114E515 1'"... ». This is to certify that the thesis entitled MWTIMIFTIEQIITBILITYG’ nammmnuI/mm mmmmmwmm presented by All! Elbert lbss has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for WNW degreein armour _W~w A H “WA Major professor 0-7639 MSU LIBRARIES “ RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. AN EVALUATION OF THE SUITABILITY OF THE PARTICLE RESISTANCE / INERTIA PARAMETER IN STUDYING THE DEPOSITIONAL BEHAVIOR OF COURSE AEROSOLS BY Alan Robert Hays A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Entomology 1 982 in tyj ca} Obs IOU ABSTRACT AN EVALUATION OF THE SUITABILITY OF THE PARTICLE RESISTANCE / INERTIA PARAMETER IN STUDYING THE DEPOSITIONAL BEHAVIOR OF COARSE AEROSOLS By Alan Robert Hays Several dyes were evaluated for solubility in dioctyl phthalate. a non-volitile liquid carrier used in this study. An inexpensive wind tunnel was constructed and used to increase control over air movements during testing of aerosol deposition. Two methods were employed for estimating the distribution of droplet sizes in a non-volitile coarse aerosol. Teflon coated glass slides were compared to Teflon cylinders after each was adjusted by mathmatical calculation for differential collection efficiencies. based on the droplet size. air velocity and cylindrical obstacle size. Experiments were conducted with various sized cylinders. balsam fir branches and cylinders. single balsam fir trees. and a canopy of balsam fir trees in the wind tunnel. It was found that the particle resistance / inertia parameter is a suitable tool for use in the estimation of coarse aerosol depositional behavior. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Angus J. Howitt. my major Professor. for his patients and guidance during my studies. I also wish to thank him for his valuable suggestions regarding this study. and for allowing the study to be performed at the Trevor Nichols Complex. I wish to thank Dr. George Ayers for his welcome suggestions. participation in the actual research and involvement on my guidance committee. Special thanks are in order for. though hindered by a broken leg and at times confined to a wheel chair. he willingly participated in the design and labor involved in the dye recovery experiments. To Dr. Gary Simmons. I wish to express thanks for his suggestions. which eventually led to the construction of the wind tunnel. and his participation on my guidance committee. I wish to thank Dr. Dale Linville for the background he gave me in Microclimatology. for without that background this study would have been unlikely. I thank him additionally for arranging for the use of the turbine used on the wind tunnel. Without the use of the turbine he arranged the tunnel would not have been possible. I wish to thank Judy Pshea and Ilene Bale for their faithfull work at the tedious job of recording droplet data. I wish to additionally thank Krzysztof Kosmider and Judy Pshea for their help during the wind tunnel construction. ii CD'IS grit: daJc aka last To Mr. Tim Childs and Mr. David Zeitler for their technical expertise in constructing and programming the anemometer data collection system. I extend my gratitude. Most importantly I wish to thank my wife Kil Nam . my son Anthony and my daughter Angela for their infinite patients during the three six month periods I was away at the Trevor Nichols Complex. Their support and patients were the final factor allowing this study to be carried out. iii b l p, U TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTGTMES 00000000000000 ”STEM 00000009000000 mm 0000000000000... mmornem.......... mmsmmmmomss Introduction ............. HethodsforllindProwctim llindl'unelDesigi ....... Hind Tunel Cmstructim . . . . Nethodsforllindlleasurenent llindSensors .......... Nemeter Data Collection Device Deternining a Suitable Dye Tracer ProspectiveDaes ........ TheDueCarriers ........ PropertiesoftheDaes ..... DaeRecoversfronBalsanFir .. DaeRecoversfronFilters ... D‘JeStandardeves ...... Timel-Dae Solution Interaction TheSprasSssten 0009900 iv vii 12 H 15 17 18 18 24 26 26 . Separatim of the Droplet Distributions . Droplet Distribution Heasurenent o ThreellethodsErplosed oooooo . Adjusting the Neasured Distribution . Comarison of Slides and Cslinders . D-se Flux Determination . Misokinetic Sampling . Isdtinetic 33901109 . Samling Procedures . . . . . Corputer Hethods Emloaed 0.0.0. o MHIUMMOOOOOOOOO . Corputer Prograns Employed . . . . MIMI . Introduction . . . . . . Hethods and Materials . . Results and Discussion SME TREE EXPERIENT . Introduction . . . . . . Hethods aid Haterials . . Results and Discussion CYLDDER W . Introduction . . . . . . Hethods and Materials . . Results and Discussion m M) CYLDDER EXPERIIEM o MIMIW 90000 31 10 1D 12 12 18 . Nethodsandllaterials .. . Results and Discussion . WMMUSIM .... REFERBCESCITED ....... WW ..... mm . A. Single Tree Data . . . . B.CslinderData .... . C.Branchand051inderData . D.DataCmversimPrograns . E. Data Collection Prograns . F. 94th Data Collection Device Schenatics 0 0000000 vi 62 78 117 130 137 1. LIST OF TABLES 1. Summary of Hind Ttmel Velocity vs Engine RPM Relationship . ZoMEVBIUBLEU oooooooeooooooooooooooo 3. Cross Solubility Screening of the First Twenty the Dyes . . 1. Absorbance haxima for Dyes Passing the o GTOSSSfllLbIIILSWmIDQWtOMZZ 000000000 5. Best Solvents and Pbsorbance vs Concentration Slope for . for Dyes Passing the Cross Solubility Screening an to Dye 21 O 6. Caparison of Dye Recovery in High vs Lou Light Levels From Balsam Fir 7. Recovery Determination of Automate Yellow and Blue from Balsam Fir in Lou Lidit O B. Stardard Curve of Pbsorbance vs Comentratim for futomate Yellou t 8 Dye . 9. Standard Curve of Absorbance vs Concentration for Automate Blue t 8 Dye . 10. Spread Factor Evaluation of DW-Dye Solution on Teflm Slides 11. Teflon Slide and Cylinder Comarisons as Drcplet Collectim Devices 12. Comparison of the Relative Collection Efficiencies of . ThreeCylinderSizesforTreatmentslhedeuo . . . . . . 13. Comparison of the Relative Collection Efficiencies of . Three Cylinder Sizes for Treatments Three and Four . . . . . 11. Comarison of the Relative Collection Efficiencies of . Three Cylinder Sizes for Treatments Five and Six . . . . . . 15. Corparison of the Relative Collectim Efficiencies of . Three Cylinder Sizes for Treatments Seven and Eidit '. . . . 16. Relative Cuparism of the Efficiency of Droplet Collection for Branches . and Cylinders for Large and Small Droplet Distributims Used in O O O O O O o flancha'IdCylmderTreatmentsfl'Iedeuo 00009000000000. [7. Relative Carparison of the Efficiency of Droplet Collectim for Branches . aid Cylinders for Large and Small Droplet Distributions Used in . Branch and Cylinder Treatments Three and Four vii 0000000000000 0 O 13 19 20 21 21 61 18. Relative Cwarism of the Efficiency of Drmlet Collectim for Branches . and Cylinders for Large and Small Droplet Distributions Used in OBTMNCBIIWTTQMLSFIWNSIX oooeoooooooooooeooooooo“ 19. Relative Comparison of the Efficiency of Droplet Collection for Branches . and Cylinders for Large and Small Droplet Distributions Used in o BTMNCSIIWTNBWLSMNEIM 0.000000000000099900067 20. Relative Cwarison of the Efficiency of Drcplet Collection for Branches . and Cylinders for Large and Small Drmlet Distributions Used in e BTMWCSIIWTT‘EBMLSNIMWTED ooooooooooooooooooooooow 21. Relative Caparism of the Efficiency of Droplet Collection for Branches . ltd Cylinders for Large and Small Drtplet Distributims Used in o BPMNCHIIMTTEMLSEIMNTHIW 0.00000000000000000069 A10 Data for Single Tree TESL, LN UBINILS, ”11123159 0'! o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o A20MTMSIHQIETT‘EETQSI.’LWUElmitSlelcme 0.0000900090000090 83 B1 A3.DataforSingleTreeTest.LouUelocity.Replicatelhree ................. 85 M.DataforSingleTreeTest.LouUelocity.Rq>licateT-'M .................. 86 ASDataforSingleTreeTest.Hidillelocity.Replicatethe .................. 87 81.CylinderTestDataforTreatmentsGredeuo .......................89 82.CylinderTestDataforTreatmentsThreeandFour .....................91 83.CylinderTestDataforTreatmmtsFivemdSix ...................... 93 B1.CylinderTestDataforTreatmentsSevmandEidit ....................95 C1. Branch and Cylinder Data Silvery for Tea Droplet Distributions . Boosedtonir UelocitiesBetueen672md763mm/sec (RoPositionShifting) . . . . . . . . 99 CZ. Branch and Cylinder Data Summary for Two Droplet Distributims e WhhirwlmitifimmNN6wm 00.000009000000009101 C3. Branch and Cylinder Data Stmary for Two Drmlet Distributions e mmwa1rw1mitifim919NIUU7M/SEC ..................103 C1. mm and 031?ka Data Stuary for Tao Ml“ Distributims O WhAiTWIWILIQSMIWNIIwM/m ..................105 CS. Brandi and Cylinder Data MB for Two Droplet Distributions o “MWAITWIMILIESWWNIMWSN 00000009909000.000107 viii C6. Branch and Cylinder Data Mary for Two Draplet Distributions o EXPOSEdtORlT‘WIMILIQSBEMISYUNIBISWSGC 09.090090900000000109 UODBLBFIIE:WTA 0000000.000000000000000000000000000111 mODataFile:m-T/DTA 00000000099090.000090.060000000000116 ix 1.! F8. F9. LIST OF FIGURES Io “IMTMIIMTBIIVIW) to0000oroooooooooooooooooaooooo 10 ZOHIMTWEIEDIT'M 00000000000009.0000ooooooooooooooo 10 30 WUIEH Of DTHIHQ TWEIUIIHBIDTMI WIN 9 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 II 1. Plot of the Ratio of Yellou Deposit at Various Distances into the Tree / Deposit . on [Wind Side (Distance = zero). Lou Velocity Air Flou (~130 cm/sec) . . . . . . . . . . 50 5. Plot of the Ratio of Blue Deposit at Various Distances into the Tree / Deposit o m MIN Sifi (DIStm = ma), LN WIWILB AI? FIN (‘IS' (SH/SEC) o e e e o o o o o o 50 6. Plot of the Ratio of Yellou Deposit at Various Distances into the Tree / Deposit o m MIN SI“ (Distmce = ICED), Hid‘l WIMILS AI? FIN (~50 WSEC) o o o o o o o o o 0 SI 7. Plot of the Ratio of Blue Deposit at Various Distances into the Tree / Deposit e «1 MIN SI“ (DISW = RFD), "IQ'l VEIMILB AI? FIN (“50 W591?) o o o o o o o o o 0 SI F1. System Block Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 F2.ComtersandInterface ................................. 139 F3. Input Conditioners and Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 F1. Addressing Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 F5.StatusLogic ...................................... 112 F6.Pouer9.pply ...................................... 113 F7.LineTimeReference...................................113 F8.BoardLayout ......................................111 F9.AddressingSelectim ooooooooo00000090909909.0000oooooo I“ INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION While many factors involved in the application of a pesticide are not under the direct control of the applicator. there are a few factors which can be manipulated. In order to properly manipulate these factors. an understanding of how these factors influence the application is needed. Applications can be divided into two main categories. namely ground applications. and aerial applications. During a ground application. some of the factors that can be manipulated include. timing. air velocity. droplet size distribution. and application rate. These are not all independent. since the droplet size relates to the application rate in many instances. Timing is dependent on the pest being controlled. but may also be influenced by environmental considerations. Aerial applications are even more restricted in the number of factors under the applicator’s control. To some degree. the applicator may choose a time with reasonably favorable environmental conditions. This choice may be limited by timing of the application for the pest. Additionally. if the application is to cover a large expanse. conditions may vary within the treatment area. While the applicator has some control over droplet size. this is limited due to weight considerations. For reasons of economy a relatively small droplet size distribution and low volume spray release is desirable. but this must be balanced against off target impact considerations. Flying height and speed are under the applicator’s control. though influenced by terrain. locality and type of aircraft (Corshee R. (3.. et a1. 1979). It would be desirable to have an understanding of the interactions between environmental conditions. and the pesticide target. The primary environmental 2 factor is wind. The primary target factors include the impingement target structure and canopy structure. Can information on the target and environmental conditions be used in predicting deposition behavior? Physicists early in this century developed a dimensionless behavior parameter. called the particle resistance / inertia parameter (particle parameter) (Richardson. 1960). This paramater allows the behavior of particles of differing size and under differing conditions to be compared. This parameter is related to the efficiency with which a given particle. approaching an obstacle. will collide with that obstacle. The efficiency of collision will be refered to as the collection efficiency. where the value of the collection efficiency must be between zero and one. This relationship states that the log of the particle parameter plotted against the collection efficiency forms a sigmoid curve (Heme. 1960). The particle parameter is a function of the particles density. the spherical particle diameter. the fluid velocity. the absolute viscosity of the fluid. and the cylindrical or spherical obstacle diameter (Richardson. 1960). The particle parameter can be nearly any positive value. Values less than 0.1 indicate collection efficiencies near. but not equal to. zero. Values greater than 100 indicate collection efficiencies near unity. The particle parameter is dimensionless. so that it permits universal use. regardless of the dimensions used in the calculation. Hence a particle parameter calculated by the English system is identical to the particle parameter calculated from the metric system for the same conditions. The only need for dimensional care is within a given calculation. That is if velocity is expressed in centimeters per second. then diameters should be expressed in centimeters. A more detailed discussion of the particle parameter will be given later. 3 The particle parameter is primarily used in calculations involving filters. turbine blades. and other situations in which the impingement of very small particles on various obstacles. is of concern (Richardson. 1960). The strictly valid limits of the particle parameter are violated with particles larger than about thirty microns in diameter (Davies. 1960). Many such particles exist in pesticide aerosols (Ayers G. et al. 1979). The author suggests that even though the valid limits of the particle parameter are violated some predictive value might be gained through its use. The use the author considered for the particle parameter in the analysis of pesticide applications was to predict the behavior of a proposed coarse aerosol. If the behavior of an aerosol can be predicted it is possible that the targeting of that aerosol might be feasable. This study was undertaken to demontrate if the particle parameter is a valid tool in the targeting of a pesticide application. The study was composed of developing techniques for the field measurement of droplet distributions. measurement of deposit. measurement of air velocities. and record and analyse data by computer. The particle resistance / inertia parameter was used in the adjustment of droplet size distributions for the tendency to collect large droplets more efficiently than small and in the regression of the data for its predictive value. It was anticipated that conifer trees would be good candidates for the targeting of pesticides. particularly those pesticides applied by air. While the needles of conifers are seldom cylinders. they are small in cross section. being representable by a some mean cylindrical size. The branches and trunks tend to be cylindrical. These characteristics allow for the direct application of the particle parameter with little adjustment to the data. The Balsam Fir was chosen so the data could be of use in the CANUSA cooperative study of the Spruce Budworm. DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM Controversy has existed for some time over the optimum droplet size (Mass Median Diameter of a distribution) which should be used in pesticide applications. Professor Himel of the University of Georgia (Himel. 1967) advocated the use of small droplets. Yates and Akesson (1974) tended to advocate the reverse. Research by the Agricultural Aviation Research Unit at the Cranfield Institute of Technology (Lawson and Uk. 1979). tended to support Himel. The disagreement follows this line: Yates believes that small droplets are less efficient and more prone to drift while Himel indicates the larger drops are not controlling the pest because most are deposited on the ground. Both groups have points in their favor. It should not be suprising that the smaller the droplet the more likely it is to drift. It is equally clear that the larger a droplet is the steeper its descent to the ground from its release point. Clearly the steeper the descent trajectory the fewer the opportunities for impingement will be afforded to a descending particle. If on its descent through the vicinity of an obstacle a particle fails to impinge on that obstacle. then the particle may approach another obstacle. be lofted to altitudes lacking obstacles. or be deposited on the ground. If the descent trajectories of two differing particles are considered. the particle with the steeper descent will demonstrate a greater tendency to be deposited on the ground. The particle with the more gradual descent will tend to travel a more horizontal path and thus have increasing numbers of obstacles within its path. 5 The same forces causing small particles to descend more gradually than large particles cause these smaller particles increasingly to follow air currents around obstacles. These forces are related to the surface area divided by the mass ratio which increases with decreasing spherical particle size. The surface area can be viewed as a measure of the amount of frictional contact between a particle and the air. The mass is directly related to the inertia of the particle so that while a more horizontal trajectory (i.e. high frictional contact with the air. and low inertia) increases the number of opportunities for impingement. the same forces decrease the likelyhood of impingement on an given single obstacle. These offsetting factors must result in an optimum particle size for a given set of conditions and collection of obstacles in an aerosols path. Particles less than the optimum would tend to flow around obstacles resulting in such a low collection efficiency as to offset the increased number of opportunities for impingement. Particles larger than the optimum would tend to have higher collection efficiencies but fewer opportunities for impingement. The optimum size can be considered a combined optimum resulting from the product of the collection efficiency and the number of opportunities for impingement. The problem was to find a more rigorous way of comparing and predicting depositional behavior. The previously mentioned particle resistance / inertia parameter seemed to be the best available physical parameter for describing the behavior of fluid born particles. This parameter appeared to be easily adaptable to the restricted data available in most field research. By quantifying the behavior of a pesticide aerosol it might be possible to resolve some of the controversy surrounding pesticide applications. A series of experiments were proposed to determine if the particle parameter was usefull in discribing a pesticide aerosols behavior. To the authors knowledge no 6 publications exist on the use of the particle parameter in discribing pesticide or course aerosol behavior. A preliminary theoretical model for the gross behavior of a pesticide aerosol descending from an aerial application through a coniferous forest has been worked out at the University of Michigan (Hays. P. B. and A. R. Hays. 1980). The model has been computer tested with reasonable results. The model uses a derivation of the Renold’s number. which is nearly identical to the particle parameter. The basic consrtuction of the model is similar to Beer’s law of the extinction of light in the atmosphere. METHODS FOR DEVELOPING TECHNIQUES METHODS FOR DEVELOPING TECHNIQUES Introduction It was anticipated that to rely on natural winds in initial tests would result in an undue variability in air velodty between treatment runs. In order to avoid this various methods of artificially producing wind were considered. The goal in artificially producing wind for the study would be to balance repeatability of air velodty with the cost of attaining that repeatability. Another consideration in this type of study was to simplify the problem of changing droplet size due to evaporation. It was desired to produce droplets composed of a liquid non-volitile core beyond which no evaporation would occur. Such a material was used by Hogmire (1979). The material was Dioctyl Phthalate. a vamum pump oil and plasticizer. Measurements needed during the test process included air velocity. some measure of turbulence. droplet distrubution size and flux determinations and dye tracers for a measure of deposition. Additionally the dye needed to be recoverable from the collecting obstacles. Methods for Wind Production and Measurement Wind Tunnel Design The use of a wind machine was considered for the production of repeatable air flow. Any attempt to produce repeatable air flow while exposed to natural air currents would require relatively high air velocities to overcome these natural air 8 currents. Furthermore the cost of a large wind machine was considered prohibitive. A turbine fan was available from the Michigan State University Department of Agricultural Engineering. It consisted of a Joy Axivane Fan. belt driven. equipped with an outlet cone with ten degrees of divergence per side. The fan was manufactured by Joy Manufacturing Company. Air Moving Products division. 338 south broadway. New Philadelphia. Ohio 44663. The design of the turbine was more suitable as a suction device to operate a wind tunnel than to produce direct wind. An open air wind tunnel was a reasonably cost effective compromise when inexpensive construction materials were proposed. The wind tunnel was designed based on the estimated capacity of the turbine. This capacity was estimated by the manufacturer as 21 cubic meters per second. By constructing the tunnel 2.13 meters wide and 2.44 meters high inside the estimated maximum wind velocity was predicted to be 4 meters per second. The main portion of the tunnel. which was 17 meters long. was constructed to those dimensions. The tunnel was oriented with the intake drawing air from the north and the discharge to the south. The entrance was expanded to a square 3.66 meters. This was accomplished by smoothly bending the skin material into a sigmoid shape begining with an opening of 3.66 meters square and reducing the opening to 2.13 by 2.44 meters. This reduction was made using the top and two sides with the ground level remaining linear. This enlarged entrance was attached to a semi-cylindrical quonset building. The quonset building was 9.1 meters wide by 4.6 meters high. by approximately 18.3 meters long. This building runs north to south with a 3.5 meters wide and 4.0 meters high entrance to the north and the tunnel exiting to the south. The quonset was used as a flow stabilizing area of large volume. The fluxuations in natural air currents stabilize somewhat due to the low air velocities 9 in this large area. As the air entered the tunnel mouth it was required to pass through a progressively decreasing cross sectional area so that the air accelerated into the main tunnel area. The flow was again allowed to stabilize through the main tunnel before reaching the test section. The test section was constructed so the aerosol could be released in the main tunnel or in a drying tunnel (0.52 M deep by 1.22 M wide by 3 M high). oriented vertically out of the top of the main tunnel. The top of the drying tunnel was blocked except for four 7.62 centimeter diameter openings. in which four TXl nozzles (Spraying Systems Inc.) were located. The pressure differential between the outside and the inside of the tunnel caused the air to enter these openings turbulently resulting in a mixing of the aerosol as it descended the length of the drying tunnel. The drying tunnel will be discussed later. See Figure 1 for an overall external view of the wind tunnel. Figure 2 shows the entrance to the tunnel. Figure 3 shows a cutaway view of the area just upwind of the test section. Down wind (south) of the vertical tunnel the sample section 4.9 meters long. was followed by the final 2.44 meters of the full size section of the main tunnel. The last section of the tunnel was constructed to reduce the main tunnel to the size of the turbine inlet. This section was constructed 2.3 meters long reducing the tunnel size to 1.22 meters on a side by tapering four sides (top. ground. east and west sides). The turbine was attached to this last section with the inlet 1.22 meters in diameter. The outlet was 2.44 meters south of the inlet being 1.52 meters in diameter. The turbine was powered by an air cooled four cylinder Wisconsin type G engine. During the testing process it became obvious that natural pressure 10 Figure 1. Wind Tunnel (overall view) Figure 2. Wind Tunnel Entrince 11 Canvas Cover 4 r. : ; A I i l l 1 l : l . l Air Duct ' : (outside)\5\"*l- l l l l l l : Drying : . Tunnel . l : 1 Small : : Turbine . I : : I, I I-‘T ’1’ -Illt’ fl [1 [I ll [1 ’7' Area of Turbulence Adjustable ’ Flap Rectangular l;- Entrainment T b resi-_ Small Droplet : l . 1 Release Paint MAIN TUNNEL ’n‘ l I \ I / ‘ """" , \ / \\ Typical Tree ....- ,/ \Av Size Flow I \ / \ I \ I \ J 1 Gravel Floor Figure 3. Cutaway View of Drying Tunnel and Main Tunnel Connection 12 differences were not sufficient to bring the aerosol through the vertical tunnel at high main tunnel velocities. A small turbine was added to the vertical drying tunnel to assist in forcing the the aerosol to the test level in the main tunnel. Additionally a flap was added to the top inside of the main tunnel just upwind of the verticle tunnel entrance. This flap served the purpose of creating an adjustable area of turbulence above the sample area. This turbulence aided in the mixing and dispersion of the aerosol into a more uniform flux throughout the sample areas crossection. The lowest main tunnel velocity was limited by the engine idle speed. In order to decrease the minimum velocity at engine idle. a partial block was made to restrict the turbine inlet. This restriction caused a greater pressure differential across the turbine blades so that the reduced efficiency in the turbine allowed very low air velocities to be created in the tunnel. Wind Tunnel Construction The wind tunnel was constructed similar to a conventional building except the structural material was placed on the outside. High density pressed exterior fiberboard was used for the inside skin. The structural lumber was placed 61 centimeters on center on the outside. The walls were secured in place with buttresses 2.44 meters on center. on the outside. The floor of the tunnel was constructed of raked gravel. The capabilities of the tunnel are summarized in Table I0 13 Table 1. Summary of Wind Tunnel Velocity vs Engine RPM Relationship . Heidit Above Floor . Engine 502 Flat) CNS . 136 cm 81 cm 35 cm RPH Block Position In Place liean lei/sec W 2193 2151 St. Dev. 1 210.1 101.6 107.6 610 m Lowered m Rel. Int. 0.131 0.016 0.050 liean mm/sec 3211 1111 1029 St. Dev. 199.6 170.5 260.6 1200 m Lowered m Rel. Int. 0.156 0.011 0.065 llean mm/sec 3712 5016 1930 Ste Mo 6509 196.1 326.1 1510 m LMT‘Ed m Rel. Int. 0.170 0.039 0.066 Hean lei/sec 2011 1971 1938 St. Dev. 83.8 92.8 128.7 600 ill Raised in Rel. Int. 0.012 0.017 0.066 that mm/sec 3526 3505 3317 St. Dev. 128.3 135.8 27.5 1100 Kl Raised in Rel. Int. 0.036 0.039 0.077 hall rel/sec 1753 1620 1383 St. Dev. 219.1 208.2 321.9 1525 m Raised in Rel. Int. 0.016 0.015 0.071 Hean mm/sec 1298 1112 919 St. Dev. 339.6 16.1 38.1 590 m Raised YES Rel. Int. 0.079 0.011 0.011 llean mm/sec 2123 713 573 Rel. Int. 0.010 0.059 0.050 llean rel/sec 3213 1186 1081 St. Dev. 181.9 73.9 32.0 1060 no Raised YES Rel. Int. 0.15 0.050 0.030 a Rel. Int. = Relative Turbulent Intensity. 14 Methods for Wind Measurements Wind Sensors In the wind tunnel air velocity was measured using three miniature cup anemometers. Miniature cup anemometers were chosen because the electronics in the sensor were relatively well protected from contact with the spray solution. The anemometers chosen were model 011-1 miniature cup anemometers manufactured by Climet Instrument Co.. Division of Wehr Corporation. 1320 West Colton Avenue. Redland. California. They were equipped with Teflon wind cups for resistance to the chemicals in the spray solution. It should be noted here that the Teflon cups were more resistant to the spray solution than to some of the solvents used to rinse the spray solution off. For this reason it was determined that the cups should either not be rinsed or only rinsed with ethanol. Dichloromethane and acetone tended to make the cups brittle after several rinsings. These anemometers were sensitive to low air velocities with a threshold of approximately 26.8 centimeters per second. The responce distance constant is 152 centimeters of flow. Since the anemometer responds to a sudden change in the air flow exponentially. the distance constant is defigned as the distance the air flows for the anemometer to reach 1-e'"1 (”63%) of the true flow (Heldman 1981). The accuracy of the anemometers were the greater of plus or minus 2.64 centimeters per second or one percent of the reading. The conversion of rotational speed to electronic signal is achieved by optoelectronic means. A light emmitting diode-p hototransistor pair was used to detect slots in a rotating disk. The disk rotates at the same speed as the cup assembly. There were 100 slots in the circumference of the disk. The output signal 15 is a square wave with ten volts of change throughout one cycle peak to peak. The frequency of the output wave is proportional to wind speed by the following relation (Climet 1980): mm/sec = 1000 x ((10 x D(i.jl / P(0) + 30.11) I 71.74) Where: D(i.j)= the raw output pulses per sample interval and i and j are matrix subscripts to distinguish anemometer and time interval respectively. P(0)= sample interval Anemometer Data Collection Device A means of recording the output of the anemometers was needed. Commercially available interface devices generally record data on punched paper tape or in graphic form on a strip chart. Some use electronic data smoothing to produce a collateral graph of smoothed data. Some produce an electronically generated collateral turbulence graph. however equipment with this level of sophistication was very costly. The less sophisticated models would require considerable manual data manipulation. For this study it was desired to directly store the data on magnetic cassette. readable by computer. An inexpensive counting device was designed by the author that would display by light emmitting diode the number of pulses received by counters over adjustable time intervals. The data was to be recorded by photographic means but this still would require considerable manual data analysis. The author then discussed the data collection with Mr. Tim Childs of the MSU Department Computer Sciences. Engineering Technical Services. Mr. Childs was confident he could devise a data collection device. low in cost. operated by computer. and flexible enough to have time l6 intervals under software control. Mr. Childs designed and build such a device based on the Intel 8253 Programable Interval Timer integrated circuit. The device operated as an extension of the computer memory (memory mapped) or by input / output ports. The device operated with hardware timing control. software directed. The schematics for this device. reproduced from schematics provided by Mr. Childs. are reproduced in Appendix F. The device counted the number of anemometer output pulses received over software predetermined sample intervals. The counting sample interval could be varied from 0.1 seconds to 6.5 seconds in 0.1 second increments. The sample repeat interval could be varied from 1.0 seconds to 9.0 seconds in 1.0 second intervals. The total overall counting interval could be varied from 1.0 minutes to the limit of computer memory as determined by the repeat interval and number of counters being used. The device is currently being revised by Mr. Childs to increase the potential number of anemometers from four to seven and rework the hardware clock and count inhibit circuits. The existing clock created problems with changing clock speed. The initial hardware clock was operated by a number 555 (National Semiconductor) timer with the clock frequency set by a potentiometer. This timer was excessively sensitive to temperature changes causing a tendency to drift until temperature stability was reached. As a result it required one or more hours for a stable clock frequency to be reached. A crystal clock is being installed to correct this problem. The count inhibit circuit shown in Appendix F. Figure F3 worked in the first prototype version but subsequent revisions inadvertantly disabled it effectiveness. This circuit is also being revised. The operational software. which was written by Mr. David Zeitler (MSU 17 Department of Computer Science. Applications Programming) to interface the counting device with the computer. will be discussed under “Computer Programs Employed”. The author believes this device has great potential for many applications. Any application in which discrete pulses or events translatable into pulses. required to be recorded. could be easily recorded by this device and a microcomputer. Determining a Suitable Dye Tracer Prospective _D_y__e§ A dye tracer was needed to allow the amount of coarse aerosol deposit to be easily determined. The use of a dye tracer was demonstrated by Hogmire (1979) to be a rapid and efficient method for determining spray deposit. Hogmire used a water carrier for his dye. In this study a non-volitile carrier was desired. so that low volume spray techniques could be evaluated. All non-volitile carriers considered were oils or oil like liquids. This created a problem in locating dyes with suitable solubility in oils. The Colour Index (1956) and later editions were consulted. The Colour Index lists several hundred dyes indicating many of their uses and solubility properties. Many dyes listed in the ”Solvent Dye" section were considered candidate dyes. A list of prospective dyes was compiled and their respective manufactures were contacted. The manufacturers were requested to furnish samples and were also asked for suggestions relative to additional or new dyes that might be highly soluable in oils. One addidtional dye was listed (Automate Red B) in the USDA technical bulletin number 1596 (Barry. J. W.. et al. 1978). This last dye led to a family of dyes which had promising properties. 18 'l_‘_h_g 2y; Carriers The carriers considered were dioctyl phthalate (DOP) #585 diesel oil and mineral oil. The complete list of dye samples received for testing in these solvents may be found in Table 2. These dyes did not all arrive at the same time and are listed in the order of their arrival. Two of the three carriers evaluated. DOP and mineral oil. were chosen for their non-volitility. The third 1 585 diesel oil was chosen because it is used as a carrier for aerial pesticide applications (Nigham 1979). Prggerties _f 1112 de_s As dyes arrived for evaluation gross solubility tests were conducted with the three chosen carriers. This served to rapidly eliminate those dyes with little potential. A small amount of the dye was placed in a two milliliter portion of the three carriers. The initial results for the first twenty one dyes are shown in Table 3. The resulting eight dyes with good potential were tested further. These eight dyes were evaluated for their absorption maximum in the visable wavelength range. This was done with a Bausch and Lomb Spectronic 20 calorimeter or a Beckman DB spectrophotometer. The results of those determinations are shown in Table 4. Once the absorption peak was determined the best solvent among acetone. ethanol. benzene. hexane. diethyl ether. and dichloromethane was determined. This information is listed in Table 5. To evaluate the best solvent each dye tested was dissolved to saturation in each of the test solvents. A one microliter portion of the saturated solution was injected into three milliliters of acetone. The resulting solution was evaluated for absorbance at the dye absorption peak in a calorimeter. When necessary the sample was serially diluted so a reading greater than fifteen percent transmission could be Table 2. Dyes Evaluated 19 Dye lkaber Harufacturers Colour Index liamfacturer . Dye Name Dye Name of Dye Orasal Yellow 2 R111 1 B9 Solvent Yellow Ciba-Ceigy Orasal Yellow 2 CLN -- Ciba-Ceigy Orasal Orange RLN t 59 Solvent Orange Ciba-Geigy Orasal Red (3 1125 Solvent Red Ciba-Geigy Orasal Violet RR 1 21 Solvent Violet Ciba-Geies eeeaeaeaeaceesssaassceseewewaw~— llitro Fast Red 8 2091-100-3 Acetosol Fire Red 3 GLS 1010-110—1 Iasal Red Iasal Red 18 Iasal Yellow Iasal Bruise Iasal Black Du Pant Oil Red Red PL Blue PF Luml Fast Yellow Til Oil Red Flakes Rhodamine 8 Extra Oil Blue A Luxol Fast Blue ARR Oil Bram N Momate Red Orasal llavy Blue 2 R8 902 Orasal Orange RLN Automate Yellow 1 B Automate Blue 1 8 Automate Orange 1 3 Automate Ptirple RS Hortm Yellow llorton Blue Perox Yellow Oil Bronze 02280 i i Sandoz Col. 8 Chemical Sandoz Col. & Uremical BJffalo Color Co. Buffalo Color Co. Biffalo Color Co. Biffalo Color Co. BJffalo Color Co. E. I. Du P011. Mem Men E. I. Du Pont E. I. Du Pmt E. I. Du Pont E. I. Du Pont E. I. Du Pont E. I. II) PC“ llorton Chemical Ciba-Ceigs Ciba-Ceigy Horton Chemical liar-ton Chemical Norton Chemical llorton Chemical Horton Cl'iemical ilorton Cl'lemical iiortm Chmical E. I. Du Pont 20 Table 3. Gross Solubility Screening of the First Twenty One Dyes Solvent Dye tuber llarwfacturers . Dye Name 1 585 Diesel TIP liineral Oil Orasal Yellow 2 R1." Orasal Yellow 2 OUT Orasal Orange RLN Orasal Red 8 Orasal Violet RN Nitro Fast Red 8 2091-110-3 Acetosol Fire Red 3 81.8 1010-110-1 Iosol Red Iosol Red 18 11 10501 Yellow 11 Iosol Orange 12 10501 Black 13 Du Pont Oil Red 11 Red PL 15 Blue PF 16 Luxol Fast Yellow TN 17 Oil Red Flakes 18 Rhodamine 8 Extra 19 Oil Blue A 20 Local Fast Blue ARR 21 Oil Bram ii QOVO~UIJOJNH xoxoooxxxooooooxxoooq. xoxoooxxoooooooooxfi‘ooo XOXOODDOOOOOOOODDOOOO I 0 Indicates poor solubility testing discmtinued. X Indicates dye shows potential cmtinue with further testing. 21 Table 4. Absorbance Maxima" for Dyes Passing the Gross Solubility Screening. up to Dye 22. (Numbers in table are '1. transmission) Have 08!! m. Length (in) 1 5 6 13 11 15 19 21 22 120 89 71 57 59 63 88 96 23 67 130 88 72 56 58 110 88 73 51 56 60 88 97 28 65 150 86 72 52 51 160 85 69 50 52 55 90 98 32 62 170 85 67 17 180 85 63 12 11 17 89 97 32 55 190 81 60 38 500 85 56 31 35 38 87 93 38 16 510 85 52 30 31 35 12 520 86 50 x 29 I 30 I 33 82 B9 23 39 530 87 16 29 30 33 22 I 38 510 B7 13 31 33 35 78 81 I 21 38 550 83 11 35 37 39 71 76 21 11 560 I 77 10 12 11 17 72 72 22 16 570 80 39 51 71 68 31 580 88 I 38 68 73 73 70 63 27 66 590 95 38 81 68 56 600 99 10 89 91 91 I 68 51 38 90 610 100 16 91 69 I 51 620 100 59 96 95 98 72 55 51 99 630 100 71 96 71 55 610 100 79 96 95 97 77 51 73 99 650 100 81 95 19 81 it The percent transmission data in this table cannot be compared between columns. Table 5. Best Solvents and Absorbance vs. Concentration Slope for Dyes Passing the Gross Solubility Screening up to Dye 21. Dye timber Wacturers Best Next Best Regression . Dye Name Solvent Solvent Slope 1 Orasal Red 8 Dichloromethane Acetme 1.05 5 Orasal Violet RN Acetone Ethanol 1.69 6 Nitro Fast Red B 2091-1003 Dichloromethane Xylene 1.79 13 Du Pant Oil Red Dichloromethane Xylene 0.321 11 Red PL Dichloromethane Benzene 0.185 15 Blue PF Dichloromethane Benzene 0.106 19 Oil Blue A Dichloromethane Benzene 0.371 21 Oil Brain N Dichloromethane Xylene 0.531 22 made. Fifteen percent transmission was arbitrarily chosen as lower limit below which accuracy was considered limited. The solvent resulting in the highest absorbance was considered the best tested solvent. The information on the best solvent and the absorption peak for of each of these eight dyes were used to evaluate the approximate slope of the relationship between dye concentration and absorbance. This determination was sought to aid in determining the dye with the greatest change in absorbance for a given change in concentration. This was only to be used if two dyes with similar properties were available and a best choice was needed. This essentially could be used as an indicator of sensitvity in determining deposit. The slopes of the relations are listed in Table 5. When dye number 22 arrived it was noted that the dye was predissolved in a solvent. It was considered possible that predissolving the dry dyes in their respective best solvent might improve solubility in the carrier. A series of tests were conducted to evaluate this on 6 of the better dyes. Table 5 indicates the percent increase in solubility due to predissolving the dye in its best solvent. The evaluation applies to t 585 diesel oil. Of the first twenty one dyes. dye number 21 demonstrated the most promise. Dye number 22 (Automate Red B) was rapidly evaluated and demonstrated such potential (due in part. to its liquid state) that it was immediately placed in the detailed evaluation process. Dyes number 21 and 22 (newly arrived) were evaluated for recovery from balsam fir. Dig Recover From Balsam E! In order to evaluate the recovery of a dye-carrier solution from foliage it was necessary to determine if a branch of balsam fir could be extracted without excess 23 background interference from branch organics. From experience with the dye solubility experiments only two solvents acetone and dichloromethane were considered suitable to remove the dyes from foliage. Six centimeter portions of branch were extracted twenty minutes in twenty milliliters of each solution. with replications. and the resulting absorption spectra examined. Acetone gave the lowest interfering absorption after twenty minutes in solvent. This evaluation was also done on white spruce. with the same result. Dye tracers (Oil Brown N. and Automate Red B) were used to evaluate the percent recovery of spray solution from the foliage of balsam fir. A solution of dye and the carriers DOP and it 585 diesel oil were prepared using eighty milligrams dye to one milliliter of carrier. The resulting solution was applied to various stem and foliage parts of balsam fir branches. The evaluations were concluded on the upper and lower surfaces of needles and stems of first. second and third year growth. The solutions were applied with a microliter syringe at a rate of four microliters per six centimeter branch part. All tests were replicated three or four times. The branches. with the dye-carrier solution applied. were extracted in twenty milliliters of acetone. With the diesel oil carrier an immediate loss of dye to the needles was evident. with only 77% recovery hence diesel oil was abandonded as a carrier of the dye. In addition to the poor recovery diesel oil was also too volitile for the purposes of this study. Further testing was conducted with DOP as the carrier. Oil Brown N at a rate of fifty milligrams per milliliter of DOP was used to evaluate the recovery of a dye-DOP solution. The same procedure was followed as for the dye-diesel solution. It was noted that the under side of second year and older needles gave the lowest recovery. Good recovery was found from all other parts including the stems. In an effort to consider all possibilities. recoveries were 24 attempted in reduced room light to reduce the photosynthetic rate and possibly improve recovery. Recovery greatly improved so that nearly all the dye was recovered. A series of tests in reduced room light were conducted with the results shown in Table 6. Field evaluations were conducted on live balsam fir in various levels of light. The same losses occured during high light levels but at low light levels recovery was excellent. Light level measurements were not taken due to a lack of equipment. The level of light encountered after 7:00 PM in late september was sufficiently reduced to yield excellent recovery. The author believes the low angle of the sun during this time period resulted in a sufficiently reduced radiant flux so that photosynthetic activity was reduced. This reduced plant activity resulted in a closing of the stomata on the under sides of the needles. With the stomata closed dye was less likely to enter the needles via these structures. As mentioned earlier. the Automate Red dye had excellent solubility properties. Four new Automate dyes were available near the conclusion of these evaluations. Two of these Automate Yellow #8 and Automate Blue 8 8 were highly soluble in DOP and resolvable spectrophotometrically. These two dyes were recoverable from fir foliage under reduced light levels. These two dyes were the most satisfactory for this study and were selected for the tracers used in later wind tunnel tests. Table 7 gives a summary of the recoveries of the Automate dyes. Dre ____1Recover Em flat—5 The dyes were recoverable from the foliage but some obstacles used in the tunnel were covered with filter paper. In addition. the flux filter. (discussed later). was a high density glass fiber filter media. Recoveries were evaluated on these by placing four microliters of dye-DOP solution on aluminum foil then placing the foil in 25 Table 6. Comparison of Dye Recovery in High vs. Low Light Levels From Balsam Fir. . High Light Level Low Light Level . I . )iean llean llean Mean Location Nisorbance St. Dev. 1 Recovery Absorbance St. Dev. 2 Recovery Top lst year needles 0.528 0.026 103 0.182 0.011 91 Bottom lst year needles -- -- -- 0.523 0.0 102 Top bad year needles 0.178 0.033 93 0.196 0.027 96 Bottom 2nd year needles 0.361 0.111 71 0.196 0.027 95 Stems 0.505 0.031 98 0.167 0.036 91 Standards 0.511 0.018 -- 0.511 0.018 - Table 7. Recovery Determination of Automate Yellow and Blue From Balsam Fir in Low Light. (Figures in the table are microliters/milliliter wash. all washes 20 milliliters) . ' Needles . Top 1st year Bottom lst year Top 2nd year Bottom 2nd year Stems Standards Yellow REP 1 0.02931 0.02836 0.02980 0.02836 0.02661 0.02956 REP 2 0.02931 0.02931 0.02931 0.02791 0.02931 0.02956 Ree 3 0.03031 0.02931 0.02931 0.02717 0.02931 0.02861 REP 1 0.02931 0.02980 0.02931 0.02791 0.02931 -- Mean 0.02956 a' 0.02920 ab 0.02913 a 0.02791 b 0.02861 ab 0.02921 ab St. Dev. 0.00050 0.00060 0.00025 0.00036 0.00135 0.0051 1 Recovery 101 95 97 101 100 Blue Rap 1 0.02692 0.02627 0.02660 0.02615 REP 2 0.02660 0.02660 0.02627 0.02716 Rip 3 0.02660 0.02595 0.02595 0.02680 Rep 1 0.02692 0.02660 -- 0.02680 Mean 0.02676 a 0.02636 a 0.02627 a 0.02680 a St. Dev. 0.00018 0.00031 0.00033 0.00053 2 Recovery 100 98 98 l lieans followed by the same letter are not simificantly different. as determined by the SHORT. RIP” 3 0.1.. 26 contact with the media to be tested. The dye-DOP solution was allowed to soak into the media for several minutes then the media and foil were then extracted in acetone. A visible stain was evident on the media in all cases. Dichloromethane was then tried with complete recovery of the dye. Dichloromethane was chosen as the extraction solvent for the filter paper and flux filters. Qy_e_ Standard 993/33 Standard curves of absorbance versus concentration were determined for the yellow and blue Automate dyes. These data are presented in tables 8 and 9. These data were regressed for use in a computer with the regression statistics indicated in tables 8 and 9 also. The yellow dye data were regressed by linear regression and the blue by curvalinear regression. In both cases the regressions resulted in a good fit. Once a dye-DOP solution. standard curves and the recovery techniques had been developed. a system to produce differing aerosols in the wind tunnel was needed. It was desirable to produce two aerosols. each with a different dye tracer. that could be released in the wind tunnel. Tunnel-Dye Solution Interaction 11!: 3’3! §1§Lem The system developed for pressurizing the spray was composed of two tanks with a regulated air pressure inlet in the top and piping to conduct the solution to their respective nozzle sets exiting the bottom of the tanks. The blue solution was always sprayed from the south tank and the yellow solution from the north tank. Pressure was applied to the top of these tanks by compressed air passing through an adjustable pressure regulator. The pressure was maintained at a constant 8440 grams per square centimeter (“120 psi). 27 Table 8. Standard Curve of Absorbance vs Concentration for Automate Yellow it 8 IDye Dilution Dye Resultant 120 nm 650 nm number ul/ml total volume absorbance absorbance 1 0.1 10 ml -- 0.0177 2 0.2 10 -- 0.0101 3 0.1 10 -- 0.0531 1 0.05 10 1.237 0.0011 5 0.025 10 0.618 0.00218 6 0.0125 10 0.328 0.0 7 6.25 E-3 10 0.167 0.0 8 3.125 E-3 10 0.0888 0.0 9 1.563 E-3 10 0.0158 0.0 10 7.813 E-1 20 0.02 0.0 11 0.0361 6 0.921 0.0011 12 0.0121 10 0.311 0.00135 13 1.05 E-3 15 0.109 0.0 Regression Results 3 r = 0.9998 Regression Function 3 ul Dye = 0.04029 x (Absorbance G 420 nm) - 4.49 E-4 Table 9. Standard Curve of Absorbance vs Concentration for Automate Blue it 8 Dye Dilution Dye Resultant 120 nm 650 nm number ul/ml total volume absorbance absorbance 1 0.395 10 ml 0.611 - 2 0.1975 10 0.281 2.301 3 0.09875 10 0.119 1.166 1 0.01938 10 0.0757 0.921 5 0.02169 10 0.0362 0.393 6 0.01231 10 0.0186 0.190 7 6.172 E-3 10 0.011 0.102 8 3.086 E-3 10 0.0066 0.053 9 1.513 E-3 10 0.0022 0.0269 10 7.772 [-3 20 0.0 0.0132 11 0.01197 10 0.0177 0.1972 12 0.00399 10 0.0011 0.0680 13 1.05 E-3 15 0.109 0.0 Regression Results 1 R = 0.99993 Regression Function 1 Abs = Absorbance 2 ul Dye = 2.9803 + {1.2895 E-Z x (Abs 0 650)} + (8.2612 E-3 x Abs 3 ) t (1.2909 E-3 x Abs ) 28 Early in the operation of the spray system a problem of plugged nozzles caused a non-uniform spray flux to be produced. This problem was corrected by installing screen traps at the pressure tank outlets. The screens were thirty nine mesh to the centimeter (100 to the inch). Thirty nine mesh screens were also used at the nozzles. Apparently the double screening was sufficient to reduce clogging although occasional clogging still occured later causing the need for rejection of some runs. Another problem encountered was difficulty in rapidly shutting off the spray. It was impossible to remove all the air from the spray lines. The trapped air was compressed during the time pressure was actively applied to the nozzles. When the outlet of the pressure tanks were shut off this pressurized air expanded resulting in a gradually reducing spray pressure at the nozzles. This caused a continued dribble lasting for several minutes in some cases. The very large droplets produced occasionally found their way to the sample locations resulting in unreliable data. To solve this problem vents were installed at the lowest points in the spray piping. These vents were separately valved so that when the pressure tanks were shut off these valves could be opened to relieve pressure. The vented solution was conveyed to glass containers for re-use. The result was a very rapid cessation of spraying. Separation 9f th_e Drgglet Distributions The basic goal in producing two aerosols in the tunnel was to compare deposit on an obstacle under two droplet distributions. By evaluating the deposit from both large and small droplet distribution on the same obstacle under the same wind conditions it was hoped to reduce the variance in the observations. The production of a relatively narrow droplet distribution by the T101 nozzle 29 was noted in a study by Ayers et al. (1979). This nozzle was chosen due to its low cost. small size. and simple operation. The nozzle operates on simple hydraulic pressure and produces few very large droplets (droplets greater 300 microns). although the distribution was not as narrow as desired. The problem of producing two different droplet distributions in the test area had to be resolved. The carrier containing the dye was DOP. essentially non-volitile. and very soluble in acetone and dichloromethane. Since the largest droplet desired was not larger than 300 microns the droplet surface was at most 150 microns from any portion of the droplet volume. This is comparable to a very thin film of solution. If a volitile solvent such as acetone was used to dissolve the dye—DOP solution the solvent was anticipated to be lost due to volitility within seconds of spraying (Himel 1980). In order to test this hypothesis. a highly dilute solution of the dye-DOP-acetone solution was sprayed on five micron wires. The resulting droplets were observed at 430 magnifications with an occular micrometer in a microscope within four seconds. The drops were observed for any change in size. In all cases the solvent had volitilized before reaching the micrscope and no change was observed. It was concluded that the droplet distribution could be altered by changing the amount of volitile solvent used to dilute the spray solution. A stipulation was then made that the spray be released a sufficient distance upwind to require at least four seconds of travel for the spray to reach the test area. Due to a fire hazard with the acetone the solvent was changed to dicholormethane. Since dichloromethane was much more volitile than acetone the four second stipluation was considered adequate. DOP is not sprayable from a T101 nozzle without some dilution due to its viscosity. If equal parts of DOP and a dichloromethane were used the solution was sprayable. The minimum dilution was set at 507. dye-DOP to dichloromethane. This 30 solution was sprayed from the vertical tunnel and allowed to dry throughout its descent and by choice was marked with the yellow dye tracer in all cases. The time required to descend the distance of the verticle tunnel was estimated to be greater than four seconds based on the calculated flow through the vertical tunnel. A dilution of twelve to one was chosen for the smaller droplet distribution. By choice the blue dye tracer was used in all cases with the small droplet distribution. Although these selections of dilution begin to seperate the two distributions of droplet size. the separation was not complete. Wind-gravitational separation was responsible for the final separation. Large droplets tended to descend from the drying tunnel in a steeper descent than the small droplets due to the greater ratio of surface area divided by mass for the smaller droplets which allowed for more wind deflection. By releasing the large droplet distribution from the vertical drying tunnel and the small droplet distribution from upwind in the main tunnel. the small drops in the large distribution tended to be swept above the sample area. Similarily the small droplets of the smaller distribution were swept into the sample area while the large drops tended to "rain out" before the sample area. The resulting separation in the droplet spectra was nearly complete. One complication was the sensitivity of this separation system to changes in air velocity. This sensitivity resulted in making duplication of a droplet distribution difficult after a change in air velocity was made. The air velocity was changed after each pair of droplet distributions had been tested through three runs of the tunnel. This is evident in the data of droplet distributions reported in the results and disscussion of the experiments. This difficulty in controlling the droplet distribution made use of the particle parameter essential for treatment comparisons. 31 Droplet Distribution Measurement Three Methods mloyed Three methods of measuring droplet distributions were in place during testing. These were Himel’s Droplet Impingement Harp (Hogmire 1979). Teflon“ coated glass slides. and Teflon laboratory tubing. All of these required the capture of non-volitile droplets on the collection devices. which could later be evaluated to determine the droplet distribution. The Droplet Impingement Harps have not been evaluated due to time constraints. Photographic records of the harps are available for future comparisons. The reason the harps were not used solely was the result of a previous study (Ayers et al. 1979). In this study the harps were compared with laser optical size determinations. The results indicated the harps were very sensitive to air velocity particularly with large droplets. The Teflon coated slides were used as a commonly used standard method. The Teflon tubes were used as a standard of comparison since their cylindrical shape was directly compatible with the physical theory used to adjust droplet munt frequency. This theory has been mentioned and involves the particle resistance I inertia parameter and collection efficiency. as detailed by Richardson (1960). The glass slides were 2.54 centimeters wide by 7.62 centimeters long. Of this 2.54 centimeters by 5.72 centimeters were covered with clear Teflon. The remainder was frosted for a label area. These slides were also mathmatically adjusted for collection efficiency. This was done by treating them as cylinders 2.54 centimeters in diameter. The Teflon cylinders were of two sizes. 1.077 centimeters outside diameter by 7.62 centimeters long and 0.96 centimeters outside diameter by 7.62 centimeters 32 long. Both the cylinders and the slides were placed in the tunnel normal to the air flow in the vicinity of the collecting obstacles. The droplet distribution was determined by counting the first 250 droplets observed on the cylinders. These droplets were measured using an ocular micrometer in an American Optical binocular compound microscope equipped with a mechanical stage. and tube holding device. The diameters were recorded in microscope units and later the data were converted to microns diameter and categorized into thirty. ten micron size categories. The conversion to microns diameter was done by multiplying the number of microscope units by the number of microns per unit and by the spread factor of 0.797 (see "Adjusting the Measured Distribution"). Adjusting t_h_e Measured Distribution The frequencies were adjusted to account for the effect of droplets tending to flow around the cylinder and not impinging by calculating the particle parameter and then using Herne’s (1960) empirical relationship to calculate the collection efficiency for each size category. The unadjusted frequency for each size category was divided by the calculated collection efficiency for that category to arrive at an adjusted frequency distribution. The adjusted frequency distribution was considered more representative of the true distribution than the unadjusted distribution. In order to adjust for the tendency for droplets to spread on a slide or tube a spread factor had to be determined. This has been previously done by Anderson and Schulte (1971) for technical malathion on teflon slides. The equipment used by Anderson and Schulte was not available for this study. The following method was devised to determine an overall spread factor on slides. The assumption was made that the same spread factor could be used for Teflon cylinders as well as Teflon slides. 133 An area of four slides were masked so that only the open area (approximately one square centimeter) would contain droplets after the mask was removed. The slides were then exposed to a relatively wide droplet distribution of dye-DOP solution. The mask was then removed and the slide carefully cleaned to remove any dye not within the masked area. The slides were photo-enlarged on Kodalyth Orthot" film then washed in three milliliters of acetone and read in a spectrophotometer. This reading was used to determine the volume of dye solution removed. The Kodalyth prints were then examined and the diameters of all the droplet images found were recorded. This information was used to calculate a predicted cumulative volume. treating the measured diameter as though it was from a spherical drop. The predicted volume and the measured volumes were then compared. The predicted volumes. being larger. were divided by the measured volumes. giving a percent volume change. The cube root of the percent was a spread factor. Table 10 gives the results of these measurements. The mean spread factor was found to be 0.797. The spread factor determined by Anderson and Schulte for technical malathion was 0.69. not an unreasonable difference considering different fluids were evaluated. The computer program DROPDIST/BAS is listed in Appendix D. This program converts the data as previously mentioned from microscope units to microns and adjusts the frequency distribution by the following relations: The particle parameter Drop Density x Drop Diameteri2 x Air Velocity 9 x Obstacle Diameter x Absolute Viscosity of Air llhere: Pi = The particle parameter of the 1“ size category. 34 Table 10. Spread Factor Evaluation of DOP-Dye Solution on Teflon Slides Replicate Measured Predicted 2 volume Resultant number sum of volume sum of volume change spread factor 1 0.0588 0.10861 51.1 0.815 2 0.0706 0.1199 17.1 0.778 3 0.09519 0.1839 51.8 0.803 1 0.05511 0.1111 19.6 0.792 . Mean = 0.797 . St. Dev = 0.0158 Table 11. Teflon Slide and Cylinder Comparison as Droplet Collection Devices Discription Slide Cylinder Shift . Volume Meighted Mean Volume Meighted Mean Cylinder - Slide R3BT1' 38 31 -7 R2YT3 90 85 -5 R1YT5 51 58 1 R18T6 32 31 -1 R3YT5 67 53 -11 R28T6 30 30 0 R1YT7 76 67 -9 RlBTB 16 37 -9 R2YT7 67 76 9 R2818 31 30 -1 R3YT7 99 101 5 R3BTB 37 12 5 R1YT9 89 113 21 R18T10 39 10 1 R2YT9 73 66 -7 R28T10 33 38 5 R3YT9 70 75 5 R3BT10 10 15 5 R1YT11 165 187 22 R18T12 17 17 0 R28T12 51 11 -10 R2YT11 155 169 11 RSYT11 165 170 5 R38T12 13 53 10 . X Y "' Regression Results 8 r = 0.9833 Regression Function: Y = 1.105 X - 5.06 * R3BT4 = Run 3. Blue Dye. Treatment 4: Y = Yellow Dye. 35 til Drop Diameteri = the midpoint diameter of the i size category. The collection efficiency .. 2 E1 ' b. 9 b1 X L091. PI 1 b2 X (LOQID PI) Mhere: Ei = The collection efficiency of the ith size category. The constants b are dependent on the value of P (see program DROPDIST/BAS in Appendix D). ngjgarison gf Sud—es am Cylinders After the droplet distributions of the slides and the cylinders had been adjusted the slides and cylinders were compared. The calculated volume weighted mean diameter (~MMD) of the slides were compared with the volume weighted mean diameter of the cylinders. Only slides and cylinders counted by the same individual were compared. The results indicated that the slides did not behave as cylindrical obstacles. The slides apparent cylindrical behavior diameter tended to change with the air velocity in a preictable way. The regression function at the bottom of Table 11 will adjust a volume weighted mean diameter from a Teflon cylinder to approximate that of a Teflon coated slide. A rearrangement of the function can perform the reverse approximation which is the correct approach. The cylinders were more difficult to handle. store and count. due to their shape. The slides were easily handled by their edges. labeled on the free end. stored in standard slide boxes. and counted with a microscope equipped with a standard mechanical stage. By using the proper regression function a reasonable estimate of the volume weighted mean diameter of a non-volitile droplet distribution can be made from Teflon coated glass slides. Unfortunately there was no established inexpensive standard to which a measuring method could be compared. 36 Dye Flux Determination Anisokinetic Smling The flux of dye passing through an area of the tunnel was determined by placing a high efficiency air pollution sampler in the air stream. The sampler was a model 086-004 air pollution sampler by Atomic Products Corporation. Atomlab Division. Center Moriches. New York. The device was operated with number 091-110 (10.2 centimeter in diameter) glass fiber filters. The effective filter area was reduced to 8.9 centimeters in diameter by the retaining ring. The sampler was equipped with a flow rate indicator which indicated a 2.83 x 105 cubic centimeters per minute flow rate with the filters used. This is equivalent to a flow of 75.8 centimeters per second through the effective filter area. The sampling rate for this filter is fixed and thus anisokenitic sampling was used except for approaching air velocities equivalent to the fixed sampling rate. Since no adjustment is made in this study for anisokinetic sampling there was therefore a sampling bias to the filter data. The filter data has been used in a very sparing way so this error does not have great influence on the analysis of data. The filter was operated throughout the time that dye solution was being released in the tunnel. Operation of the filter was begun one half to one minute before dye was released and terminated three to four minutes following the cessation of dye release. By this procedure the sampler was operating throughout the time any dye solution was passing the target area. Isokinetic Smling For future research an effort should be made to develop an inexpensive isokinetic air sampler. The device should be small enough to be inconspicuous to the 37 air flow. Several such devices should be used in a matrix throughout the sample area in a effort to track non-miformities in the spray flux. Preliminary consideration has been given such a device with the following general design properties suggested: The sample air inlet should be approximately one half to one centimeter in diameter. The filter media should be recessed from the inlet. The glass fiber media refered to above could be easily cut to size for use in such a smaller device. An outlet from the side of the forward extension could serve as an indicator of isokinetic flow. To accomplish this a U-shaped tube could be attached to this outlet. The tube should connect to the sampler normal to the approaching air flow. The other end of the tube should also be normal to the air flow exiting in the same direction and as free of nearby obstructions as possible. The U-shaped tube could be constructed of glass and a small plastic bead placed inside at the bottom of the U. The tops of the U should be indented to prevent escape of the bead. The bead should have as little mass as possible and move freely in the tube. The bead should be only slightly smaller than the inside of the tube. As air flows through this tube the bead will move in the direction of flow. The air movement in the tube will be created by the pressure differences between the inside and outside of the sampler inlet upwind of the filter. When the bead indicates no flow (tending to rest at bottom center) the sampler would be drawing air in at the same rate as air is approaching and thus be sampling isokinetically. The sampler could be driven by a vacuum tube at the sampler outlet. This vacuum tube could have a bleeder valve to regulate the pressure difference. The valve could be adjusted until the bead indicated the flow is approximately isokinetic. This device has not been constructed and these suggestions are offered as a 38 possible design for future work. Clearly the design is only preliminary and will need to be refigned once a prototype has been constructed. Sampling Procedures During experiments many samples were taken. These included six centimeter branch parts. filter paper coverings of cylinders. Teflon cylinders. Teflon slides. harps. and flux filters. Each required handling in such a way as to prevent contamination from dye that covered non-sample obstacles. The storage life of the dyes used was indefinate so this was not a consideration. Samples of dye-DOP solution after more than one year in storage were not detectably different in dye content than when originally mixed. Branch parts. flux filters and filter paper samples were handled by stainless steel forceps. The samples were removed from the sample location and immediately inserted into laboratory culture tubes equipped with Teflon lined screw caps. The branches required cutting to a length of six centimeters. This was done at the time of sampling with minimal handling. The cut was made with surgical scissors in contact with the stems only. The branches were inserted onto the culture tubes and any dye rubbed onto the lip of the tube was wiped off with aluminum foil. The foil was then inserted into the tube. Flux filters and filter paper samples were folded with forceps and inserted into culture tubes. All tubes were marked with labels to indicate treatment. run. and sample type. Branch parts were extracted in twenty milliliters of acetone for one minute. The branch part was then removed and stored in standard labeled four dram vials. The branch parts were later dried at sixty degrees centigrade for one week and then weighed. The needles were removed and the stems weighed. These data were 39 recorded as a measure of the variation in branch structure. The flux filters were washed in twenty milliliters of dichloromethane for fifteen minutes. The filter paper samples were washed in five milliliters of dichloromethane. A three milliliter portion of the washings was removed and read in a Beckman DB spectrophotometer. If the percent transmission was less than fifteen the sample was serially diluted. Records on all such dilutions were kept. The droplet impingement harps were removed from the sample area. stored in their cases. and then taken to the dark room. In the dark room the harps were photo enlarged with a 1.27 centimeter aluminum foil standard in the enlargement field. The foil served to give a means of determining the enlargement factor. After being recorded on Kodalyth film and the film marked with the information on the harp label. the harps were cleaned for re-use. The Teflon cylinders were removed from the sample area and stored vertically in wooden dowels held by holes in the wood. The cylinders were vulnerable to damage through contact with the exposed sample droplets and were therefore stored in a locked cabinet until counting. The counting was done with a standard compound microscope equipped with a special tube holder. The tube holder consisted of a slide sized base (2.54 cm by 7.62 cm). with a U-shaped bracket fastened above. The tubes were secured in the holder with four insect pins. two in each end. The insect pins were inserted through the end of the bracket into small corks in the end of the tubes. The tube holder was placed in the mechanical stage and the counting was done along the length of the tubes. By shifting the pins in the ends of the tubes the tubes could be rotated to count different sections. The Teflon slides were removed from the sample area and stored in standard slide boxes. The boxes were stored with the slides flat and the drops hanging below 40 the slides. Counting of the slides was done on the same microscope used for the Teflon tubes. The slides were fastened in the machanical stage directly with both stage adjustments usable in this case. This method greatly reduced the time spent in counting. Computer Methods Employed Ih_e Microcomputer A microcomputer was purchased to control the anemometer data collection device. This computer was a TRS-Bol‘“ model I by Tandy Corporation. It was initially purchased with 32.767 bytes of memory. 12.288 of which were the level II Microsoft BASIC interperter in read only memory. The programs written for this machine were in Microsoft BASIC or 2-801'” assembly language. The programs written for this machine are readily convertable to other machines using Microsoft BASIC with the exception of the assembly language routine. Cpi_nputer Programs Emloyed Five computer programs were written for data collection and conversion. One was written by David Zeitler formerly of Applications Programing. MSU department of Computer Science. This program was written in BASIC with an assembly language data collection subroutine which controlled the anemometer counters and recorded the counts in random access memory. The speed of assembly language was required in order to capture the data while the counters were running. Upon completion of data collection control returned to the BASIC program which printed the data on magnetic tape. This program is listed in Appendix E. The other four programs were written by the author of this document. ANEMCONV/BAS was used to read the tapes of raw anemometer data. convert the 41 data to millimeters per second form and calculate the means. standard deviations. and measures of turbulence. DROPDIST/BAS used keyboard input of droplet measurements. air velocity. collecting obstacle size. microscope conversion. and spread factor. to calculate and correct the droplet frequency distribution of Teflon slides and cylinders. ABSORCON/BAS used keyboard input of sample percent transmission and backger percent transmission (if branch data was being converted) for both yellow and blue dye. The effect of the blue dye absorption spectra to overlap on the absorption peak of the yellow dye is removed as well as any background interference from branches. The output printed absorbance and microliters dye per milliliter of final wash. The program does not convert to total microliters because the dilutions were not always the same (some samples were serially diluted). DATACONV/BAS was a short program to convert the microliters per milliliter result from ABSORCON/BAS. obstacle intercept size and dilution amount to print total microliters and microliters per square millimeter. These programs are listed in appendix D. CANOPY EXPERIMENTS CANOPY EXPERIMENT Introduction The goal of this study was to spray a canopy of trees with differing droplet distributions. one composed of relatively large droplets and the other composed of small droplets. The larger of the distributions would contain primarily droplet sizes found in the larger half of a typical spray distribution. The smaller would contain droplet sizes found in the smaller half of a typical spray distribution. By separating a typical distribution it was anticipated that information on how each portion contributes to spray deposition in a canopy of trees could be obtained. Methods and Materials The canopy consisted of seventeen balsam fir trees placed in the wind tunnel. The canopy was composed of trees approximately 1.37 meters high from the ground to the top whorl of branches. The trees were approximately 1.0 meter in diameter at the base tapering to the terminal branch above the top whorl. The trees were grown for Christmas trees. Christmas trees are often trimmed to improve their shape and thicken growth. For this study the grower reserved trees that had not been trimmed. The canopy was structured. begining approximately 4.4 meters north of the vertical tunnel inlet. and extending approximately 10 meters south from the start. The canopy was composed of eleven rows of trees. The first (north) row was composed of two trees. the next row one tree and so on for the eleven rows. The rows were placed 0.91 meter center to mnter. The south nine trees were down wind 42 43 of the vertical tunnel and thus the droplet outlet. The north eight trees were upwind of the droplet outlet and served to assure a fully developed wind shear upwind of the test area. The trees were cut to have a trunk extension fifteen to twenty centimeters long extending below the bottom whorl of branches. This trunk extension was placed in a small bucket inserted flush in the tunnel floor. The bottom whorl of branches was in contact with the floor. The buckets were kept filled with water to keep the trees fresh. The trees were supported by wires extendirig horizontally across the tunnel 0.8 meters above the floor. The trees were attached to the wires with cable clamps securing wire loops wrapped around the tree trunk. Four sample trees were within the canopy. These were the second. third and fourth rows from the south. The second and fourth rows contained one tree each and the third row contained two trees. The whole single trees in rows two and four were sample trees. The west half of the east tree and east half of the west tree in the third row were considered a single tree. Three anemometers were placed in the tunnel within the sample area of the canopy. The anemometers were adjusted to be at 35 centimeters. 86 centimeters and 137 centimeters above the floor. Their position was adjusted so they did not contact any obstacles. An effort was made to assure they were not measuring different flows from one side to the other. However. this was difficult to determine. given that the anemometers were of the miniature cup type. Hot wire anemometers were not considered due to the exposure to spray during readings. Droplet sizing devices were placed at the three anemometer levels. The flux filter was placed at the middle anemometer level for the entire run. Originally flux determinations were planned at each of the three anemometer heights for one third 44 of the total run time. This did not prove to be feasable due to the difficulty in changing filters in mid run without contaminating the sample trees by physical contact. The flux filter would have needed changing six times for each replication. resulting in six opportunities for contamination. Samples were to be taken at each of the three anemometer heights on the north . south and east sides. on the outside and inside half way between the perimeter and trunk. Two six centimeter portions of the current years growth were to be sampled. The method of choosing the branch was based on the two branches nearest to the geometric sample location. Yellow dye solution was released from the vertical tunnel for a given time interval then the droplet sizing devices were changed before the blue dye solution was released. Results and Discussion No data were collected for these trials other than wind data. Of three canopies placed in the wind tunnel all were rejected for problems in the spray delivery system. The main difficulty involved plugged nozzles. The second difficulty involved the blue dye solution which tended to be swept above the canopy due to the smaller droplet distribution. The result was to have non-uniform spray fluxes. The runs were considered useless due to this flux bias. Samples were not taken for any of the canopy tests. The turbine on the vertical tower and the movable flap on the inside tunnel roof were added to aid in correcting these problems. In addition a set of nozzles were installed in the main tunnel three meters north of the vertical tunnel outlet. These additions greatly improved the spray distribution within the main tunnel test area. 45 Further canopy tests were not made after these modifications were made. The full canopy trials tended to consume trees at a very rapid rate. It was considered more important to concentrate on techniques which consumed fewer resources. No further canopy trials have been attempted. It is probable that successful canopy tests could now be designed with the benifit of the experience gained from the following experiments. SINGLE TREE EXPERIMENTS SINGLE TREE EXPERIMENTS Introduction A single tree in a forest of trees in all probability will not be effected by the wind in the same way as a single tree. standing alone. If only a single horizontal level of a tree is considered at a time then it is not necessary to have the tree under a fully developed wind shear. This is not completely valid since the level of turbulence will differ due to the lack of wind shear. It is reasonable to expect to gain information on the relative effect of the wind on droplets as it passes through the foliage of a tree. Later the effects of turbulence could be evaluated in subsequent studies. An experiment was designed in which single trees were placed in the tunnel and exposed to two spray distributions. The first two treatments (“1320 mm/sec air velocity) were replicated four times and the third and fourth ("2500 mm/sec) were replicated only once. Methods and Materials Single trees 1.0 meter in diameter at the base and 1.37 meters high from the ground to the top whorl of branches were used. These trees were placed 4.9 meters down wind (south) of the vertical tunnel. The trees were held in place by the horizontal wires used in the canopy tests. The bottom whorl of branches were in contact with the ground. Droplet sampling devices were placed slightly off-center and upwind of the 46 47 tree at three heights. The heights were 35 . 86 and 137 centimeters above the floor. Teflon coated slides. Teflon tubes and droplet impingement harps were included. After the dye solution was released for thirty seconds the spray was stopped and the droplet samplers examined. If the samplers had a sufficient number of droplets for a determination of the distribution they were removed. In some cases they remained for the entire spray run lasting 1.5 minutes with insufficient numbers. This occured with the blue (smallest droplets) at the lowest low level. The anemometers were placed upwind of the tree 2.5 meters. The upwind positioning of the anemometers measured the approach velocity of the air. By placing the anemometers upwind the approaching wind and droplets were disturbed. The assumption was made that this disturbance would be minimal after the 2.5 meter travel. The alternative was to take wind measurements upwind of the droplet release or down wind of the trees. In the first case the effects of the vertical tunnel and adjustable turbulence flap would be missed. In the second the velocity following the tree would be measured. The down wind velocity would be usefull in addition to the upwind velocity but of less use alone. Wind samples were taken at five second repeat intervals with a sample interval of 0.5 seconds, at 35. 86 and 137 centimeters from the ground. Counting was started at the same time as the dye solution was released and terminated approximately thirty seconds after the dye solution was halted. Branch samples were taken at each of the three anemometer heights on the north. south. and east sides of the tree. on the outside (N. S. E) and inside (NI, SI, BI) of the tree half way between the perimeter and trunk. Two six centimeter portions of the current years growth were taken. The method of choosing the branch was based on the two branches nearest to the discribed sample location. Samples were collected and handled as indicated in the “Sampling Procedures" section of the 48 "METHODS FOR DEVELOPING TECHNIQUES" portion of this document. The flux filter was used down wind of the tree only at the eighty six centimeter height. The data from this filter are not reported. Since the dye flux in the tunnel varied considerable with position this filter samMing down wind of the tree at only one location could only be used for comparison with the deposit immediately upwind of that location. Filter data for a flux determination would be desirable but a matrix of several isokinetic flux samplers would be much more usefull than the single anisokinetic sampler. Results and Discussion The data are divided into two categories based on the air velocity. The first category includes replicates one through four of the first two treatments at approximately 1320 millimeters per second of flow. The second category includes replicate one of treatments three and four at approximately 2500 millimeters per second of flow. The data are summarized in Appendix A. The data for the low air velocity are divided by replicates. The first table for each replicate gives the specific mean velocities for three heights and two treatments and the volume weighted mean diameters of the droplet distributions. The secondtable for each replicate gives the apparent dye flux as estimated from the dye deposit and the branch intercept area, for each height and position. The branch intercept area was estimated based on the mean branch width multiplied by the six centimeter sample length. Columns three and six give the ratio of the estimated flux at the sample location divided by the flux estimated at the first upwind sample (N). 49 Figures 4 through 7 are graphs of these ratios plotted on the Y axis and the distance from the most upwind sample location (N) in centimeters on the X axis. Samples on the east are not included because it is likely local flux variations would invalidate the comparisons. The samples taken on the north. north inside. south inside and south all are positioned on a line parallel to the flow of the air and tend to be exposed to the same flux entering the tree to the north. This flux does change as particles are removed by impingement while passing through the tree and by sedimentation however this is part of the problem being evaluated. All graph lines originate from the coordinate 0.1. since by definition the north deposit divided by the north deposit is one. In general all the ratios tend to decrease with distance from the north. There seems to be a tendency for the deposit to increase slightly on the down wind perimeter. This tendency is possibly due to the increased number of obstacles near the perimeter as compared to the relatively more open center of the tree. The greater the number of obstacles per unit volume the more probable it is that a particle flowing around one obstacle will be forced into another close obstacle. An additional factor. which could account for this increased deposit. is that droplets may flow around the whole tree and be swept into the back of the tree by turbulence. This trend for increased deposit on the down wind side tends to decrease the lower the sample height. This may be due to the increased number of total obstacles previously encountered by the flux of droplets. The reduction in volume of flux is more likely at these lower sample heights since there is a longer path length of obstacles previously passed. This is due to the trees conical shape and also accounts for the longer length of the graph along the X axis with decreased height. Overall there is little difference between the deposit with the large versus 50 1.00 .95 .90 .85 .80 .75 .70 .65 .60 .55 .50 .15 .40 .35 .30 .25 .20 .15 .10 .05 .00 0 A = 135 cm above ground 8 = B6 on above ground C = 35 on above ground O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O 10 20 30 40 50 6D 70 80 . Centimeters Into Canops from north side cr———————————-—————-———— 3 figure 4. Plot of the Ratio of Yellow Deposit at various Distances into the Tree / Deposit on Upuind Side (distance = zero). Lou Velocits Air flow (~130 cn/sec). = 135 cm above ground = 86 cm above ground A A \B 3 0 0 O : 0 3 O : O : O 3 20 30 40 50 6D 70 80 . Centineters Into Canopy fron north side Figure 5. Plot of the Ratio of Blue Deposit at various Distances into the Tree / Deposit on Upuind Side (distance = zero). Lou Velocity Air Flow (“130 cn/sec). 51 1.10 I 1.00 .95 .90 .85 .80 .75 .70 .65 .60 .55 .50 .45 .40 .35 .30 .25 .20 .15 .10 .05 135 on above ground 86 cu above ground 3 A B C 5 on above ground .00 t 3 3 l . 3 . 3 . 30 40 50 60 70 80 . Centineters Into Canops fron north side Figure 6. Plot of the Ratio of Yellow Deposit at various Distances into the Tree / Deposit on Upuind Side (distance = zero). High Velocity Air Flow (~250 cn/sec). 1.00 .95 .90 .85 .80 .75 .70 .65 .60 .55 .50 .45 .40 .35 .30 .25 .20 .10 C .05 3‘ a \c .00 . . . . 30 40 50 60 70 80 . Centineters Into Canops fron north side 135 on above ground 86 cm above ground 3 A 8 C 5 on above ground Figure 7. Plot of the Ratio of Blue Deposit at various Distances into the Tree / Deposit on Upuind Side (distance = zero), High Uelocits Air Flow (~250 cn/sec). 52 small droplet distributions at the two air speeds. This at first may seem to indicate the relation proposed by the theory of particle parameter is incorrect. This is not a valid conclusion since all the obstacles observed were composed of similar composits of small obstacles. The composit is a branch composed of a twig center with small needles extending out from this center. It is reasonable to expect these small obstacles to be relatively efficient collectors of the passing flux. If efficient enough then the effect of air velocity and droplet size would be small. Differential deposition might be more evident if differing obstacle sizes were studied. The next set of experiments begins to examine differing obstacle sizes. CYLINDER EXPERIMENT CYLINDER EXPERIMENTS Introduction As stated previously the basic objective of the study was to evaluate the potential for using the particle resistance / inertia parameter in predicting pesticide aerosol behavior. To accomplish this data must be available about the cylindrical obstacle size. droplet size approaching the obstacle. and air velocity approaching the obstacle. In addition some measure of the true dye flux passing the obstacle would be desirable. Various sized cylinders were placed in the tunnel to evaluate the deposition of dye-DOP aerosols. The study was used primarily to refine techniques for a more rigorous study of cylinders and branches of balsam fir. In order to make air velocity and flux measurements that were closely related to the local conditions around the sample devices some additional equipment was installed in the tunnel. The additions included an air entrainment structure. to prevent gross changes in conditions within the sample area. Methods and Materials An air entrainment structure was constructed 61 centimeters wide by 53 centimeters high by 244 centimeters long inside. The structure was constructed of structural lumber and 6.4 millimeter thick exterior pressed fiber board as the interior skin. The general form was that of a rectangular tube which was approximately one meter above the tunnel floor. This structure was centrally placed 53 54 in the tunnel down wind of the vertical tunnel. The structure was oriented parallel to the main tunnel so that the wind entered from the north and exited to the south. Various sized sampling cylindrical obstacles were placed in this structure. Cylinders of 1.16. 1.66. 2.22. and 3.94 centimeters in diameter were included. The smaller three sizes of these cylinders were glass vials inverted on a linear array of pegs. in a vertical position. The largest size was a graduated cylinder horizontally positioned above and slightly to the rear of the vertical cylinders. The samplers were 2.54 centimeter wide strips of filter paper wrapped around the cylindrical portion of the cylinders and joined at the back with double faced tape. The cylinders were arranged in a linear row alternating cylinder sizes. The first cylinder on the east was 1.16 centimeters followed by the 2.22 centimeter and 1.66 centimeter sizes. This pattern was repeated for nine cylinders or three blocks of the three sizes in the linear array. The sample holding device was composed of two vertical steel rods one on each side of the structure approximately twelve centimeters from the inside vertical wall. Standard laboratory test tube clamps were attached to these rods which inturn supported the linear array of cylinders. the graduated cylinder. and the droplet sizing samplers (Harps. Teflon slides and Teflon cylinders). The linear array of the smaller cylinders was composed of a horizontal wooden support 46 centimeters long with nine vertical wooden dowels 7.6 centimeters long placed five centimeters on center along its length. The nine dowels were treated as three blocks of three cylinders. Random placement was not used because relative comparisons were desired between adjacent cylinders. A single anemometer was placed in the entrainment structure 1.23 meters down wind behind the samplers twenty five centimeters from the west wall. The flux filter was placed approximately eighteen centimeters from the east wall. also 1.23 55 meters down wind from the samplers. This orientation caused the flux filter to be sampling downwind of the first block of cylinders. The cylinders were exposed initially to the large droplet distribution from the vertical tunnel for fifteen seconds then the smaller droplet distribution from the lower release point upwind of the vertical tunnel outlet for forty five seconds. This process was repeated for three tunnel runs which resulted in nine replications of each cylinder size. Since the data was used to compare the efficiency of collection on one size cylinder with another adjacent size. each pair of compared cylinders were considered independent from another pair the of the same sizes. The droplet measuring devices were removed between each dye change. The flux filter was changed between each tunnel run. Wind data were collected at five second repeat intervals with one half second sample intervals. Results and Discussion The data collected are summarized in tables 12 through 15. Theses tables list the ratios of relative collection effeciency between three of the tested cylinder sizes. These data are included for the yellow (large droplet distribution). blue (smaller droplet distribution). the mean air velocity in millimeters per second. and the volume weighted mean diameters (approximately the mass median diameter). The ratios in tables 12-15 result from dividing the estimated dye flux per millimeter squared on the smaller cylinder into the estimated flux per millimeter squared on the larger cylinder. The data indicates smaller cylinders are more efficient collectors than the larger cylinders. A more complete data file was included in Appendix B. The data from the filter flux were not analysed for reasons previously discussed in the "Dye Table 12. Comparison of the Relative Collection Efficiencies of Three Cylinder Sizes for Treatments One and Two. YELLGI Treatment The l HIE Treatment Tuo TENT APPROX APPROX PDSITITN RATIO (EUIIITY M) RATIO (ELMTY PM) I Sizes 2.22 on vs. 1.16 on 1.5 .669 744 129 - 741 28 4.5 .608 " " — " " 7.5 .724 " " .520 " " 1.5 .633 747 147 — 714 20 4.5 .459 " " - " " 7.5 0% I! ll __ I! II 1.5 .636 741 134 .196 719 37 4.5 .663 " " .240 " " 7.5 .798 " " 1.13 " " 0 Item 0652 M 0522 l Sizes 2.22 on vs. 1.66 ca 2.5 .650 744 129 - 741 28 5.5 .m II II __ ll 01 8.5 .715 " " .749 " " 2.5 .837 747 147 - 714 20 5.5 .718 I 00 __ II II 8.5 .m 0' II __ II II 2.5 .915 741 134 .749 719 37 5.5 .771 " " .749 " " 8.5 .818 " " .487 " " 0 km 0761 that 0695 I Sizes 1.66 on vs. 1.16 on 3.5 .812 744 129 - 741 28 6.5 .860 " " .695 " " 3.5 .648 747 147 -- 714 20 605 0667 . ' — u n 3.5 .915 741 134 .749 719 37 6.5 .975 " “ .695 " " 0 Item 0813 Man 0713 57 Table 13. Comparison of the Relative Collection Efficiencies of Three Cylinder Sizes for Treatments Three and Four. mm Treatnent Three I HIE Treatnent four DEAN APPROX APPROX POSITIIN RATIO (ELTCITY III) RATIO VELTIZITY III) I Sizes 2.22 on vs. 1.16 on 1.5 .771 787 81 .749 782 42 4.5 .680 " " .361 " " 7.5 .784 " " .388 " " 1.5 .623 770 98 .161 782 33 ‘05 0.62 II II __ II II 7.5 .57. II II _ II II 1.5 .568 785 99 .246 798 33 ‘05 .5“ II II _. II II 7.5 .543 " " - " " 0 Kean 0615 Item 031 I Sizes 2.22 on vs. 1.66 on 2.5 .569 787 81 .240 782 42 5.5 .656 " " .520 " " 8.5 .642 " " .706 " " 2.5 .750 770 98 .354 782 33 5.5 .“5 II II __ II II 8.5 .719 " " - " " 2.5 .552 785 99 .135 798 33 5.5 .771 II II _ II II 8.5 .73 II II _ II II 0 dean 0675 Mean 0391 I Sizes 1.66 on vs. 1.16 on 3.5 1.I08 787 81 .328 782 42 6.5 .971 " " .360 " " 605 08.7 n " "" n u 3.5 .754 785 99 - 798 33 6.5 .856 " " - " " 0 0 Item .859 Mean 03“ 58 Table 14. Comparison of the Relative Collection Efficiencies of Three Cylinder Sizes for Treatments Five and Six. YELLCH Treatment Seven I ELIE Treatment Eight FEAR APPROX APPROX POSITIGI RATIO \ELCCITY III) RATIO W III) I Sizes 2.22 cm vs. 1.16 cm 1.5 .813 1427 163 .384 1462 44 4.5 .758 " " .421 " " 7.5 .791 " " .494 " " 1.5 .727 1490 188 .402 1453 40 4.5 .749 ” " .443 " " 7.5 .789 " " .424 " " 1.5 .774 1495 148 .438 1484 36 4.5 .757 " " .353 " " 7.5 .809 " “ .353 " " 0 *3" 0775 bean 0512 I Sizes 2.22 cm vs. 1.66 cm 2.5 .829 1427 163 .606 1462 44 5.5 .977 II II .637 II II 8.5 1.074 " " .645 " " 2.5 .978 1490 188 .671 1453 40 5.5 .856 " " .606 " " 8.5 .906 " " .610 " " 2.5 .827 1495 148 .631 1484 36 5.5 .891 " " .533 " " 8.5 .921 " " .590 " " 0 than 0918 Item 0615 I Sizes 1.66 cm vs. 1.16 cm 3.5 1.015 1427 163 .695 1462 44 6.5 1.063 " " .695 " " 3.5 .817 1490 188 .660 1453 40 6.5 .903 " " .663 " " 3.5 .823 1490 148 .599 1484 36 6.5 1.009 " " .663 " " 0 0 Item .938 New 0663 59 Table 15. Comparison of the Relative Collection Efficiencies of Three Cylinder Sizes for Treatments Seven and Eight. ELIE Treatment Ten YELLOII Treatment Nine I HEAR APPROX APPROX POSITION RATIO VELOCITY HHD RATIO VELOCITY "NO I Sizes 2.22 cm vs. 1.16 on 1.5 1.155 2134 213 .561 2090 60 4.5 .999 a u .sm n u 7.5 1.014 ' ” .582 ' " 1.5 .886 2210 194 .548 2264 80 4.5 1.047 “ ” .571 ” " 7.5 .953 ” “ .568 ' ” 1.5 .819 2013 217 .744 2045 44 5.5 0899 u n .537 u n 7.5 .730 ” " .630 ' " 0 Hean 0952 “31 0592 I 91195 2022 CH V50 1066 C” 2.5 .729 2134 213 .698 2098 28 5.5 .762 " ” .795 ' " 8.5 .838 " ” .729 " ” 2.5 .777 2210 194 .713 2264 80 5.5 .857 " " .749 ' " 8.5 1.009 " " .727 ' " 2.5 .875 2013 217 .658 2045 44 5.5 1.09 ” " .725 " ” 8.5 1.22 " ” .788 ” ” 0 Item 0986 dean 0731 I Sizes 1.66 m vs. 1.16 cm 3.5 .780 2134 213 .672 2090 66 6.5 .912 ” " .674 ' " 3.5 1.027 2210 194 .695 2264 80 6.5 1.009 " “ .727 ' ” 3.5 1.085 2013 217 .717 2045 44 6.5 .994 " " .675 ” “ 0 M 096. km 0693 60 Flux Determination” section. As the air velocity was increased (i.e. the particle parameter increases) the tendency for the ratios to approach unity and for the cylinders to behave similarly is more evident with the large droplet distribution than with the small. This tendency is evident with the smaller droplets as well though not as distinctly. The larger the droplet size or the higher the air velocity the closer the collection efficiency of a cylinder approaches unity. Then it is reasonable to expect the collectcn efficiencies of two different sized cylinders to converge at unity with very large droplets and or very high velocities (see the functional relationship of the particle parameter in "Adjusting the Measured Distribution”). Then by extension the relative collection efficiency of two cylinders will also converge at unity for very large droplets and or very high velocities. The relative collection efficiency was lower with the smaller droplets distributions and tended to increase as the velocity was increased. The same tendency for the relative collection efficiencies to increase existed for the larger droplet distributions but is displaced closer to unity. To place this in perspective with the particle parameter. as droplet size or air velocity are increased. holding other factors constant. the particle parameter is increased. As previously mentioned high particle parameters imply high collection efficiencies. If all factors are held constant except the collecting obstacle size then as the obstacle size is increased the collection efficiency is decreased. This means that the ratio of the deposits per millimeter squared for a large cylinder divided by a small cylinder will be less than one. This tendency was not violated for the largest cylinder as indicted in the data in Appendix B. The predicted flux for the this cylinder (3.94 centimeter in diameter not included in tables 12-15) indicated on the second page of each table in Appendix 61 B. is lower than those for smaller cylinders. These data do not give any information on the relative behavior of the balsam fir branch as compared the various cylinders. In addition the particle resistance / inertia parameter has not yet been used in these evaluations. A series of experiments were undertaken to evaluate the particle parameter and the relative collection of fir branches. These experiments were similar to this one with only small modifications as indicated in the following section. BRANCH AND CYLINDER EXPERIMENT BRANCH AND CYLINDER EXPERIMENTS Introduction The purpose of this experiment was to establish if any general relationships exist between small periferal branches of the balsam fir and the various cylinders examined. It was of particular interest to determine the relative collection efficiencies between the cylinders and the branches. It was hoped that these relations would be of use in predicting aerosol depositional behavior. There was little difference from the cylinder tests though only two cylinders were compared with the branches. A multiple linear regression file was constructed to determine constants for regression models in which the branches were compared to the cylinders and the cylinders to one another. The particle parameter was employed to enter air velocity and droplet distribution differences into the analysis in a single factor (see the functional relationship of the particle parameter in ”Adjusting the Measured Distribution"). Methods and Materials The basic methods were identical to the methods used in the cylinder tests with the following differences: The three treatment blocks used with the cylinder tests were modified so that twelve centimeter lengths of first or second year growth peripheral branches occupied one of the three positions in each block. The array of obstacles were numbered so that the first position to the east was numbered one. the second two and so on to the last position. to the west. which was numbered nine. 62 63 For the first run of each treatment pair (after the first pair). position one was occupied by a branch. position two by a 1.16 centimeter diameter cylinder. position three by a 2.22 centimeter diameter cylinder and position four a branch again and so on to position nine. For the second run the first position had the 2.22 centimeter cylinder. position two the branch and position three the 1.16 centimeter cylinder and so on to position nine. For the third run position one had a 1.16 centimeter cylinder. followed by the 2.22 centimeter cylinder and branch and so on to position nine. This systematic shift resulted in each position in the array being occupied by each target type once during the three runs. The probability of any target type occuping any given position was precisely one third. This effectively preserved the basic purpose of randomization which in this case is to eliminate positional bias to the data while allowing comparisons of differing adjacent targets. With true randomization no realistic number of comparisons could be assured. The 1.66 and 3.94 centimeter in diameter cylinder were not placed in the tunnel during these tests. The addition of these sizes could have over crowded the sample area and caused unreliable wind or droplet data to be collected. Wind velocities were varied from 672 millimeters per second to 1813 millimeters per second. Each general wind velocity group was exposed to two droplet distributions. The flux filter. droplet sampling devices and anemometer were positioned as in the ”CYLINDER EXPERIMENT". The large droplet flux was released from the vertical tunnel and the smaller from upwind in the main tunnel. Results and Discussion The data are summarized for each treatment in Appendix C. The ratios of relative collection efficiency are summarized in tables 16 through 21. These tables 64 Table 16. Relative Comparison of the Efficiency of Droplet Collection for Branches and Cylinders for Large and Small Droplet Distributions Used in Branch and Cylinder Treatments One and Two. YELLOII Treatment (he I BLIE Treatment Two DEM RECD’RMI. RECIPRIXZN. POSITIIN. RIN RATIO RATIO \ELMTY 4 III) RATIO RATIO IELOZZITY 4 III) I Branch vs. U8 BIL L/B BIL vs Large Cyl. 2.5. R1 .829 B 1.21 763 122 .121 8 8.26 728 38 5.5. R1 1.13 L .888 " " .214 8 4.67 " " 8.5. R1 1.22 L .823 " " .223 8 MB " " 2.5. 82 .830 B 1.20 672 109 - — 717 30 5.5. R2 .696 8 1.44 " " .249 B 4.02 " " 8.5. R2 .647 B 1.55 " " .211 8 4.74 " " 2.5. R3 .568 8 1.76 761 107 — - 700 28 5050 R3 0675 B 1038 m u "’ " w m 8.5. R3 .865 8 1.16 " " — - " " . Bean 1.28 times as much on branch Rean 5.24 times as much on branch . S.D. 0.31 as on LG cylinder. S.D. 1.72 as on L8 cylinder. I Branch BIS SIB B/S SIB vs Small Cyl. 2.5. R1 .940 S 1.06 763 122 - — 728 38 5050 R1 0657 S 1052 u u "' " u n 8050 R1 0525 S 1090 u n "" "' m u 2.5. R2 .867 S 1.15 672 109 -- - 717 30 5.5. 82 .820 S 1.22 " " - -- " " 8.5. R2 .983 S 1.02 " " - - " " 2.5. R3 .629 S 1.59 761 107 — - 700 28 5.5. R3 .675 S 1.48 " " - - " " 8059 R3 .953 S 1085 m m "' "' m m . Rean 1.33 times as much on small cyls. Mean — 0 S000 .031 as m ”FMSO S000 — I Large S/L L/S S/L US vs Small Cyl. 2.5. R1 .407 S 2.46 763 122 — - 728 38 5.5. R1 .695 S 1.44 " " - — " " 8.5. R1 - -- " " - - " " 2.5. 82 .702 S 1.42 672 109 — — 717 30 5.5. R2 .618 S 1.62 " " -- - " " 8059 R2 _ _ a w _ _ m m 2.5. R3 .659 S 1.52 761 107 -- -- 700 28 5.5. R3 .579 S 1.73 " " — - " " . Rean 1.70 times as much on small cyl. Rean - 0 3000 0.389 as m 137% C310 5000 '- I S.D. = Standard Deviation B = Branch L = Large cylinder 8 = Small cylinder The letter following the ratio indicates the obstacle with the greater deposit. 65 Table 17. Relative Comparison of the Efficiency of Droplet Collection for Branches and Cylinders for Large and Small Droplet Distributions Used in Branch and Cylinder Treatments Three and Four. YELLGI Treatment Three | BLIE Treatment Four ISM RECIPRIIIN. RECIPRIIAL POSITIIN. Rm RATIO RATIO IELIIIITY 4 I“) RATIO RATIO IELIIIITY 4 III) I Brawn L/B 87L LIB BIL vs Large Cyl. 3.5. R1 .611 8 1.64 750 74 .033 8 30.3 783 32 6.5. R1 .729 8 1.37 " " - - " " 1.5. R2 .760 8 1.32 726 79 .017 8 58.8 779 33 4.5. R2 .735 8 1.36 " " .018 8 55.6 " " 7.5. R2 .$8 8 1.70 " " - — " " 2.5. R3 .684 8 1.46 796 85 - - 790 31 5.5. R3 1.14 L .875 " " - - " " 8.5. R3 1.22 L .820 " " — -- " " . Hean 1.32 times as web on branch Rean 48.2 times as much at brawn 0 S000 .032 35 m 1.8 CBliI'KbIN S000 1506 35 m 1.8 fl11m0 I Branch 878 BIS 878 8/5 vs Small Cyl. 1.5. 81 1.05 S .951 750 74 .054 8 18.5 783 32 4.5. R1 .969 8 1.03 " " - - " " 7.5. 81 .872 8 1.15 " " .102 B 9.80 " " 2.5. R2 1.08 S .924 726 79 .072 8 13.9 779 33 5.5. R2 1.14 S .879 " " .115 B 8.70 " " 8.5. R2 .897 8 1.11 " " .119 B 8.40 " " 3.5. R3 .893 8 1.12 796 85 - — 790 31 6.5. R3 1.74 S .575 " " — - " " . Rean 1.02 times as much on small cyl. Mean 11.86 times as much on branch 0 S000 .0187 85 m Matches. S000 5031 35 m W11 H11M0 Large US SA. L/S SIL vs Small Cyl. 2.5. 81 .534 S 1.87 750 74 — - 779 33 5.5. R1 .520 5 1.92 " " - —- " " 8050 R1 07" S 1053 I m — — “ u 3.5. 82 .538 S 1.86 726 79 - - 790 31 6.5. R2 .525 5 1.90 " " — - " " 1.5. R3 .626 5 1.60 796 85 - - 75 32 4.5. R3 .679 S 1.47 " " - -' " " 7059 R3 .572 S 1075 u . "" — . 00 . Rean 1.24 times as much on small cyl. Rean - 0 S000 .011 35 m 131'? C810 5000 "' I S.D. = Standard Deviation 8 = Branch L = Large cylinder S = Small cylinder The letter following the ratio indicates the obstacle with the greater deposit. 66 Table 18. Relative Comparison of the Efficiency of Droplet Collection for Branches and Cylinders for Large and Small Droplet Distributions Used in Branch and Cylinder Treatments Five and Six. YELLGI Treatment five 81.! Treatment Six IIJRI RECIPROCAL RECIPROCAL POSITION. RUN RATIO RATIO VELOCITY 4 MMD RATIO RATIO VELOCITY 4 MMD | Branch 678 BIS SIB BIS vs Large Cyl. 3.5. R1 .519 8 1.93 1007 58 .136 B 7.35 943 31 6.5. R1 .406 8 2.43 “ ' .083 8 12.0 " ' 1.5. R2 .347 B 2.88 991 53 .068 B 14.7 930 30 4.5. R2 .303 B 3.30 ' ' .056 B 17.9 “ “ 7.5. R2 .411 B 2.43 ' “ .062 B 16.1 " “ 2.5. R3 .712 B 1.40 928 53 .108 8 9.26 919 29 5.5. R3 .479 8 2.09 ” ' .058 B 17.2 “ " 8.5. R3 .442 B 2.26 ” " .068 B 14.7 “ “ . Mean 2.34 times as much branch as Mean 13.66 times as much on branch . S.D. 1.28 on LG cylinder. S.D. 3.79 as on LG cylinder. I Branch SIB BIS SIB BIS 1.5. R1 1.06 S .944 1007 58 .354 B 2.82 943 31 4.5. R1 1.02 S .980 “ ” .317 8 3.15 “ “ 7.5. R1 .916 B 1.09 ' " .331 B 3.02 “ “ 2.5. R2 .778 8 1.29 991 53 .199 8 5.03 930 30 5.5. R2 .623 8 1.61 “ " .225 B 4.44 “ “ 8.5. R2 .793 8 1.26 ' ' .276 8 3.62 “ " 3.5. R3 1.02 S .979 928 53 .093 B 10.8 919 29 6.5. R3 .767 8 1.30 “ “ .137 B 7.30 " " . Mean 0.85 times as much on small Mean 5.02 times as much on branch 0 S000 .0226 C3150 35 m WW0 S000 2075 35 at 50311 CB11I'KbT‘S0 | Large L/S S/L L/S S/L 2.5. R1 .437 S 2.29 1007 58 .365 S 2.74 943 31 5.5. R1 .429 S 2.33 ' ” .281 S 3.56 ' “ 8.5. R1 .486 S 2.06 " “ .304 S 3.29 ' " 3.5. R2 .423 S 2.36 991 53 .251 S 3.98 930 30 6.5. R2 .471 S 2.12 ' ' .251 S 3.98 ' “ 1.5. R3 .613 S 1.63 928 53 .746 S 1.31 919 29 4.5. R3 .654 S 1.53 “ “ .793 S 1.26 “ ” 7.5. R3 .520 S 1.92 “ " .523 S 1.91 " " . Mean 2.03 times as much on small cyl. Mean 2.75 times as much on sm. cyl . S.D. 0.32 as on large cyl. S.D. 1.13 as on large cyl S.D. = Stardard Deviation B = Branch L = Large cylinder S = Small cylinder The letter following the ratio indicates the obstacle with the greater deposit. 67 Table 19. Relative Comparison of the Efficiency of Droplet Collection for Branches and Cylinders for Large and Small Droplet Distributions Used in Branch and Cylinder Treatments Seven and Eight. ELIE Treatment Eight RECIPRIEPL RATIO IELII'JITY 4 III) YELLIII Treatment Seven l IEAM RECIPRIUL POSITIIII. RIII RATIO RATIO IELCIIITY 4 III) RATIO Branch LIB BIL L/B BIL vs Large Cyl. 3.5. R1 .625 B 1.60 1098 67 .092 B 10.9 1057 37 6.5. R1 .676 B 1.48 " " .133 B 7.52 “ " 1.5. R2 .595 B 1.68 1118 76 .089 B 11.2 1093 30 4.5. R2 .558 B 1.79 ” " .105 8 9.52 “ " 7.5. R2 .511 B 1.96 ' " .100 B 10.0 ” ” 2.5. R3 1.09 L .914 1163 104 .103 B 9.71 1109 42 4.5. R3 1.16 L .860 “ " .137 B 7.30 " " 8.5. R3 1.13 L .888 " " .149 B 6.71 “ " . Mean 1.40 times as much branch as Mean 9.11 times as much on branch 0 S000 8055 m LG C811W0 S000 1071 35 on LG cylinder. I Branch SIB BIS SIB BIS vs Small Cyl. 1.5. R1 .953 B 1.05 1098 67 .360 B 2.78 1057 37 4.5. R1 1.16 S .862 ' " .374 B 2.67 " " 7.5. R1 .897 B 1.11 ' " .403 B 2.48 " " 2.5. R2 1.33 S .754 1118 76 .358 B 2.79 1093 30 5.5. R2 .859 B 1.16 " " .286 B 3.50 ' " 8.5. R2 .958 B 1.04 " " .341 B 2.93 " " 3.5. R3 1.67 S .599 1163 104 .252 B 3.97 1109 42 6.5. R3 1.61 S .622 ” " .415 B 2.41 " " . Mean 0.90 times as much small cyls. Mean 2.94 times as much on branch . S.D. 0.22 as on branches. S.D. 0.53 as on small cylinders. | Large L/S S/L L/S 57L vs Small Cyl. 2.5. R1 .556 S 1.80 1098 67 .239 S 4.18 1057 37 5.5. R1 .557 S 1.73 " " .309 S 3.24 “ " 8.5. R1 .636 S 1.57 ' ' .330 S 3.03 ' " 3.5. R2 .690 S 1.45 1118 76 .354 S 2.82 1093 30 6.5. R2 .594 S 1.68 ' ' .293 S 3.41 ” " 1.5. R3 .716 S 1.40 1163 104 .340 S 2.94 1109 42 4.5. RS .763 S 1.31 " " .447 S 2.24 ' " 8.5. R3 .746 S 1.34 " " .411 S 2.43 " " 0 . Mean 1.54 times as much on small cyl. Mean 3.04 times as much on sm. cyl 0 S000 801% 35 m 13"“ C310 3000 00685 BS on 13799 C31 I S.D. = Standard Deviation B = Branch L = Large cylinder S = Small cylinder The letter following the ratio indicates the obstacle with the greater deposit. 68 Table 20. Relative Comparison of the Efficiency of Droplet Collection for Branches and Cylinders for Large and Small Droplet Distributions Used in Branch and Cylinder Treatments Nine and Ten. YELLOR Treatment Mine I BLUE Treatment Ten MEAN RECIPROCAL RECIPROCAL POSITION. RUM RATIO RATIO VELOCITY 4 MMD RATIO RATIO VELOCITY 4 MMD I Branch LIB BIL LIB BIL vs Large Cyl. 3.5. R1 1.23 L .816 1343 89 .145 B 6.90 1286 39 6.5. R1 1.14 L .882 ” ” .177 B 5.65 ” " 1.5. R2 .864 B 1.16 1335 70 .201 B 4.98 1281 36 4.5. R2 .927 B 1.08 ” “ .153 B 6.54 " ” 7.5. R2 .936 B 1.07 “ " .172 B 5.81 ‘ " 2.5. R3 .723 B 1.38 1342 73 .152 B 6.58 1263 43 5.5. R3 .700 B 1.43 ' ' .155 B 6.45 " ' 8.5. R3 .599 B 1.67 ” ” .103 B 9.71 ” ' . Mean 1.19 times as much on branch Mean 6.58 times as much on branch . S.D. 0.29 as an LC cylinder. S.D. 1.41 as on large cyl. | Branch BIS SIB BIS SIB vs Small Cyl. 1.5. R1 .600 S 1.67 1343 89 .344 B 2.91 1286 39 4.5. R1 .565 S 1.78 ' ' .531 B 1.88 ' ” 7.5. R1 .652 S 1.53 ' ' .484 B 2.07 ' " 2.5. R2 .790 S 1.27 1335 70 .406 B 2.46 1281 36 5.5. R2 .687 S 1.46 ' " .473 8 2.11 ' “ 8.5. R2 .715 S 1.40 ' “ .414 B 2.42 ' " 3.5. R3 .766 S 1.31 1341 73 .005 B 1.21 1263 43 6.5. R3 .628 S 1.59 ' ' .649 B 1.54 " " . Mean 1.50 times as much small cyls. Mean 2.08 times as much on branch . S.D. 0.18 as on branches. S.D. 0.54 as on small cylinders I Large LIS SIL LIS SIL vs Small Cyl. 2.5. R1 .703 S 1.42 1343 89 .293 S 3.41 1286 39 5.5. R1 .673 S 1.49 “ “ .238 S 4.20 “ " 8.5. R1 .696 S 1.44 ' “ .367 S 2.72 ' “ 3.5. R2 .753 S 1.33 1335 70 .354 S 2.82 1281 36 6.5. R2 .660 S 1.52 “ ' .345 S 2.90 ' " 1.5. R3 .702 S 1.42 1342 73 .318 S 3.14 1263 43 4.5. R3 .555 S 1.80 " ' .172 S 5.81 ' " 7.5. R3 .546 S 1.83 " ' .192 S 5.21 ' ' . Mean 1.53timesasmuchmsmallcyl. Mean 3.78timesasmuchonsm.cyl . S.D. 0.18 as on large cyl. S.D. 1.18 as on large cyl I S.D. = Standard Deviation B = Branch L = Large cylinder S = Small cylinder The letter following the ratio indicates the obstacle with the greater deposit. 69 Table 21. Relative Comparison of the Efficiency of Droplet Collection For Branches and Cylinders For Large and Small Droplet Distributions Used in Branch and Cylinder Treatments Eleven and Twelve. TELL!!! Treatment Eleven BLlE Treatment Twelve —---- DEM RECIPRIEN. mm POSITIIN. RIM RATIO RATIO IELIUTY 4 100 RATIO RATIO IELMTY 4» 100 | Branch BIL LIB BIL LIB VS LBTQE Cyl. 3.5. R1 .506 L 1.98 1797 176 .066 B 15.2 1813 47 6.5. R1 .579 L 1.73 " " .315 8 3.17 " " 1.5. R2 .486 L 2.06 1646 169 .028 B 35.7 1702 46 4.5. R2 .183 L 5.46 " " .061 8 16.4 " " 7.5. R2 .518 L 1.93 " " .053 B 18.9 " " 2.5. R3 .672 L 1.49 1590 163 .369 B 2.71 1602 48 5.5. R3 .327 L 3.06 " " .396 8 2.53 " " 8.5. R3 .402 l. 2.49 " " .291 8 3.44 " " . Mean 0.40 times as much «1 branch. Mean 12.25 times as much on branch . S.D. 1.28 as on L8 cylinder. S.D. 11.74 as at LG cylinder. | Branch BIS SIB BIS SIB vs Small Cyl. 1.5. R1 .392 S 2.55 1797 176 .300 B 3.33 1813 47 4.5. R1 .413 S 2.42 " " .092 B 10.87 " " 7.5. R1 .604 S 1.66 " " 1.04 S .958 " " 2.5. R2 .395 S 2.53 1646 169 .249 B 4.02 1702 46 5.5. R2 .166 S 6.02 " " .246 B 4.07 " " 8.5. R2 .450 S 2.22 " " .251 B 3.98 " " 3.5. R3 .398 S 2.51 1590 163 .729 B 1.37 1602 48 6.5. R3 .318 S 3.14 " " .887 B 1.13 " " . Mean 2.88 times as mch on small cyl. Mean 4.54 times as web on branch . S.D. 1.33 as m Branches. S.D. 3.32 as on small cylinders. I Large LIS SIL US SIL vs Small Cyl. 2.5. Rl .I S 1.17 1797 176 .289 S 3.46 1813 47 5.5. R1 .828 S 1.21 ' " .520 S 2.65 " " 8.5. R1 .. S 1.17 " " .520 S 1.92 " " 3.5. R2 .678 S 1.47 1646 169 .378 S 2.65 1702 46 6.5. R2 .849 S 1.18 " " .248 S 4.03 " " 1.5. R3 .860 S 1.16 1590 163 .423 S 2.36 1602 48 ‘05, R3 — - " " — ... m m 7.5. R3 .773 S 1.29 " " .361 S 2.77 " " . Mean 1.24 times as much (11 small cyl. Mean 2.69 times as much «1 sm. cyl . S.D. 0.11 as on large cyl. S.D. 0.74 as on large cyl S.D. = Stmdard Deviatim B = BI‘mch L = Large cylinder 5 = Small cylinder The letter following the ratio indicates the obstacle with the greater deposit. 70 are similar to those for the cylinder tests. They differ in that the branches do not behave as a known fixed cylinder. The relationship between the cylinders and branches changes with droplet distribution. This change occurs in such a way as to indicate that the representative apparent branch size changes with changing droplet size and thus particle parameter. The cylinders tended to collect more of the aerosol than the branches when the large droplet distribution was applied. The reverse was true for the smaller droplet distribution. A possible explanation for this tendency involves the way the air moves through a branch. It is not unreasonable to expect small scale turbulences to exist as the air moves around needles and the stem of a branch. These turbulences would be induced by the composit of small obstacles. The turbulence induced by a single large cylinder standing along would be expected to occur following the cylinder with respect to air flow. Droplets approaching a composit of cylinders would encounter these turbulences and their path would be altered. The path of small droplets would tend to more closely follow the air path than the path of large droplets. The tendency then would be for the large droplets to take a more direct path through this oomposit of cylinders than the small droplets. The more direct path may result in a depositional pattern more similar to the deposit approaching a single cylinder. The path of the small droplets would tend to be less direct and the path length longer. The small droplets approaching a single cylinder would tend to flow around. Small droplets approaching a composit flowing around one obstacle may tend to be thrown into another nearby obstacle. This buffeting of the smaller droplets may account for the greater relative collection efficiency of the branches than the cylinders with the smaller droplets. This does not imply a greater true collection efficiency of small droplets 71 versus large droplets. In the data tables in Appendix C are indicated the collection effeciencies with respect to the filter flux (column denoted "Rel. to Filter” in the tables). These ratios should more closely approximate the true collection efficiency than the relative efficiency between obstacles. These ratios indicate collection efficiencies much higher for the larger droplets. Multiple linear regression files were prepared form the data. These files are listed in Appendix C. The file in Listing 1 was constructed from the relative collection efficiencies of the cylinders versus the filter. This file includes the relative collection efficiency of the two cylinder sizes as the dependent variable. Since the relationship of the particle parameter to the collection efficiency (CB) tends to be more linear using a logarithmic transformation the independent variables are the logarithm to the base ten of the particle parameter (log P) for the cylinder. the quantity the log P squared and The quantity the log P cubed. The proposed relationship was the CE = fIP). These data were regressed by the following curvalinear model: Yj = SumIIBiXi'j} + E]. Where {i I 1 <= 1 (= 4} B]. = the error term Bi = the respective ooeficients X1 = 1 x2.j = the respective log P x3.j = the respective (log P)2 X4“. = the respective (log P)3 Y]. = CE = ft?) The regression results indicate a reasonable multiple linear fit to the data. The following is a summary of the regression results: 72 Regression Statistics coefficient of Determinatim (a?) = .8428 Coefficient of MltiPle Correlatim = .9180 Standard Error of the Estimate = .1379 Regression Sum of Squares = 5.507 Residual Sum of Squares = 1.027 f-Ratio (Regression) = 96.51 Degrees of Freedom = 1 0 54 Probability of Chance = 1.11 x 10‘9 mm of Sibiects = 58 Coefficients B1 = .1455 B2 = .6580 33 = .5003 8‘ = -,3393 A complete multiple linear regression data file was constructed for the relative collection efficiencies between obstacles including the branches. This file contains 223 elements and was listed in Appendix C. Listing 2. The file was constructed so the dependent variable was the relative collection efficiency between the two compared obstacles. The first independent variable was the logarithm of the particle parameter. The second was a binary indicator variable (0 or 1) for a branch versus small cylinder comparison. The third was an indicator variable (0 or 1) for a branch versus large cylinder comparison. When variables two and three respectively equal 1.0 branch versus small cylinder are indicated. When variables two and three equal 0.1 branch versus large cylinder are indicated. When variables two and three equal 0.0 small versus large cylinder are indicatad. The combination 1.1 was not 73 used. The fourth was the relative turbulent intensity as determined by the mean wind velocity divided by the standard deviation of the wind velocity. The fifth was the branch needle weight in grams. The sixth was the sample position in the tunnel midway between the two obstacles. The entire file was regressed with an R equal to 0.337. To evaluate the weakness in this regression portions of the file were regressed seperately. First the file was regressed for all file independent variables number two and three equal to zero (cylinders only compared). The first independent variable (log P) was squared to replace independent variable two and cubed to replace independent variable three. The R improved to 0.666 The next regression utilized all data to compare deposits on branch and large cylinder. The log P was again squared and cubed for variables two and three. The R for this regression was equal to 0.769. These regressions do indicate a relation exists. but that the regression model does not fit properly. As mentioned earlier the relationship of the particle parameter to the collection efficiency is based on the ratio of the deposit to the true flux approaching the obstacle. The relative efficiency in these files does not change in the same way with a changing particle parameter as the collection efficiency would. This differing behavior for these ratios may in part account for the poor regression results. A smaller data file was constructed of the mllection efficiency relative to the filter for the branch data. This file was oonstructed with an arbitrary particle parameter calculated using the small cylinder diameter (1.16 cm). This was necessary since the apparent cylindrical size of the branches was not known. The data of treatments one and two were excluded because they were not taken under the sample position shifting procedure discribed in the preceding "Methods and Materials" section. Only the data for the branches located directly upwind of the flux filter 74 were included. The purpose of excluding the other branch data was an attempt to restrict the data to branches exposed to the same flux as the filter. This resulted in six of the previously mentioned replications being rejected leaving three for each treatment. The file was regressed by linear regression for treatments three through twelve. The regression was repeated excluding the data for treatment eleven. As stated earlier the valid limits of the particle parameter include particles less than thirty microns. The data of treatment eleven include very large droplets and may exceed the valid limits of the particle parameter by too much. The results of these regressions follow: Model: same as multiple linear regression model. where B3=0334=o Total file: r = .7638 I a = .2390 I b =.3065 3 n = 50 Function: Collection efficiency = .2390 + .3065 x Log P Excluding treatment 11: r = .8488 I a = .2376 3 b = .4651 I n = 46 Probability of chance = 6.45 x 10'8 Function: Collection efficiency = .2376 + .4651 x Log P From these regression statistics it is evident that the particle parameter can be extended beyond the theoretically valid limit with reasonable results. The extension may begin to fail to produce reasonable results. if the droplet distribution being considered contains too many large droplets. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Several techniques have been developed for the evaluation of coarse aerosol deposition of non-volitile liquids. Several dyes were evaluated for solublilty and absorbtion characteristics in dioctyl phthalate. Two dyes in liquid form were found that can be evaluated for deposit from a single sample extraction and another dye was found that could be used alone. An inexpensive wind tunnel was constructed and used to increase control over air movement during testing of aerosol deposition. Modifications to the tunnel improved the performance but flux variations within the tunnel continued as a problem. Two methods were compared for the measurement of non-volitile aerosol size distributions. The use of Teflon tubes as a standard method when the data were adjusted for differential collection. as determined by the particle parameter. was compared to Teflon coated glass slides. The slides did not behave as a true cylinder but the deviation was predictable. The slides were easier to use and store. With proper adjustment of the droplet distribution and correction of the apparent obstacle size these slides can reasonably estimate a droplet distribution. I-‘or either obstacle to be used air velocity determinations are necessary. Both canopy and single tree experiments were conducted. The results of these experiments were limited due the the flux variations within the tunnel. Because of flux problems an air entrainment tube was installed within the tunnel. The single tree data demonstrated a clear tendency for preferential deposition on 75 76 the upwind side of the tree. The deposit pattern throughout the tree indicated decreased deposit on the interior of the tree followed by a slight increase on the downwind perimeter. Smaller scale experiments with cylinders and branches were subsequently conducted. Branches of balsam fir were compared with various sized cylinders. The indications were that the apparent cylindrical size of the branches tends to change as the particle parameter changes which in this study was most obviously different with the smaller droplet distributions. The particle resistance / inertia parameter does not offer a satisfactory tool for directly predicting the relative collection efficiency of two obstacles. The particle parameter does offer potential as a tool in estimating the true collection efficiency of an obstacle. By extension it could be used to estimate the relative collection efficiency of two obstacles whose true collection efficiency have been estimated. In order to perform a more meaningfull study in the area of whole trees and miniature canpoies better control or measurement of the aerosol flux is needed. This may be attainable through the use of a matrix of isokinetic air samplers. Once precise flux determinations can be made the relationship of the particle parameter to the collection efficiency for particles exceeding the theoretical limits appear attainable. With this relationship clearly defigned depositional behavior on true cylinders directly follows. Obstacles other than cylinders will require analyses to determine the apparent obstacle size under various oonditions. It has been demonstrated that the particle parameter offers potential as a usefull tool in coarse aerosol behavior. The study performed was only preliminary. Techniques developed and the data gathered will be usefull in the future to design new more definitive research. The data gathered still has potential for further 77 analysis as relationships are more clearly defined. The future of this line of research offers great potential for determining constants and coefficients needed in the modeling of pesticide aerosol behavior. It is the author’s hope that this type of research will continue. REFERENCES CITED REFERENCES CITED Anderson. C. H. and W. Shulte. 1971. ”Teflon as a Surface for Deposition of Aerosol Droplets”. Mosguito News Ayers. (3.. A. R. Hays. A. J. Howitt. H. Retzer and C. Himel. 1979. Unpublished Droplet Distribution Study Performed at the USDA Agricultural Engineering Laboratory. PPHI. Beltsville. MD. Barry. Jo We, R0 Bo Ekblado Go Po Markin and 60 Co Trostle. 19780 MEIOOOS for Sampling and Assessing Deposit of Insecticidal Sprays Released Over Forests. USDA Technical Bulletin Number 1596. Climet Instrument Co. Inc. 1980. Operating Manual for Climet Instruments Wind Speed Transmittgr Model 011-1. 1320 West colton Ave.. Redlands. California. Colour Index 2nd ed. 1956. Society of Dyers and Colourists. Lowell. Mass. American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists. Courshee R. (3.. G. A. Matthews. A. .T'. Howitt. G. Ayers. C. Himel and A. R. Hays. 1979. Unpublished Meeting on Aerial Pesticide Applications. Mr. Courshee is Director of the Cranfield Institute. Agricultural Aviation Research Unit. Dr. Matthews is a Professor at the Overseas Spray Machinery Center. Drs. Howitt and Ayers are Professors of Entomology at MSU. Dr. Himel is a Professor of Entomology at University of Goergia. Davies. C. N. 1960. ”The Particle Resistance / Inertia Parameter”. Aerodynamic Capture of Particles. Proceedings of a conference held at B.C.U.R.A.. Leatherhead. Surrey. Pergamon Press. New York. Hays P. B. and A. R. Hays. 1980. Unpublished work conducted at the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor. Michigan. For further details contact Prof. Paul B. Hays of that institution. Heldman. 1981. Unpublished personal communication. Department of Agricultural Engineering. Michigan State University. East Lansing. Michigan. Herne. H. 1960. "The Classical Computation of the Aerodynamic Capture of Particles by Spheres". Aerodynamic Cgpture of Particles. Proceedings of a conference held at B.C.U.R.A.. Leatherhead. Surrey. Pergamon Press. New York. Himel. C. M. 1969. “The optimum Size for Insecticide Spray Droplets". Journéld of Economic Entomology. Vol. 62 No. 4 : 919-925. 78 79 Himel. C. M. 1980. Unpublished personal communication. Department of Entomology. University of Georgia. Athens. Georgia. Hogmire. H. W. 1979.An Analysis of Some Spray Factors In Controlled Porosity Low Volume and Conventional Ground Orchard Spray Systems. A dissertation presented to the Department of Entomology. Michigan State University. East Lansing. Michigan. Lawson. T. J. and S. Uk. 1979. "The Influence of Wind Turbulence. Crop Characteristics and Flying Height on the Dispersal of Aerial Sprays". Atmospheric Environment. Vol. 13 1 711-715. Nigham. S. 1979. Unpublished personal communication. Adjunct Professor. Department of Entomology. Michigan State University. East Lansing. Michigan. Richardson. E. G. ed.1960. Aerodynamic Cgpture of Particles. Proceedings of a conference held at B.C.U.R.A.. Leatherhead. Surrey. Pergamon Press. New York. Yates. W. E.. N. B. Akesson and R. E. Cowden. 1974. “Criteria For Minimizing Drift Residues on Crops Downwind From Aerial Applications. Transactions of the ASAE. 17: 627-632. GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY Aviation Weather. 1975. Dept. of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. Washington D. C. TL 556. U644. Bache. D. H. and W. J. D. Sayer. 1973. "Turbulent Transport of Aerial Sprays. I. A Model of Aerial Dispersion.“ A ricultural Meteorolo . 15: 257-271. Brunt. D. 1941. Physical and Dynamical Meteorology. The Macmillan Co.. New York. QC 861. B72 Chabay. I. 1977. ”Measurement of Aerosol Size Distribution With a Particle Doppler Shift Spectrometer”. Methods and Standards For Environmental Measurement. Proceedings of the 8th Materials Research Symposium. Gaithersburg. Maryland. Chamberlian. A. C. and R. C. Chadwick. 1972. "Deposition of Spores and Other Particles on Vegitation and Soil". Annals of A lied Biolo . 71: 141’1580 Cionco. R. M. 1965. "A Mathematical Model for Air Flow in a Vegatative Canopy". Journald of Applied Meteorology. 4 3 517-522. Csanady. G. T. 1973. Turbulent Diffugion in the Environment. D. Reidel Publishing Co.. Dordrecht-Holland. 248pp. TD 177 .C76 (Physics Library) Denmead O. T. 1964. “Evaporation Sources and Apparent Diffusivities in a Forest Canopy”. Journald of Applied Meteorolmy. 3: 383-389. Dumbauld. R. E.. .I. E. Rafferty and H. E. Cramer. 1976. I'Dispersion - Deposition From Aerial Spray Releases”. Third Symposium on Atmospheric Turbulence. Diffusion. and Air Quality. American Meteorological Society. Boston. Mass. 520-527. Fleagle. R. G. and J. K. Businger. 1963. An Introduction To Atmospheric Physics. Academic Press. New York. Himel. C. M. 1969. ”The Fluorescent Particle Spray Droplet Tracer Method". Journald of Enconomic Entomology. 62 no. 43912-916. Humphreys. W. J. 1964. Physics of the Air. Dover Publishing. Inc.. New York. QC 861.H8 80 81 Knollenberg. R. G. 1970. ”The Optical Array : An Alternative to Scattering or Extinction for Airborne Particle Size Determination". J ournald of Applied Meteorology. vol. 9 : 86-103. Laikhtman. D. L. 1964. Physics of the Boundry Layer of the Atmosphere. GIMIZ. 1961 . Israel Program for Scientific Translations. Jerusalem. 200pp. Lake. J. R. 1977. "The Effect of Droplet Size and Velocity on the Performance of Agricultural Sprays”. Pesticide Science. 8: 515-520. Little. P. 1979. "Particle Capture by Natural Surfaces". Agricultural Aviation. vol. 20 no. 3: 129-144. McDonald. J. E. 1960. "An Aid to the Computation of the Terminal Fall Velocities of Spheres“. J ournald of Meteorology. 17: 463-465. Monteith. J. L. 1972. Survey of Instruments for Meteorology. IBP Handka 4 22. Blackwell Scientific Publications. Oxford. England. Obukov. A. M. 1971. ”Turbulence in an Atmosphere with Non-uniform Temperature". Boundry Layer Meteorolpgy. 2: 7-29. Republication of 1946 paper. (Classic) Schwerdtfeger. P. 1976. “Physical Principles of Micro-Meteorological Measurements“. Developments in Atmo_s_pheric Science 6. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.. Amsterdam. 113pp. Tverskoi. P. N. 1965. Physics of the Atmosphere. "A Course in Meterology". GIMIZ Gidrometeorologicheskoe Izdatel ’Stvo Leningrad 1962. Israel Program for Scientific Translations. Jerusalem. QC 861. T8613. Uk. S. 1977. "Tracing Insecticide Spray Droplets by Sizes on Natural Surfaces. The State of the Art and its Value”. Pesticide Science. 8: 501-509. Wallace. J. M. and P. V. Hobbs. 1977. Atmospheric Science. Academic Press. New York. Webb. B. IC. 1970. "Profile Relationships: The Log-Linear Range and Extension to Strong Stability“. Quarterly Journald of the Royal Meteorological Society. 96: 67-90. APPENDICIES APPENDIX A SINGLE TREE TEST DATA APPENDIX A SINGLE TREE TEST DATA These data are arranged into five tables one for each replicate. The first part of each table is a summary of the mean air velocities and volume weighted mean diameters of the droplet distributions for the three sample heights. The second part of each table is a summary of the estimated dye flux per millimeter squared for each sample location. Column one of the second part of the tables give the sample location. The labels include a letter indicating the direction in the tunnel from which the sample was taken (N = North. S = South. E = East). The second letter in some cases indicate the sample was not taken on the tree periphery but inside midway between the periphery and trunk. Columns two and four include the flux reported based on the air intercept area of a branch normal to the air flow and assuming the branch forms a solid cylinder. Columns three and five include the ratio of the estimated flux at the sample location divided by the estimated flux on the north side (upwind) at the same height. 83 Table A1. Data for Single Tree Test. Low Velocity. Replicate One Height Dye Tracer Air Velocity Volume Meighted Mean cm mm/sec Diameter (0) 137 Yellow 1380 - " Blue 1385 — 86 Yellow 1382 - " Blue 1385 - 5 Yellow 1311 - " Blue 1308 - Flux Predicted From Intercept Area and Deposit Sample Yellow flux Flux/M flux Blue F ux Flux/M Flux Location ol/nn2 at same level ul/m at same level M 137 4.57 E-4 3.38 E-4 M 137 3.764 E-4 1 2.“ E-4 1 M 86 1.356 E-4 3.455 E-5 M 86 1.646 E-4 1 4.299 [-5 1 N 5 30892 E-S .00 M 5 9.146 E-5 1 4.37 E-6 1 MI 137 3.008 E-5 2.957 E-5 MI 137 5.854 E-5 .109 6.077 [-5 .146 MI 86 6.382 E-5 1.667 E-5 MI 5 1.138 [-5 0.0 "I 35 2.957 E-S 0314 “a. 000 S 137 2.673 E—4 2.15 E-4 S 137 3.181 E-4 .721 2.623 E-4 .767 S 86 1.819 E-5 4.37 E-6 S 86 9.451 E-6 .092 4.37 E-6 .113 S 5 0.0 0.0 S 5 10321 5'6 .010 .00 0.0 SI 137 2.5 E-5 1.667 E-6 SI 137 4.238 E-5 .083 4.644 E-5 .102 SI 86 1.128 E-5 1.321 E-6 SI 86 2.134 E-6 .045 0.0 .017 SI 5 3.76 [-6 0.0 51 35 20051 [’6 0045 .9. 000 E 86 4.624 E-5 7.317 E-6 E 86 3.415 E-5 .268 0.0 .094 E 5 3.415 E-5 0.0 E 5 10657 [-5 052‘ .00 0.0 EI 86 1.373 E-4 4.37 [-6 E1 86 8.211 E5 .731 1.321 [-6 .074 E1 5 2.957 E-5 0.0 E1 5 1.047 [-5 .302 0.0 0.0 84 Table A2. Data for Single Tree Test. Low Velocity. Replicate Two Meidlt Dye Tracer Air Velocity Volume Meighted Mean cm mm/sec Diameter (u) 137 Yellow 1299 - " Blue 1276 - 86 Yellow 1263 - " Blue 1264 - 5 Yellow 1198 - " Blue 1192 -- Flux Predicted From Intercept Area and Deposit Sample Yellow flux flux/M Flux Blue F ux Flux/M Flux Location ul/llm2 at same level ul/mm at same level M 137 4.508 E-4 2.945 E-4 M 137 4.941 E-4 1 3.400 E-4 1 M 86 1.554 [-4 5.203 E-5 M 86 1.509 E-4 1 4.846 E-5 1 M 5 2.459 E-5 0.0 M 5 2.266 E-5 1 0.0 1 MI 137 3.355 E-4 1.841 E-4 MI 137 2.278 E-4 .596 1.666 E-4 .53 MI 86 7.815 E-5 1.972 E-5 MI 86 8.222 E-5 .523 2.541 [-6 .223 MI 5 1.900 [-5 0.0 MI 35 10362 [-5 0690 .0. 000 S 137 1.202 [-4 1.105 E-4 S 137 8.333 E'6 0136 20541 6‘6 0178 S 86 8.45 E-6 0.0 S 86 1.829 E-6 .033 0.0 0.0 S 5 1.016 E-6 0.0 S 5 5.691 E-6 .142 4.065 [-6 -- 81 137 9.045 E-6 5.589 E-6 SI 137 5.945 E-5 .072 4.319 E-5 .077 SI 86 5.081 E-6 0.0 SI 86 20419 [-5 0096 8.638 E“ 0°86 SI 35 2.459 E?) .0. SI 5 7.622 E-6 .682 0.0 0.0 E 86 4.482 E-5 2.297 [-5 E 86 40177 E-5 0283 10.16 E-5 0330 E 5 1027. E-S '0. E 5 3.45 E-6 .342 0.0 0.0 EI 86 2.642 E-5 1.016 E-6 E1 86 2.429 [-5 0166 5.589 ['6 0066 El 5 3.45 E-6 0.0 E1 5 1.016 E-6 .095 0.0 0.0 85 Table A3. Data for Single Tree Test. Low Velocity. Replicate Three Meidlt Dye Tracer Air Uelocits Uolune Heighted Mean on W590 Dianeter (u) 137 Yellow 153 81 " a Blue 1348 29 86 Yellow 1347 92 " Blue 153 - 5 Yellow 1319 — " Blue 1313 - Flux Predicted From Intercept Area and Deposit Samle Yellow Flux Flux/M Flux Blue F ux Flux/M Flux Location ul/mz at sane level ul/m at sane level M 137 4.152 [-4 3.081 E—4 M 137 4.765 [-4 1 3.807 E-4 1 M 86 2.733 E-4 1.464 E-4 M 86 1.949 E-4 1 9.614 [-5 1 M 5 2.195 [-5 0.0 M 5 4.228 E-5 1 0.0 -- MI 137 1.177 E-4 1.503 E-4 MI 137 1.434 [-4 .293 1.427 E-4 .425 MI 86 7.866 E-5 2.581 E-5 MI 86 5.091 E-5 .277 1.220 E-6 .111 MI 5 1.128 E-5 0.0 "I 5 10057 [-5 0339 .00 ""'"' S 137 3.699 E-5 5.091 [-5 S 137 2.164 E-4 .284 2.564 [-4 .446 S 86 1.453 E-5 4.167 E-6 S 86 10118 [-5 .055 0.0 0017 S 5 3.760 [-6 0.0 S 5 .00 0059 .00 "" SI 137 6.870 E-5 7.073 [-5 SI 137 1.138 [-5 .090 3.394 E-5 .152 SI 86 0.0 0.0 SI 86 3.760 E-6 .008 0.0 --- SI 5 0.0 0.0 SI 5 .00 — 0.0 '— E 86 1.088 E-4 1.179 [-5 E 86 1.398 E-4 .531 1.331 E-4 .597 E 5 7.276 E-5 0.0 E 5 40228 ES 1079 .0. —' EI 86 2.632 E-5 5.691 [-6 E1 86 4.573 E“ 0066 0.0 0023 E1 5 7.927 E-6 0.0 E1 5 2.134 E—6 .157 0.0 —- 86 Table A4. Data for Single Tree Test. Low Velocity. Replicate Four Height Due Tracer Air Uelocits Uolune Heighted Mean cw M/sec Diaweter (u) 137 Yellow 151 65 " Blue 1343 5 86 Yellow 1361 101 " Blue 1372 40 5 Yellow 1323 98 " Blue 1338 — Flux Predicted From Intercept Area and Deposit Yellow Flux Flux/M Flux Blue F ux Flux/M Flux ul/m at. sane level ul/m at sane level M 137 4.046 E—4 3.780 E-4 M 137 4.694 E-4 1 3.702 E-4 1 M 86 2.58 E-4 6.697 E-5 M 86 2.503 E-4 1 5.620 E-5 1 M 5 1.298 E-4 8.740 E-6 M 5 1.220 E-4 1 8.740 E-6 1 MI 137 1.911 E-4 1.801 E-4 MI 137 1.140 E-4 .349 1.214 E-4 .403 MI 86 2.405 E-4 5.793 E-S MI 86 4.014 ES .54 1.636 ES .603 MI 35 5.742 E-5 1.220 E-6 MI 5 1.148 E-4 .684 2.744 E—6 .227 S 137 9.919 E-5 9.004 E-5 S 137 9.888 ES .227 9.614 E-5 .249 S 86 7.388 E-5 3.069 E-5 S 86 2.368 [-5 .193 1.220 [-6 .259 S 5 6.199 E-6 0.0 S 5 1.047 ES .066 0.0 —- SI 137 1.474 E-4 .262 1.198 E-4 .267 SI 86 1.392 E-S 4.167 E-6 SI 86 6.199 E-6 .040 1.220 E-6 .044 SI 5 1.392 E-5 0.0 SI 5 7011‘ 5'6 .084 0.0 '- E 86 1.271 E-4 2.104 E-5 E 86 1.570 E-4 .561 3.982 E-5 .494 E 5 1.882 E-4 1.179 E-5 E 5 1.536 E-4 1.36 2.744 E6 .273 El 86 9.421 E-5 2.907 E-5 EI 86 5.539 E-5 .296 1.484 E-5 .56 E1 5 5.742 E-5 1.220 E-6 E1 5 50102 E-S 0531 000 0168 E?7 Table A5. Data for Single Tree Test. High Velocity. Replicate One Height Dae Tracer Air Ublocits Volume Heighted Mean on nn/sec Diameter (u) 137 Yellow 2547 93 “ Blue 2562 53 86 Yellow 2421 110 " Blue 2441 60 35 Yellow 2531 121 " Blue 2473 - Flux Predicted Prom Intercept Area and Deposit Sample Yellow Flux Flux/M Flux Blue F ux Flux/M Flux Location ul/m2 at sane level ul/ at sane level M 137 3.713 E-4 4.957 E-4 M 137 4.652 [-4 1 4.616 E-4 l M 86 1.125 E-3 5.305 E-4 M 86 1.170 [-3 1 6.799 E-4 1 M 35 1.262 E-3 2.390 E-4 M 35 1.146 E-3 1 1.616 E-4 1 MI 137 6.726 E-4 7.287 E-4 MI 137 2.501 E-4 1.10 2.308 [-4 1.00 MI 86 4.793 E-4 2.098 E-4 MI 86 3.404 E-5 .224 1.911 E-5 .189 M1 35 7.396 E-4 8.720 [-5 MI 35 5.695 E-4 .544 5.122 E-5 .346 S 137 5.783 E-5 6.230 E-5 S 137 2.309 E-4 .345 2.824 E-4 .360 S 86 6.250 E-5 2.693 [-5 S 86 1.859 E-4 .108 7.134 E-5 .081 S 35 3.892 E-5 1.148 E-5 S 35 1.311 E-5 .022 2.439 E-5 .090 81 137 5.203 E-5 7.500 E-5 SI 137 1.108 E-4 .195 1.405 E-4 .225 31 86 1.230 E-4 3.496 E-5 SI 86 2.479 E—5 .064 7.012 E-6 .035 51 35 3.516 E-5 1.910 E-5 SI 35 1.311 E-5 .020 1.220 E-6 .051 E 86 7.470 E-4 1.518 E-4 E 86 1.120 E-3 .813 3.415 E-4 .408 E 5 8.232 E-4 .541 2.439 E-5 .122 E1 86 9.104 E-4 2.390 E-4 EI 86 9.213 [-4 .798 2.695 E-4 .420 E1 35 2.591 E-5 2.642 E-6 EI 35 7.154 E-5 .040 8.537 E-6 .028 APPENDIX B CYLINDER TEST DATA APPENDIX B CYLINDER TEST DATA These data are arranged into Four tables each includes data For a diFFerent air velocity range. The mean air velocities and volume weighted mean diameters are reported in the First part oF each table. The second part oF each includes: The tunnel run number. the cylinder size, and the tunnel position ( 1 being Far east through to 9 Far to the Far west) are in column one. The estimated dye Flux in microliters per square millimeter are in columns two and Four. The ratio oF the estimated dye Flux perdicted From the larger oF two adjacent cylinders divided by the Flux From the smaller cylinder are reported in columns three and Five. Columns two and three repord data For the large droplet distribution while columns Four and Five report data For the small droplet distribution. 89 Table Bl. Cylinder Test Data For Treatments One and Two RIM DYE mm AIR 0am WIDE lEIGI'HED DEM ll). 0.1/SEC BADGER (U) M YELLGO 744 129 ELLE 741 28 no YELLGl 747 147 ELIE 714 20 THEE YELLCH 741 134 ME 719 37 Flux Predicted From Intercept Area and Deposit CYLDDER YELLEH FLUX URGER CYL/ ME FLlDl LINER CYL/ SIZE 1 POSITIEN [UM SD WEB CYL tum SO MLER CYL 81.01 1 1.16 1 2.577E-04 0 .669 0 2.22 2 1.725E-04 0 .65 0 1.66 3 2.65544 0 .812 0 1.16 4 3.269E-04 0 .608 0 2.22 5 1.987E-04 0 .738 0 1.66 6 2.695-04 1.415-06 .86 .695 1.16 7 3.135-04 2.041E-06 .724 .52 2922 8 20 fi’" 1.062E-06 .715 .749 1.66 9 3.174E-04 1.415-06 RIM 2 1.16 1 2.72I-04 2.041E-06 .633 0 2.22 2 1.725E-04 0 .837 0 1.66 3 2.06E-04 0 .648 0 1016 3 3.177E-04 ZOHIE’“ .459 0 2022 5 1.45544 0 .718 0 1066 6 20M‘.3 . .667 0 1.16 7 3.045-04 0 .582 0 2.22 8 1.775-04 0 .687 0 1.66 9 2.579E-04 1.415-06 Table Bl . Continued mm YELLCN FLUX URER CYL/ ME FLUX LINER CYL/ SIZE 0 KEITH}! [UNI SO MLER CYl. W004 SO SELLER CYL R101 3 1016 1 30M." 10171.05 .636 .196 2.22 2 2.57544 2.301E46 .915 .749 1.66 3 2.81544 3.07546 .886 .695 1.16 4 3.17544 4.42546 .663 .24 2.22 5 2.106E44 1.061E46 .771 .75 1.66 6 2. 35-04 1.41546 0975 ' 9695 1.16 7 2.801E44 2.041E46 .798 1.127 2022 8 ZOM'OT 203.1E'“ .818 .487 1.66 9 2.731E44 4.72546 UNI CYLDDERS 3.94 1.52544 1.546 30” 1655.03 101‘“ 3.94 1.52544 1.546 3.94 1.15544 2.7546 3.94 1.244E-04 1.546 30” 10 ”'53 10"“ 3993 103.5’03 207E'.6 30” 1.17544 1.546 3993 10 ”15'“ 193‘06 91 Table 32. Cylinder Test Data For Treatments Three and Four am DYE TRACER AIR W “11.05 IEIGHED 05M 00. lit/SEC DADETER (U) (IE YELLfll 787 81 ME 782 42 T10 YELLGI 770 98 3.15 782 33 "RE YELLOI 785 99 ME 798 33 Flu: Predicted Prom Intercept Area and Deposit CYLDIER YELLO! FLUX LARGER CYL/ ME FLUX LARGER CYL/ SIZE 3 POSITIIN 11.7004 5 mm CYL m 5 SMILER CYL M 1 1016 1 2092*“.3 ZOM‘“ .771 .749 2.22 2 2.25544 2.12546 .569 .24 1.66 3 3.966544 8.84546 1.008 .328 10“ 3 3.936544 206$.” .68 0361 2.22 5 2.676E44 9.73546 .656 .52 1.66 6 4.08544 1.871E45 .971 .36 1.16 7 4.206E44 5.201E45 .784 .m 2.22 8 3.296E44 2.01545 .642 .706 1066 9 Soifl’fl 2.857E45 M 2 1016 3 3.837544 2 oM’fi .623 .161 2.22 2 2.391E44 4.60546 .75 .54 1.66 3 3.18544 1.545 .757 3.15 1.16 4 4.21544 4.08546 .462 0 2.22 5 1.94544 0 .665 0 10“ 6 20927554 601%‘“ .807 0 1916 7 30625." 0 .57 0 2.22 8 2.067544 0 .719 0 1.66 9 2.877E44 1.65545 Table 82. Continued 92 mm YELLIN FLUX mm CYL/ 81.15 FLUX Lm CYL/ SIZE 3 POSITIIN 11.7001 5 95.1.51 CYL 11.7004 5 3091511 CYL 11111 3 1.16 1 4.58544 1.871E45 .568 .246 2.22 2 2.60544 4.60546 .52 .15 I.“ 3 307lfi’" 3.40545 .754 3.849 1.16 4 6.26544 8.84546 .536 0 2.22 5 3.5544 0 .771 0 1066 6 4.3544 9.69546 .56 0 1.16 7 5.081544 0 .543 0 2.22 8 2.75544 2.12546 .738 0 1.66 9 3.73544 0 L55 CYLDDERS 30” “891'" 295‘“ 3094 ZOO'I‘H 205'“ 30” 1.9544 Zog'“ 3.94 1.71544 0 3.94 1.47544 1.5-06 3.94 loM’" 3019’“ 3.94 -1 -1 3093 '1 '1 3.94 93 Table B3. Cylinder Test Data For Treatments Five and Six 111.91 DYE TRNIER AIR 18.51" 10.15 EIGHTED 1911 10. HUSH: DADETER (U) GE YELLEH 1427 163 3.1! 1462 44 M 51.1.01 1490 188 51E 1458 40 “IE YELL1I1 1495 148 51.! 1484 36 Flux Predicted Prom Intercept Area and Deposit CYLINDER YELLIH FLUX LPRER W 81.5 FLUX um CYL/ SIZE 1 P5111111 m 88 MLER CYI. m 88 SELLER CYI. 111.01 1 1.16 1 1.105-03 1.23544 .813 .384 2.22 2 8.99544 4.72545 .829 .606 1066 3 10.5.” 708.1E'fi 1.015 .695 1.16 4 1.06543 1.12544 .758 .421 2022 5 80.9%‘05 qu‘fi .977 .637 1.66 6 8.29544 7.42545 1.063 .695 1.16 7 7 .80544 1.06544 .791 .494 2022 8 60171'" Soflt‘fi 1.074 .645 1.66 9 5.749544 8.1545 111.01 2 1.16 1 9.66544 1.17544 .727 .402 2.22 2 7.02544 4.72545 .978 .671 1.66 3 7.18544 7.04545 .817 .66 1.16 4 8.79544 1.06544 .749 .443 2.22 5 6.59544 4.726545 .856 .606 1.66 6 7.69544 7.80545 .903 .663 1.16 7 8.52544 1.17544 .789 .424 2.22 8 6.72544 4.99545 .906 .61 1066 9 7.42544 BOIE‘” Table B3. Continued 94 mm YELLtIl FLUX LINER W 81.15 FLUX LMIR CYL/ SIZE 3 P051501 10.091 88 991.151 CYL m 58 SMJLR CYL 111.01 3 1.16 1 6.956544 1.01544 .774 .438 2022 2 5031‘" 5055K.” .827 .631 1.66 3 6.511544 7.04545 .823 .599 1.16 4 7.91544 1.177544 0757 .353 2.22 5 5.986544 4.159545 .891 .533 1.66 6 6.719544 7.801545 1.009 .663 1.16 7 6.656544 1.17544 .809 .353 2.22 8 5.38544 4.159545 0921 059 1.66 9 5.84544 7.0fi45 UNI CYLDDERS 3.94 5.576544 1.89545 30” 60M'.5 105%.” 3.94 6.411544 1.4545 3.94 5.57544 1.7545 3095 5.57544 1.59545 3.94 5.81544 1. 4545 3.94 4.06544 1.59545 30” 50365‘" 1.59545 3.94 4.6544 1.44545 95 Table B4. Cylinder Test Data For Treatments Seven and Eight RN DYE T115511 AIR mourn 111.105 51811511 1901 10. 101/SEC DADETER (11) DE 51.1.01 2134 213 515 2090 66 T151 51.1.01 2210 194 81.15 2264 80 T1455 YELL1I1 2013 217 81.1.5 2045 44 Flux Predicted From Intercept Area and Deposit CYLDIER 51.1.01 FLUX mm W 81.1! FLUX URGER CYL/ SIZE 1 P0511101 117101 5 95.511 CYL 1U101 5 9191.511 CYL 11101 1 1016 1 60M‘" 2.881544 1.155 .561 2.22 2 8.040544 1.6159544 .729 .698 1.66 3 1.10543 2.314544 078 0672 1.16 4 1.41543 3.44544 .999 .588 2022 5 1.41543 20.25“" .762 .795 1066 6 1051‘” 20M’" .912 .674 1016 7 2.03543 307M‘" 1.014 .582 2022 8 20.5'” 205'" .838 .729 1.66 9 2.457543 3.017544 111.01 2 1.16 1 5.42544 2.09544 .886 .548 2.22 2 4.809544 1.149544 .777 .713 10“ 3 601M." 1 0611'“ 1.027 .695 1.16 4 6.02544 2.3544 1.047 .571 2.22 5 6.30544 1.32544 .857 .749 1066 6 70M’" 1.76544 1.009 .727 1.16 7 7.296544 2.43544 .953 .568 2022 8 605'" 10M‘.‘ .918 .69 1066 9 70567545 20..E"" Table B4. Continued 96 CYLDDER YELLIN FLUX mm W 81.15 FLUX URGER CYL/ SIZE 1 HBITIM 111101 38 9001.511 CYL 1U101 38 9111.511 CYL 11101 3 1.16 1 3.57144 5.85545 .819 .744 2.22 2 2.926544 4.35I45 .875 .658 1.66 3 3.344544 6.619545 1.085 .717 1.16 4 3.082544 9.23545 .899 .537 2.22 5 2.77544 4.956545 1.09 .725 1.66 6 2.541544 6.832545 .994 .675 1.16 7 2.556544 1.012544 073 063 2.22 8 1.867544 6.372545 1.22 .m 1066 9 1.5!44 8.08545 110185 CYLDIERS 3.94 2.001543 1.14%44 3.94 1.839543 1.07%44 3.94 1.572543 1.012544 30” 10M‘03 9 07%‘5 3.94 1.261543 9.1145 30” 10.77543 80"” 3.94 3.344544 6.619545 3.94 2.541544 6.832545 30” 1.5344 8 0 0545 APPENDIX C BRANCH AND CYLINDER TEST DATA APPENDIX C BRANCH AND CYLINDER TEST DATA These data are arranged into six tables one for each air velocity range. Each table is broken into four groups. The first group includes a summary of the mean air velocities and droplet distributions volume weighted mean diameters. The balance of each table is divided by tunnel run number into three groups. The first column reports obstacle type ('1'? Branch = Top 6 cm of 12 cm branch. Small = 1.16 cm diameter cylinder and Large = 2.22 cm diameter cylinder). Columns two and five report the estimated dye flux in microliters per millimeter squared. Columns three and six report the ratio of the estimated deposits on two adjacent objects with the direction of division being the larger flux divided into the smaller flux. Columns four and seven report the ratio of the estimated deposit on the object divided by the estimate flux from the air filter. The air filter flux is reported as the last line in each data group. Tables C7 and C8 follow the above data tables. Table C7 includes the multiple linear regression file for the data in tables C1 through C6. The dependent variable (DV) is the relative collection efficiency of the two compared obstacles. The first independent variable (IV #1) is the logarithm of the particle parameter for the small cylinder as a reference to bring in air velocity and droplet size. The second and third independent variables are the indicator variables discussed in the text (see "Results and Discussion'I of “BRANCH AND CYLINDER EXPERIMENTS“). The fourth is the relative turbulent intensity of the air. The fifth are the grams dry weight for the 97 98 branch. The sixth is the mean tunnel position. Table CS includes the multiple linear (in this case curvalinear regression) regression file for the branch versus the air filter. The dependent variable (DV) is the estimated collection efficiency of the branches. Independent variable one (117111) is the logarithm of the particle parameter for the small cylinder as a reference to include the air velocity and droplet size. Independent variables two and three are the logarithm of the particle parameter squared and cubed respectively. 99 Table C1. Branch and Cylinder Data Summary for Two Droplet Distributions Exposed to Air Velocities Between 672 and 763 mm/ sec (No Position Shifting). ’ Yellw Blue Rm 1 Air Velocity (HI/sec) 763 728 Rm 1 Vol. kid'tted Item 122 38 M 2 Air Velocits 672 717 M 2 Vol. kid'lted Item 109 30 Rm 3 Air Uelocits 761 700 11111 3 Vol. Heidlted 0km 107 28 Summary for Run One Tape/Pas. Flux Snaller/ Rel. to Flux Snaller/ Rel. to ' Yellm Larger Filter Blm 1.8098? Filter 50311 1 1.9523854 .472 trace - I 0”. " '1? Brad) 2 1.8354 54 .444 1.7581 55 .014 ’ .829 .121 L309! 3 1.5221 54 .368 2.124 5-6 .0017 ’ .407 '- Snall 4 3.7381 5-4 .904 trace '- ’ 0657 "" ’ .888 .214 ’ 06% "' 500311 7 3.9728 54 .961 trace -- I 0525 '— IP Brach 8 2.0864 [-4 .504 2.0630 5'5 .016 ’ .823 .223 W 9 2.5362 5-4 .613 4.602 5-6 .0036 Table C1. Continued 100 Summary For Run Two I Flux is in 01 liquid due / M med. Tape/Pas. Flux I Sealler/ Rel. to Flux I Snailer/ Rel. to ’ Yellow Larger Filter Blue Larger Filter Snell 1 3.5068 E-4 1.02 4.08163 E6 .0039 ’ .867 - l? Brmch 2 3.0142 E-4 .875 trace - ’ 083. ‘- Large 3 2.5027 E-4 .727 trace -- ’ .702 - Snell 4 3.5646 E-4 1.03 trace - ’ .820 -- TP Brmch 5 2.9228 E-4 .849 8.5366 E6 .0081 ’ .696 .249 Large 6 2.054 E-4 .591 2.1239 E-6 .002 ’ .618 - 80311 7 3.2925 E-4 .956 trace - ’ 0983 "' 1'? Branch 8 3.2368 E-4 .940 1.0061 E-5 .0096 ’ .647 .211 Large 9 2.054 E-4 .591 2.1239 E-6 .002 FILTER 0 3.4442 E-4 1.0%8 E-3 Summary For Run Three Tape/Pas. Flux I Snaller/ Rel. to Flux I Snaller/ Rel. to ’ Yellow Larger Filter Blue Larger Filter Snell 1 2.845 E-4 .727 trace - I 0629 " TP Branch 2 1.7896 E-4 .458 8.5366 E-6 .0096 ’ .568 " w 3 10.159 E4 026. trace '— ' 0659 ‘- Snall 4 1.5408 E-4 .394 trace - I 06% ‘— 1? Branch 5 2.2174 [-4 .567 1.0061 E-5 .011 ' 0675 " Large 6 1.4974 [-4 .388 trace — ' .579 "' Shall 7 2.5850 E-4 .661 trace -- ’ .953 '- TP Burch 8 2.4624 E-4 .630 5.5894 E-6 .0063 I 0865 "' Large 9 2.1310 E-4 .545 trace — FILTER 0 3.9111 E-4 8.8845 E-4 101 Table CZ. Branch and Cylinder Data Summary For Two Droplet Distributions Exposed to Air Velocities Between 726 and 796 mm/ sec. ' Yellow Blue Rm 1 Air Velocita (rm/sec) 750 783 Rm 1 Vol. Heig‘rted New 74 32 Rm 2 Air Velocity 726 779 Rm 2 Vol. Heidrted New 79 33 Rm 3 Air Velocits 796 790 Rm 3 Vol. Heighted Bean 5 31 Summary For Run One Tape/Pas. Flux I Swaller/ Rel. to Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to ’ Yellow Larger Filter Blue Larger Filter TP Branch 1 1.4065 E-4 .310 7.5 E-5 .047 ’ .951 .054 Snell 2 1.4796 E-4 .326 4.0816 E-6 .0025 ’ .534 .520 Large 3 7.8938 [-5 .174 2.1239 E-6 .0013 ’ .611 .033 TP Branch 4 1.2917 [-4 .284 6.4024 E-5 .040 ’ .969 - Snell 5 1.2517 E-4 .276 trace - I 052. "" Large 6 6.5133 ES .143 trace - ’ .729 - TP Batch 7 8.9329 E-5 .197 8.6484 [-5 .054 ’ 0872 0102 Snell 8 7.7891 [-5 .172 8.845 E-6 .0055 ’ .700 .801 LINE 9 5.4513 E-5 .120 7.0797 E-6 .0044 FILTER 1 4.5404 [-4 1.6037 E-3 102 Table CZ. Continued Summary For Run Two Tye/P05. Flu: I Snaller/ Rel. to Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to ’ Yellow Larger Filter Blue Larger Filter Large 1 6.3009 PS .201 2.1239 [-6 .0011 ’ .760 .017 IF Brmch 2 8.2927 E-5 .264 1.2317 E-4 .062 ’ .924 .072 Snell 3 8.9796 ES .56 8.845 E-6 .0045 ’ .538 .240 Large 4 4.8318 E-S .154 2.1238 E-6 .0011 ’ .75 .557 IF Branch 5 6.5752 E-5 .209 1.1819 E-4 .060 ’ .879 .115 Snell 6 7.530 ES .238 1.3605 55 .0069 ’ .525 — Large 7 3.9292 E-5 .125 trace — ’ .58 " 1'? Branch 8 6.6768 E-S .213 1.9715 E-4 .100 ’ .897 .840 Snell 9 5.9864 E-5 .175 2.3469 E-S .011 mm 2 3.1397 E-4 1.9813 E-3 Summary For Run Three Tape/Pas. Flux I Snaller/ Rel. to Flw I Snaller/ Rel. to ' Yellow Larger Filter Blue Larger Filter Snell 1 1.1020 E-4 .273 trace -- ' 0626 — Large 2 6.9027 E-5 .171 trace - ’ .684 "" ’ .893 '- Snall 4 9.0136 Hi .25 trace - ' 0679 '— Large 5 6.159 E-5 .152 trace -- ' 0875 " I? Brmch 6 5.357 E-5 .132 1.1982 E-4 .067 ' .575 ‘— Snall 7 9.3197 E-5 .51 trace - ’ .572 "'" Large 8 5.3274 55 .132 trace - ’ .50 "’ TP Brmoh 9 4.3699 E-5 .108 1.3344 E-4 .075 F115? 3 4.0396 E-4 1.7864 E-3 I Flux is in 01 liquid the / nn squared. 103 Table C3. Branch and Cylinder Data Summary For Two Droplet Distributions Exposed to Air Velocities Between 919 and 1007 mm/sec. ' Yellow Blue Rm 1 Air Velocits (rm/sec) 1007 943 Rm 1 Vol. Reid'cted New 31 Rm 2 Air Velocity 991 969 Rm 2 Vol. Heishted Item 53 30 Rm 3 Air Velocity 928 919 R11 3 Vol. Heighted New 53 29 Summary For Run One Tape/Pas. Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to Flow I Snaller/ Rel. to ’ Yellow Larger Filter Blue Larger Filter 1? Branch 1 7.6423 E-5 .326 1.4980 E-4 .102 ’ .944 .54 Snell 2 8.0952 E-5 .346 5.3061 [-5 .036 ’ .437 .365 Large 3 3.5398 E-5 .151 1.951 E-5 .013 ’ .519 .136 11’ Branch 4 6.8191 [-5 .291 1.425 E-4 .097 ’ .980 .317 Snell 5 6.9% E-5 .297 4.5068 E5 .031 ’ .429 .281 0.31" 6 2.9823 E-5 0127 10265 E-S 08.86 ' 0406 0083 19 Branch 7 7.3374 E-5 .313 1.5173 E-4 .103 ’ .916 .332 Snell 8 6.7177 E-5 .57 5.0340 E5 .034 ’ .56 .304 F1151 (0E 2.3412 E-4 1.4663 E-3 104 Table C3. Continued Summary For Run Two Tape/Poe. Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to ' Yellow Larger Filter Blue Larger Filter Large 1 2.6726 [-5 .087 1.5310 ES .0082 ’ .347 .068 11’ Ranch 2 7.6931 E-5 .252 2.2602 E-4 .122 ’ .778 .199 Snell 3 5.9864 E-5 .196 4.5068 E-5 .024 ’ .423 .251 ' .303 .056 19 Branch 5 8.3537 E-5 .273 2.0051 E-4 .108 ’ .623 .225 Snell 6 5.2041 E-5 .170 4.5068 [-5 .024 ’ .471 .251 W 7 20513 E-S .080 101327 E-5 .0061 ’ .411 .062 1P Branch 8 5.9655 E-5 .195 1.8232 [-4 .098 ’ .793 .276 Snell 9 4.7279 E-5 .155 5.0340 [-5 .027 F113! 11!) 3.0585 E-4 1.8574 [-3 Summary For Run Three Tape/Pas. Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to Flm I Snaller/ Rel. to ’ Yellow Larger Filter Blue Larger Filter Snell 1 7.6701 E-5 .355 2.1769 E-5 .014 ’ .613 .764 Large 2 4.6992 E-5 .218 1.6637 ES .010 ’ .712 .108 11’ Branch 3 6.5955 E-5 .306 1.5366 E-4 .095 ’ .979 .093 Snell 4 6.7347 [-5 .312 1.4286 [-5 .0089 ’ .654 .793 Urge 5 4.4071 E-5 .204 1.1327 E-5 .0070 ’ 809 O. 1? Branch 6 9.1972 E-5 .426 1.9583 [-4 .122 ’ .767 .137 Snell 7 7.0578 E-5 .327 2.6871 E-5 .017 ' .520 .523 I.” 8 306726 E-S 017. 1.3982 ES 0.” ’ .442 .068 11’ Brmoh 9 8.3130 E-5 .385 2.0529 E-4 .127 I F11ER THEE 2.1585 E-4 1.6111 E-3 I Flux is in ul liquid dye / nn ewe-red. 105 Table C4. Branch and Cylinder Data Summary For Two Droplet Distributions Exposed to Air Velocities Between 1057 and 1163 mm/ sec. ’ Yellow Blue Rm 1 Air Velocits (III/sec) 1098 1057 Rm 1 Vol. Reidited Item 67 37 M1 2 Air Velocits 1118 1093 Rm 2 Vol. Reighted lien 76 30 Rm 3 Air Velocity 1163 1109 Rm 3 Vol. Heighted New 104 42 Summary For Run One Tape/Pas. Flw I Snaller/ Rel. to Flux l Sneller/ Rel. to ’ Yellow Larger Filter Blue Larger Filter 1? Brach 1 6.9287 [-5 .533 2.5661 [-4 .135 ' .953 .360 Snell 2 7.2618 [-5 .565 9.2347 [-5 .049 ’ .56 .239 L319! 3 4.0354 [-5 .314 2.2035 [-5 .012 ’ .625 .092 TP Brunch 4 6.4533 [-5 .502 2.3913 [-4 .126 I 0862 qu Snell 5 7.330 [-5 .532 8.9456 [-5 .047 ’ .577 .309 Large 6 4.3186 [-5 .336 2.7611 [-5 .015 ’ .676 .133 11’ Brmch 7 6.3923 [-5 .497 2.0772 [-4 .109 ’ .897 .403 Snell 8 7.1259 [-5 .54 8.3674 [-5 .044 ’ .636 .330 LINE 9 4.5310 [-5 .352 2.7611 [-5 .015 FILTER (IE 1.2857 [-4 1.9028 [-3 106 Table C4. Continued Sumary For Run Two Tape/Pas. F1190 I Sneller/ Rel. to Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to ’ Yellow Larger Filter Blue Larger Filter Large 1 2.9469 [-5 .220 1.9381 02-5 .011 ’ .595 .089 11’ Branch 2 4.9492 [-5 .369 2.1768 [-4 .127 ’ .754 . .358 Snell 3 6.5646 [-5 .490 7.7891 [-5 .046 ’ .690 .354 Large 4 4.5310 E-5 .338 2.7611 [-5 .016 ’ .58 .105 1P Branch 5 8.1199 [-5 .606 2.6281 [-4 .154 ’ .859 .286 Snell 6 6.9728 [-5 .520 7.5170 [-5 .044 ’ .594 .293 Large 7 4.1416 [-5 .309 2.2035 E-5 .013 ’ .511 .100 1P Branch 8 8.1098 E-5 .605 2.2022 E-4 .129 ’ .958 .341 Snell 9 7.7721 [-5 .580 7.5170 [-5 .044 F113 no 1.3398 [-4 1.7086 [-3 Summary For Rm Three Tube/Pas. Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to ’ Yellow Larger Filter Blue Larger Filter Snell 1 1.0017 [-4 .679 4.5068 [-5 .046 ’ .716 .340 Large 2 7.1681 [-5 .56 1.5310 [-5 .016 ’ .914 .103 1? Branch 3 6.549 [-5 .444 1.4797 [-4 .150 ' 0m 0m Snell 4 1.0935 [-4 .741 3.7245 [-5 .038 ’ .763 .447 Large 5 8.3451 E-5 .566 1.6637 [-5 .017 ’ .860 .137 11’ Brad: 6 7.1748 [-5 .56 1.2144 E-4 .123 ’ .622 .415 Snell 7 1.1531 [-4 .782 5.0340 [-5 .051 ’ .746 .411 W 8 806.18 [-5 .53 20.7.8 [-5 0.21 ’ .887 .149 1P Brmch 9 9.6951 [-5 .657 1.3872 E-4 .141 F113 1183 1.4751 [-4 9..1 [-4 I Flux is in ul liquid due / m squared. Table CS. Branch and Cylinder Data Summary For Two Droplet Distributions 107 Exposed to Air Velocities Between 1263 and 1343 mm/sec. ’ Yellou Blue Rm 1 Air Uelocits (nn/secl 1343 1286 Rm 1 Vol. Reidrted New 89 39 Rm 2 Air Velocity 1335 1281 Rm 2 Vol. Heig‘rted hean 70 36 Rm 3 Air Velocity 1342 1263 Rm 3 Vol. Heighted lien 73 43 Summary For Run One Tye/Pas. Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to ’ Yellow Larger Filter Blue Larger Filter 1? Branch 1 9.5732 [-5 .617 1.3872 [-4 .216 ’ .600 .344 Snell 2 1.5952 [-4 1.03 4.7789 [-5 .074 ’ .703 .293 LINE 3 1.1212 [-4 .724 1.3982 [-5 .022 ’ .816 .145 T? Branch 4 9.1464 [-5 .590 9.6342 [-5 .150 ' .565 .531 Snell 5 1.6191 E-4 1.04 5.3061 [-5 .083 ’ .673 .238 Large 6 1.0894 [-4 .703 1.2655 [-5 .020 ’ .H .177 T9 Bl‘l'd'l 7 9.6138 [-5 .620 7.1342 [-5 .111 ’ .652 .«n Snell 8 1.4745 [-4 .952 3.4524 E-5 .054 ’ .070 .367 Large 9 1.0266 [-5 .066 1.2655 E-5 .020 FILTER 0E 1.5495 [-4 6.4147 E-4 108 Table C5. Continued Summary For Rm Two Tape/Pas. Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to ’ Yellow Larger Filter Blue Larger Filter Large 1 6.3451 [-5 .634 2.9027 [-5 .040 ’ .864 .201 T9 Branch 2 7.3476 E-5 .734 1.4421 E-4 .200 ’ .790 .406 Snell 3 9.3027 E-5 .929 5.8503 [-5 .081 ’ 0753 0355 Large 4 7.0089 E-5 .700 2.0708 [-5 .029 ' .927 .153 TP Brmch 5 7.5610 [-5 .755 1.3516 [-4 .187 ' 0m 0m Snell 6 1.1003 [-4 1.10 6.3946 ES .088 ’ .660 .345 Large 7 7.2566 [-5 .725 2.2035 [-5 .030 ’ .936 .172 19 Brmch 8 7.7541 E-5 .774 1.2825 [-4 .177 ’ .715 .414 Snell 9 1.0850 [-4 1.08 5.3061 [-5 .073 FILTER M 1.0015 [-4 7.2267 E-4 Summary For Run Three Tape/Pos. Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to ’ Yellow Larger Filter Blue Larger Filter ’ .702 .318 Large 2 4.7788 [-5 .497 2.2135 [-5 .035 ’ .723 .152 TP Breach 3 6.6057 [-5 .687 1.4604 [-4 .232 ’ .766 .I Snell 4 8.6225 [-5 .897 1.2058 [-4 .192 ’ .555 .172 Large 5 4.7876 [-5 .498 2.0708 ES .033 ’ .700 .155 T9 Brmch 6 6.8394 [-5 .712 1.3344 [-4 .212 ’ .628 .649 Snell 7 1.0884 E-4 1.13 8.6565 E-5 .138 ’ .546 .192 Large 8 5.9381 [-5 .618 1.6637 [-5 .026 ’ .599 .103 19 Brmch 9 9.9085 [-5 1.03 1.61fl E-4 .257 FILTER BREE 9.6085 [-5 6.2861 [-4 I Flux is in ul liquid dse / nn squared. Table C6. Branch and Cylinder Data Summary For Two Droplet Distributions 109 Exposed to Air Velocities Between 1590 and 1813 mm/sec. ' Yellow Blue Rm 1 Air Velocits (nn/sec) 1797 1813 Rm 1 Vol. Ileidrted New 176 47 Rm 2 Air Velocita 1646 1702 Rm 2 Vol. Heidited Item 169 46 Rm 3 Air Velocits 1590 1602 Mr 3 Vol. Heimted hean 163 48 Summary For Run One Tape/Pas. Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to ' Yellow Larger Filter Blue Larger Filter 11’ Branch 1 5.0107 [-5 .501 5.6200 [-5 .404 ’ .392 .300 ’ .fi .289 Large 3 1.0939 [-4 1.09 4.8673 [-6 .035 ’ .506 .066 1? Brad. 4 5.5386 E-S .54 70W E-S 055 ’ .413 .092 Snell 5 1.3418 [-4 1.34 6.8027 [-6 .049 I .. 052. ’ .579 .315 19 Brnch 7 6.4329 [-5 .643 1.1240 [-5 .081 ' .604 .958 Snell 8 1.0646 [-4 1.07 1.1735 [-5 .084 ’ .‘ .520 F1181 0E 9.9952 E-5 1.3894 [-4 110 Table C6. Continued Summary For Run Two Tape/Pas. Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to ’ Yellow Lerger Filter Blue Lerger Filter Large 1 1.1283 [-4 .816 1.0620 [-6 .016 ' .56 .028 T? Brmch 2 5.578 E-5 .397 3.7500 [-5 .563 ’ .395 .249 Snell 3 1.3895 [-4 1.01 9.537 [-6 .140 ’ 0678 9378 Large 4 9.4159 [-5 .681 3.5399 [-6 .053 ’ .183 .061 T? Brmch 5 1.7276 [-5 .125 5.8029 [-5 .871 ’ .166 .246 Snell 6 1.0408 [-4 .753 1.4286 E-5 .214 ’ .849 .25 Large 7 8.8407 [-5 .640 3.5398 E-6 .053 ’ .518 .053 1? Brnch 8 4.533 [-5 .332 6.6972 E-5 1.01 ’ .450 .251 Snell 9 1.0187 [-4 .737 1.6837 [-5 .253 F1151 Till 1.3823 [-4 6.6634 [-5 Summary For Run Three Tape/Pas. Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to Flux I Sneller/ Rel. to ’ Yellow Larger Filter Blue Larger Filter Snell 1 6.6497 [-5 .841 1.3180 [-4 .329 ’ .860 .423 Large 2 5.7168 [-5 .723 5.5752 E-5 .139 ' .672 .369 T9 Breach 3 3.8415 [-5 .486 1.5112 [-4 .377 ’ .398 .729 Snell 4 9.6429 [-5 1.22 1.1020 [-4 .275 ’ .901 .422 Large 5 1.0699 [-4 1.5 4.6549 [-5 .166 ’ .327 .396 11’ Branch 6 3.4959 [-5 .442 1.1758 [-4 .293 ’ .318 .57 Snell 7 1.1003 [-4 1.39 1.0425 [-4 .260 ' .773 .361 LINE 8 8.5044 [-5 1.08 3.7611 [-5 .094 ’ .402 .291 T? Brmch 9 3.4146 [-5 .432 1.2937 [-4 .323 F1TER THEE 7.9040 [-5 4.0087 E-4 I F110: is in ul liquid due / nn swared. TABLE C7 DATA FILE: EEESESSESSSSEESSESEESSEE Egg???g?$3535-?3%?g???ummmmm: E .534 .52 .7 .538 .525 .626 .679 .572 .437 .429 .486 .423 .471 .613 .654 .365 .281 .304 .251 .764 .793 .523 .556 .577 .636 .69 .594 .763 .746 .239 .309 .33 .354 .293 .34 .447 .411 .703 .673 .696 .753 .66 .702 .555 .546 .293 .238 .367 111 UPDHLR/DWA 1001 .315 .315 .315 .368 .503 .503 .503 .232 .232 .159 .159 .13 .130 .069 .069 .748 .748 .748 .527 .527 .567 .567 .0245 .0245 .0245 E E 1904 .081 .081 .081 .08 .062 .062 .062 .053 . I“ ....Y .082 .082 .073 .073 .066 .066 .066 .059 .059 .059 .074 .074 .074 .061 .061 .054 .066 .066 .066 .082 .082 .048 .048 .048 .054 .054 .054 .045 .045 .059 .059 .059 .048 .048 .048 3 i" 2.5 5.5 8.5 3.5 6.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 3.5 6.5 1.5 4.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 3.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 3.5 6.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 3.5 6.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 3.5 6.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 TIBLE C7 CflNTINUED ELEMENT 0 49 .354 ELEMENT 0 50 .318 ELEMENT 0 51 .172 ELEMENT 0 52 .192 ELEMENT 0 53 .855 ELEMENT 0 54 .1”: ELEMENT 0 55 .=€H ELEMENT 0 56 .849 ELEMENT 0 57 .86 ELEMENT 0 58 .773 ELEMENT 0 59 .289 ELEMENT 0 60 .52 ELEMENT 0 61 .52 ELEMENT 0 62 .378 ElIDEJfl'0=63 .248 ELEMENT 0 64 .423 E113E38’0165 .422 ELEMENT 0 66 .361 ELEMENT 0 67 .76 ELEMENT 0 68 .735 ELEMENT 0 69 .588 lilfllifl'0=70 .684 ELEMENT 0 71 1.14 ELEMENT 0 72 1.22 ELEMENT 0 73 .611 ELEMENT 0 74 .729 ELEMENT 0 75 1.05 ELEMENT 4 76 .969 ELEMENT 0 77 .872 ELEMENT 0 78 .924 ELEMENT 0 79 1.14 ELEMENT 0 80 .897 ELEMENT 0 81 .893 ELEMENT 0 82 1.74 ELEMENT 0 83 .017 ELEMENT 0 84 .018 ELEMENT 0 85 .033 ELEMENT 0 86 .054 ELEMENT 0 87 .102 ELEMENT 0 88 .072 ELEMENT 0 89 .115 ELEMENT 0 90 .119 ELEMENT 0 91 .519 ELEMENT 0 92 .406 ELEMENT 0 93 .347 ELEMENT 0 94 .251 ELEMENT 8 95 .092 ELEMENT 0 96 .303 ELEMENT 0 97 .411 ELEMENT 4 98 .712 ELEMENT 0 99 .479 'e .687 .0844 .0844 .0844 1.546 1.546 1.546 1.478 1.016 1.016 1.546 1.546 1.546 1.478 1.016 1.016 1.016 .368 .368 .368 .503 .503 .503 .315 .315 .315 .315 .315 .368 .368 .368 .503 .503 -.352 -052 -0378 -0378 -0378 -.352 -.352 -.352 .232 .232 .159 '63“ "o 121 .159 .159 .13 .13 .--------thpp‘--hHflI—O0—Dhflfl-------------------------. E “HHO‘I‘-O‘HH-----HHB‘---e---°H0-OHFOM~HF‘-----9----------ga .093 .087 .087 .087 .061 .061 .061 .092 .073 .073 .061 .061 .061 .092 .073 .073 .073 .080 .08 .08 .062 .062 .062 .081 .081 .081 .081 .081 .08 .08 .08 .062 .062 .084 .071 .07 .07 .084 .084 .084 .053 . Q: .082 .066 .082 .073 .073 3.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 6.5 1.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 3.5 6.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 3.5 6.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 3.5 6.5 1.5 4.5 3.5 1.5 4.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 3.5 6.5 1.5 6.5 3.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 TMUWTMED ELEMENT 0 100 .442 ELEMENT 0 101 1.02 ELEMENT 0 102 .916 ELEMENT 0 103 .778 ELEMENT 0 104 .623 ELEMENT 0 105 .793 ELEMENT 4 106 1.02 ELBENT 0 107 .767 ELEMENT 0 108 .083 ELEMENT 0 109 .068 ELEMENT 0 110 .056 ELEMENT 0 111 .062 ELEMENT 0 112 .108 ELEMENT 0 113 .058 ELEMENT 0 114 .068 ELEMENT 0 115 .345 ELEMENT 0 116 .331 ELEMENT 0 117 .317 ELEMENT 0 118 .199 ELEMENT 0 119 .255 Eilflfifl'O 120 .276 ELEMENT 0 121 .093 ELEMENT 0 122 .137 ELEMENT 0 123 .625 ELEMENT 0 124 .595 ELEMENT 0 125 .558 ELEMENT 0 126 .511 ELEMENT 0 127 1.09 ELEMENT 0 128 1.16 ELEMENT 0 129 1.13 ELEMENT ELEMENT ELEMENT 0 135 1.67 ELEMENT 0 136 1.61 ELEMENT 0 137 .133 lilfllifl'0=138 .089 ELEMENT 0 139 .105 ELEMENT 0 140 .1 ELEMENT 0 141 .103 ELEMENT 0 142 .137 ELEMENT 0 143 .149 ELEMENT 0 144 .36 ELEMENT 0 145 .374 ELEMENT 0 146 .403 ELEMENT 0 147 .358 ELEMENT 0 148 .286 ELEMENT 0 149 .341 Ellilifl'0t150 .252 .13 .232 .232 .159 .159 .159 .13 .13 -0352 '0366 '03“ '0366 -.757 '0757 -.757 '0352 -0352 “6352 '0366 “6366 -0366 ’07? -.757 .407 .524 .524 .524 .812 .812 .812 .407 .407 .407 .524 .524 .812 .812 “0121 ‘0297 ’0277 ‘6297 .0069 .0069 .0069 -.121 -0121 '0121 -0297 -.297 '9297 .069 Humane-open-------mupnunn-------nne—onno—Hn------cc—pwe—po—n. 113 .------HHB—fiphfihhfi----e--H“~Hflflfl°°------hfiflfl“M“F‘----G--fl .247 8.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 3.5 6.5 6.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 1.5 7.5 4.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 3.5 6.5 3.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 3.5 6.5 6.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 3.5 TMUCMTDIED ELBENT 4 151 .415 ELEMENT 4 152 1.23 ELEMENT 4 153 1.14 ELEMENT 4 154 .864 ELEMENT 4 155 .927 1519438'4 156 .936 ELEMENT 4 157 .723 ELEMENT 4 158 .7 ELEMENT 4 159 .599 ELEMENT 4 160 .6 ELEMENT 4 161 .565 ELEMENT 4 162 .652 ELEMENT 4 163 .79 ELEMENT 4 164 .687 ELEMENT 4 165 .715 ELEMENT 4 166 .766 ELEMENT 4 167 .628 ELEMENT 4 168 .145 ELEMENT 4 169 .177 ELEMENT 4 170 .201 ELEMENT 4 171 .153 ELEMENT 4 172 .172 ELEMENT 4 173 .152 ELEMENT 4 174 .155 ELEMENT 4 175 .103 ELEMENT 4 176 .344 ELEMENT 4 177 .531 ELEMENT 4 178 .484 ELEMENT 4 179 .406 ELEMENT 4 180 .414 ELEMENT 4 181 .825 ELEMENT 4 182 .649 ELEMENT 4 183 .506 ELEMENT 4 184 .579 ELEMENT 4 185 .486 ELEMENT 4 186 .183 ELEMENT 4 187 .518 ELEMENT 4 188 .672 ELEMENT 4 189 .327 ELEMENT 4 190 .402 ELEMENT 4 191 .392 ELEMENT 4 192 .413 ELEMENT 4 193 .604 ELEMENT 4 194 .395 ELEMENT 4 195 .166 ELEMENT 4 196 .45 ELEMENT 4 197 .398 ELEMENT 4 198 .318 ELEMENT 4 199 .066 ELEMENT 4 200 .315 ELEMENT 4 201 .028 .069 .748 .748 .527 .527 .567 .567 .748 .748 .748 .527 .527 .527 .567 .567 .0245 .0245 -08687 -.0607 ’0 8687 .0844 .0844 .0844 .0245 .0245 .0245 -.0607 -.0607 .0844 1.546 1.546 1.478 1.478 1.478 1.016 1.016 1.016 1.546 1.546 1.546 1.478 1.478 1.478 1.016 1.016 1.546 1.478 boron--------e—e-oe-oe-oc—o-oc-o0.-----ooh-unwant-ant—------ccc-oe-sne—o—e—e-or-p 114 a--hfi0‘B‘HB—OF‘H“------9-O‘h‘flHHF‘I‘------°-H“B‘HHH0‘-‘--°-°-° .048 .054 .054 .045 .045 .045 .059 .059 .059 .054 .054 .054 .045 .045 .045 .059 .059 .048 .093 .093 .093 .087 .087 .087 .048 .048 .093 .093 .087 .087 .061 .061 .092 .092 .092 .073 .073 .073 .061 .061 .061 .092 .092 .092 .073 .073 .061 .061 .092 .298 .323 .293 .305 .331 .296 .301 .19 .302 .314 .323 .293 .305 .331 .296 .301 .19 .323 .293 .305 .331 .296 .301 .19 .302 .314 .323 .293 .305 .296 .301 .19 .255 .26 .314 .207 .234 .261 .316 .247 .255 .26 .314 .207 .234 .272 .261 .255 .314 6.5 3.5 6.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 3.5 6.5 3.5 6.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 8.5 3.5 6.5 3.5 6.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 3.5 6.5 3.5 6.5 1.5 TABLE C7 CONTINUED ELEMENT 4 202 .061 ELEMENT 4 203 .053 ELEMENT 4 204 .369 ELEMENT 4 205 .396 ELEMENT 4 206 .291 ELEMENT 4 207 .3 ELEMENT 4 208 .092 ELEMENT 4 209 1.04 ELEMENT 4 210 .249 ELEMENT 4 211 .246 ELEMENT 4 212 .251 ELEMENT 4 213 .729 ELEMENT 4 214 .887 ELEMENT 4 215 .52 ELEMENT 4 216 .716 IJJDEJH’4=217 .354 ELEMENT 4 218 .678 ELEMENT 4 219 .136 ELEMENT 4 220 .676 ELEMENT 4 221 .958 ELEMENT 4 222 .473 ELEMENT 4 223 1.06 1.478 1.478 1.016 1.016 1.016 1.546 1.546 1.546 1.478 1.478 1.478 1.016 1.016 .13 .812 '0“87 1.478 -6332 .407 .524 ‘6“87 .232 “-H--------------B‘MMHF§ 115 -H-0‘F‘----F‘F‘fl0‘~fl0—OH----- .092 .092 .073 .073 .061 .061 .061 .092 .092 .073 .073 .073 .054 .093 .092 .066 .074 .061 . NY .207 .234 .272 .261 .316 .247 .255 .26 .314 .207 .331 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 5.5 8.5 3.5 6.5 7.5 1.5 6.5 3.5 3.5 6.5 8.5 5.5 1.5 THE 88 DATA FILE: EESSEESESSSSESESEEESEEE 3??g?$1.5???$33-35???§.-;;=z.zzn.zzmmz E 116 MELT/WA 00 N41 031 .323 4W -.386 0285 0323 a" -.386 0265 0366 0.62 -.362 .209 .366 086 ‘0362 .53 .469 0.8 -051 .5 .469 0.67 '03! .326 .239 01.2 “0333 0291 6239 .097 -9333 .52 .154 e122 "efi .53 .154 .108 -.35 .306 .126 .095 -6382 .538 .402 015 “013 .502 .402 .126 -.13 .369 .52 .127 -0298 .606 .52 0155 '0298 .444 .809 .15 .00102 .617 .736 .216 .00096 .59 .736 .15 .00096 .734 .55 02 -087 .75 .55 0187 '087 .687 .564 .232 .078 .404 .312 .55 .312 0563 0266 .377 .57 1W2 .104329 .148996 .104329 .15996 .133956 .131044 .133956 .131044 .219961 .1681 .219961 .1681 .057121 .110889 .057121 .110889 .023716 .1225 .023716 .1225 .01576 .161604 .161604 .0169 .161604 .0169 .504 .moa .504 .mn .654481 1.040f-06 .541696 9.21601E-07 .541696 9.21601E-07 .5565 56%.” .5565 4.9E-03 .318096 60 “'83 .097344 .097344 .070756 .076729 1043 .0336983 “6.575125 .0336983 ‘08575125 .049059 -.0474379 .049059 -.0474379 .103162 -.068921 .103162 -.068921 .0136519 -.036926 .0136519 -.036926 3.65226E-03 -.042875 3.65226E-03 -.042875 2.00035-03 -.0649649 .0649649 -2.197[-03 .0649649 -2.197E-03 .140608 -.0264636 .140608 -0W .529476 1.06121E-09 .398688 89 73754. .39865 8.84737E-l0 .144703 -3.45-04 .144703 -3.45-44 .179406 4.7452E-04 .0303713 .0303713 .0188211 .0212539 APPENDIX D DATA CONVERSION PROGRAMS APPENDIX D DATA CONVERSION PROGRAMS Listing D1. Program (ANEMCONV/BAS) This program has a tape input From the anemometer collection routine. written by Dave Zeitler 01‘ M80. This program converts the raw data From Frequency to millimeters per second. The statistics are calulated and the results printed on the CRT (a routine For line printer output is available though not listed here). A graph 04’ the turbulent fluxuations is optionally plotted on the CRT. An optional converted data tape is possible. The statistical inFormation includes: The means. standard deviations. turbulent intensities. and relative intensities. For each anemometer. Each area 017 the program is set oFF by non-program comments. The program lines have been spaced and modified For readibility. These changes will require correction beFore the programs can be run. Contact the author iF an unmodFied program listing is desired. This program can be run on a 161C RAM level II TRS-BO Microcomputer. without disk or line printer. “HRH“ Initializing variables and preliminaries can“ 1 ON ERROR GOTO 2 :CMD'T' :CLOSE :GOTO 5 ’4“ Disable interrupts 2 RESUME 5 ’flw Begin at line 5 iF non disk basic 5 CLEAR 750 lBB=45 {MM-=0 lCLS SPRINT " DATA CONVERSION ROUTINE FOR ANEMOMETER DATA BY A.R.HA'YS" 117 1 18 :PRINT 6 PRINT“ TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL DETAILS ABOUT THE PROGRAM. ENTER ’HELP’AT ANY PAUSE. SUCH AS ’WHEN READY HIT ENTER’.' :PRINT’ iifliiiiifl‘ll- Tape input routine *i*§**§*§§ 7 INPUT “INSERT RAW DATA TAPE. SET TO PLAY AND HIT ENTER“ 3A4 :IF A$="HELP" THEN MM=1 :GOSUB 2000 :GOTO 7 :ELSE :CLS :PRINT " DATA BEING ENTERED“ 10 :DEFDBL C .S .X :DEFINT D .I-N .P :DIM P12) .P0127)’*** Dimension arrays and define variable types “I 20 INPUTt-l. P10) .P(1) .P(2) .NS’ "I Enter timing and discription *H 30 2=P(2)*60/ P11) 3N1=Z-1 :IF INT1Z/9) O 2/9 THEN 2=2+9' Dimension data array based on input timing m. 35 DIM D(2.Z) :CLS :PRINTNS :PRINT USING “SAMPLE INTERVAL = 4.4 SECOND1S)” 3H0)! 10 36 PRINT USING “REPEAT INTERVAL = 44 SECOND(S)' 3PM) :PRINT USING ”TOTAL INTERVAL = 44 MINUTE(S)" 3P12) 40 FOR I=0 TO N1 STEP 9’ it“ Input data in blocks 0F 27 elements it“ 50 INPUT1t-1 .D(0.I) .D(1.I) .D(2.I) .D(0.I+1) .D(1.I+1) .D(2.I+1) .D(0.I+2) .D(1.I+2) .D(2.I+2) .D(0.I+3) .D(1.I+3) .D(2.I+3) .D(0.I+4) .D(1.I+4) .D(2.I+4) .D(0.I+5) .D(1.I+5) .D(2.I+5) .D(0.I+6) .D(1.I+6) .D(2.I+6) .D(0.I+7) .D(1.I+7) .D(2.I+7) .D(0.I+8) .D(1.I+8) .D(2.I+8) :NEXT I {4444*4444-fli Print raw data on CRT *444*§§§§§§*i 60 CC=1 :FOR J =0 TO N1 STEPS :PRINT TAB(0) J 3D(0..T) 3D(1.J) 3D12..T) 3TAB121) .1 +1 :D(0.J’ +1 ) 3D( 1 .5! +1) :D(2.J’ +1) :TABMZ) J +2 3D10.J+2) 3D11.J+2) 3D(2.J' +2) 65 IF CC)=15 :GOTO 75 ’4" Stop iF screen Full 444 70 CC=CC+1 :NEXTJ’ :CC=1 unseen" Convert data 8: calwlate statistics *********fi* 73 S(0)=0 :S(1)=0 :S(2)=0 :SS(O)=0 :SS(1)=0 :SSQM :GOTO 79’!» Zero double precision variables “it ~ 75 INPUT "HIT ENTER TO CONTINUE LIST“ 3A0 :CC=0 :IF Ass-“HELP" THEN MM=0 :GOSUB 2000 :GOTO 60 :ELSE :GOTO 70 79 PRINT " CONVERSIONS BEING CALCULATED" 33P2=420 80 FOR I=0 TO 2 :FOR J =0 TO N1 30D=1000*((10*D(I..T)/P(0)+30.11)/71.74) :IFCD>P2THEN :D(I.J')=INT(CD+.5) :SlI)=S(I)+CD :SSlI)=SS(I)+CD[2 :NEXTJ' :XB(I)=S(I)/(N1+1) :SX(IHSS(I)-S(I)[2/(N1+1))/N1 :NEXT I :GOTO 90’4" Convert to mm! sec and sum squares Hi 81 D(I..I)=0 :NEXT JJ 90 FOR K=0 TO 2’“! Calculate standard deviations mi 100 IF 83160 < 0 THEN NEXT ELSE SD(IC)=SQR(SX(K)) :SYlK)=SD(IC)/XB(K) :NEXTIC :GOTO 200 110 NEXT K 200 CLS :INPUT "CREATE A NEW TAPE FILE (CONVERTED)" 8A4 3MM=2 31F A4="HELP' THEN GOSUB 2000 :GOTO 200 210 CLS :IF A$="YES" OR A4="Y" GOSUB 500 '41" Call converted tape routine I” 220 INPUT "DO YOU WISH TO SEE THE CONVERTED DATA LIST" 3A4 3MM=0 :IFA$="HELP“ THEN GOSUB 2000 :GOTO 220 230 IF A$='YES" OR ASP-"Y" GOSUB 900 :GOTO 220 "us Call routine to print the converted data listing on CRT "a 235 CLS :INPUT "DO YOU WISH TO SEE TURBULENCE GRAPH“ 3A4 :IF A48"Y" OR A$="YES" :GOSUB 3000 :GOTO 220 'ue Call graph routine see 240 CLS :PRINTGS40. ”END" :PRINT :PRINT :PRINT :END '41“ Terminate program see “IWW Coverted data tape preparation routine W* 500 INPUT “INSERT CLEAN TAPE SET TO RECORD AND HIT ENTER” 3A4 :IF 1 19 A4="HELP" THEN MM=3 160808 2000 :GOTO 500 :ELSE :NOS="" 510 PRINTt-l. P(0) .P(1) .P(2) .N4 512 PRINTt-l. XB(0) .XB(1) .XB(2) .SD(0) .SD(1) .SD(2) 514 PRINTt-l. 8(0). 8(1). 5(2). 98(0). SS(1). 58(2) 516 PRINTit-l. SX(0). SX(1). SX(2). SY(0). SY(1). SY(2) 520 FOR I=0 TO N1 STEP 9 530 PRINT4-1. D(0.I) .D(1.I) .D(2.I) .D(0.I+1) .D(1.I+1) .D(2.I+1) .D(0.I+2) .D(1.I+2) .D(2.I+2) .D(0.I+3) .D(1.I+3) .D(2.I+3) .D(0.I+4) .D(1.I+4) .D(2.I+4) .D(0.I+5) .D(1.I+5) .D(2.I+5) .D(0.I+6) .D(1.I+6) .D(2.I+6) .D(0.I+7) .D(1.I+7) .D(2.I+7) .D(0.I+8) .D(1.I+8) .D(291'0’8) :NEXT I 540 CLS :INPUT "REWIND TAPE.SET TO PLAY AND HIT ENTER" {AS :IF A$="HELP" THEN MM=4 :GOSUB 2000 :GOTO 540 :ELSE 3M=0 “nausea.“ Verify tape “unseen" 545 CLS :PRINTG545. "VERIFICATION" 550 INPUTit-l. P0(0) .P0(1) .P0(2) .N04 560 FOR I=0 TO 2 :IF PG) 0 P0(1) :PRINT P(I) .P0(I) ."P(I) ERROR" 0M=1 :GOTO 800 570 NEXT I :IF N4 0 N04 :PRINT N4 .NOS ."NI ERROR" 3M=2 :GOTO 800 575 INPUT#-1. X(0) .X(1) .X(2) .SA(O) .SA(1) .SA(2) 580 FOR I=0 TO 2 :A=XB(I) :AA=X(I) :IF A 0 AA :PRINT XB(I) .X(I) ."XB(I) ERROR" :M=3 :GOTO 800 590 NEXT I :FOR I=0 TO 2 :A=SD(I) :AA=SA(I) :IFAOAA :PRINT SD(I) .SA(1) ."SD(I) ERROR" 3M=4 :GOTO 800 595 NEXTI :INPUT4-1 .SA(O) .SA(1) .SA(2) .SB(O) .SB(l) .SB(2) 600 FOR I=0 TO 2: A=S(I) :AA=SA(I) :IF A 0 AA :PRINT S(I) .SA(I) ."S(I) ERROR" 3M=5 :GOTO 800 610 NEXTI :FOR I=0 TO 2 8A=SS(I) :AA=SB(I) :IF A 0 AA :PRINT SS(I) .SB(I) ."SS(I) ERROR" :M=6 :GOTO 800 612 NEXTI :INPUTt-l. SA(0) .SA(1) .SA(2) .SB(O) .SB(l) .SB(2) 614 FOR I=0 T02 :A=SX(I) :AA=SA(I) :IF A 0 AA :PRINT SX(I) .SA(1) ."SX(I) ERROR" :M=7 :GOTO 800 616 NEXTI (FOR Ito TO 2 :A=SY(I) :AA=SB(I) :IF A 0 AA :PRINT SY(I) .SB(I) ."SY(I) ERROR" 3M=8 :GOTO 800 620 NEXTI :FOR Il=0 TO N1 STEP 9 :INPUTit-l. P0(1) .P0(2) .P0(3) .P0(4) .P0(5) .P0(6) .P0(7) .P0(8) .P0(9) .P0(10) .P0(11) .P0(12) .P0(13) .P0(14) .P0(15) .P0(16) .P0(17) .P0(18) .P0(19) .P0(20) .P0(21) .P0(22) .P0(23) .P0(24) .P0(25) .P0(26) .P0(27) 31C=0 630 FOR .I=Il TO (11+8HFOR J1=0 TO 2 3 =K+1 640 IF P0(IC) C) D(J1.J) :PRINT D(J1.J’) .P0(11) ."DATA ERROR" 1M=9 :GOTO 800 650 NEXT Jl .3 .I1 660 INPUT "GOOD TAPE. MAKE A COPY" 3A4 :IF AS="HELP" THEN MM=5 :GOSUB 2000 :GOTO 660 670 CLS :IF A4="YES" OR A$="Y" )GOTO 500 700 RETURN mflfiflflfl Tape error trapping and identification WM 800 INPUT "DATA ERROR. REMAICE TAPE. (Y IN)" 3A4 :IF AI="HELP" THEN MM=6 :GOSUB 2000 :GOTO 800 810 IF AS="YES" OR A4="Y" GOTO 500 820 ON M GOTO 570 .575 .590 .595 .610 .612 .616 .620 .650 830 END "incense" Print results on car useunenunnn 900 CLS :PRINT N4 :PRINT USING "SAMPLE INTERVAL = 4.4 SECOND(S)" 3P(0)/ 10 910 PRINT USING "REPEAT INTERVAL = 44 SECOND(S)" 3PM) :PRINT USING "TOTAL INTERVAL = #40 MINUTE(S)" 3P(2) :PRINT 915 INPUT "HIT ENTER TO CONTINUE" 3A4 :IF A$="HELP" THEN MM=0 :GOSUB 2000 :GOTO 915 120 920 CLS (PRINT" ANEMOMETER" 930 PRINT STRINGS (62."-") (PRINT TAB(18) "0" (TAB(38) "1" (TAB(SB) "2" 940 PRINT STRINGS (62."-") (PRINT TAB(O) "MEAN" (TAB(12) INT(XB(0)) (TAB(32) INT(XB(1)) (TAB(SZ) INT(XB(2)) (PRINT 950 PRINT TAB(O) "ST. DEV." (TAB(12) CSNG(SD(0)) (TAB(32) CSNG(SD(ID (TAB(SZ) CSNG(SD(2)) (PRINT 960 PRINT TAB(O) "TURBULENT" (PRINT TAB(O) "INTENSITY" (TAB(12) CSNG(SX(0)) (TAB(32) CSNG(SX( 1)) (TAB(52) CSNG(SX(2)) (PRINT 970 PRINT TAB(O) "RELATIVE" (PRINT TAB(O) "INTENSITY" (TAB(12) CSNG(SY(O)) TTAB(32) CSNG(SY(1)) (TAB(52) CSNG(SY(2)) (PRINT 980 CC=1 (INPUT "HIT ENTER . TO LIST DATA" (AS (IF A4="HELP" THEN MM=0 (GOSUB 2000 990 CLS (FOR J =0 TO N1 STEP 2(PRINT TAB(3).T(D(O.J’) (D(1.J') (D(2.J) (TAB(31) J+1 (D(O..I+1) (D(1.J'+1) (D(2.J+1) 1000 IF CC >= 15 (INPUT "HIT ENTER TO CONTINUE LIST" (A4 (CC=0 (IF A4="HELP" GOSUB 2000 (GOTO 990 1010 CC=CC+1 (NEXTJ’ (INPUT "NEED AN EXPLANATION OF UNITS" (AS (IF A$="Y" OR A4="YES" THEN MM=0 (GOSUB 2000 (RETURN 1011 CLS (INPUT "WANT TO SEE GRAPH" (AS (IF AS="Y" OR A4="YES" (GOSUB 3000 1020 RETURN 44§4**§****44 Help routine to explain the program 444444-444"! 2000 A4="" (IF MM>0 (ON MM GOTO 2190 .2200 .2210 .2220 .2230 2020 CLS (PRINT "WHAT TYPE OF INFORMATION DO YOU WISH?" (PRINT "AVAILABLE FILES INCLUDE(" (PRINT " 1. UNITS OF MEASURE" (PRINT' 2. CONVERSION EQUATIONS" (PRINT" 3. REGRESSION EQUATION"(PRINT" 4. RATIONALE" (PRINT" 5. RETURN TO PROGRAM 2030 PRINT (PRINT (INPUT "ENTER YOUR NUMBER CHOICE" (Z! (ONZ! GOTO 2040 .2050 .2060 .2070 .2080 (RETURN 2040 CLS (PRINT TAB(10) "UNITS OF MEASURE" (PRINT STRING$(40."-") (PRINT" SAMPLE INTERVAL TENTHS OF SEC" (PRINT" REPEAT INTERVAL SECONDS" (PRINT" TOTAL INTERVAL MINUTES" (PRINT" INPUT DATA NO. LIGHT CHOPS/ SAMPLE INTERVAL" 2042 PRINT" CONVERTED DATA MM/SEC" (PRINT" MEANS MM/ SE " (PRINT" STANDARD DEVIATION MM/ SE " (PRINT" TURBULENT INTENSITY MEAN SQUARE VELOCITY" (PRINT" RELATIVE INTENSITY DIMENSIONLESS" 2043 PRINT (FOR L86 TO 31 (SET(46.L) (NEXT (INPUT "WHEN READY HIT ENTER" 3A4 (GOTO 2020 2050 CLS (FOR L=1 TO4 (READ A4 (NEXT (FOR L=1 TO 3 (READ A4 (PRINT A4 (NEXT (RESTORE (PRINT (PRINT (INPUT "WHEN READY HIT ENTER" (AS (GOTO 2020 2060 CLS (FOR L=1 TO 7 (READ A4 (NEXT (FOR L=1 TO 2 (READ AS (PRINT AS (NEXT (RESTORE (PRINT (PRINT (INPUT "WHEN READY HIT ENTER" 1A4 (GOTO 2020 2070 CLS (FOR L=1 TO 4 (READ AS (PRINT A4 (NEXT (PRINT (RESTORE (INPUT "HIT ENTER WHEN READY" 3A4 (GOTO 2020 2080 RETURN 2100 DATA" THE INITIAL DATA IS INPUT AS AN INTEGER. THIS INTEGER REPRESENTS THE NUMBER OF LIGHT CHOPS OVER THE SAMPLE INTERVAL." 2110 DATA"THE CONVERTED DATA REPRESENTS AN AIR SPEED IN MILLIMETERS PER SECOND. THIS CHOICE OF UNITS ALLOWS INTEGER DATA STORAGE WITH A MINIMUM ACCURACY OF 0.05 METERS PER SECOND." 2120 DATA" THE CHOICE OF TURBULENT INTENSITY. AND RELATIVE INTENSITY ARE BASED ON REPORTING THE MOST COMMONLY USED MEASURES OF TURBULENCE. AVAILABLE WITH THE DATA COLLECTED. THIS OF COURSE 121 IMPLIES BETTER MEASURES ARE POSSIBLE. WITH ADDED DATA " 2130 DATA"INPUTS. THIS IS TRUE. HOWEVER. THE PRESENT PROJECT DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE ADDED COSTS. FUTURE PROJECTS SHOULD CONSIDER THE USEOF BETTER MEASURES." 2140 DATA"THE EQUATION TO CONVERT THE RAW DATA TO MM/SEC DATA IS: CD=1000*((10*D(i.j)/P(0)+30.11)/71.74) WHERE D(i.j)=RAW DATA P(0)=SAMPLE INTERVAL" 2150 DATA" THE FACTOR OF TEN CONVERTS THE SAMPLE INTERVAL TO SECONDS. THE FACTOR OF ONE THOUSAND CONVERTS THE RESULT TO MM/SEC. THE CONSTANTS ARE FROM INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION REGRESSION." 2160 DATA"THE TURBLUENT INTENSITY IS ACTUALLY THE VARIANCE OF THE VELOCITY FLUXUATIONS. THE RELATIVE INTENSITY IS MEARLY THE STANDARD DEVIATION OVER THE MEAN VELOCITY." 2170 DATA" THE REGRESSION EQUATION ORIGINATED FROM THE MANUFACTURER OF THE MINIATURE CUP ANEMOMETERS. THIS FOLLOWS( METERS/SEC=(FREQUENCY/SEC+30.11)/71.74 WHERE THE 31.11 IS" 2180 DATA"THE TRESHOLD OF 0.42 m/s" 2190 CLS(PRINT "PLACE RAW DATA TAPE. FROM DATA COLLECTION ROUTINE. IN THE TAPE RECORDER. SET VOLUME TO 5. PRESS PLAY BUTTON. AND HIT THE ENTER KEY."(RETURN 2200 CLS (PRINT"ENTER ’YES’ IF YOU WANT A PERMANENT. TAPE RECORD OF THE CONVERTED DATA. THIS WILL INCLUDE DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS." (RETURN 2210 CLS (PRINT "PLACE A NEW OR BULK ERASED TAPE IN THE RECORDER. SET THE RECORDER TO RECORD. AND HIT THE ENTER KEY." (RETURN 2220 CLS (PRINT "THIS PROCESS VERIFIES THAT THE TAPE WAS RECORDED WITHOUT ERRORS.ONE ERROR CAN MAKE THE TAPE USELESS." (RETURN 2230 CLS (PRINT "THIS TAPE IS GOOD. IF THE DATA IS VERY IMPORTANT IT IS ADVISABLETO HAVE A SPARE. TAPES ARE EASILY DAMAGED. BY DUST. STATIC CHARGE AND WRINKLES." (RETURN emunene Graphical plot 44444444444444" 3000 FOR II=0 TO 2 (C=7 (As-22 (GOSUB 3010 (GOTO 3020 3010 CLS (PRINT TAB(O) "990" (TAB(20) "ANEMOMETER" (TAB(31) II (PRINTG64 ."-" (PRINTQ448 ." " (PRINT@832 ."+" (PRINTG896 ."990" (FOR I=0 TO 43 STEP 2 (SET(6.I) (NEXT (FOR I=6 TO 127 STEP 5 (SET(I.22) (NEXT (RETURN 3020 FOR 0’ =1 TO N1 (F=D(II..T)-XB(II) (B=INT(F+.5)/BB (IF A+B > 44 THEN B=22 (ELSE IF A+B < 0 THEN B=-22 3030 IF B > 0 THEN (FOR K=A TO A+B (SET(C.K) (NEXT K (ELSE (FOR K=A+B TO A (SET(C.K) (NEXT K 3040 C=C+1 (IF C > 127 THEN C87 (INPUT "HIT ENTER TO CONTINUE THIS GRAPH" (A4 (GOSUB 3010 3050 NEXT .I (INPUT "HIT ENTER TO SEE NEXT GRAPH" (AS (IF A$="HELP" (GOTO 4000 3060 NEXT II (RETURN Hiflflflflfl Continued help routine For graph WW4 4000 CLS (PRINT "THE GRAPH PLOTS DEVIATIONS FORM THE MEAN VELOCITY. THE MEAN IS REPRESENTED BY ZERO. POSITIVE DEVIATIONS ARE BELOW THE ZERO LINE. AND NEGATIVE DEVIATIONS ARE ABOVE THE LINE.UNITS ARE IN MM/ SEC FROM THE MEAN." 4010 A4="" (INPUT "HIT ENTER TO CONTINUE GRAPHS" (A4 (NEXT II (RETURN 122 Listing D2. Program (DROPDIST/BAS) This program converts droplet counts. From TeFlon coated glass slides. TeFlon cylinders. or other cylindrical ostacles. recorded in microscope units. to a distribution. The distribution contains 30 size categories From 10 microns to 300 microns. In addition the program calculates the eFFect oF wind on the collection eFFiciency oF each droplet size category. then adjusts the distrubution to reflect a more meaningFull distribution. The results are printed giving a discription oF the data. various means. standard deviations. coeFFicients oF variation. Frequency counts. maximum values. minimum values. number counted. mmulative volume For each category. percent volume For each category. particle inertial impingement parameters and collection efficiencies For each category and cylinder size. and input constants are printed For reFerence. flflflflfl Initializing variables 8. preliminaries "“11“" 20 CLS (PRINT "INITIALIZING" (ON ERROR GO TO 25 (CMD"T" (CLOSE (GO TO 30 25 RESUME 30 30 CLEAR 500( DEFINT I-K.M.N( DEFDBLX-Z( DEFSNG A-D.L( DEFSTR E-F( DIM C(12) .CV(30) .E!(4.30) .L(34) .L1(34) .M(30) .OB(5) .P(4.30) .PV(30) (POKE 16425 .1(POKE 16424.66( A2=5' *H Dimension arrays 8. define variables *4"! 35 CO=1.6479E-3 (DEN=.979540 ( FOR I=1T012( READ C(I) (NEXTI (RESTORE (OB(2)=1.156 (OB(3)=1.664 (OB(4)=2.223 (OB(5)=3.937’ in DeFine constants used in the particle paramter “I DEN = droplet density. 036) = obstacle sizes. CO = constant oF particle parameter Factor held Fixed For this study 40 FOR II=0 TO 30( M(II)=II*10( NEXTII'*** Load array oF midpoints “I 60 CLS (PRINT TAB( 18) "PROGRAM DROPLET DISTRIBUTION (PRINT TAB(27)"BY A. R. HAYS" 70 PRINT( PRINT( INPUT "HOW WILL DATA BE ENTERED. (T)APE OR (K)EYBOARD"( E (IF E="T" THEN GOSUB 2000 75 CLS( INPUT "OUTPUT RESULTS TO A LINE PRINTER. Y/N"( EB 80 IF E="T"( GOSUB 1000: END’Nt Call tape input routine an... "4454-4444444 Keyboard input routine §§***§§**§*%*** 90 CLS (INPUT "ENTER A DISCRIPTION OF THE TREATMENT. UP TO 200 CHARACTERS"; EF 100 CLS (INPUT "CREATE A TAPE FILE Y/N"( EA 110 CLS( INPUT "ENTER MICROSCOPE CONVERSION IN MICRONS. COLLECTING OBSTACLE SIZE IN CM. AIR VELOCITY IN CM/SEC. AND SPREAD FACTOR (DEC FRACTION) "( A. OBS(1). VEL .B (A1=A*B 120 CLS (PRINT "THESE ARE YOUR ENTRIES. CHECK THEM FOR ACCURACY." (PRINT 123 130 PRINT "MICROSCOPE CONVERSION " (A (" MICRONS/UNIT" 140 PRINT "COLLECTING OBSTACLE SIZE " (OBS(1) (" CM" 150 PRINT "AIR VELOCITY " (VE (" CM/SEC" 160 PRINT"SPREAD FACTOR "(B 170 PRINT (INPUT "IF CORRECT HIT {ENTER}. OTHERWISE ENTER ’NO’" (AS (IF A$="NO" OR A$="N" (A '"" (GO TO 110 180 ED="" 4444444444444 Data entry. conversion and sort routine 4444444444418! 200 L(34)= 300 210 CLS( PRINT "BEGIN ENTERING YOUR DATA SIGNAL THE END OF YOUR DATA WITH AN (0) SYMBOL" ( PRINT 220 FOR II=1 TO 12 (EE="" (INPUT EE ’4“ Enter data in string Form 444 230 IF EE="@" OR EE="@" THEN 265 ’444 Check For end oF data 444 232 IF VAL(EE)=0 (II=12 (INPUT "DID YOU MEAN TO ENTER ZERO. YIN" (ED (IF ED="N" OR ED="NO" THEN INPUT "ENTER THE CORRECT VALUE" (EE (GOTO 232 ELSE IF ED 0"!" GOTO 232 ’444 Trap accidental zero entry 444 235 I=VAL(EE)*A1+A2( IF I=31 THEN L(31)=L(31)+1( GOTO 260 ’44! Count number over 305 microns «"4 250 L(I)=L(I)+10 (L(32)=L(32)+1’444 Increment correct category by 10 For better inter accuracy 44* 260 NEXT II( GOTO 210 4* Use particle parameter to adjust Ferquency distribution & calculate statistics *4 265 CLS (PRINT "CALCULATING THE PARTICLE PARAMETERS. COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES AND ADJUSTING THE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION." (PRINT (PRINT "BE PATIENT" (GOSUB 5000’ 444 Call subroutine to calculate particle parameters 444 270 ’DISC STATS ROUTINE GIVING ARITHMETIC MEAN (N1). DIAMETER WGTED MEAN (N2). SURFACE WGTD MEAN (N3). VOLUME OR DE BROUCICERE MEAN (N4). AND THE MEAN VOLUME VMD (N5) 280 ’ 444 THE STANDARD DEVIATIONS RESPECTIVELY ARE (Y 1.....Y4) NO STANDARD DEV IS CALCULATED FOR THE MEAN VOLUNE 444 285 PRINT "CALCULATING STATISTICS" 290 FOR I=1 TO 30: D=D+L(I)4M(I)( X2=X2+L(I)4M(I)[2( X3=X3+L(I)4M(I)[3( X4=X4+L(I)4M(I)I4( X5=X5+L(I)*M(I)I5( NEXT 1 ’444 Calculate statistics For categories 10-300 microns 444 300 N1=D/L(32) (N2=X2/D(N3=X3/XZ( N4=X4IX3( N5=(X3/L(32))[(l/3) 310 Y1=SQR((XZ-(D[2/L(32)))/(L(32)-1)) (Y2=SQR(X3/D—(X2/D)[2) (Y3=SQR(X4/X2-(X3/X2)[2) (Y4=SQR(X5/X3-(X4/X3)t2) 320 GOSUB 1000 330 IF EB="YES" OR EB="Y" GOSUB 6000 335 IF EA="Y" OR EA="YES" THEN GOSUB 500 340 END 4444444444444 Converted data tape routine 4444444444444444444 499 ’TAPE FILE SUBROUTINE 500 INPUT "READY TAPE FOR RECORDING DATA. AND HIT ENTER" ( ED 510 PRINT4-1. EF. OB. VE. L 520 PRINT4-1. L(0). L(l). L(2). L(3). U4). US). L(6). U7). US). L(9). L(10). L01). L02). L03). L(14). L(15). U16). U17). L(18). U19). U20). U21). U22). L(23). L(24). L(25). L(26). L(27). L(28). U29). U30). U31). L(32). U33). U34) 530 PRINT *‘19 N19 N29 N39 N49 N59 Y19 Y29 Y39 Y4 4444444444444 Verify the tape "4444444444444" 540 CLS (INPUT "REWIND TAPE SET TO PLAY. HIT ENTER" (ED 124 550 INPUT 4-1 .EFS .01 .V1 .L1 555 K=INT(Ol4100) ( K1=INT(OB*100) (K2=INT(V14100) ( K3=INT(VE4100) 560 IF EFSOEF OR ICON! OR K2<>K3 OR LOLl THEN CLS( PRINT "TAPE BAD REDO" ( GOTO 500 570 INPUT 4-1. L1(0). L1(1). L1(2). L1(3). L1(4). L1(5). L1(6). L1(7). L1(8). L1(9). L1(10). L1(11). L1(12). L1(13). L1(14). L1(15). L1(16). L1(17). L1(18). L1(19). L1(20). L1(21). L1(22). L1(23). L1(24). L1(25). L1(26). L1(27). L1(28). L1(29). L1(30). L1(31). L1(32). L1(33). L1(34) 580 FOR KK=0 TO 34( IF (INT(L1(KK)*10)/ 10) O (INT(L(1CK)410)/ 10) THEN CLS( PRINT "TAPE BAD REDO"( GOTO 500 590 NEXT KK( INPUT4-1. M1. M2. M3. M4. M5. 21. 22. 23. 24 600 K=INT(M1*10)( K1=INT(N1410)( K2=INT(M2410) (K3=INT(N2*10) (K4=INT(M3410) (K5=INT(N3410) (K6=INT(M4410) (K7=INT(N4*10) (K8=INT(M5410) (K9=INT(N5*10) 610 IF KOKI OR 1C2<>IC3 OR K4<>IC5 OR K6010 OR 1C8<>K9 THEN CLS( PRINT "TAPE BAD REDO"( GOTO 500 620 K=INT(214100) (K1=INT(Y14100) (K2=INT(224100) (K3=INT(Y24100) (K4=INT(234100) (K5=INT(Y34100) (K6=INT(Z44100) (K7=INT(Y44100) 630 IF KOKI OR 1C2<>K3 OR K4<>K5 OR K6010 THEN CLS( PRINT "TAPE BAD REDO"( GOTOSOO 640 CLS( INPUT "TAPE GOOD. COPY Y/N"( ED( IF ED="Y" OR ED="YES" (GOTO 500 650 RETURN 4444444444444 Print results 444444444444444 1000 ’SUBROUTINE FOR PRINTING RESULTS 1010 CLS( PRINT EF ’44! Print discription on CRT 44* 1015 C=Y1( PRINT TAB(28) "MEAN"( TAB(34) "ST. DEV." (TAB(46) "COEF OF VARIATION" 1020 PRINT TAB(8)( "ARITMETIC " (TAB(28)N1 (TAB(34)C (TAB(46)(C/N1) (C=Y2 1030 PRINT TAB(8) "DIAMETER WEIGHTED" (TAB(28)N2 (TAB(34)C (TAB(46)(C/N4) (C=Y3 1040 PRINT TAB(8) "SURFACE WEIGHTED" (TAB(28)N3 (TAB(34)C (TAB(46) (C/N3)(C=Y4 1050 PRINT TAB(8) "VOL WEIGHTED (VMD)" (TAB(28lN4 (TAB(34)C (TAB(46)(C/N4) 1060 PRINT TAB(8)"MEAN VOLUME"( TAB(28)N5 1070 IF EB="Y" OR EB="YES" THEN 1080 ELSE 1150 "I" Check For line printer 44* 1080 LPRINT (LPRINT (LPRINT" "(LPRINTTAB(10) EF(LPRINT (LPRINT TAB(36) "MEAN" (TAB(46) "ST.DEV." (TAB(56) "COEF. OF VARIATION"(C=Y1 ’4" Apply tension to ribbon. print discription on line printer 8: table headings 44* 1100 LPRINT (LPRINT TAB(10) "ARITHMETIC" (TAB(36)N1 (TAB(46)C (TAB(56) (C/Nl) (C=Y2 1110 LPRINT TAB(10) "DIAMETER WEIGHTED" (TAB(36)N2 (TAB(46)C (TAB(56)(C/N2) (C=Y3 1120 LPRINT TAB( 10) "SURFACE WEIGHTED" (TAB(36)N3 (TAB(46)C (TAB(56)(C/N3) (C=Y4 1130 LPRINT TAB( 10) "VOLUME WEIGHTED (VMD) "(TAB(36lNS ('1' AB(46)C (TAB(56)(C/N3) 1140 LPRINT TAB(10) "MEAN VOLUME" (TAB(36)N5 "444 Go back to CRT 444 1150 INPUT "HIT {ENTER} TO CONTINUE LIS " (ED 1160 CLS (PRINT "SIZE" (TAB(8) "FREQUENCY" (TAB(23) "SIZE" (TAB(30) "FREQUENCY" (TAB(45) "SIZE" (TAB(53) "FREQUENCY" 1170 FOR I=1 TO 30 STEP 3 (PRINT TAB(l) I410 (TAB(9) L(I) (TAB(24) 14104-10 (TAB(31) L(I+1) (TAB(46) 14104-20 (TAB(54) L(I+2) 1180 NEXT I 1190 IF EB="Y" OR EB="YES" THEN 1200 ELSE 1240 1200 LPRINT (LPRINT 1210 LPRINT TAB(10) "SIZE" (TAB(16) "FREQUENCY" (TAB(30) "SIZE" (TAB(36)"FREQUENCY" (TAB(SO) "SIZE" (TAB(56) "FREQUENCY" 1220 FOR I=1 TO 30 STEP 3 (LPRINT TAB(11) I410 (TAB(19) L(I) (TAB(31)I*10+10 125 (TAB(39) L(I+1) (T A861) I410+20 (TAB(59) “112) 1230 NEXT I 1240 GOSUB 3000 ’4“ Call subroutine to calculate percent volume For categories *4! 1250 CLS (PRINT "MAXIMUM VALUE ( " (L(33)—5 1260 PRINT "MINIMUM VALUE ( " (L(34)—5 1270 PRINT "NUMBER OFER 300 MICRONS ( " (L(31) 1280 PRINT "NUMBER COUNTED ( " (L 1290 IF EB="YES" OR EB="Y" THEN 1300 ELSE 1380 "444 Line printer ? 444 1300 LPRINT (LPRINT TAB(10) "MAXIMUM VALUE ( " (L(33l-5 (TAB(50) "MICRO CONVER ( " (A 1310 LPRINT TAB( 10) "MINIMUM VALUE ( " (L(34)-5 (TAB(50) "COL OBS SIZE ( " (OB(l) 1320 LPRINT TAB( 10) "NUMBER OVER 300 MICRONS ( " (L(31) (TAB(50) "AIR VELOCITY ( " (VE 1330 LPRINT TAB( 10) "NUMBER COUNTED ( " (L(TAB(50) "SPREAD FACTOR ( " (B 1340 LPRINT CHRSUZ) 1380 RETURN ’44! Back where called From 444 4444444444444 Tape input routine 44444444444444444 1990 ’SUBROUTINE TO INPUT FROM TAPE 2000 CLS (INPUT "PLACE TAPE IN RECORDER. SET TO PLAY AND HIT ENTER" ( ED 2010 INPUT #-1 .EF .08 .VE 2020 CLS( PRINT EF 2030 INPUT 4-1. L(O) .L(l) .L(2). U3). U4). “5). U6). 1.0). US). U91. U10). U11). U12). U13). U14). L(15). L(16). U17). U18). L(19). L(20). L(21). L(22). L123). “24). L(25). L(26). L(27). L(28). L(29). L(30). L131). L621. L(33). 1434) 2040 INPUT 0’1 9N1 9N2 9N3 9N4 9N5 9Y1 9Y2 9Y3 9Y4 2050 RETURN 4444444444444 Percent volume calculation 8: print routine 444444 2990 ’SUBROUTINE TO CALCULATE AND OUTPUT '6 VOL AND CUM VOL 3000 RESTORE3 FORI=1 TO 12 (READ AS (NEXT I 3010 CV(0)=0 (FOR I=1 TO 30 (READ AV (CV(I)=AV4L(I) (CV(0)=CV(0)+CV(I) ( NEXT I 3015 FOR I=1 TO 30 (PV(I)=(INT((CV(I)/CV(0))*IBM/IE4) (NEXTI 3020 CLS( PRINT TAB(15)"CUMULATIVE VOLUME IN CUBIC MICRONS" 3030 PRINT ”SIZE"( TAB(7)"CUM. VOLUME"( TAB(ZO)"SIZE" (TAB(27)"CUM. VOLUME"( TAB(40)"SIZE"( TAB(47)"CUM. VOLUME" 3040 A1=0 (A2=0 (A3=0 (FOR I=1 TO 30 STEP 3( A1=A1+CV(I)( A2=A1+CV1I+1)( A3=A2+CV(I+2)( PRINT I410( TAB(b) A1( TAB(ZO) I*10+10( TAB(26) A2( TAB(39) 1*10-t203 TAB(46) A3 (A18A3 (AZ-=0 (A3=0 (NEXT I 3050 INPUT"HIT {ENTER} TO CONTINUE" (ED (IF EB="Y" OR EB="YES" THEN 3060 ELSE 3120 3060 LPRINT (LPRINT TAB(23) "CUMULATIVE VOLUME IN CUBIC MICRONS" (LPRINT 3070 LPRINT TAB(10) "SIZE" (TAB(17) "CUM. VOLUME" (TAB(31) "SIZE" (TAB(SS) "CUM. VOLUME" (TAB(52) "SIZE" (TAB(59) "CUM. VOLUME" 4444444444444 Cumulative volume printout 444444444444444 3080 Al=0 (A2=0 (AS-=0 (FOR I=1 TO 30 STEP 3( A1=A1+CV(I) ( A2=A1+CV(I+1)( A3=A2+CV(I+2) ( LPRINTTABUI) I410( TAB(18) Al (TAB(32) I410+10( TAB(39) A2( TAB(53)I410+20( TAB(60) A3 (A1=A3 (A2=0 (A3=0 (NEXT I 3090 LPRINT (LPRINT TAB(24) "PERCENT VOLUME TABLE" 3100 LPRINT (LPRINT TAB(10) “SIZE" (TAB(17) "PERCENT VOL." (TAB(31)"SIZE" (TAB(38) "PERCENT VOL." (TAB(52) "SIZE" (TAB(59) "PERCENT VOL." 3110 FOR I=1 TO 30 STEP 3 (LPRINT TAB(ll) 1*103 TAB(IB) PV(I)( TAB(32) I*10+10( TAB(39) PV(I+1)(TAB(53) I410+20( TAB(60) PV (1+2)( NEXT I 3120 CLS( PRINT "SIZE" (TAB(10) "9. VOL." (TAB(ZO) "SIZE" (TAB(30) "'1. VOL." (TAB(40) 126 "SIZE" (TAB(50) "(6 VOL." 3130 FOR I=1 TO 30 STEP 3 (PRINT TAB(2) I*IO( TAB(13) IV(I)( TAB(23) I*10+10( TAB(33) PV(I+1)( TAB(43) 1410+20( TAB(53) PV(I+2) (NEXT I 3140 INPUT "HIT {ENTER} TO CONTINUE" (ED (RETURN 444* Subroutine to calculate particle parameters 44444 4444444444444 and collection eFFiciencies 444444444444 5000 FOR I=1 TO 4 (PRINTUSING" 4/ 4 CALCULATION IN PROCESS " (I ( FOR 1C=1 TO 30 ( P(I.K)=(DEN4(M(IC)/ 1E4)[24VEL)/ (CO4OBS(I)) 5010 IF P(IJC) (.1 THEN J=1 (GOTO 5060 5020 IF P(IJC) (1 THEN J=4 (GOTO 5060 5030 IF P(IJC) (20 THEN J =7 (GOTO 5060 5040 IF P(IJC) (100 THEN J =10 (GOTO 5060 5050 E!(I.IO=1 (NEXT K.I (GOTO 5070 5060 E!(I.K)=C(J)+C(J+1)4LOG(P(I.K))+C(J+Z)*(LOG(P(I.K)))[2 (NEXT K91 5070 PRINT (PRINT "ADJUSTING FREQUENCY" (L=L132) (L(32)=0 (FORI=1TO30 (L(I)=(INT((L(I)/ E!(1.I))*100)(/ 100 (L(32)=L(32)+L(I) (NEXT I 5080 RETURN 4444444444444 Print particle parameters 44444444444444444 444444444444 and collection eFFeceincies 4444444444444444 6000 ’ SUBROUTINE TO PRINT THE PARTICLE PARAMETERS AND COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES FOR GIVEN CYLINDERS 6020 FOR I=1 TO 3 (LPRINT (NEXTI (LPRINT" " (LPRINT TAB(20) "PARTICLE INERTIAL IMPINGEMENT PARAMETERS (P)" (LPRINT TAB(26) "AND COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES (E)“ 6030 LPRINT (LPRINT TAB(2) " SIZE" (T AB(38) "CYLINDER SIZE (CM)" 6040 LPRINT TAB(2) "CATEGORY" (TAB(16) 08(2) (TAB(40) OB(3) (TAB(64)OB(4) (FOR J =13 TO 61 STEP 24 ( LPRINT TAB(J) "P" (TAB(J-t12) " " ((NEXTJ (LPRINT (LPRINT TAB“) STRINGS (73.""'") 6050 FOR I=1 TO 30 (LPRINT TAB(3) 1410 (TAB(8) P(2.I) (TAB(19) E!(2.I) (TAB(32) P(3.I) (TAB(43) E!(3.I) (TAB(56) P(4.I) (TAB(67) E!(4.I) (NEXT I 6055 LPRINT (LPRINT (LPRINT TAB(S) "AIR VEL =" ( ("1314/ S" (TAB(ZS) "DENSITY OP DROP =" (DE (TAB(56) "CONSTANT =" (C0 6060 LPRINT CHR$(12) (RETURN 4444444444444 Data For calculations 444444444444444 444444444444 Volume in cubic microns 44444444444444 7000 DATA .0125 ..00108 .0 ..479 ..437 ..101 ..475 ..295 .-.0456 ..773 ..0865 .-.00858 7010 DATA 523.6 .4188.8 .14137 .33510 (65449 .113097 .179594 .268082 .381704 .523599 .696910 .904779 .1.15035E6 .1.43676E6 .1.76715E6 .2.14466E6 .2.57244E6 .3.05363E6 .3.59136E6 .4.18879E6 .4.84905E6 .557528E6 .6.37063E6 .7.23823E6 (8.18123E6 .9.20277E6 .1.0306E7 .1.1494E7 7020 DATA 1.27701E7 .1.41372E7 127 Listing D3. Program (ABSORCON/BAS) This program converts percent transmission data to absorbance. and then to microliters per milliliter oF wash. The program also removes the eFFect oF the blue dye interFerence on the yellow absorbance peak. In addition it corrects For instrumentation bias. The Factors needed For these corrections are called For during the program initiation. “*"******** Initialize and deFine variables 4444444444444 100 CLS ( CLEAR 500 ( DEFINT I-N ( DEFSNG A-H.Y 110 PRINTTAB(15) " PROGRAM (ABSORBCON/BAS) BY ALAN R. HAYS" 120 PRINT ( INPUT "LINE PRINTER ATTACHED"(A$ 130 POKE 16424.67 ( POKE 16425.1 ' 444 SET UP LINE PRINTER DRIVER 44* 140 IF A$="Y" OR A$="YES" ( CLS ( PRINT "TURN ON LINE PRINTER ADJUST TO THE TOP OF THE PAPER. AND SET TO < ON LINE " ( LPRINT CHR$(27)(CHR$(20) ( ELSE ( GOTO 160 ’44! Signal line printer to print 16.7 characters per inch 44* 145 LPRINT" "( FOR IC=1 TO 3 ( LPRINT " " ( NEXT IC 150 PRINT ( INPUT "ENTER A BRIEF DISCRIPTION OF THE DATA" (A15 ( LPRINT TAB(8) A15 ( LPRINT ( LPRINT '444 Print discription on line printer 444 160 C$(0)="YELLOW" (C$(1)="BLUE" ( C$(2)=" BACKGROUN " ( C$(3)=" REFERENCE " ( BASE=2.30259 ’444 Base is a constant to convert log base e to log base 10 444 170 K=-1 ( FOR I=0 TO 1 (FOR J =0 TO 1 ( PRINT "ENTER " ( CflJ) ( C$(I+2) ( "I. TRANSMISSION" 180 lC=lC+1 ( INPUT BK(IC) (NEXT 1.1 190 FOR IA = 0 TO 3 ( BK(IA)=LOG(100/BK(IA))/BASE ( NEXT IA (IF A$="Y" OR A$="YES" THEN LPRINT TAB(8) 04(0) (C$(2) (" = "( BK(0)( LPRINT TAB(8) 64(1) (C$(2) (" 8 "( BIC(1)( LPRINT TAB(8) C$(0)( C$(3)( " = "( BK(2)( LPRINT TAB(8) C$(1)( C$(3)( " = "( BK(3) ( ELSE 200 192 LPRINT ( LPRINT TAB(14)"% TRANSMISSION" ( TAB(48)"ABSORBANCE" (TAB(75) "YELLOW BLUE" 195 LPRINT TAB(8) " YELLOW BLUE YELLOW 1 BLUE 1 YELLOW 2 MICRO L/ML MICRO L/ML ENTRY 4" ( LPRINTTAB(8)( ( LPRINTSTRINGS (105."-") 200 FOR IB= 0 T01000(CLS 4444444444444 Enter. convert and print data 444444444444444 250 PRINT " ENTER THE YELLOW AND BLUE 4 TRANSMISSIONS FOR ENTRY "(IB ( INPUT YES . BL$ (IF YE$<>"@" THEN YE=VAL(YE$) ( BL=VAL(BL$) ( Y1=LOG(100/YE)/BASE-BK(0) ( B1=LOG(100/BL)/BASE-BK( 1) ( ELSE 650 300 IF B1>.0045 THEN Y2=Y1-(-4.0021E-4+9.2704E-24B1) ELSE Y2=Y1 ’ 444 THIS LINE REMOVES THE EFFECT OF THE BLUE ON THE 420 NM READING 444 350 IF Y2>0.0888 THEN Y3=4.029E-24Y2-4.49E-4 ELSE Y3=5.55433E-5+3.4298E-24Y2 400 IF B1>.15 THEN B2=2.9254E-3+5.0948E-24B1 ELSE 8286.5651E-24B1-3.07328E-4 425 IF PEEK (16425) =>60 THEN LPRINT CHR$(11) ( LPRINT" " ( LPRINT ( 128 LPRINT ( LPRINT ( LPRINT’ 44* Check For end oF page 44* 435 IF Y3<0 OR Y1<=0 THEN Y3=0 440 IF B2<0 THEN B2=0 450 PRINTC$(0)(" MICROLITERS DEPOSIT = "(Y3 ( PRINT Cfi(l)(" MICROLITERS DEPOSIT = "(B2 500 IF A$="Y" OR A38"YES" THEN 550 ELSE INPUT"HIT (ENTER) TO CONTINUE"(B$ ( NEXT IB ’4” IF no line printer stop to view screen 444 550 LPRINTTAB(8)(( LPRINTUSING" 444.4 444.4 4.44444 4.44444 4.44444 4.44444 4.44444 44" (YE( BL( Y1( Bl( Y2( Y3( B2( 13 600 NEXT IB ’4" Format output 444 650 CLS ( IF A$="Y" OR A$="YES" THEN LPRINT CHR$(11) ELSE PRINT C$(0)(C$(2)(" = "(BK(0) ( PRINT C$(1)(C$(2)(" = "(BK(1) ( PRINT C$(0)(C$(3)(" = "(BK(2) ( PRINT C4(1)(C$(3)(" = "(BK(3) 700 PRINT ( PRINT " ENTER NEW DATA" ( INPUT BS ( IF B$="Y" OR B$="YES" THEN 145 ELSE END 129 Listing D4. Program 6No A 7805 T 1* +5v l 470 .3. 9 6:2 2x.Gl|Kv If T f I 2x2200uFd 2x|OOuFd .1. 25v l6v ' Figure F6. Power Supply OUT Figure F7. Line Time Reference 144 # —7 9253 8253 . 4 ISEL o) (SEL I) I23 662 L— 3 RPI 279 .ng (SEL 2) ISEL 3) ._____I Ls L9 L9 2 L5; '25 I57 I39 RP? 94 555 L5 L5 L5 SWI W2 I w“ ‘ CC' 85 85 85 (8) I7) Figure F0. Bosrd Lsyout (top view) Mode: This device may be accessed by either I/O Port or Memory access. It switch XI of SW2 is on, Memory Mapped A4 A5 A6 operation is selected and the base E- AB C- . . C- A9 CI memory address Is selected by sztches C- AIO CI A5 through AIS. C- AII I:- , C- A|2 C- If XI Is set to OFF, I/O Port El MB I:- access is selected, and only switches g All; C- A4 through A7 are used. L__.. A SWI SW2 Note: When setting the address switches, the ON position is logic 0 and OFF is logic I. Figure F9. Addressing Selection