Atmospheric Environment 34 (2000) 1043}1057

Wind tunnel and "eld calibration of six aeolian dust samplers

Dirk Goossens!,",*, Zvi Y. O!er#
!Laboratory for Experimental Geomorphology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Redingenstraat 16 bis, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
"Erosion and Soil and Water Conservation Group, Wageningen Agricultural University, Nieuwe Kanaal 11, NL-6709 PA Wageningen,
Netherlands
#Desert Meteorology Unit, Center for Environmental Physics, The Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the
Negev, Sede Boqer Campus 84990, Israel
Received 1 February 1999; accepted 13 August 1999

Abstract

The e$ciency of six aeolian dust samplers was tested via wind tunnel experiments and "eld measurements. In the wind
tunnel, four samplers designed to measure the horizontal dust #ux and one sampler designed to measure the vertical dust
#ux (in the downward direction, i.e., deposition) were calibrated against an isokinetic reference sampler. The horizontal
dust #ux samplers were: the big spring number eight sampler (BSNE), the modi"ed Wilson and Cooke sampler (MWAC),
the suspended sediment trap (SUSTRA), and the wedge dust #ux gauge (WDFG). Vertical deposition #ux was measured
using a marble dust collector (MDCO). A modi"ed Sartorius SM 16711 dust sampler with adjustable #ow rate
(SARTORIUS) was used as isokinetic reference sampler. In the "eld experiments, the WDFG was replaced by a Sierra
ultra high volume dust sampler (SIERRA). Wind tunnel calibrations were carried out at "ve wind velocities ranging from
1 to 5 m s~1. Field calibrations were conducted during seven periods of two weeks each. The most e$cient samplers are
the MWAC and the SIERRA, followed by the BSNE and the SUSTRA. The WDFG is more e!ective than the BSNE at
velocities below 3 m s~1, but its e$ciency drops quickly at higher wind speeds. The most recommendable sampler for
"eld measurements is the BSNE, because its e$ciency varies only very slightly with wind speed. In the absence of
horizontal #ux samplers, the MDCO collector can be used as an alternative to assess horizontal dust #ux and airborne
dust concentration provided the appropriate calibrations are made. ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Wind; Aeolian dust; Calibration; Dust #ux gauge; Dust deposit gauge

1. Introduction necessary to assess the intensity of aeolian processes in

The measurement of sediment #ux by wind remains
one of the most problematic procedures in aeolian
geomorphology. Reliable and direct measurements of the
sediment #ux are not only required for the con"rmation
and calibration of theoretically derived #ux equations
(Nickling and McKenna Neuman, 1997) but are also
* Corresponding author. Present address: Laboratory for
Experimental Geomorphology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven,
Redingenstraat 16 bis, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium.
E-mail address: dirk.goossens@geo.kuleuven.ac.be (D. Goos-
sens)
a given environment. Horizontal and vertical sediment
#ux are important input parameters in geomorphic mod-
els. Airborne dust concentration, for example, is usually
calculated from horizontal #ux data. Also, the rate of
deposition of particles on the surface is directly a function
of both the vertical and the horizontal sediment #ux.
The most important characteristic of a sediment trap is
its e$ciency. As an obstacle in the #ow, a sampler always
a!ects that #ow and, consequently, also the trajectory of
submerged particles. Most collectors have e$ciencies
below unity, typifying the frictional losses in the #uid and
in the particle's motion. E$ciencies larger than unity are
also possible, however, especially when the air#ow near
the inlet is accelerated due to venturi e!ects caused by the
collector's design. A sediment collector need not be 100%

1352-2310/00/$ - see front matter ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 5 2 - 2 3 1 0 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 3 7 6 - 3
1044 D. Goossens, Z.Y. Ower / Atmospheric Environment 34 (2000) 1043}1057
e$cient to be useful (Drew and Lippmann, 1978).
Low e$ciencies may be an advantage, for example
when high-intensity events with a long duration are
sampled. To obtain correct #ux data, however, it is
necessary that the collector's e$ciency is always known,
in any condition, and that the appropriate corrections
are made.
The e$ciency of a collector depends on di!erent fac-
tors. The "rst (and most important) of these is collector
design, i.e., the size and shape of the collector when
submerged in the #ow. Both parameters determine the
degree of obstruction (in aerodynamic terms: the drag)
of a collector, and, consequently, the rate of perturbation
of the particles' trajectories. The second (and equally
important) factor is the speed of the wind relative to that
of the collector. Particle #ow near and in a collector
strongly depends on wind speed, a!ecting collector
e$ciency.
Particle size, the third factor, is important since it
determines the degree of inertia of the grains. Very small
particles closely follow the streamlines of the air (very
important near the inlet of a collector!) but will also
easily leave the collector if no appropriate trap device has
been installed. Large particles are characterised by
a higher inertia and are more easily trapped by the
collector.
The fourth factor is the sediment trap in the collector
itself. The type of trap is very important in the case of "ne
aeolian dust as the particles penetrate easily through
even very small ori"ces in the trap.
The last factor, "nally, is time. Traps become more
and more saturated as sampling continues, and this may
have positive as well as negative e!ects. Active samplers
sucking in the air (and the particles) at a constant rate
become more e$cient as the "lters inside the instrument
become polluted with sediment, but if there is no auto-
matic adjustment of the #ow (compensating for "lter
blockage) collector e$ciency will rapidly drop. Analog-
ous ambivalent e!ects may occur in static (non-sucking)
samplers.
Ideally, a collector should always be isokinetic.
This means that the instantaneous wind speed through
the sampling ori"ce is equal to the ambient wind speed
along the #ow streamline just upwind of the ori"ce
(Nickling and McKenna Neuman, 1997). In such condi-
tions, sampling does not distort the #ow at the sampling
ori"ce and there is no distortion of the particles' trajecto-
ries. However, sampling isokinetically does not guaran-
tee an e$ciency of 100%. There may be problems with
particles rebounding on the suction tube close to the
sampling ori"ce, and, especially in the case of dust, there
is the risk of spontaneous deposition of particles in the
suction tube itself (Belyaev and Levin, 1972). A careful
construction of the sampler is therefore necessary, and in
such cases, e$ciencies approaching 100% may be ob-
tained.
Numerous aeolian sediment traps have been described
in the literature. The great majority were designed for the
collection of sand, i.e., particles '63 lm, which are
usually transported in saltation. A recent overview of the
aeolian sand trap literature was published by Nickling
and McKenna Neuman (1997). In the present publication
we deal with aeolian dust traps, designed to trap particles
that are merely transported in suspension.
Generally speaking there are two groups of dust
samplers: those measuring horizontal dust #uxes (the
sampling ori"ce is in a vertical position) and those
measuring vertical dust #uxes (the sampling ori"ce is in
a horizontal position). Hybrid types, measuring the hori-
zontal #ux by sucking in the air through a horizontal
ori"ce, also exist.
Vertical dust #ux samplers have been described by
Clements et al. (1963), KoK hler and Fleck (1963),
Clough (1975), Ganor (1975), Ralph and Barrett (1976),
SkaK rby (1977), Pattenden (cited in Steen, 1979), Good-
man et al. (1979), BuK cher (1986), Hall and Waters (1986),
Hall and Upton (1988), Goossens and O!er (1990),
Orange et al. (1990), Pye (1992), O!er et al. (1992), Goos-
sens and O!er (1993) and Littmann (1997). Vertical sam-
plers are usually passive, i.e., the air is not actively sucked
into the trap.
Horizontal dust #ux samplers have been described by
Steen (1977), Wilson and Cooke (1980), White (1982),
Fryrear (1986), Ralph and Hall (1989), Stout and Fryrear
(1989), Janssen and Tetzla! (1991), Leys and Raupach
(1991), Nickling and Gillies (1993), Shao et al. (1993) and
Hall et al. (1994). In these instruments the sediment "rst
enters the trap via an ori"ce and is then trapped by
a "lter or in a settling chamber. Several of the samplers
were originally constructed to trap sand or soil particles,
but they are also suitable for dust measurements. These
are all passive devices, except for the samplers used
by Nickling and Gillies (1993) and Leys and Raupach
(1991), which use pumping to maintain air#ow through
the trap. A detailed overview of commercially available
active traps (high and low air volume samplers) is given
by Furtado (1978). Although this publication is more
than 20 yr old, many instruments described are still avail-
able.
Studies investigating the absolute e$ciency of horizon-
tal dust #ux samplers are scanty. Moreover, many calib-
rations published in the literature are unreliable because
they are based on incorrect experimental procedures. The
only way to measure the absolute e$ciency of a horizon-
tal #ux sampler is to compare the #ux measured by the
sampler to the #ux measured by an isokinetic sampler
installed at the same location and in identical conditions.
In this paper, several horizontal single-point dust #ux
samplers are calibrated against an isokinetic sampler. To
assess the relevancy of wind tunnel calibrations to "eld
situations, calibrations were carried out both in the wind
tunnel and in "eld experiments.
 D. Goossens, Z.Y. Ower / Atmospheric Environment 34 (2000) 1043}1057
Fig. 1. Photography and construction scheme of the BSNE sampler.
2. Description of the samplers
Five horizontal dust #ux samplers and one vertical
dust #ux sampler were selected from the literature and
compared to an isokinetic sampler. A description of the
samplers is provided below.
Sampler 1: BSNE
The big spring number eight (or BSNE) sampler was
developed by D.W. Fryrear in 1986. Although it was
originally designed to collect airborne dust, it is now also
frequently used to collect soil and sand. A picture and
a technical scheme are shown in Fig. 1. The sampler is
constructed of 28-gauge galvanised metal, galvanised 18-
mesh screen, and stainless-steel 60-mesh screen. Dust-
laden air passes through a vertical 2 cm]5 cm sampler
opening. Once inside the sampler, air speed is reduced
and the dust settles out in a collection pan. Air discharges
through a 60-mesh screen. An 18-mesh screen reduces the
movement of the deposited material, preventing break-
down of the collected sediment and potential loss of very
1045
"ne particles out of the top of the screen. A rubber
retainer closes any small holes in the back or front of the
assembled sampler. A wind vane at the rear assures the
sampler to be turned to the wind.
More details about the sampler can be found in the
original description by Fryrear (1986).
Sampler 2: SUSTRA
The suspended sediment trap (or SUSTRA) was de-
veloped by W. Janssen and G. Tetzla! in 1991. Similar to
the BSNE, it is now used for the collection of di!erent
types of sediment (dust, sand and soil). A picture and
a technical scheme are shown in Fig. 2. The dust-laden
air enters the instrument via a horizontal metal tube 5 cm
in diameter and rebounds onto a metal plate inside
a central vertical pipe. Particles settle onto a plastic dish
placed on top of an electronic balance underneath the
pipe, except the "nest ones, which may leave the sampler
via a small outlet on top of the pipe (together with the air
discharging from the instrument). Similar to the BSNE,
a wind vane turns the instrument into the wind at all
1046 D. Goossens, Z.Y. Ower / Atmospheric Environment 34 (2000) 1043}1057
Fig. 2. Photography and construction scheme of the SUSTRA
sampler.
times. To minimise air#ow disturbance near the surface,
the balance is placed in a metal box dug into the ground.
In the original version the horizontal inlet tube is at
a height of about 23 cm above the surface, but this value
can be adjusted while digging the balance box into the
ground. More details on the instrument are described in
the original paper by Janssen and Tetzla! (1991).
Sampler 3: MWAC
The modi"ed wilson and cooke (or MWAC) sampler is
based on an original design developed by S.J. Wilson and
R.U. Cooke in 1980. The sampler consists of a plastic
bottle, "guring as settling chamber, to which an inlet tube
Fig. 3. Photography and construction scheme of the MWAC
sampler.
and an outlet tube have been added (Fig. 3). The bottle is
installed vertically, with the inlet oriented to the wind.
Sediment entering the bottle will be deposited due to the
pressure drop created by the di!erence in diameter be-
tween the bottle and the inlet and outlet tubes. The clean
air then discharges from the bottle via the outlet.
The original concept was later slightly modi"ed by
Kuntze et al. (1990), who attached the bottle in a horizon-
tal (not vertical) position to a mast provided with a wind
vane. Attaching several bottles at di!erent levels to the
mast, vertical #ux pro"les can be measured (Sterk, 1993).
 D. Goossens, Z.Y. Ower / Atmospheric Environment 34 (2000) 1043}1057
Fig. 4. Photography and construction scheme of the WDFG sampler.
The dimensions of the bottle used in our experiments
are indicated in Fig. 3. The inlet and outlet tubes were
made of glass 1.25 mm thick, with an inner diameter of
7.5 mm and an outer diameter of 10.0 mm.
Sampler 4: WDFG
The wedge dust #ux gauge (or WDFG) was developed
by Hall et al. (1993). A picture and a technical scheme are
shown in Fig. 4. The sampler we calibrated was a half-
scale model of the original sampler, and the dimensions
shown in Fig. 4 refer to that half-scale version. The
WDFG is commercially available in both dimensions.
The WDFG consists of a simple, parallel sided box,
wedge shaped in elevation and with extended sides to-
wards the rear holding a ba%e plate. The #at, horizontal
bottom of the box is 18 cm long and 10 cm wide. The top
slopes upwards at an angle of 24.53. Sediment-laden air
enters the instrument via a 1.9]10.0 cm rectangular slot.
1047
The box contains a particle trap made from 10 pores in~1
open-celled foam, which is normally sprayed with
a thin sticky coating to retain any impacting particle. The
foam we received for the calibration tests was not treated
with the coating, however, and the results presented in
this paper refer to clean-foam conditions. The layer of
foam was 3 cm deep and was set with its rear face 2 cm
from the back face of the box. More details about the
WDFG, including an aerodynamic discussion of its de-
sign, can be found in the original description by Hall
et al. (1994).
Sampler 5: SIERRA
The SIERRA sampler (Model Series Number: 680)
is a commercially available ultra high volume dust
aspirator with cascade impactors, manufactured by
Sierra/Misco, Inc. A picture and a scheme are shown in
Fig. 5. Dust-laden air is sucked into the apparatus via
1048 D. Goossens, Z.Y. Ower / Atmospheric Environment 34 (2000) 1043}1057
Fig. 5. Photography and construction scheme of the SIERRA sampler.
a 38.5]39.0 cm horizontal inlet, over which a protecting
roof has been installed. The air then passes through
a 22.8]17.8 cm glass micro"bre "lter trapping even the
smallest particles, and the clean air then discharges from
the instrument. Flow discharge through the "lter is ad-
justable and remains constant during the whole measur-
ing period. The sampler is thus an active sampler, though
not isokinetic.
The "lter type used in the experiments was Whatman
glass micro"bre "lter, cat. No. 1827866. Although the
sucking of the dust-laden air near the roof of the instru-
ment occurs in a vertical direction, the instrument is used
by many researchers to determine the horizontal dust
#ux by multiplying the airborne dust concentration
(measured by the instrument) with the horizontal wind
speed at inlet level. In this study, horizontal dust #uxes
for the SIERRA were always calculated in this way.
Sampler 6: SARTORIUS (isokinetic sampler)
This commercially available instrument is an active
sampler sucking in the air (and the dust) at an adjustable
rate. It has been registered as the Sartorius Membran"l-
ter SM 16711. In its original version, the dust-laden air is
directly sucked into a "lter holder containing a "lter with
a diameter of 4 cm. The "lter holder is connected to the
sampler via a #exible plastic tube, allowing the holder to
be installed at any desired location well away from the
sampler. Flow discharge through the "lter is adjustable
between 200 and 1800 l h~1, and the actual #ow rate can
be read at any time from the instrument. A #ow regulator
button allows the operator to adjust the air#ow, for
example to compensate for clogging of the "lter during
the measurement.
To measure at wind velocities between 1 and 5 m s~1,
a funnel-shaped extension cap was attached to the "lter
holder during the experiments (see Fig. 6). Using this cap,
the diameter of the inlet of the suction slot was reduced
from 4 to 0.87 cm. The cap was of plastic 1 mm thick. To
minimise the errors resulting from particle rebound on
the cap front, the cap was sharply pointed over a distance
of 1 cm near its end. Silicone paste was used to close any
holes between the "lter holder and the extension cap.
 D. Goossens, Z.Y. Ower / Atmospheric Environment 34 (2000) 1043}1057
Fig. 6. Photography and construction scheme of the SARTORIUS sampler.
The type of "lter used was the same as in the SIERRA
sampler: Whatman glass micro"bre "lter, cat. No.
1827866.
Sampler 7: MDCO (vertical dust yux sampler)
To have an idea of the ratio of the vertical deposition
#ux to the horizontal dust #ux, a vertical #ux sampler
was included in the experimental programme. From the
many samplers reported in the literature we selected the
marble dust collector (or MDCO) because this sampler is
currently used world-wide and has become very popular,
especially in desert research. It was "rst described by
Ganor (1975). It consists of a plastic tray with one
(or two) layers of marbles. It can be installed on the
earth's surface, or attached to vertical masts. Various
types of trays are in use, but circular trays are better than
rectangular ones because these latter are direction-sensi-
tive. The tray we used in the wind tunnel was circular,
with a diameter of 31.5 cm and a height of 10 cm (Fig. 7).
The marbles were standard glass marbles 1.6 cm in
diameter. Two layers of marbles were installed in
the MDCO.
1049
3. Experimental procedure
3.1. The wind tunnel experiments
All wind tunnel experiments were carried out in the
closed-return wind tunnel of the Laboratory for Experi-
mental Geomorphology of the Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven, Belgium. The tunnel contains two test channels.
All experiments were conducted in the large channel,
which is 7.6 m long, 1.2 m wide and 0.6 m high.
During the experiments, dust was added to the air
current by connecting an Engelhardt laboratory dust
cloud producer to the tunnel. This apparatus ensures
a continuous feed of dust particles to the air#ow, and
allows the operator to adjust dust discharge. The dust
was added to the #ow in the return section of the tunnel,
via a small (but wide) ori"ce in the tunnel wall. During its
passage through the tunnel, it is fully dispersed over the
tunnel section. The exact distribution of the dust at the
location were the experiments were carried out was accu-
rately measured so that the appropriate corrections
could be made when necessary. Further technical details
1050 D. Goossens, Z.Y. Ower / Atmospheric Environment 34 (2000) 1043}1057
Fig. 7. Photography and construction scheme of the MDCO
sampler.
of the wind tunnel and the dust cloud producer can be
found in a description by Goossens and O!er (1988).
The dust used was prepared from Belgian Brabantian
loess. The loess was dried, ground and sieved through
a 63 lm sieve to exclude all sand particles. It consisted of
95% silt (2}63 lm) and 5% clay ((2 lm) and had
a median diameter of 30 lm (see Fig. 8). This corresponds
closely to the size of modern wind-blown dust near the
earth's surface (Swineford and Frye, 1945; Zeuner, 1949;
PeH weH , 1951; Yaalon and Ganor, 1979; O!er and Goos-
sens, 2000; Nickling et al., 1999). Only 1% of the particles
was coarser than 50 lm.
Due to its size, the SIERRA sampler could not be
tested in the wind tunnel. Thus only "eld results are
available for this sampler. To allow the SUSTRA to enter
into the tunnel, the balance, the balance box and the
wind vane were removed from the instrument. This does
not seriously a!ect the collector's e$ciency since the
balance and the box are normally buried under the soil
surface and the vane is always turned to the wind. All
other samplers were tested in their original state in the
wind tunnel.
During a test, the sampler was placed in the centre of
the tunnel at a fetch of 585 cm. Installation was such that
the centre of the sampler's inlet was always at a height of
23.5 cm above the tunnel #oor. No special preparation of
the fetch was used, and under such conditions, the depth
of the boundary layer in the tunnel is of the order of 7 cm,
i.e., signi"cantly below 23.5 cm. All tests were thus car-
ried out in the free-stream region of the tunnel. Samplers
were oriented such that the average direction of dust
transport was parallel to the sampler inlet axis (i.e., the
inlet was always perpendicular to the dust #ow).
Five wind velocities were selected: 1, 2, 3, 4 and
5 m s~1. The velocities were measured with an accuracy
of 0.01 m s~1 using a digital Furness FC016 manometer.
No higher speeds could be installed in the test section
used, but 1}5 m s~1 is an acceptable range for most
deserts (especially at a height of 1 m, which is the stan-
dard height for dust concentration measurements over
land, see Sehmel, 1980). Wind speeds were measured with
a standard Pitot tube, at the location where the samplers
were later installed.
During the wind tunnel tests, the dust cloud machine
produced a dust discharge of 13.3 kg h~1. At the sam-
plers' location, airborne dust concentration was approx-
imately 2 g m~3, slightly varying with wind velocity.
For each sampler, three independent test runs were
carried out at each velocity. Before each run the sampler
was covered with a plastic sheet to prevent any dust
entering. Once the correct wind speed had been attained,
the sheet was removed and the experiment started. Each
run was of 4 min. After the run, the wind tunnel was
stopped and an oblique plate connected to the tunnel
roof was immediately positioned before the sampler to
avoid any dust entering the trap. The sampler was then
taken out of the tunnel, and the dust collected was
weighed with an accuracy of 0.0001 g on a high-precision
balance. The horizontal dust #ux was then calculated.
To correct the results for small deviations that could
accidentally occur in the dust concentration values, a ref-
erence sampler (we used a second BSNE) was installed at
a "xed position in the wind tunnel during each run. Also
this sampler was initially covered by a plastic sheet and
protected by the oblique plate after completion of the
experiment. All #uxes measured by the test samplers were
later corrected for dust concentration di!erences that
could have occurred during the experiments.
In the BSNE runs, the dust was collected in a small
container that "tted in the sedimentation chamber of the
sampler. The dust caught by the collector was deter-
mined by weighing the container before and after each
experiment. In the MWAC runs, the complete sampler
(bottle#inlet and outlet tubes) was weighed before and
after each experiment. In the SUSTRA runs, the dust was
directly caught on a metal plate put underneath the
central vertical tube of the sampler. The SUSTRA bal-
ance was not used, as mentioned earlier. In the WDFG
runs, the dust was collected from the sampler by cleaning
the sedimentation chamber with a brush and weighing
the foam before and after each experiment. In the
 D. Goossens, Z.Y. Ower / Atmospheric Environment 34 (2000) 1043}1057
Fig. 8. Grain-size distribution of the wind tunnel dust (solid line) and the Negev dust (dotted line).
MDCO runs, dust deposition was directly determined by
weighing the sampler (with the marbles) before and after
the experiments. A balance with an accuracy of 0.001
g (instead of 0.0001 g) was used for this collector. In the
SARTORIUS runs, "nally, the glass micro"bre "lters
and the extension cap were weighed before and after each
experiment and the quantity of dust accumulated was
then calculated.
3.2. The xeld experiments
To evaluate the wind tunnel results, several samplers
were installed at the meteorological station of the Jacob
Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, Sede Boqer, Is-
rael. The station is situated in the northern part of the
Negev desert, in an area characterised by a high aeolian
dust activity. Dust monitoring at the station started in
1986. Since then, many measurements of sediment con-
centration and particle deposition and accumulation
have been conducted. It is an ideal location to carry out
the "eld calibration of the dust samplers.
All "eld measurements started in May 1998. Since the
half-size WDFG was only available from October 1998,
no WDFG "eld calibration could be carried out. Instead
of the WDFG, the SIERRA sampler, which was too large
to be calibrated in the wind tunnel, was tested. The
isokinetic SARTORIUS was not used since it cannot
1051
be connected to the anemometers measuring the instan-
taneous wind speed at Sede Boqer. No isokinetic
measurements of the dust #ux could therefore be carried
out, and no absolute calibration data are available. The
relative e$ciencies of the di!erent samplers were mea-
sured, however, and these can be compared to those
derived from the wind tunnel experiments.
All samplers were installed at a height of 1 m above the
desert surface. They were installed close to each other (to
avoid spatial di!erences in wind speed and airborne dust
concentration), but special care was taken to avoid any
mutual interaction. They could freely rotate and turn
themselves to the wind. Similar to the wind tunnel tests,
the balance box of the SUSTRA was removed from the
instrument and the dust was directly caught on a small
dish placed immediately under the sampler. Since the
MWAC samplers are very small, two copies were instal-
led in the "eld. MWAC data presented later in this paper
refer to the average of both measurements. The SIERRA
sampler was installed at a suction rate of 56 m3 h~1
(41 m3 h~1 between 17 September and 15 November
1998), corresponding to a suction velocity of 0.38 m s~1
(0.28 m s~1 between 17 September and 15 November
1998).
Fig. 8 shows a grain-size distribution curve for typical
Sede Boqer dust. Grain size is similar to that of the dust
used in the wind tunnel.
1052 D. Goossens, Z.Y. Ower / Atmospheric Environment 34 (2000) 1043}1057
Fig. 9. Absolute e$ciency of the SUSTRA, BSNE, MWAC and WDFG samplers. The vertical downward dust #ux as recorded by the
MDCO sampler (relative to the horizontal dust #ux measured by the SARTORIUS) is also shown in the "gure.
The samplers were installed in May 1998 and remained
outside until November 1998. No rain occurred in this
period, so the results are not a!ected by undesired clean-
ing or by splash. Altogether, seven experiments of two
weeks each were carried out. During these experiments,
wind speed was measured every second at di!erent levels
from a meteorological mast close to the samplers. Using
the logarithmic wind pro"le, appropriate values were
calculated for a height of 1 m (the height of the samplers'
inlets). Average speed was then calculated for each of the
seven periods.
4. Experimental results
4.1. The wind tunnel calibrations
Fig. 9 shows, for the four horizontal dust #ux samplers
tested in the wind tunnel (BSNE, SUSTRA, MWAC and
WDFG), the absolute e$ciency within the wind velocity
interval 1}5 m s~1. To have an idea of the ratio of the
vertical deposition #ux to the horizontal dust #ux,
the results of the MDCO measurements are shown
in the same picture. They represent the ratio of the
vertical deposition #ux as measured by the marble sur-
face to the horizontal #ux as measured by the isokinetic
SARTOR assuming the former to be perfectly absorbent
(which is all right for the wind velocity range used). The
dots in the "gure represent the average of the e$ciencies
measured during the three replica experiments. The verti-
cal bars indicate the maximum deviation when the three
sampler data are combined with the three SARTORIUS
data (nine combinations in total). Deviations are rather
small, and remain usually within 10% of the average values.
Comparing the four horizontal #ux samplers in Fig. 9,
there are large di!erences between the samplers. By far
the highest e$ciencies are recorded by the MWAC
bottles, which show an e$ciency of more than 90% for
wind speeds between 2 and 5 m s~1 (75% at a speed of
1 m s~1). The WDFG sampler attains a maximum e$-
ciency of 63% at 2 m s~1, but the e$ciency then dramati-
cally drops with increasing wind speed. The wedged
shape, originally designed to create a pressure di!erence
across the sampler's front and rear openings su$cient to
drive a #ow through the gauge and to overcome the
pressure drop caused by the porous foam (Hall et al.,
1994), apparently is insu$cient to create near-isokinetic
#ow. Especially at high wind velocities (4 m s~1 and
more) the performance of the sampler is poor (e$cien-
cy(30%). The BSNE sampler is less e!ective compared
to the MWAC (and, for low velocities, also to the
WDFG), but the great advantage of this sampler is that
its e$ciency varies only slightly with wind speed. In the
velocity interval investigated (1}5 m s~1) it is always be-
tween 35 and 45%, and, also important, there seems to be
no general relationship with the wind. The SUSTRA
sampler, "nally, is the least e$cient of all the samplers
tested. Its e$ciency increases with wind speed, but even
at a speed of 5 m s~1 it is only 15% e$cient. Also because
of its size, which makes it extremely di$cult to install
several samplers in a vertical array, the SUSTRA seems
to be of little merit for aeolian dust research. In sand
research it o!ers much more possibilities, not only
 D. Goossens, Z.Y. Ower / Atmospheric Environment 34 (2000) 1043}1057 1053

Table 1
Horizontal dust #uxes measured in the "eld. Data in parenthesis represent the #ux relative to the BSNE

Period Wind speed at 1 m Horizontal dust #ux (10~5 g m~2 s~1)

(m s~1)
SIERRA MWAC BSNE SUSTRA

29/05/1998}16/06/1998 2.62 25.49 (4.97) 18.28 (3.56) 5.13 (1.00) 3.36 (0.65)
16/07/1998}30/07/1998 2.68 16.91 (9.04) } 1.87 (1.00) 1.09 (0.58)
30/07/1998}17/08/1998 2.73 25.07 (4.17) 34.46 (5.73) 6.01 (1.00) 2.35 (0.39)
17/08/1998}02/09-1998 2.53 17.10 (4.05) 14.71 (3.49) 4.22 (1.00) 1.54 (0.36)
02/09-1998}15/09-1998 2.30 39.05 (4.77) 44.79 (5.48) 8.18 (1.00) 5.78 (0.71)
14/10/1998}01/11-1998 2.26 15.55 (3.18) 25.03 (5.12) 4.89 (1.00) 1.12 (0.23)
01/11-1998}15/11/1998 1.91 14.96 (9.23) 11.57 (7.14) 1.62 (1.00) 0.43 (0.27)

because sand particles are usually transported close to
the surface, but also because they are su$ciently large to
be detected by the electronic balance. This allows the
operator to determine very accurately the periods of
particle transport. The MDCO curve in Fig. 9 will be
discussed later (Section 5).
4.2. The xeld calibrations
The data for all seven "eld calibrations are sum-
marised in Table 1. To facilitate direct comparisons be-
tween the samplers, the table shows, besides the absolute
#ux data, also the relative #uxes with respect to the
BSNE (in parenthesis). The BSNE was used as a refer-
ence because it is currently one of the most frequently
used samplers in dust research and because its e$ciency
is almost velocity independent (Section 4.1). Table 1 con-
"rms the general picture of the wind tunnel results, with
the SUSTRA being the least e$cient sampler followed by
the BSNE and the MWAC. As an average the SIERRA
sampler measures the same dust quantities as the
MWAC bottles, but there are di!erences between the
distinct experiments. Similar variations are observed for
the other samplers although the average wind speeds are
more or less comparable.
It can be concluded that the "eld ranking and the wind
tunnel ranking of the samplers is identical, but despite the
rather small di!erences in average wind speed, there is
some variation among the experiments. This is an impor-
tant conclusion, which deserves more attention.
5. Discussion
The rather large variation in the "eld data (despite of
restricted variations in average wind speed) is caused by
the unsteadiness of the dust #ow. It is well known that
boundary layer winds are usually highly unsteady (Stout
and Zobeck, 1997). Although gusty winds that drive
suspended particles generally produce less temporal vari-
ations in sediment transport than saltation driving
winds, intermittent bursts remain very important. This is
particularly the case if the dust has been locally eroded
and has not yet become fully dispersed in the atmo-
sphere. Once created, waves of high dust concentration
may persist for long times. The pulses not only result in
high horizontal dust #uxes, but also in high vertical
#uxes, and thus in a high deposition. They are of special
importance with respect to the calibration experiments
conducted in the Negev. Due to the type of the samplers,
no instantaneous determinations of the horizontal dust
#ux were possible. The results presented in Table 1 are
based on 2-week experiments, the minimum that allow
reliable measurements of the sediment weight. Using
larger samplers may help decrease the sampling time but
will not signi"cantly help solve the problem, for intermit-
tent dust transport occurs at all frequencies of the spec-
trum. Even in a period of only a few minutes, there is so
much variation in the dust #ow that average values are of
only little (if any) signi"cance. The 2-week average #ux
values are well documented, but it is fully unknown
when, and at which wind speeds exactly, the largest
amounts of dust entered the samplers. Looking at Fig. 9,
there is already a signi"cant variation in the velocity
interval 1}5 m s~1, and similar variations may be ex-
pected for larger (or smaller) speeds.
The only solution to obtain correct #ux data is to use
an automatic isokinetic sampler connected to an instan-
taneous anemometer. A much easier, and also much
cheaper alternative is to use a sampler whose e$ciency is
rather independent of wind speed. The BSNE is a useful
solution in this context. Its e$ciency for 30 lm dust is
always around 40% (varying between 35 and 45%), at
least within the wind interval 1}5 m s~1. No assessment
of the absolute e$ciency of the SIERRA sampler could
be made, but taken into account its size (and price) a set
of a few vertically mounted BSNEs is much more eco-
nomic (and may also provide more information).
Several of the samplers investigated in this study have
been calibrated before, though not always for aeolian
dust. The BSNE was already tested by Fryrear in 1986,
and later by Stout and Fryrear (1989) and Shao et al.
1054 D. Goossens, Z.Y. Ower / Atmospheric Environment 34 (2000) 1043}1057
Fig. 10. Relationship between the horizontal dust #ux derived from the SIERRA and the vertical dust #ux as measured by the MDCO.
(1993), although the latter authors used a slightly di!er-
ent design by adding a rain hood to the instrument. For
sand, the overall e$ciency of the trap varied between 86
and 96%. For the "ne particle sizes ((63 lm), Fryrear
(1986) found e$ciencies between 96 and 165%, but Shao
et al. (1993), who used an isokinetic sampler as a refer-
ence, concluded that the BSNE is only 40% e$cient for
particles (10 lm. This value corresponds very well to
our results with 30 lm dust (35}45%). A rather pre-
liminar calibration of the WDFG was published by Hall
et al. (1993). E$ciency of the sampler was investigated for
two wind speeds (3 and 8 m s~1) and 2 grain sizes (59 and
136 lm). For 59 lm dust, the WDFG was 80% e$cient
for both wind speeds. For 136 lm sand, e$ciency varied
between 90 and 95%, with the highest value at the lowest
wind. In our own study with 30 lm dust, e$ciency of the
WDFG is clearly lower, and there is also a strong vari-
ation with wind speed, making the sampler less useful for
"ne dusts. For the other horizontal #ux samplers tested
in the wind tunnel (SUSTRA and MWAC), no e$ciency
data are available from the literature, at least not for dust
(sand calibrations were conducted by Sterk (1993), Bak-
kum (1994) and Pollet (1995) for the MWAC sampler,
leading to e$ciencies between 49 and 69%, and by Spaan
et al. (1990) for the SUSTRA, but the latter study does
not provide absolute e$ciency data).
Finally, we consider the MDCO data. These samplers
do not measure the horizontal, but the vertical (depo-
sition) dust #ux. Although the vertical rim seriously
disturbs the particle #ow, MDCOs have become very
popular in dust research since they are very cheap and
also easy to install. In the absence of a horizontal #ux
sampler, MDCOs installed at ground level may be used
to estimate horizontal dust #uxes and airborne dust
concentrations, as will be illustrated later.
Fig. 9 shows that, in the wind tunnel, the e$ciency of
the MDCO decreases with increasing wind speed. The
ratios of the deposition #ux (as measured by the MDCO)
to the horizontal dust #ux (as measured by the isokinetic
sampler) are: 4.26% (1 m s~1), 0.93% (2 m s~1), 0.37%
(3 m s~1), 0.25% (4 m s~1), and 0.22% (5 m s~1). The
systematic decrease is mainly caused by the collector's
rim, which creates a dust shadow (and, hence, a zone of
low airborne sediment concentration) in its lee. The size
of the shadow is directly proportional to wind speed, as is
the decrease of deposition in the sampler.
The relationship between the horizontal dust #ux (cal-
culated from the active SIERRA gauge) and the vertical
deposition #ux as measured by the MDCO collector is
shown in Fig. 10. From the "gure, it is possible to
estimate roughly the horizontal #ux when the accumula-
tion in the MDCO is known. In Fig. 11, the relationship
 D. Goossens, Z.Y. Ower / Atmospheric Environment 34 (2000) 1043}1057
Fig. 11. Relationship between airborne dust concentration at 1 m (measured by the SIERRA) and particle accumulation at ground-level
(measured in an MDCO) during a 2-yr experiment at Sede Boqer.
between airborne dust concentration at 1 m (measured
by the SIERRA) and particle accumulation at ground-
level (in an MDCO) is shown for a 2-yr experiment
carried out earlier at Sede Boqer (Goossens and O!er,
1995). Also here, concentrations can roughly be esti-
mated from the MDCO data.
6. Conclusions
Wind tunnel and "eld experiments were carried out to
determine the e$ciency of six aeolian dust samplers. In
the wind tunnel, four samplers designed to measure the
horizontal dust #ux (BSNE, MWAC, SUSTRA and
WDFG) and one sampler designed to measure the verti-
cal deposition #ux (MDCO) were calibrated against an
isokinetic sampler. Calibration was carried out at "ve
wind velocities, ranging from 1 to 5 m s~1. The most
e$cient sampler is the MWAC, which shows e$ciencies
of over 75% (and usually over 90%) in the velocity range
investigated. The WDFG has an e$ciency of about
50}60% at low wind speeds ((3 m s~1), but becomes
much less accurate at higher winds (e$ciency (30% for
winds '4 m s~1). The e$ciency of the BSNE is approx-
imately 40% (varying between 35 and 45%) and seems to
be independent of wind speed. The SUSTRA sampler,
"nally, is not very accurate, at least for dust. Its e$ciency
systematically increases with wind speed, but remains
1055
below 15% even at the highest speeds tested. All percent-
ages are for the 30 lm dust shown in Fig. 8.
In the "eld experiments, the passive WDFG was re-
placed by the active SIERRA. Highest #uxes were ob-
tained using the MWAC and SIERRA samplers (both
instruments have similar e$ciencies) followed by the
BSNE and the SUSTRA.
The ranking of the samplers with respect to their
e$ciency is identical in the wind tunnel and in the "eld.
Despite of rather small variations in average wind speed,
the numerical data of the distinct "eld experiments show
considerable scatter due to the intermittent character of
the air (and dust) #ow.
The most recommendable sampler in the test is the
BSNE. Although its e$ciency is much lower than that of
the MWAC, it is nearly constant and does not seem to
depend on wind velocity. The BSNE is a low-cost instru-
ment, easy to install, and due to its small size and weight
it is very suited to measure vertical #ux pro"les.
In the absence of horizontal #ux samplers, the MDCO
collector can be used as an alternative to assess approx-
imate values of the horizontal dust #ux and sediment
concentration. Correlation diagrams between MDCO
and SIERRA records are shown in the Figs. 10 and 11,
but these are only valid for 30-lm particles and for the
conditions in force during the tests. For other particle
sizes and circumstances, appropriate calibrations have to
be carried out.
1056 D. Goossens, Z.Y. Ower / Atmospheric Environment 34 (2000) 1043}1057
Acknowledgements
The SUSTRAs used in the test were kindly provided
by W. Schaefer (Institute of Soil Technology, Bremen,
Germany). The half-scale WDFG was constructed by
I. Hanby (Newark, U.K.) and was kindly provided
by G. McTainsh (Gri$th University, Nathan, Australia).
Technical assistance by D. Klepach (Jacob Blaustein
Institute for Desert Research, Sede Boqer, Israel) and J.
Meersmans (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium) is
also greatly acknowledged.
References
Bakkum, A.W.G., 1994. The behaviour of an arti"cial soil crust
in a simulated sand storm. Department of Irrigation and Soil
and Water Conservation, Agricultural University Wagenin-
gen, pp. 40.
Belyaev, S.P., Levin, L.M., 1972. Investigation of aerosol aspira-
tion by photographing particle tracks under #ash illumina-
tion. Journal of Aerosol Science 3, 127}140.
BuK cher, A., 1986. Recherches sur les poussières mineH rales
d'origine saharienne. Ph.D. Thesis, UniversiteH de Reims-
Champagne-Ardenne, pp. 290.
Clements, T., Stone, R.O., Mann, J.F, Eyman, J.L., 1963. A study
of windborne sand and dust in desert areas. US Army,
Natick Laboratories Mass., Earth Science Division, Tech-
nical Report ES-8, Project Ref. 7]83-01-008.
Clough, W.S., 1975. The deposition of particles on moss and
grass surfaces. Atmospheric Environment 9, 1113}1119.
Drew, R.T., Lippmann, M., 1978. Calibration of air sampling
instruments. In: Air Sampling Instruments for Evaluation of
Atmospheric Contaminants, 5th Edition. American Confer-
ence of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, pp.
I1-I38.
Fryrear, D.W., 1986. A "eld dust sampler. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation 41, 117}120.
Furtado, V.C., 1978. Air movers and samplers. In: Air Sampling
Instruments for Evaluation of Atmospheric Contaminants,
5th Edition. American Conference of Governmental Indus-
trial Hygienists, Cincinnati, pp. K3}K52.
Ganor, E., 1975. Atmospheric dust in Israel. Sedimentological
and meteorological analysis of dust deposition. Ph.D. Thesis,
Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Goodman, G.T., Inskip, M.J., Smith, S., Parry, G.D.R., Burton,
M.A.S., 1979. The use of moss-bags in aerosol monitoring.
In: Morales, C. (Ed.), Saharan Dust. Mobilization, Trans-
port, Deposition. Wiley, New York, pp. 211}232.
Goossens, D., O!er, Z.Y., 1988. Loess Erosion and Loess Depos-
ition in the Negev Desert: Theoretical Modelling and Wind
Tunnel Simulations. The Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert
Research, Desert Meteorology Papers Ser. A, No. 13, pp. 65.
Goossens, D., O!er, Z.Y., 1990. A wind tunnel simulation and
"eld veri"cation of desert dust deposition (Avdat Experi-
mental Station Negev Desert). Sedimentology 37, 7}22.
Goossens, D., O!er, Z.Y., 1993. Eolian deposition of dust over
symmetrical hills: an evaluation of wind tunnel data by
means of terrain measurements. Zeitschrift fuK r Geomor-
phologie 37, 103}111.
Goossens, D., O!er, Z.Y., 1995. Comparisons of day-time and
night-time dust accumulation in a desert region. Journal of
Arid Environments 31, 253}281.
Hall, D.J., Waters, R.A., 1986. An improved, readily available
dustfall gauge. Atmospheric Environment 20, 219}222.
Hall, D.J., Upton, S.L., 1988. A wind tunnel study of the
particle collection e$ciency of an inverted frisbee used as
a dust deposition gauge. Atmospheric Environment 22,
1383}1394.
Hall, D.J., Upton, S.L., Marsland, G.W., 1993. Improve-
ments in dust gauge design. In: Couling, S. (Ed.), Measure-
ments of Airborne Pollutants. Butterworth, Heinemann
(Chapter 11).
Hall, D.J., Upton, S.L., Marsland, G.W., 1994. Designs for
a deposition gauge and a #ux gauge for monitoring ambient
dust. Atmospheric Environment 28, 2963}2979.
Janssen, W., Tetzla!, G., 1991. Entwicklung und Eichung einer
registrierenden Suspensionsfalle. Zeitschrift fuK r Kulturtech-
nik und Landesentwicklung 32, 167}180.
KoK hler, A., Fleck, U.W., 1963. Untersuchungen zur Festlegung
eines StandardmessgeraK tes fuK r Staubniederschlag. Inst. Me-
teorol. Abschlussber. No. J. 84, 2.
Kuntze, H., Beinhauer, R., Tetzla!, G., 1990. Quanti"cation
of soil erosion by wind, I. Final Report of the BMFT
project. Project No. 0339058 A, B, C. Institute of Meteoro-
logy and Climatology, University of Hannover, Germany
(in German)
Leys, J.F., Raupach, M.R., 1991. Soil #ux measurements using
a portable wind erosion tunnel. Australian Journal of Soil
Research 29, 533}552.
Littmann, T., 1997. Atmospheric input of dust and nitrogen into
the Nizzana sand dune ecosystem, north-western Negev,
Israel. Journal of Arid Environments 36, 433}457.
Nickling, W.G., Gillies, J.A., 1993. Dust emission and transport
in Mali, West Africa. Sedimentology 40, 859}868.
Nickling, W.G., McKenna Neuman, C., 1997. Wind tunnel
evaluation of a wedge-shaped aeolian sediment trap.
Geomorphology 18, 333}345.
Nickling, W.G., McTainsh, G.H, Leys, J.F., 1999. Dust emis-
sions from the Channel Country of western Queensland,
Australia. In press.
O!er, Z.Y., Goossens, D., 2000. Airborne particle accumulation
and composition at di!erent locations in the northern Negev
desert. Zeitschrift fuK r Geomorphologie, in press.
O!er, Z.Y., Goossens, D., Shachak, M., 1992. Aeolian deposition
of nitrogen to sandy and loessial ecosystems in the Negev
Desert. Journal of Arid Environments 23, 355}363.
Orange, D., Gac, J.-Y., Probst, J.-L., Tanre, D., 1990. Mesure du
deH po( t au sol des aeH rosols deH sertiques. Une meH thode simple
de preH lèvement: le capteur pyramidal. Comptes Rendus de
l'AcadeH mie des Sciences, Paris 311, 167}172.
PeH weH , T.L., 1951. An observation on wind-blown silt. Journal of
Geology 59, 399}401.
Pollet, I., 1995. Meten van windsnelheden en zandtransport in
een windtunnel. M.Sc. Thesis, Universiteit Gent, pp. 153.
Pye, K., 1992. Aeolian dust transport and deposition over Crete
and adjacent parts of the Mediterranean Sea. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 17, 271}288.
Ralph, M.O., Barrett, C.F., 1976. A wind-tunnel study of the
e$ciency of deposit gauges } interim report. Warren Spring
Laboratory, Laboratory Report LR 235 (AP), pp. 19.
 D. Goossens, Z.Y. Ower / Atmospheric Environment 34 (2000) 1043}1057
Ralph, M.O., Hall, D.J., 1989. Performance of the British
Standard Directional Dust Gauge. Proceedings of the Aero-
sol Society's Third Annual Conference, 20}22 March 1989,
West-Bromwich, U.K.
Sehmel, G.A., 1980. Particle and gas dry deposition: a review.
Atmospheric Environment 14, 983}1011.
Shao, Y., McTainsh, G.H., Leys, J.F., Raupach, M.R., 1993.
E$ciencies of sediment samplers for wind erosion measure-
ment. Australian Journal of Soil Research 31, 519}532.
SkaK rby, L., 1977. Correlation of moss analysis to direct measure-
ment by deposit gauge of cadmium, lead, and copper.
Swedish Water and Air Pollution Research Laboratory,
Publ. B377a, pp. 24.
Spaan, W.P., van Dijk, P., Hollemans W., Eppink, L.A.A.J.,
1990. Wind erosion measurements on Schiermonnikoog, Re-
port II. Department of Irrigation and Soil and Water Con-
servation, Wageningen Agricultural University, pp. 20.
Steen, B., 1979. Techniques for measuring dry deposition. Sum-
mary of WMO Expert Meeting on Dry Deposition, April
18}22, 1977, Gothenburg. In: Morales, C. (Ed.), Saharan
Dust. Mobilization, Transport, Deposition. Wiley, New
York, pp. 287}289.
Steen, B., 1977. A new simple isokinetic sampler for the deter-
mination of particle #ux. Atmospheric Environment 11,
623}627.
1057
Sterk, G., 1993. Description and calibration of sediment sam-
plers. Sahelian Wind Erosion Research Project, Report III.
Department of Irrigation and Soil and Water Conservation,
Wageningen Agricultural University, pp. 31.
Stout, J.E., Fryrear, D.W., 1989. Performance of a wind-
blown particle sampler. Transactions of the ASAE 32,
2041}2045.
Stout, J.E., Zobeck, T.M., 1997. Intermittent saltation. Sedimen-
tology 44, 959}970.
Swineford, A., Frye, J.C., 1945. A mechanical analysis of wind-
blown dust compared with analyses of loess. American Jour-
nal of Science 243, 249}255.
White, B.R., 1982. Two-phase measurements of saltating turbu-
lent boundary layer #ow. International Journal of Multi-
phase Flow 5, 459}473.
Wilson, S.J., Cooke, R.U., 1980. Wind erosion. In: Kirkby, M.J.,
Morgan, R.P.C. (Eds.), Soil Erosion. Wiley, Chichester, pp.
217}251.
Yaalon, D.H., Ganor, E., 1979. East Mediterranean trajectories
of dust-carrying storms from the Sahara and Sinai. In: Mo-
rales, C. (Ed.), Saharan Dust. Mobilization, Transport, De-
position. Wiley, New York, pp. 187}193.
Zeuner, F.E., 1949. Frost soils on Mount Kenya, and the rela-
tion of frost soils to aeolian deposits. Journal of Soil Science
1, 25}30.