## 3 Results and Discussion
### Extent of Dust Accumulation and Soil Loss  
#### 3.2.1 Extent of Dust Accumulation  
Dust samples were collected using various dust collectors across different study areas at specific intervals during the summer season. The quantity of dust collected varied significantly based on the method and timing. The highest dust deposition was recorded using the Multi-Directional Collection Option (MDCO), followed by the Surface Dust Collector (SDC) and Big Spring Number Eight (BSNE). Table 2 and Figure 5 show that the highest average dust quantity (0.0133 tons ha\({}^{-1}\)) was collected from S11 using the BSNE, while the lowest was from S5 (0.0058 tons ha\({}^{-1}\)). Dust deposits peaked between 10 and 30 July, likely due to increased wind activity and the geographical positioning of the sites. Areas with higher wind erosion, such as S11, exhibited greater dust accumulation due to their topographic and climatic conditions. These findings are comparable with the results reported by [42], where areas with higher wind erosion showed increased dust accumulation, likely due to the region's topographic and climatic conditions. This variation highlights the influence of the collection method on the efficiency of dust capture, with MDCO proving most effective due to its low micro-roughness and high \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sites** & **Wind Erosion (ton ha\({}^{-1}\))** & **Wind Surface (ton ha\({}^{-1}\))** & **Dust Deposition (ton ha\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \hline S1 & 0.00308 \({}^{\rm{AB}}\) & 0.00531 \({}^{\rm{AC}}\) & 0.00049 \({}^{\rm{B}}\) \\ S2 & 0.02068 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00441 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00083 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) \\ S3 & 0.02191 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00358 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00644 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) \\ S4 & 0.00205 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00342 \({}^{\rm{CD}}\) & 0.00588 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) \\ S5 & 0.00168 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00314 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00558 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) \\ S6 & 0.00311 \({}^{\rm{AB}}\) & 0.00515 \({}^{\rm{AB}}\) & 0.00955 \({}^{\rm{B}}\) \\ S7 & 0.00225 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00418 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00803 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) \\ S8 & 0.00196 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00333 \({}^{\rm{CD}}\) & 0.00617 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) \\ S9 & 0.00181 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00335 \({}^{\rm{CD}}\) & 0.00627 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) \\ S10 & 0.00178 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00343 \({}^{\rm{CD}}\) & 0.00602 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) \\ S11 & 0.00363 \({}^{\rm{AB}}\) & 0.00608 \({}^{\rm{AD}}\) & 0.01327 \({}^{\rm{AD}}\) \\ S12 & 0.00272 \({}^{\rm{AB}}\) & 0.00444 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00803 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) \\ S13 & 0.00262 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00425 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00764 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) \\ S14 & 0.00237 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00372 \({}^{\rm{CD}}\) & 0.00737 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) \\ S15 & 0.00231 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00363 \({}^{\rm{CD}}\) & 0.00706 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) \\ S16 & 0.00272 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00435 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00838 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) \\ S17 & 0.00290 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00452 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00873 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) \\ S18 & 0.00242 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00367 \({}^{\rm{CD}}\) & 0.00733 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) \\ S19 & 0.00220 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 0.00355 \({}^{\rm{CD}}\) & 0.00677 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) \\ S20 & 0.00211 \({}^{\rm{CD}}\) & 0.00369 \({}^{\rm{CD}}\) & 0.00739 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Different superscript letters indicate significant differences among different average values of study location (S) down the table according to the least significant difference (LSD) test at \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Average values of collection of dust by variable dust collector at variable time intervals. Figure 5: The least significant difference (LSD) values at \(p<0.05\) for the amount of dust (ton h\({}^{-1}\)) collected by the variable dust collector devices at the different sites. particle capture rate. These findings align with the results of [14], where the MDCO method demonstrated superior efficiency in capturing dust particles due to its low micro-roughness and high particle capture rate.