the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Technical note: An assessment of the relative contribution of the Soret effect to open water evaporation
Abstract. It is standard practice to assume that evaporation depends on the gradient in water vapor concentration as per Fick’s law. However, Fick’s law is only true in an isothermal system. In general, we anticipate an additional mass flux due to the temperature gradient (in a non-isothermal system) and this is known as Soret diffusion or the Soret effect. Here we evaluate the relative magnitude of the Soret effect and find that under typical environmental conditions it is at least two orders of magnitude smaller than classical concentration-dependent mass (‘Fickian’) diffusion. This result justifies the standard practice of ignoring the effect of the temperature gradient by assuming evaporation follows the gradient in water vapor concentration.
- Preprint
(580 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 10 Oct 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2023', Andrew Kowalski, 03 Sep 2024
reply
The manuscript by Roderick and Shakespeare purports to characterise the influence of the Soret effect, whereby temperature gradients influence mass diffusion, versus the classical concentration-dependent mass (‘Fickian’) diffusion. But in order to do this requires first correctly characterising Fickian diffusion, and this I believe the authors have not yet done. In brief, the authors have specified Fick's law based on gradients in the molar fraction, whereas Newtonian analyses demonstrate that it must be specified in terms of the mass fraction, and the difference between the two is hardly trivial for fluids of varying molecular mass. Respectfully, I therefore believe that the manuscript should be rejected. My arguments for why their specification of Fick’s 1st Law is incorrect are laid out in an open-access paper (Kowalski et al., 2021) that can be accessed here (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10546-021-00605-5; see sections 3.2 and 4 in particular), but are reinforced in the attached PDF file.
Independent of this, I point out that the authors' Eq. (1) is dimensionally inhomogeneous unless the diffusive flux density (J) is specified in molar terms, with units as in Table 1 rather than the mass-based units that they indicate at line 62. Also, the axis labels should be larger in order to be legible, particularly for Figure 2.
Reference
Kowalski, A. S., Serrano-Ortiz, P., Miranda-García, G., and Fratini, G., 2021. "Disentangling turbulent gas diffusion from non-diffusive transport in the boundary layer." Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 179 (3), 347-367.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2023', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Sep 2024
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-2023/egusphere-2024-2023-RC2-supplement.pdf
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
170 | 37 | 29 | 236 | 2 | 3 |
- HTML: 170
- PDF: 37
- XML: 29
- Total: 236
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1