This interval is amplified in Figure 10, showing more clearly the difference between the two intensities, especially in the precipitation peaks, perhaps because the drop sizes recorded are larger. We should not forget that the larger the drop size, the larger the correction that needs to be introduced in the sampling area.Figure 10Rainfall intensities calculated with the sampling area uncorrected (GBPP) and corrected (GBPP corrected) during the most intense rainfall episode.The scope of the correction proposed in this study would be quite reduced, and perhaps reserved for theoretical use, if we did not compare it with other types of measurements that avail its transcendence. Together with the GBPP, the meteorological station contained a tipping bucket rain gauge, so we have been able to compare the precipitation recorded. For the episode we have studied, Figure 11 shows the accumulated precipitation as measured by the rain gauge and as calculated according to the data from the GBPP, with and without correction of the sampling area.Figure 11Comparison between the total rainfall recorded by the GBPP and by the rain gauge during the most intense rainfall episode.Of course we must bear in mind that the differences between the values measured by disdrometer and by rain gauges are due to a number of facts other than the sampling area, such as the discretization of diameter [64, 65], minimum detectable drop size, and others. Figure 11 corroborates that the precipitation calculated with the correction of the sampling area is higher than with the nominal sampling area. However, the most interesting aspect is that the values provided by the rain gauge are, generally, closer to those calculated with the corrected sampling area. We therefore argue that, although disdrometers generally tend to measure lower rainfall values than rain gauges, a correction of the sampling area may reduce these differences.The other variable studied in the previous epigraph is reflectivity, Z. Figure 12 shows the reflectivity values calculated as previously indicated. Once again, on reducing the sampling area the reflectivity increases, and the values found are twice those made using the nominal sampling area. This difference, which is evident when Z is represented on a linear scale, is eclipsed if the scale is logarithmic (e.g., when it is represented in dBZ units). It may be seen that in some minutes, the difference is as much as around 3dBZ, which represents a ratio equal to 2 in the reflectivity.Figure 12Reflectivity factors calculated with the sampling area uncorrected (GBPP) and corrected (GBPP corrected) during the most intense rainfall episode.