ALTERNATIVE SHELTERS RATING THERMO-HYGROMETERS DUE TO COST, HANDLING AND PERFORMANCE OF THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Keywords:Shelters. Alternative shelters. Thermo-hygrometers.
AbstractThe standardization of data collection instruments is critical to the quality of the microclimate studies. Due to financial constraints and specific needs many sensors, shelters and alternative systems the standards are developed, based on experience and creativity of researchers. The objective of this study is to provide subsidy to the urban climate studies, checking the influence of different types of alternative shelters thermo-hygrometers at fixed points, and were built five types of shelters and evaluated for performance, ease of implementation, materials and tools used, and the costs involved. Based on the performance of alternative shelters analyzed, it has the shelter of the vertical type and the ice cream pot does not demonstrate efficient to collect data at fixed points, especially if used during the day. It can also conclude that not only material used is linked to the performance, but also on its architecture.
CAMPELO JUNIOR, J. H., PRIANTE FILHO, N. e CASEIRO, F. T. Caracterização macroclimática de Cuiabá. Encontro Nacional de Estudos sobre o Meio Ambiente. 1991.
COSTA, A., LABAKI, Lucila Chebel e ARAÚJO, Virgínia Maria Dantas de. 2007. A methodology to study the urban distribution of air temperature in fixed points. Procedings of 2nd PALENC Conference and 8th AIVC Conference. 2007, Vol. 1, pp. 227-230.
Instruments, Davis. Wireless Vantage Pro2™ with Standard Radiation Shield. DAVIS. [Online] [Citado em: 01 de 05 de 2015.] Disponível em: http://www.davisnet.com/weather/products/weather_product.asp?pnum=06152.
MAITELLI, G. T. 1994. Uma abordagem Tridimensional do clima urbano em área Tropical Continental: o exemplo de Cuiabá/MT. USP. Tese (Doutorado em Climatologia). 1994.
Onset Computer Corporation. 2015. HOBO U12 Temperature/Relative Humidity/Light/External Data Logger - U12-012. Onset Hobo Data Logger. [Online] 2015. [Citado em: 11 de Março de 2015]. Disponível em: http://www.onsetcomp.com/products/data-loggers/u12-012.
Oke, T. R. 2005. Towards better scientific communication in urban climate. Austria: Theorical and Applied Climatology, 2005.
How to Cite
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.