 1.25 and 0.95 for winter and summer, respectively. The same ratio in the solar global spectra rises up to 1.70 and 0.85 for the same months. The annual UV solar energy increase on a plane tilted 37° and oriented towards the equator is around 3–4%, whereas is around 10% in the global spectra. In this way UV annual energy increase due to inclination and orientation of the plane is much lower than that for global radiation. Determination of a unique method to assess all possible inclinations and orientations, require simultaneous measurement of diffuse and direct UV radiation performed with radiometers of identical spectral response. Given the worldwide scarcity of these type of data, an empirical correlation that relates horizontal UV irradiation to that on a 37° inclined plane was determined. Monthly and annual tendencies of solar UV irradiation have been analyzed and compared with the solar global irradiation. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: UV; Global; Tilted plane; Measurements; Comparison

1. Introduction In recent decades, much attention has been given the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching the earth’s
⇑ Corresponding author at: Universidad Tecnologica Nacional – Fac´ ´ ultad Regional Buenos Aires – Departamento de Ingenierıa Civil – ´ Laboratorio de Estudios sobre Energıa Solar, (UTN-FRBA-LESES), ´ Mozart 2300, 1407 Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Fax: +54 11 4601 8112x7139. E-mail address: christian.navntoft@solarmate.com.ar (L.C. Navntoft).

surface because of the thinning stratospheric ozone layer and the rapid advance of wastewater treatment mediated by the solar UV spectrum. Knowledge of the amount of UV radiation received by plants and animals near the earth’s surface is important in a wide range of fields such as cancer research, forestry, tropospheric chemistry, agriculture, oceanography and solar chemistry (Madronich and Flocke, 1995). Such information is also important in the design of the solar photocatalytic systems used for water detoxification technologies (Blesa and Blanco, 2005). The efficiency of

0038-092X/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.solener.2011.10.004

2. studied the UV-B solar radiation reaching tilted planes for agricultural applications. an empirical correlation for monthly mean solar UV irradiation reaching a tilted plane is determined. 1996.. Blanco et al. Kudish et al.. Worldwide scarcity of information on the distribution of the UV resource makes it necessary to find this information indirectly through correlations of global (300–3000 nm) and UV (280–400 nm) radiation. uninterrupted measurements of solar UV irradiance were performed every 1 min with three different radiometers. This model uses a discrete ordinate method to solve the radiative transfer equation. The characteristics and mounting slope of each radiometer during the mentioned period are described in Table 1. the ratio of solar UV to global irradiation reaching the earth’s surface. Koronakis et al. In most cases. 2009).C. 1999). in all of the cited work.308 L. The chosen model to perform the comparison was the TUV 4. The spectral response is the range of wavelengths in which the measuring instrument gives a signal as a function of incident radiation (Webb. the calibration of UV instruments is still a matter of controversy and in most cases. 1976). UV Measurements For March 2007–July 2010. Robaa. Data quality assurance Before processing all the measured data and in order to assess possible instrument drifts. None of them have been checked against long term measured data. 2002. 2 and 3 were placed on a horizontal plane during the month of August 2010. radiometers 1. For a surface with a slope equal to the latitude. mathematical models. Despite this differences. Feister and Grasnick. 2007. With the development of this technol´ ogy and several pilot plants (Vidal et al. Finally. All the radiometers were ´ located at the Plataforma Solar de Almerıa (PSA). 2003.1.1. 2003. Roy et al. 2005). Dilmac et al. 1999. (Al-aruri et al. The model is Spectral response (nm) 315–378 315–378 305–385 Sensitivity (lV/W/ m2) 264 234 335 Year of calibration November 1995 July 2005 November 2007 Inclination (Deg) 0° 37° 37° . such as solar thermal collectors or photovoltaic panels. developed a model to Table 1 Characteristics of UV radiometers used for measurements. this model has an accuracy of 95% at solar noon on clear days. UV measuring instruments have a spectral response which is a function of the amount of incident radiation but also of the wavelength. 1983. 1992.. It divides the atmosphere in layers and then solves the equations for each layer. proposed a model to estimate the diffuse UV-A (315–400 nm) fraction at several locations. Ogunjobi and Kim. global solar radiation measuring instruments have the same response for all wavelengths (also known as flat response) (Thekaekara. Number 1 2 3 Model CUV3 CUV3 CUV4 Company Kipp Zonen Kipp Zonen Kipp Zonen Nominal wavelength (nm) 280–400 280–400 280–400 calculate UV irradiance on arbitrarily oriented surfaces... Navntoft et al.2. One big advantage is that it can model the whole UV spectrum as well as discrete wavelengths or ranges such as UVA or UV-B. estimation from satellite databases. Jacovides et al. Very few works have dealt with this subject: Grant (1998). is never above 8%. 1995). Such information relating surface slope with annual UV energy increase has not been the subject of large research. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 307–318 these systems depend on the availability of UV radiation at the selected location. yield different UV/Global correlations for the same nominal spectral ranges. 1988. and their measurements compared against each other and a radiative transfer model. Duffie and Beckman. he proposed a model to determine the amount of UV radiation reaching canopies. and considers absorption and scattering as two independent phenomena (twostream approximation). Comparison with a solar radiation model and global solar radiation measurements is also performed.. (2003).. There is however some difference amongst the results of different works due to the different spectral response of the instruments used for measuring the UV solar range and determining the correlations. Materials and methods 2. the need for an adequate evaluation of the ultraviolet solar resource has emerged.. this article presents the analysis of 4 years of measurements of solar UV radiation performed on inclined and horizontal surfaces at the ´ Plataforma Solar de Almerıa. Can ˜ada et al. Spain. 2005.. they are calibrated against a xenon lamp (Webb. the annual energy received by a plane can be enhanced by giving a fixed slope and orientation to the plane of interest. Bo et al. 2004. In global solar radiation applications. In this way. Curco et al. 2003). 0 0 37°84 N and 2°34 W and mounted on a white painted surface free of surrounding obstacles and reflections. etc. 2004. Grant and Gao (2003). 1996. Furthermore. According to the work of Bais et al. the annual energy increase is roughly 10% (Iqbal. With the aim to explore this subject. mainly due to the scarcity of long term inclined and horizontal UV measurements. yet the model has not been thoroughly tested. the instruments with different spectral responses.. 2. Hess and Koepke (2008)..

1/) or the work by Madronich and Flocke. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 307–318 309 widely used (Madronich and Flocke. The relative importance of scattering an absorption is given by the single scattering albedo x0.7 (Madronich and Flocke. the optical depth is given by Eq. h0 . This depends to a large extent on the size of the scatterer. the attenuation of the direct solar radiation by any gas or particle is given by the beer-lambert law. which gives the probability that a photon incident with angular coordinates (h. Single values of irradiance must then be integrated upon all zenith angles to obtain daily irradiation (Wh/m2) or energy on the horizontal surface of interest. due to stratification of constituents such as ozone. longitude and height above sea level  Time parameters: Year. For atmospheric gases. Absorption cross sections for various atmospheric gases are usually measured in the laboratory and tabulations are available (Madronich and Flocke. every constituent (gas or particle) can both scatter and absorb radiation. aerosols and local pollutants. The most important parameter input of the model is the aerosol opti- . (A. where b is the Angstrom turbidity coefficient. The atmosphere is not vertically homogeneous. /.99 for boundary layer aerosols (Madronich and Flocke. Such gases are considered only in locations with a high degree of pollution or highly populated cities (Madronich and Flocke. and it is possible to define separate cross sections for absorption rabs and scattering rsc. x0 and g are dependant on wavelength (Madronich and Flocke. Ozone absorption is negligible at wavelengths larger than 320 nm (UV-A) and affects mainly the UV-B (Madronich and Flocke. h is the solar zenith angle and s is the optical depth (Madronich and Flocke. values of x0 are in the range of 0.1 and 1 (Madronich and Flocke. the model requires the following inputs:  Geographical parameters: Latitude. hour (alternatively.1 website (http://acd. month. (A. s and a. 1995). 2004) for estimation of solar UV radiation reaching the earth’s surface. /) is scattered into the direction (h0 . Analytic solutions of adjacent layers are then coupled and the resulting numerical system is solved using standard techniques to yield the radiation field at all altitudes. h)  Atmospheric parameters: Aerosol optical depth at 550 nm(s). each with effective absorption or scattering cross section rj (cm2 per molecule). Further model description is out of the scope of this work. 1995).. g = À1 complete back scattering and g = 0 for isotropic Rayleigh (air) scattering. ozone concentration (in Dobson Units). The general mathematical representation of this change in direction is contained in the phase function P(h.C. Typical values of g for aerosol particles are between 0.5) (Madronich and Flocke. usually around 1. 1983). where Idir is the solar UV irradiance at a horizontal surface at altitude z. In general. According to the model. The asymmetry factor is described by Eq. (A.3 ± 0. (A. where nj is the altitude dependent concentration (molecules per cm3) of the various (j) gases that attenuate radiation. such as air or ozone. 1995. but in practice at UV wavelengths. Scattering by larger particles is more complex and tends to be biased towards the forward direction. SO2 and NO2) have strong enough absorption to require consideration.ucar. (A.99 for clouds and 0. clouds. /0 ). /0 ).80–0. so that r = rabs + rsc. 1995).5 (Iqbal. An additional consideration is the change in direction of photon propagation upon a scattering event. k is the wavelength of interest and a is a measure of the size of the aerosols. the reader is referred to the TUV 4. Navntoft et al. SO2 and NO2 occur in the order of parts per billion (PPB) and are generally a product of photochemical smog.90–0. Other parameters such as scattering by air molecules or g factor are automatically calculated by the model and use reference data tabulated therein. time can also be expressed by means of the solar zenith angle. The scat- tering phase function for scattering of unpolarized photons by air molecules is given by Eq. For aerosols. 1995). scattering and absorption can be simultaneously important depending on specific size distributions and the presence of absorbing impurities.4). In the UV range. having values of 0 for large particles and 4 for small particles. Previous work (Navntoft et al. while only a few gases (O3. described by Eq. ozone concentration was a minor influence in the UV-A range (315–400 nm) but necessary to obtain accurate data in the whole UV (280–400 nm) range. 1995. (A. I0 is the solar extraterrestrial irradiance in the same wavelength range. For more information regarding the characteristics and methods of the model. 1995).3). In larger particles such as aerosols. The asymmetry factor g gives a simple measure of the directionality of scattering. 1983). On the other hand. the optical depth is a function of wavelength and is expressed by the Angstrom expression given by Eq. with g = +1 implying complete forward scattering. Palancar and Toselli. scattering by gases is so weak that only air (N2 + O2) contributes. alpha wavelength coefficient (a) and single scattering albedo (x0). It should be noted that absorption and scattering cross sections and quantities derived from them such as s.5 and 0.5 (Iqbal.6).edu/models/open/ TUV4. day. In the cited work. This complication is overcomed by subdividing the vertical extent of the atmosphere into layers sufficiently thin that each can individually be considered homogeneous. 1995). defined by Eq. 1995) for the UV range.2). 1995). To calculate the solar UV irradiance at a given horizontal surface on a clear day (no clouds). 2009) have dealt with the sensitivity of the model for different atmospheric conditions given by ozone concentration.1).L. The model yields the solar UV irradiance (W/m2) at any desired wavelength range in the UV spectrum and solar zenith angle. Typical values of s for aerosols are usually between 0. which represents the aerosol concentration in the atmosphere with usual values between 0 and 0. 1995).

Even though they are located in different contexts than the PSA. daily UV irradiation on the horizontal (HUV) and tilted plane (HUVT) was calculated by integrating irradiance measurements available from March 2007 to July 2010. For calculation purposes.11). 2005. x0si is the sunset hour angle for the tilted surface for the mean day of the month described in Table 3 and is given by Eq. Other aerosol parameters.3.gsfc.20–0. (A. can only assess solar radiation in a horizontal surface. RUV i and RUVANNUAL . This data base is not available for all locations. which shows the nth day of the month that corresponds to mean monthly declination values. the atmosphere at both sites is mostly clean and their data was used as a starting point to assess the aerosol parameters for the radiative transfer model. H d i is the monthly mean diffuse irradiation.310 L. The retrieved data and the interpolation at 550 nm for the selected days of August 2010 are shown in Table 2. Three clear days of August were selected to perform the comparison. Data from this network provide near real time observations of aerosol optical depth. 0. 0. 2005. Particularly. aerosol size distributions and precipitable water in diverse aerosol regimes (Holben et al. where u is the plane tilt.nasa. Rbi is a dimensional parameter the accounts for the ratio of average beam irradiation on the tilted surface to that on a horizontal surface and is given by Eq. (A. The corresponding ratios RUV . The first was Malaga (36°N.15 0. H UVT ) and annual (H UVANNUAL . slope or inclination. recommend the use of Table 3. The selection criteria was that the sky was completely clear throughout the entire day.7). where / is the latitude of the location (North(+).18 0. H i is the monthly mean global irradiation on the horizontal plane and H T i is the monthly mean global irradiation on the tilted plane. being 1 for January and 12 for December. a fixed Table 2 Aerosol optical depth (AOD) obtained from AERONET at 500 and 657 nm. (A. monthly and annual basis for the entire data set.11 0. There are two near by locations which had aerosol optical depth measurements available. di is the mean monthly declination (the angular position of the sun at solar noon with respect to the plane of the equator). AERONET is an optical ground based aerosol monitoring network. 4°W) and the second was Granada station (37°N. even for large variations.26 Granada AERONET station AOD 500 nm) 0. Air scattering follows an automatic calculation procedure. q is the surface albedo and stands for the hemispherical reflection of the ground in front of the tilted surface (typical values for global radiation are around 0.30 for grass. The average daily data from AERONET (500 nm. 3°W). Navntoft et al. the AERONET database was consulted.30 for cement and 0. Data at 550 nm (the model input) was interpolated. ´ Malaga AERONET station Day 04/08/2010 06/08/2010 07/08/2010 AOD (500 nm) 0.14).8).15 0. such as a. are given respectively by Eqs.19 0.25 0.19 0. The sunrise hour angle is the negative of the sunset hour angle. (A.1.. one radiometer was taken as reference and the entire data set (March 2007–July 2010) was corrected against it by means of a correlation.10).24 AOD (550 nm) 0.17 0. and is given by Eq. (A. (A.20 AOD (550 nm) 0. The AERONET network measures the aerosol optical depth at 500 nm and 675 nm. The subscript i refers to the month in question.22 . The comparison model and measurements. Klein. The relationship between horizontal and inclined plane UV irradiation was analyzed on a daily. Monthly (H UV .80 for snow. diffuse and ground reflected. The method considers the three components of solar radiation reaching a plane: direct.24 AOD (675 nm) 0. The value of the mean monthly declination corresponds to a specific nth julian or astronomical day of each month. The monthly UV ratio was compared with the analogous ratio for solar global radiation defined by Eq. The parameter xsi is the sunset hour angle for the horizontal surface for the day of the month that corresponds to the monthly mean declination of Table 3.20–0. If diffuse and ground reflected radiation are each assumed to be isotropic (one of the assumptions of the theoretical model of Liu and Jordan.50–0.9). The model TUV 4. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 307–318 cal depth. 1962).26 AOD (675 nm) 0. and (A. hence the need to position all three radiometers horizontal during the month of August to obtain a good comparison. The monthly global ratio (RGLOBAL i ) was calculated using the algorithm developed by Liu and Jordan (1962). (South(À)). where “min” means the smaller of the two items in the brackets. and described in Duffie and Beckman.23 0. 1990)). then RGLOBAL i can be expressed by Eq. (Duffie and Beckman.60 for clear painted surfaces (Chasseriaux.13).70–0.12). (A. Values at 550 nm were interpolated. 675 nm) was retrieved from the AERONET website (http://aeronet. have a secondary effect.13 0. Data analysis Once the measurements were corrected according to the procedure described in the previous section. 2. Due to the characteristics of Almeria. where there is no snow and no major climate changes during the year. allowed to identify the quality of the data obtained by the different radiometers.17 0.14 0. 1977 ). there was no data available for the PSA.gov) for both stations.H UVTANNUAL ) averages were also determined.C. 1998). s. To determine the most appropriate aerosol optical depth value for the model. Based on this information.

Month January February March April May June July August September October November December N 17 47 75 105 135 162 198 228 258 288 318 344 d (°) À20.50 2. 1. The comparison between the measurements and the model for one of the clear days of august 2010 can be seen in Fig. UV radiometers do not have a flat response.C.20 13.1 model can yield the same results for different atmospheric conditions. There is also the matter of the UV radiometers spectral response.11) and obtained from Barbero et al. Navntoft et al.10 21.31 1016. requires total and diffuse UV irradiation obtained from a measuring network of UV radiometers with the same spectral response. Otero et al. Hence. With the worldwide scarcity of UV measurements and the different instruments used in each research.11 7402. Month January February March April May June July August September October November December H i (Wh/m2) 2513.26 7629.40 18.. Several atmospheric conditions for the model were tested.51 5345.91 778.37 2176. (1998). Data quality assurance During August 2010.46 .2 was considered representative for the calculations. Both methods. Therefore.90 À13.91 3526. Such calculation cannot be applied to the UV spectra since there is no availability of long term measurements of monthly mean diffuse UV irradiation. measured data (H i and H d i ) from the report of Barbero et al. the adaptation of the described method for calculating UV on a tilted.74 6600.66 2172. it does not matter which is the spectral composition of the light of interest as long as it lies in the mentioned range. Another widely used model for these calculations is that developed by Klein and Theilacker (1981). (A. The obtained values can be seen in Table 4.69 1405. This means that the instrument has the same response for the different wavelengths in the global spectra that reaches the earth surface. an empirical approach is better justified. In this way.20 À9. The resolution of Eq.94 H d i (Wh/m2) 790.1. The first one was selected for practical calculation reasons. The report contains monthly means of needed parameters that ´ were obtained in Almerıa. In this work. Results 3. a correlation that yields UV irradiation on a 37° inclined plane as a function of horizontal plane irradiation was determined. The parameters such as H d i can be obtained by direct measurement of data or can be estimated by other methods such as the one described by Collares-Pereira and Rabl (1979). The TUV 4. south oriented plane. provided that H i is known from measurements. (2009).17 2911.49 1536. they do not have a flat or single response in the UV spectra but rather different spectral responses for different wavelengths. with measurements performed during the period 1990–1996. radiative transfer model characteristics (Bais et al. 1995. all radiometers were positioned horizontal in order to compare the measurements under similar conditions and identify possible instrument drifts.34 7053. Furthermore. Madronich and Flocke. independent of the wavelength within the range of interest. This means that spectral composition of UV light does matter when performing measurements and calibrations.60 À18. Based on the previous work by Navntoft et al. In other words. being this range different for each instrument. (1998) was used for the calculation of RGLOBAL . The applied calculation method is widely used in solar thermal and photovoltaics applications for calculating monthly global irradiation on tilted planes facing equator (Duffie and Beckman. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 307–318 Table 3 Julian day for monthly mean declination values obtained from Klein (1977) and Duffie and Beckman (2005). either that of Liu and Jordan (1962) or Klein and Theilacker (1981) yield similar values for tilted surfaces oriented towards equator.54 3868. this option is not possible to achieve.06 2231. 2003) the following parameters were chosen as representative of the atmospheric situation at the PSA on a clear day of August: Table 4 Values of monthly mean global and diffuse irradiation used for calculating Eq.63 4487. It is a bit more cumbersome but the obtained results can be obtained for any surface orientation or azimuth other than south..11) requires knowledge of the monthly mean of all mentioned parameters.71 6068. 3.00 À2. what matters is the total intensity.L.80 23. all of the UV sensors in the market and research field are made with photodiodes that respond only to a specific range of wavelengths.90 À23. Measurements from three clear days during August 2010 were compared against the TUV 4.11 1993. 2003) and other references (Iqbal.00 311 value of 0. 2005). atmospheric parameters data of nearby AERONET stations.1 radiative transfer model.40 9.94 1123. The radiometers used for measuring solar global radiation have a flat response. 1983.40 770. (A.89 1791.34 1878.

.312 L. This can be observed by the fit of the spectral response of the instrument with that of the TUV model in that wavelength range and also because both radiometers yield measurements below the UV-A output of the model. The precise methodology for the assessment is either by comparison against a spectroradiometer or against a calibrated radiometer of the same spectral response. Based on the quality assurance analysis. which confirms that radiometer 1 has a drift. This is confirmed by an almost perfect fit with the model. Navntoft et al. the data analysis can only be established by the measurements performed by radiometers 1 and 2. Analysis of measurements from radiometer 3 must be discarded. 1. each radiometer is measuring in the range specified by the instrument spectral response. 2 shows a linear correlation between both radiometers. non of the radiometer data would fit with the TUV model. If such correlation had been quadratic or cubic.C. and applying the correlation to the entire data set. Since no such instruments are available. an intercomparison of different instruments by means of a radiative transfer model can give also accurate information on the status of each instrument. On the other hand.1 model for a clear day in August. with different spectral responses. This fact confirms that the chosen atmospheric parameters are correct and representative of a clear day in the month of August at the PSA. fitted within a difference of 5% with the model. given Fig.gsfc. respectively. 2. (2) Radiometer 1 is measuring below expected and data must be therefore corrected against radiometer 2. A detailed analysis of Fig. actually measure a fraction of the solar UV-A spectrum in the wavelength range of their spectral response (315–378 nm). The agreement found between model and measurements in radiometers 2 and 3. The third is that there is a possibility that radiometer 1 has a drift. The first is that the atmospheric chosen parameters are correct. If the chosen parameters would have been incorrect.  Aerosol optical depth (s) = 0. 2 and 3 cannot be used simultaneously because they are measuring the UV spectra in different wavelengths. Comparison of measurements of radiometers 1. radiometer 2 does not coincide with the modeled irradiance. 1. An observation at Fig. The measurements of radiometers 2 and 3 are in close agreement with the TUV modeled irradiance in the range of 315–378 nm and 300–385 nm.99 The ozone concentration for each of the modeled days was obtained from the TOMS satellite measurements database (http://toms. two radiometers (2 and 3).3  Single scattering albedo (x) = 0.2  Alpha wavelength coefficient (a) = 1. (3) Radiometers 1. and not the entire UV spectrum. Correlation between data measured by radiometers 1 and 2. which has a similar spectral response. 2. radiometer 1 data was corrected using radiometer 2 as a reference.gov/teacher/ozone_overhead. which have the same spectral response. Fig. can be used to justify the following statements: (1) Radiometers 2 and 3 are assumed to be measuring correctly in the region defined by their spectral response. 2. provided that at least one of the instruments is measuring correctly. html). confirm several facts. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 307–318 This information in addition to that obtained from Fig. (4) Radiometers 1 and 2.nasa. 3 and the TUV 4. and that they are both measuring in the same wavelength range. This was done by correlating the data obtained during the month of August 2010. 1 provides valuable information on the real spectral range measured by the radiometers. In this case. In this way. The data correlation between both equipments can be seen in Fig. The second is that. then that information would be showing that both instruments are measuring in different wavelengths.

2. the sky is clear and there is less diffuse UV irradiation. . the measurements corresponding to the period March 2007–July 2010. Fig. the measured irradiance corresponds to the 315–378 nm UV region. where IRAD2 is the irradiance measured by radiometer 2 and IRAD1 is the irradiance measured by radiometer 1. calculated from irradiance measurements performed with radiometer 1. respectively) are plotted as a function of the Julian day of the year in Fig. (A.35 in the winter days and a minimum of 0. when the sun is higher. are responsible for the phenomena. 3 and 4. Daily irradiation 315–378 nm on the horizontal plane in Wh/m2. over the entire day.C. and the operating conditions described in Table 1 were processed. beginning of spring and autumn. calculated from irradiance measurements performed with radiometer 2.15).36%. It is under these conditions when the larger error deviations are expected. respectively. Figs.15) was systematically applied to correct the rest of the data from March 2007 to July 2010.1. Strictly speaking. Fig. The value for the other days of the year fall somewhere in between the extreme mentioned values. radiometer 1 and 2. a radiometer faces the worse operating conditions: high ambient and instrument temperature. Daily irradiation for the horizontal (HUV) and inclined plane (HUVT) was calculated integrating irradiance measurements from radiometers 1 and 2. the UV-B region (280–315 nm) is out of the measurements range. 3. for each day of all the available data is shown in Fig. Daily irradiation for both planes (horizontal and inclined. Hence. Navntoft et al. yielding an overall mean square error (RMS) of 1. lower solar zenith angles and presence of clouds. 5. A great dispersion of points is observed in days 1–151 and 241–365. (A. Daily ratio of UV irradiation on the tilted plane with respect to the horizontal plane (RUV). Daily analysis After data correction with correlation (A. An inspection of both figures. the RMS of the correlation is expected to be minor in more favorable conditions. Strictly speaking.15) was obtained with data from 3 clear days and 8 cloudy days from August 2010. The increase in winter is larger than the decrease in summer. RUV. so it seems correct to say that the measurements correspond to the UV-A spectrum (315–400 nm) and not the entire UV spectrum (280– 400 nm). which coincides with the winter. shows that the tilted plane (radiometer 2) receives more energy than the horizontal plane (radiometer 1) in the winter season and less energy in the summer season. 3. The correlation is given by Eq. The daily ratio. Eq.15). Daily irradiation 315–378 nm on the tilted plane in Wh/m2.L. 5. Prediction error was assessed with the rest of the measurements of August 2010. According to the results obtained in Section 3. Less dispersion is observed in summer days between 151 and 241. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 307–318 313 that the difference would vary with the solar angle of incidence due to the wavelength dependance of different atmospheric phenomena. in a summer clear day. 4. (A. Eq. The value of the ratio has a maximum of approximately 1. The combination of the high share of diffuse solar UV irradiation.9 in the summer days.

93 0. ND: No data available for the period. 3.11 1.18 1. As expected.12 1. were cloudy days are very few.95 0.314 L.02 0.22 2009 1. year and inclination are plotted in Fig.23 1. The lowest standard deviation is given for the summer months. 6. In order to establish a comparison with the global spectra.04 1.3. 7. Table 7 Monthly ratio of inclined/horizontal solar UV irradiation (315–378 nm) for each year.06(±0. corresponding to winter and summer months. shows the monthly mean ratio (RUV ).98 0.94 ND ND ND ND ND RUV 1.94(±0. respectively.02) 1.01) 1.19 2010 ND 1. Navntoft et al. Fig.09 1.05 1.06) 1.07) 1.26 2008 1.19 1.18 1.01 0.04) 0. The opposite occurs for the winter months.23 1.04) 1. 7 and Table 8.91 0.03) Table 5 Monthly mean UV irradiation at horizontal plane (315–378 nm) for each month and year. The comparison both ratios are shown in Fig.99(±0. ND: No data available for the period.14(±0.92(±0.99 1.98 1. From the information in Tables 5 and 6. the lower values of mean daily irradiation occur between the months of december and january and the higher values occur between june and august for both planes. Monthly means irradiation for the horizontal plane (HP) and 37° inclined plane (IP) for each month and year.01) 0.94 0.11 0.09(±0. respectively.12(±0.14 1.12 1.22(±0.99 1.92 0.01) 0.19 1. The horizontal planes values are higher than the inclined plane values for summer and the opposite occurs in the winter season.94(±0.97 0.03 0. Monthly analysis Monthly mean daily UV irradiation was calculated for each month and each year of the data set.3. 6 and are shown together with the standard deviation in Tables 5 and 6. The values for each month. Ratios of monthly mean inclined/horizontal solar irradiation for the UV and global spectra. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 307–318 Fig.23(±0.02) 0. Table 7. Month January February March April May June July August September October November December 2007 ND ND 1.01) 0. . the monthly inclined/horizontal ratio (RGLOBAL ) for global radiation was calculated according to the method described in Section 2. Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual 2007 N/D N/D 197 ± 45 198 ± 72 280 ± 56 306 ± 67 318 ± 15 263 ± 33 205 ± 45 146 ± 49 115 ± 28 86 ± 25 211 ± 91 2008 115 ± 20 120 ± 37 208 ± 50 253 ± 67 263 ± 67 315 ± 41 306 ± 40 303 ± 13 197 ± 48 139 ± 50 115 ± 24 87 ± 22 204 ± 92 2009 97 ± 32 143 ± 35 190 ± 54 240 ± 52 293 ± 44 320 ± 32 312 ± 33 284 ± 26 190 ± 56 169 ± 28 168 ± 28 100 ± 31 204 ± 90 2010 N/D 147 ± 45 167 ± 63 228 ± 50 307 ± 38 301 ± 48 300 ± 45 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 251 ± 78 Table 6 Monthly mean UV Irradiation at a plane inclined 37° oriented towards equator (315–378 nm) for each month and year.95 0.C.08 1. the ratio is higher in winter months and lower in summer months.93 0.93 0.93 0.22(±0.04 1.93 0.27 1. 7 shows that there is an important difference in the inclined/horizontal ratio for the different spectral ranges.99(±0. Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual 2007 N/D N/D 221 ± 59 197 ± 76 266 ± 55 283 ± 62 300 ± 13 260 ± 34 223 ± 54 168 ± 65 145 ± 44 112 ± 41 216 ± 80 2008 147 ± 37 141 ± 55 234 ± 59 257 ± 70 247 ± 65 289 ± 37 286 ± 39 296 ± 12 209 ± 57 157 ± 63 145 ± 40 110 ± 38 209 ± 81 2009 119 ± 50 171 ± 50 210 ± 67 245 ± 56 276 ± 44 292 ± 30 290 ± 30 282 ± 27 201 ± 66 200 ± 38 201 ± 38 126 ± 46 212 ± 79 2010 N/D 168 ± 63 178 ± 76 223 ± 55 284 ± 36 278 ± 43 281 ± 42 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 242 ± 70 Fig.03) 1.92 0.

90 0.67 1.07 76.134. Correlation The empirical correlation of average monthly values of UV irradiation on the inclined plane as a function of the horizontal plane can be seen in Fig. Month January February March April May June July August September October November December RUV 1. The optimum monthly inclination values for the PSA are given .04 1. On the overall annual analysis.13 1. Navntoft et al.C.98 57. It is important to mention that summer irradiation losses are about the same values for both wavelength ranges.92 0.22 RGLOBAL 1. The plane inclination rises the UV irradiation intercepted by the plane in 30–40% in the last days of autumn.94 0. Only years 2008 and 2009. yet the increase in winter is much larger for global. The annual increase in global radiation rises up to 10–12% per year.4. the inclined plane receives about a 10–15% less irradiation on the summer months.85 0. mainly due to the influence of direct solar radiation.02 0.37 1. This is directly related to the larger direct component of the global wavelength range. In the global wavelength range (300–3000 nm).94 0. and the first days of spring. this percentage rises up to 10–12% for the same conditions. the inclined plane receives more solar UV irradiation than the horizontal plane. 3.97 59.830.L. The same case occurs with the data from 2007.910. The results are shown in Table 9. giving support to the evidence of the influence of the solar zenith Table 9 Annual ratio of inclined/horizontal solar UV irradiation (315–378 nm).04 1. should be considered to assess annual implicancies of UV energy on a tilted plane.83 Month February– July January– December January– December March– December PI/ PH 0. The main reasons for this difference is that the UV range has a much larger diffuse component than global radiation. is larger than that for the UV range. in order to capture more useful photons for photoreactions. UV and global. Empirical correlation of UV (315–378 m) reaching a plane inclined 37° oriented towards equator. 3. The determined empirical correlation is shown in Eq.16).97 1.06 1.816. spring and autumn months in global solar radiation due to the inclination.482.99 0. the annual gainings in direct UV irradiation are larger than the losses in diffuse UV irradiation.5.74 315 The increment in the winter.99 1. 0) since there is no physical sense for an empirical equation that gives a non null value of H UVT for null values of H UV . A quadratic relation fitted best than a lineal. so in this case. Discussion The analysis of the presented data show that in the assessed UV range (315–378 nm). The data was forced to be fitted through (0. On the contrary. (A. In this way. the annual UV energy increase for a plane located at 37°N and tilted the same degrees as the latitude.856.74 64.14 1. 4. Measurements from a few months of 2010 are missing.47 1.09 0. the annual integral should not be taken into consideration.80 73. 30– 40% more UV energy per month could be obtained.75 67. The second order polynomial regression was the best fit for the data. Again. In this way. even though both components are present in approximately the same proportion in the UV range. it would be more convenient to regulate the inclination of the reactor or the plane of interest each month.987.464.20 1.95 37° Inclined annual energy (Wh/m2) 38. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 307–318 Table 8 Average monthly ratio of inclined/horizontal UV and global irradiation.23 1.69 1. it can be seen that the inclined plane receives approximately between 3% and 4% more annual energy than the horizontal plane.22 1.12 1. 8. where the data from the winter months is missing. Annual analysis Annual UV irradiation on both planes (horizontal and tilted) was calculated by summarizing all the daily integrals of each year. Based on these years data.96 1. lies between 3% and 4%. angles and the weight of the diffuse solar irradiance in the UV range. Year 2010 2009 2008 2007 Horizontal annual energy (Wh/m2) 40.87 0.03 Fig. 8. winter. Regarding solar water treatment applications.

the fixed inclination has the advantages and disadvantages already described. since the increase in monthly and annual energy can vary with the location and local climate conditions. monthly and annual values of UV irradiation on both planes have been analyzed in detail. an analysis of the location climate must be performed before determining the fixed inclination value. Before analysis. If a heavy rain season coincides with winter. the mean annual gainings due to plane inclination range from 10% to 12%. The derivation of a generalized method. This is the subject of future studies. economical or other type of constraints. a photoreactor or plane inclined 37° facing equator will annually receive about 3–4% more UV energy than the horizontal plane.80 18.70 14.95 in the summer ðA:1Þ ðA:2Þ ðA:3Þ ðA:4Þ z s ¼ bðkÞÀa xo ¼ rsc ðrsc þ rabs Þ .20 23. the best choice is to give different inclinations for each month. The main factor affecting the quantity of diffuse radiation in the UV-A wavelength range is Rayleigh scattering and aerosol scattering and absorption.70 in the winter months to 0. The optimum plane inclination will be different for different locations. Daily. The overall results is that at the PSA.85 in summer days.40 16. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 307–318 in Table 10. suffers the phenomena in larger quantities than the rest of the spectrum reaching the earth surface. the equation applies to places located near the same latitude (south or north) and similar weather characteristics (clear atmosphere). such as the ones for global energy. Month January February March April May June July August September October November December b 58. The values are numerically equal to the mean monthly sun zenith angle at noon. If monthly inclination regulation is restricted due to functioning systems conditions. months. then the gainings due to inclination will be smaller than those explained above. For example. and possible drifts were identified and corrected.10 55.60 34. due to the lack of direct UV. all of UV is diffuse and no increase in the overall irradiation would be detected. An empirical correlation to obtain UV irradiation on a 37° inclined plane. Horizontal UV radiation can be estimated from other wavelengths such as global or PAR and subsequently extrapolated to an inclined plane using the proposed correlation. requires simultaneous measurement of total. and monthly mean ratios range from 1. each month the plane will have normal sun incidence in the moments where more energy is available. Appendix A. Nevertheless.25 in the winter months to 0. The UV range. If this option is unavailable due to technical.50 46. Acknowledgements This work was performed with the help of the “Access to the PSA Program” (Plan de Acceso Nacional a la Platafor´ ma Solar de Almerıa) and travel grants from the UTNFRBA (National Technological University-Buenos Aires Regional Faculty) and 3iA-UNSAM (Institute for Envi´ ronmental Engineering-National Unversity of San Martın).30 39. In principle. Conclusions A 4 year data analysis of UV measurements on the horizontal an inclined plane has been presented. diffuse and direct UV irradiation at different inclination angles.80 in the summer months. For the global wavelength range. Weather conditions at the PSA are very favorable for solar applications. always trying to have normal sun incidence onto the plane of interest. Different plane inclinations have to be studied separately. a product of large Rayleigh scattering and aerosol absorption. mainly. from horizontal plane measurements has been obtained. data quality was assessed by comparison with other radiometers and with modeled irradiance.316 Table 10 Optimum monthly inclination (b) values for solar reactors located at the PSA. The difference in the gainings is attributed to the large diffuse component in the UV range. different climates and use regimes. Equations I dir ðzÞ ¼ I 0 Á eÀðcos hÞ Z 1 nj ðzÞ Á rj Á dz s¼ s 5. Daily inclined/horizontal ratio range from 1.35 in winter to 0. Navntoft et al. at particular locations. the rain season is during winter and is characterized by strong rain and clouded sky most of the days. We would also like to thank Francisco Jose Olmos Reyes and Lucas Alados Arboledas and their staff for establishing and maintaining the (Malaga and Granada AERONET sites) used in this work and Inmaculada Polo for helpful suggestions. Monthly mean inclined/horizontal UV solar radiation ratio range from 1.80 60.40 27. since there will be little direct UV component available. Hence. much attention must be paid to the interpretation of the presented data.30 50. Regarding reactors for solar UV water treatment.C.40 L. Under these circumstances.

A. Kudish. W.C. International Photolysis Frequency Measurement and Model Intercomparison (IPMMI): spectral actinic solar flux measurements and modeling. lloyd. Hofzumahaus. Solar safe water: solar technologies for water decontamination and disinfection (Solar Safe Water: Tec´ ´ ´ nologıas solares para la desinfeccion y descontaminacion del agua). 1977. 1996.. Compound parabolic concentrator technology development to commercial solar detoxification application..P.. Spain (ISBN 84-8240120-3).V. Martin.K.es/webeng/projects/solarsafewater/index. Slutsker. Solar Energy 49 (6).. Swartz... 2005. J. M. S. S.T. Transactions on ASME Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 103. Tratzky. Yuesi. Universidad de Almeria. Jacovides.. A assessment of global ultraviolet solar radiation in the range (0.M. Kaltsounides. J. Gardiner.S... Oliveira.. Klein. Relationships between UV ˜ (0... V. F.Y. F. 1–16.. Grasnick. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 89.. Lnobl. A. Daily insolation on surfaces titled towards the equator... M. Navntoft et al.. Ultraviolet radiation spatiotemporal characteristics derived from the ground-based measurements taken in China. N. Mueller..290–0. 1996.385 m) in Kuwait.. Shwander... Minerio. Rasas. J. Solar uv radiation measurements at Potsdam (52°220 N. USA. H. Monks.E. 189–195. Bo. M. Johnston. New York. J. UVA and global radiation clearness and UV index for Beer Sheva and Neve Zohar (Dead Sea). ASHRAE Journal 3 (10)... K.L. Collares-Pereira. C.. 159–162. Fernandez. R..C. Lopez. P. Jankowiak. Asimakopoulos. Spain. J. Paliatsos. M. Solar Energy 67 (4–6).. H.. G.P.. D.A.. Evseev.... Unsam. Koepke. C.. Bais.. J.G. New Jersey. 1992. Interrelations of UV-global/global/ diffuse solar irradiance components and UV-global attenuation on air pollution episode days in Athens. 1962. Schmitt.J. Crawford.K. Grant. A. I. Conversion termica de la radiacion solar. 13°50 E). ´ ´ Rubio. Vincent... Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 8. L. 2007. M. G. Rodrigo. Grant. Hall. Chasseriaux. Lefer... Akman. 1623–1641. Journal of Geophysical Research 108 (D16). D. Journal of Geophysical Research 108 (d2). Shaban. Jordan... Gao. Brunotte.G.J. Sattler.A.. G. Griffioen. 2003. Frost. 2003.... Malato.. Diffuse fraction of UV radiation under partly cloudy skies as defined by the Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS). Krol... G. F.. 2008.. Blanco. Academic Press. Lavenu. Mayer. Beckman. Morales. S.D. Theoharatos. P.. 1188–1200....H. 3173–3181.C.I. B.. Radiacion solar y aspectos climatologicos de Almeria 1990–1996.. J.. ´ ´ Curco..F. Wiley and Sons.K.. Koronakis.. B. Buenos Aires.... P.... Malato.. Roeth. 53. P.. A. Israel.S. Solar Energy 22 (2). Marco..S. 3583–3591. M. A. F.A.N.A. S. Solar Energy 19. Casalle. Batlles. H. Reagan.. B. Eck. Pedros. Funken. Argentina. Bosca. G.C... Kaufman. Van Weele. 155–164.. Krotkov. Solar global UVB (280– 315 nm) and UVA (315–380 nm) radiant fluxes and their relationships with broadband global radiant flux at an eastern Mediterranean site. Flittner. 2002. J. Sfantos. Liu. B. Koronakis.. Atmospheric Environment 41. 4046. Tymvios. Duffie.. R.psa.. Smirnov. 29. Barbero. M. P.. A. N. J.. Mendes.E. Blesa. C. 8543. M. A. The average distribution of solar radiation correlations between diffuse and hemispherical and between daily and hourly insolation values..A.. P.G.P. 1990... Lyubansky. J. S. Al-jamal. M. J.. Dilmac. Energy 30. Dischinger. Atmospheric Environment 36.F. A.. AERONET–A federated instrument network and data archive for aerosol characterization. Koepke. W.. Perez. 1998.. J.295–0. Guangren. M. 387–400.. C. Greece.R. P. M.. doi:10. C. 1998. Rangel... 317–330. Edwards. 1988.html>. Holben.. S.. Ultraviolet irradiance of inclined planes at the top of plant Canopies. 541–548. Trincado...G. I. R..M.. An algorithm for calculating monthlyaverage radiation on inclined surfaces. Feister. M. J.S. Energy 28.S.A. Intercomparison of the solar UVB. Remote Sensing of Environment 66...H. W. D. J. B. J.G. G. C... I... P. Barrick.. Buenos Aires. Hess. Canada. 281–293. Collares Pereira. T. A. J. A. 1979.F.R.. Kraus. P. McKenzie. Klein. Nakajima. Musci. Madronich. Solar Energy 41 (2).A.. Cantrell. An Introduction to Solar Radiation. Kaldellis.. S. <http://www. E. Energy 21 (3).. E. 2009. G. F. 1998. S.. A. Pfister.H. M. Solar Energy 56 (5).. M. Topcu. R. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 149. S. 2005. K. J. 1981.. Calculation of monthly average insolation on tilted surfaces. Ianetz..J. K. J... Ruggaber. D.S. Setzer.. S. M. A... A. Vermote.. Calvrt.E. 2005. Theilacker. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes.. 2003. A.. Buis. Tanre. J.R..385 lm) and broadband solar radiation hourly values in ´ Valencia and Cordoba.A. M. E..L.. U. Shetter. 325. 1983. Blanco. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 307–318 317 3 P ðh À h0 Þ ¼ Á ð1 þ cos2 ðh À h0 ÞÞ 4 Z 1 þ1 P ðh À h0 Þ Á cosðh À h0 Þ Á dðcosðh À h0 ÞÞ g 2 À1 H UVT RUV ¼ H UV RUVi ¼ H UVT i H UV i ðA:5Þ ðA:6Þ ðA:7Þ ðA:8Þ RUVANNUAL ¼ P365 1 RGLOBALi ¼ RGLOBALi ¼ HTi Hi P1 H UVT 365 H UV ðA:9Þ ðA:10Þ HTi Hi     H di H di 1 þ cos u ¼ 1À Á Á Rbi þ 2 Hi Hi   1 À cos u þqÁ 2 ðA:11Þ Rbi ¼ cosð/ À uÞ Á cos di Á sin x0si þ x0si Á sinð/ À uÞ Á sin di cos / Á cos di Á sin xsi þ xsi Á sin / Á sin di ðA:12Þ ðA:13Þ ðA:14Þ xsi ¼ cosÀ1 ðÀ tan / Á tan di Þ " # cosÀ1 ðÀ tan / Á tan di Þ 0 xs ¼ min cosÀ1 ðÀ tanð/ À uÞ Á tan di Þ I RAD2 ¼ I RAD1 Á 1:0733ðÆ3:3212  10À4 Þ with R2 ¼ 0998 and N ¼ 2455 H UVT ¼ À 0:0014ðÆ2442  10 Þ Á ðH UV Þ À4 2 ðA:15Þ þ 1:3688ðÆ0:1033Þ Á H UV R2 ¼ 0:9856 N ¼ 40 ðA:16Þ References Al-aruri. 1999. Vidal. N. Rabl.. S. H. 199–217. ..A. Y. Blanco. A study of solar ultraviolet radiation at Istanbul.. Iqbal. Tsitouri. Photocatalytic degradation of phenol: comparison between pilot plant scale and laboratory results. W. Hemisferio Sur.. S.1029/ 2002jd002201. Modelling UV irradiances on arbitrarily oriented surfaces: effects of sky obstructions. Gimenez. H. 5707–5718. Garofalakis.. J.. Kylling.

.O.. ´ Argentina and Almerıa.. Dıaz. Solar Energy 83. I.318 L. (Pinto 339. In: Proceedings of the Argentine Association of Physics. Paladini. A..edu. P. Egypt. G.. Gies. In: Zerefos. C.. 283–290....J. 1976. Spain. AFA Journal (Anales AFA). H. A. Palancar...C.28–0. 309–325. Tandil. Roy.P. A. South Korea: analysis of their correlation with aerosol optical depth and clearness index. 1995..J..I. Statistics of the evolution of aerosols measured with the stations of the ´ ´ aeronet network in Argentina since 1999 (Estadıstica de la evolucion de los aerosoles medidos en las estaciones de la red aeronet en argentina desde 1999). vol. Solar photocatalysis for detoxification and disinfection of contaminated water: pilot plant studies. Fernandez-Ibanez.. 2003. K. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 31. Y.A.. M. Otero. M.. Bais. Fochesatto. A.. E.P.. 1995.. Atmospheric Environment 38. Argentina. 2004. 27–38. Navntoft et al.. Blesa. ´ Navntoft..R. Thekaekara. 193–214.. L. Romero. M.. 2004. pp.B. Muguruza. 2004. F. UV-A (315–400 nm) irradiance from measurements at 380 nm for solar water treatment and disinfection: comparison between model and measurements in Buenos Aires. S.R. S. Hraki. Atmospheric Research 71. The solar UV radiation environment: measurement techniques and results. E. J. C. 15. Gonzalez.. A study of ultraviolet solar radiation at Cairo urban area. Solar radiation measurement: techniques and instrumentation.M. 251–259.A. ˜ Wolfram.).L. B.. 1073–1082. Kim. (Eds. Theoretical estimation of biologically effective UV radiation at the earth’s surface.ar/crecic/ analesafa/>. 2003. S. Catalysis Today 54 (2–3). Solar Energy 18. Berlin.S. ´ Vidal. Quel. Springer. Modelling Measurements and Effects. Webb. Madronich. A.F. M. El.. . Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 120. 2009. Solar Ultraviolet Radiation. 280–286.. Flocke. Argentina) see also: <http://www. 23–63. Ristori. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 307–318 Buenos Airs. Dawidowski. Ogunjobi. P. S.J.G.. Robaa. 21–27. 1999. UV instrumentation for field and forest research... Effects of meteorology on the annual ´ and interannual cycle of the UV-B and total radiation in Cordoba City. Solar Energy 77.R. G. C. Toomey. Ultraviolet (0. A.unicen.. Toselli. Senhaji.4 um) and broadband solar hourly radiation at Kwangju. Holben.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful