2026
Testing the applicability of a non-contact IR thermometer for wall surface temperature measurements in a cave environment: A case study from the dynamic Císařská Cave (Moravian Karst)
LANG, Marek; Jiří FAIMON; Markéta GREGOROVÁ; Jindřich ŠTELCL; Filip CHALUPKA et al.Základní údaje
Originální název
Testing the applicability of a non-contact IR thermometer for wall surface temperature measurements in a cave environment: A case study from the dynamic Císařská Cave (Moravian Karst)
Autoři
Vydání
Acta Carsologica, Zalozba ZRC, 2026, 0583-6050
Další údaje
Jazyk
angličtina
Typ výsledku
Článek v odborném periodiku
Obor
10505 Geology
Stát vydavatele
Slovinsko
Utajení
není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
Odkazy
Impakt faktor
Impact factor: 1.100 v roce 2024
Označené pro přenos do RIV
Ano
Organizační jednotka
Přírodovědecká fakulta
UT WoS
EID Scopus
Klíčová slova anglicky
cave airflow; Císařská Cave; non-contact IR thermometer; temperature calibration; wall surface temperature
Příznaky
Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno
Změněno: 31. 8. 2026 13:54, Mgr. Marie Novosadová Šípková, DiS.
Anotace
V originále
The surface temperature of cave walls is important, particularly as a factor controlling water condensation and calcite corrosion, as well as in paleoclimatic reconstructions of external annual temperatures. The use of a non-contact IR thermometer (NCT) could provide an alternative method for monitoring wall surface temperature in inaccessible passages of the cave. However, temperatures obtained by the standard NCT showed increased error. The accuracy of the NCT was tested by comparison with a calibrated contact thermometer (CCT), which revealed a systematic error of –8.2 ± 1.2 °C for the right wall and –8.3 ± 0.9 °C for the left wall. Calibration with the equations T = 0.478×NCT + 8.254 (right wall) and T = 0.554×NCT + 8.308 (left wall) corrected this error. Uncertainty was tested by repeated measurements on a calibration area of 1.7 m2 in the cave, resulting in a random relative error of 4.25 % for dry wall surfaces and 4.95 % for wet wall surfaces. Although a relative error of 5 % is common for major instrumental methods, it is near the applicability limit for karstological interpretations.