Field testing, comparison, and discussion of five aeolian sand transport measuring devices operating on different measuring principles
Goossens, D.; Nolet, C.; Etyemezian, V.; Duarte-Campos, L.; Bakker, G.; Riksen, M. (2018). Field testing, comparison, and discussion of five aeolian sand transport measuring devices operating on different measuring principles. Aeolian Research 32: 1-13. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aeolia.2018.01.001
In: Aeolian Research. Elsevier: Amsterdam. ISSN 1875-9637; e-ISSN 2212-1684, meer
|  |
| Author keywords |
Wind erosion; Sand transport; Sediment sampler |
| Auteurs | | Top |
- Goossens, D., meer
- Nolet, C.
- Etyemezian, V.
|
- Duarte-Campos, L.
- Bakker, G.
- Riksen, M.
|
|
| Abstract |
Five types of sediment samplers designed to measure aeolian sand transport were tested during a wind erosion event on the Sand Motor, an area on the west coast of the Netherlands prone to severe wind erosion. Each of the samplers operates on a different principle. The MWAC (Modified Wilson And Cooke) is a passive segmented trap. The modified Leatherman sampler is a passive vertically integrating trap. The Saltiphone is an acoustic sampler that registers grain impacts on a microphone. The Wenglor sampler is an optical sensor that detects particles as they pass through a laser beam. The SANTRI (Standalone AeoliaN Transport Real-time Instrument) detects particles travelling through an infrared beam, but in different channels each associated with a particular grain size spectrum. A procedure is presented to transform the data output, which is different for each sampler, to a common standard so that the samplers can be objectively compared and their relative efficiency calculated. Results show that the efficiency of the samplers is comparable despite the differences in operating principle and the instrumental and environmental uncertainties associated to working with particle samplers in field conditions. The ability of the samplers to register the temporal evolution of a wind erosion event is investigated. The strengths and weaknesses of the samplers are discussed. Some problems inherent to optical sensors are looked at in more detail. Finally, suggestions are made for further improvement of the samplers. |
|
