Dry deposition fluxes and deposition velocities of seven trace metal species at five sites in central Taiwan – a summary of surrogate surface measurements and a comparison with model estimations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Daily air concentrations and dry deposition fluxes of seven metal species were monitored at five sites in central Taiwan for five or six days every month from September 2009 to August 2010. Annual average concentrations at the five sites were in the range of 2.8 to 3.6 ng m−3 for As, 25 to 82 ng m−3 for Mn, 1900 to 2800 ng m−3 for Fe, 69 to 109 ng m−3 for Zn, 18 to 33 ng m−3 for Cr, 60 to 110 ng m−3 for Cu, and 25 to 40 ng m−3 for Pb. Annual average dry deposition fluxes were on the order of 3, 20, 400, 50, 25, 50, and 50 μg m−2 day−1 for As, Mn, Fe, Zn, Cr, Cu, and Pb, respectively. Annual average dry deposition velocities (Vd) for the seven metal species ranged from 0.18 to 2.22 cm s−1 at these locations. Small seasonal and geographical variations, e.g. from a few percent to a factor of 2 for different species and/or at different locations, were found in the measured concentrations, fluxes, and Vds. The measured fluxes and air concentrations had moderate to good correlations for several of the species at several of the sites (e.g. Fe, Zn, and Mn at most of the sites), but had either weak or no correlations for the other species or at the other sites (e.g. As at Sites I and III, Zn and Cr at Site IV, and Cu at most of the sites). The latter cases were believed to have large uncertainties in the flux measurements using surrogate surfaces. Sensitivity tests were conducted for particle Vds using a size-segregated particle dry deposition model, assuming various combinations of three lognormal size distributions representing fine particles (PM2.5), coarse particles (PM2.5–10), and super-sized particles (PM10+), respectively. It was found that the measured dry deposition fluxes can be reproduced reasonably well using the size-segregated particle dry deposition model if the mass fractions of the metal species in PM2.5, PM2.5–10 and PM10+ were known. Significant correlations between the modeled and the measured daily fluxes were found for those cases that were believed to have small uncertainties in the flux measurements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".