Snow Analysis

IMPLICATIONS WHICH CAN BE MADE FROM SNOW SAMPLE TESTING

BRANDON EGGLESTON

I.

Introduction
The following snow analysis shows the various factors which may contribute to current snow
conditions. Number of measurements were taken, and recorded by groups of 6 students to have a better
understanding of the snow characteristics. This analysis shows the conclusions which can be made between
the weight of frozen snow and the volume of the melted snow, the weight of the frozen snow and the weight
of the melted snow, and the volume of the frozen snow and the volume of the melted snow, and the
conclusions which can be made from the results due to the difference of the conditions between the two data
collection days. February 3rd, 2015, was the first data collection day, and February 10th was the second. This
snow analysis lab was conducted by UM-Flint students enrolled in GEO 331 (Geomorphology and Soils).
Materials & Methods
All samples which were used for future analysis were taken from Wilson Park, with the coordinates of
43.018006, -83.687741. The general location of the study area appears in the map below.
Figure 1.
Site Location

1st Street
Residence
Hall

Wilson
Park

Flat

Under
Canopy

Slope

On the first data collection day, they used a Kestrel Weather Meter to determine wind speed, air
temperature and altitude. They also took these measurements on the second day, along with atmospheric
pressure and dew point.

II.

One of the first steps toward measuring the depth of the snow was to identify the areas which have a
steeper slope than others. Next, identify an area which is flatter than other areas, and does not have a
structure/object near it which could drastically alter wind speed/pattern, and lastly an area under a tree
canopy. These measurements were taken with a meter stick.
Snow depth was recorded for the open slope, open flat and under the canopy. Along with these
measurements, snow was collected from the same area in which we measured the slope snow depth. Snow
was first collected in a glass tube, which showed us the current volume of snow inside. The volume of water
which remained after the snow melted was one of our core measurements. This test was repeated on both
days, and also served as our sample for water pH testing both times, by using a pH meter.
Two larger snow samples were taken at the same location to be used as our weight-weight, weightvolume and volume-volume measurements. A narrow cylinder plastic container was used, as well as a wider
cylinder for the first data collection day. On the second day, there were two sets of samples. One with
sample of snow which was the uppermost portion of the snow which was harder, and denser than lower
levels. The other sample was collected from the bottom of the snow pack, which was lighter, and less dense.
For the second day, one cylinder for snow collection instead of two so that the same sample could be used
for, weight-weight and weight-volume measurements. We used a Ziploc bag to collect snow samples for the
densely packed snow layer on the top.
From this location, snow surface temperature, snow subsurface, and soil surface temperature was
recorded for both data collection days.
In order to measure the snows pH and conductivity, we used our volume- volume sample and used a pH
meter. On the second day, we tried to determine the pH of the snow by using litmus paper, but it was not
accurate since litmus paper is intended to be used for water near room temperature.

Results & Discussion

Table 1 (First Data Collection Day) and Table 2 (Second Data Collection Day) on the last page specify
predictions for both the first and second data collection days. All predictions on the first day were based on
prior knowledge obtained from different circumstances, and predictions from the second data collection day
were based on what was measured on the first.
The snow on the first day was light and fluffy from top to bottom. On the second day, there was a crust
on the uppermost portion of the snow pack. This was probably due to the fact that there was wind blowing
over the snow for over a week. Below this compact crustal layer, the snow was light and fluffy as it was on
the first data collection day. Along with this, the table below indicates that there was a sizeable difference
between the snow depth of the first day and the second. The fact that the uppermost layer of snow was
denser than the snow below indicates that the wind over the week that passed over the snow contributed to
the drop in snow level. The factor which caused this decrease was mainly gravity. The snow had been there
for a while by the time the second data collection day came, so the snow layer compacted itself due to its
own weight. Because of this, the soil, and in most cases, the subsurface temperature as well, will be higher
than the surface temperature due to the small amount of heat which occurs due to compaction. This can even
be seen when the snow is light and fluffy as indicated on day one.
Also to be noted about the snow depth, is the fact that it was always the deepest on the slope. This is
understandable considering that we measured the snow depth by measuring straight downward. If we had

measured at an angle equal to the angle of the slope, then we probably would have had the same
measurements for slope as we did for the flat portions.
From the volume-volume levels collected, the snow had a varying composition between February 3rd and
February 10th. The snow collected on the first day contained more water compared to the volume it filled as
solid snow, compared to the second day. This was due to the snow composition between the two days. The
snow from the first day did not have as large of air spaces as the snow on the second day. Since the crustal
volume from the snow on the second day was significantly smaller than that of the first, the snow beneath
this layer must have had larger air spaces compared to the snow sample obtained on the first day. This is
evident by comparing the weight- weight and weight volume results for the top layer of the snow profile to
the same results for the snow collected on the first day. The top layer is both heavier and contains more
liquid compared to its weight before it has melted.
Other forms of analysis can be conducted with the data that we collected. On the first day, the pH of the
snow was at 6.2. Although this was within a normal level, it was slightly more acidic than what was
predicted. The snow was more acidic the second day. This was due to the pollution which came into contact
with the snow as it was falling, and that continued to absorb these air pollutants as the snow settled.
Although it is a concern that the pH of the snow may have changed as it was melting indoors, taking into
consideration that the snow collection site was located within an urban environment, the influence of the
amount of error that could have occurred is somewhat reduced.
IV.

Conclusion
There are a number of different factors which can be determined by taking a snow sample. Of these
factors, past climactic conditions can be determined, along with the amount of hazardous air pollutants, and
the volume of water to be expected after the snow melts can be predicted.
Past climactic conditions in this case indicated that the wind passing over the snow over time caused a
crust to form over the snowpack. Therefore, by looking at the composition of the snow, it is possible to
deduce a rough estimate of how long the snow has been present by looking at current weather conditions as
well as the presence of this crustal layer, which is present when the snow has been in the same area for an
extended amount of time.
Through this analysis, it was also quite probable that the pH of the snow will vary based on the local
environment. Highly urbanized areas will most likely have more acidic snow. This has a large impact on
local streams when the snow melts and increases runoff rates. Acidic runoff can cause significant
alterations to both the local water chemistry and aquatic life. It can be particularly harmful to aquatic
communities because it occurs during the early life stages of many aquatic animals.
Determining runoff rates is a key function determining runoff rates during the spring thaw. As stated in
the previous paragraph, it is crucial to predict runoff rates in order to predict the potential effects of acidic
runoff in urban areas. Weight- weight measurements were also crucial to this study because of the effects
that snow can have on the roofs of buildings. In warm areas with little precipitation, flat roofs are utilized,
but this may not be the best option in areas that experience snowfall because of how much heavier snow is
than water.
In short, by comparing the composition of snow between two, or more time periods, we can hypothesize
past weather conditions, as well as the different types of potential impacts that snow can have because of
snows ability to take form in various compositions.

Table 1
First Data Collection Day - February 3rd, 2015
Location

Variable

Prediction

Observed

General

Wind Speed
Altitude
Temperature

4.0 mph
15F

3.0 mph
413.4 or 126 m
-3.1 C or 26.5F

Slope

Slope direction
Snow Depth

11

SW facing slope
15.0 or 38.1 cm

Snow Surface Temp.

20F

-19.0C or -2.2F

Snow Subsurface Temp.

9F

-19.0C or -2.2F

Soil Temperature

5F

-10.0C or 14.0F

Volume (frozen)/Volume
(melted)

Weight (frozen)/Weight
(melted)

1g/mL

Weight (frozen)/Volume
(melted)

1g

pH
Conductivity

7
-

3.8
Or
70 mL frozen/18.5 mL melted
1.0
Or
726.0 g frozen/315 mL melted
1.6 g/mL
Or
519 g frozen/18.5 mL melted
6.2
70 s/cm

Snow Depth
Snow Depth

9
2

11.5 or 29.2 cm
6 or 15.2 cm

Flat
Under Canopy

Table 2
Second Data Collection Day - February 10th, 2015
Location

Variable

Prediction

Observed

General

Wind Speed
Altitude
Temperature
Atmospheric Pressure
Dew Point

5.0 mph
10
-

0.0 mph
413.4 or 126 m
-3.1 C or 26.5F
998 mb
-10.1 C or 13.8F

Slope

Slope direction
Snow Depth

12

SW facing slope
10.0 or 25.4 cm

Snow Surface Temp.

20F

-8.0C or 17.6F

Snow Subsurface Temp.

10F

-13.0C or 8.6F

Soil Temperature

5F

-16.0C or 3.2F

Volume (frozen)/Volume
(melted)

5.0

Top of Snow Profile

Weight (frozen)/Volume
(melted)

3.0

Top of Snow Profile

Weight (frozen)/Weight
(melted)

Bottom of Snow Profile

Weight (frozen)/Weight
(melted)

Bottom of Snow Profile

Weight (frozen)/Volume
(melted)

pH
Conductivity

6.0

2.9
Or
80 mL frozen/28 mL melted
1.9 g/mL
Or
338.0 g frozen/532.0 g melted
1.0
Or
338.0 g frozen / 337.5 g melted
1.0
Or
546.0 g frozen/532 g melted
1.1 g/mL
Or
546 g frozen/508 mL melted
5.2
21 .6 s/cm

Snow Depth
Snow Depth
pH
Conductivity

7
5
6.0
-

Flat
Under Canopy
Adjacent to Statue

9 or 22.9 cm
4.5 or 11.4 cm
5.4
50.4