Reliability and quality of water isotope data collected with a lowbudget rain collector

RATIONALELow-budget rain collectors for water isotope analysis, such as the `ball-in-funnel type collector' (BiFC), are widely used in studies on stable water isotopes of rain. To date, however, an experimental quality assessment of such devices in relation to climatic factors does not exist. METHODSWe used Cavity Ring-Down Spectrometry (CRDS) to quantify the effects of evaporation on the O-18 values of reference water under controlled conditions as a function of the elapsed time between rainfall and collection for isotope analysis, the sample volume and the relative humidity (RH: 31% and 67%; 25 degrees C). The climate chamber conditions were chosen to reflect the warm and dry end of field conditions that favor evaporative enrichment (EE). We also tested the performance of the BiFC in the field, and compared our H-2/O-18 data obtained by isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) with those from the Swiss National Network for the Observation of Isotopes in the Water Cycle (ISOT). RESULTSThe EE increased with time, with a 1 increase in the O-18 values after 10days (RH: 25%; 25 degrees C; 35mL (corresponding to a 5mm rain event); p <0.001). The sample volume strongly affected the EE (max. value +1.5 parts per thousand for 7mL samples (i.e., 1mm rain events) after 72h at 31% and 67% RH; p <0.001), whereas the relative humidity had no significant effect. Using the BiFC in the field, we obtained very tight relationships of the H-2/O-18 values (r(2) 0.95) for three sites along an elevational gradient, not significantly different from that of the next ISOT station. CONCLUSIONSSince the chosen experimental conditions were extreme compared with the field conditions, it was concluded that the BiFC is a highly reliable and inexpensive collector of rainwater for isotope analysis. Copyright (c) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Long-Distance Electronic Energy Transfer in Light-Harvesting Supramolecular Polymers.

The efficient collection of solar energy relies on the design and construction of well-organized light-harvesting systems. Herein we report that supramolecular phenanthrene polymers doped with pyrene are effective collectors of light energy. The linear polymers are formed through the assembly of short amphiphilic oligomers in water. Absorption of light by phenanthrene residues is followed by electronic energy transfer along the polymer over long distances (>100 nm) to the accepting pyrene molecules. The high efficiency of the energy transfer, which is documented by large fluorescence quantum yields, suggests a quantum coherent process.

Collecting the Painted Netherlands: The Art Collection of Ernest of Austria in Brussels

The (art) collection of Archduke Ernest of Austria (1553-1595) is widely unknown when it comes to early-modern Habsburg collections. Ernest, younger brother of Emperor Rudolf II (b. 1552) and educated at the Madrid court, was appointed Governor-General of the Netherlands by King Philip II of Spain, his uncle, in summer 1593. Ernest relocated his court from Vienna to Brussels in early 1594 and was welcomed there with lavish festivities: the traditional Blijde Inkomst, Joyous Entry, of the new sovereign. Unfortunately, the archduke died in February 1595 after residing in Brussels for a mere thirteen months. This investigation aims to shed new light on the archduke and his short-lived collecting ambitions in the Low Countries, taking into account that he had the mercantile and artistic metropolis Antwerp in his immediate reach. I argue, that his collecting ambitions can be traced back to one specific occasion: Ernest’s Joyous Entry into Antwerp in June 1594. There the archduke received a series of six paintings of Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1525/30-1569) known as The Months (painted in 1565), hanging today in separate locations in Vienna, New York and Prague. These works of art triggered Ernest’s collecting ambitions and prompted him to focus mainly on works of art and artefacts manufactured at or traded within the Netherlands during the last eight months of his lifetime. Additionally, it will be shown that the archduke was inspired by the paintings’ motifs and therefore concentrated on acquiring works of art depicting nature and landscape scenes from the 1560s and 1590s. On the basis of the archduke’s recently published account book (Kassabuch) and of the partially published inventory of his belongings, it becomes clear that Ernest of Austria must be seen in line with the better-known Habsburg collectors and that his specific collection of “the painted Netherlands” can be linked directly to his self-fashioning as a rightful sovereign of the Low Countries.

A Forgotten Original or an Original Copy? On MS. Douce 387 in the Bodleian Library: Collecting Early Modern Festival Books

Focusing on one manuscript, today in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, this chapter deals with the question how early modern objects became collectable items. The manuscript is categorized as MS. Douce 387 and its name indicates that it came from the collection of Francis Douce (1757–1834), who was keeper of manuscripts in the British Museum from 1799 until 1811. MS. Douce 387 is described in the catalogue of the Douce’ian collection as the “presentation copy with coloured designs by Marten de Vos and others” of the 1595 printed festival book Descriptio publicae gratulationis … in adventu … Ernesti archiducis Austriae. This festival book, printed in Antwerp’s Plantin-Moretus press, was commissioned by the magistrate of the city of Antwerp to commemorate the Joyous Entry of Archduke Ernest of Austria from June 1594; that an “archducal copy” bound in red velvet was commissioned as well and was owned by the Archduke is know as well. However, first research showed that Oxford copy cannot be this “archducal copy” or Marten de Vos’s artist’s copy even though it is the only know version with a handwritten text and hand-drawn illustrations. It rather should be examined as something totally different altogether. The main question remains why someone then commissioned a hand made version of this festival book, something unknown for other books of this genre? Why would someone between 1600 and 1800 sit down and copy texts and prints from a collectable book? Why was there such an on-going interest in early modern festival books? Could this manuscript be the only later made copy of the “archducal volume” or is it rather a forgery made for the European collectors’ market?