Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Characterization and intercomparison of aerosol absorption photometers: result of two intercomparison workshops
Title: Characterization and intercomparison of aerosol absorption photometers: result of two intercomparison workshops
Authors: Müller, ThomasHenzing, J. S.Leeuw, Gerardus deWiedensohler, AlfredAlastuey, AndrésAngelov, H.Bizjak, MilanCollaud Coen, MartineEngström, ErikGruening, CarstenHillamo, RistoHoffer, AndrasImre, KornéliaIvanow, PetkoJennings, G.Sun, Jielun Y.Kalivitis, NikosKarlsson, HannaKomppula, MikkaLaj, PaoloLi, Shao-MengLunder, ChrisMarinoni, AngelaMartins dos Santos, SebastiaoMoerman, MarcelNowak, AndreasOgren, John A.Petzold, AndreasPichon, Jean MarcRodríguez González, Sergio ORCID RESEARCHERID Autor AEMETSharma, SangeetaSheridan, Patrick J.Teinilä, KimmoTuch, ThomasViana, MarVirkkula, AkiWeingartner, ErnestWilhelm, R.Wang, Yaqiang
Keywords: Absorption photometers; Aerosol properties; Photometers; Aerosoles; Fotómetros de absorción
Issue Date: 2011
Publisher: European Geosciences Union
Citation: Atmospheric Measurement Techniques. 2011, 4(2), p. 245-268
Publisher version:
Abstract: Absorption photometers for real time application have been available since the 1980s, but the use of filter-based instruments to derive information on aerosol properties (absorption coefficient and black carbon, BC) is still a matter of debate. Several workshops have been conducted to investigate the performance of individual instruments over the intervening years. Two workshops with large sets of aerosol absorption photometers were conducted in 2005 and 2007. The data from these instruments were corrected using existing methods before further analysis. The inter-comparison shows a large variation between the responses to absorbing aerosol particles for different types of instruments. The unit to unit variability between instruments can be up to 30% for Particle Soot Absorption Photometers (PSAPs) and Aethalometers. Multi Angle Absorption Photometers (MAAPs) showed a variability of less than 5%. Reasons for the high variability were identified to be variations in sample flow and spot size. It was observed that different flow rates influence system performance with respect to response to absorption and instrumental noise. Measurements with non absorbing particles showed that the current corrections of a cross sensitivity to particle scattering are not sufficient. Remaining cross sensitivities were found to be a function of the total particle load on the filter. The large variation between the response to absorbing aerosol particles for different types of instruments indicates that current correction functions for absorption photometers are not adequate.
Sponsorship : The work described in this paper was supported by the EU FP6 Integrated Infrastructures Initiatives (I3) project EUSAAR (European Supersites for Atmospheric Aerosol Research, project FP6-026140), with the EU FP6 Network of Excellence ACCENT (Atmospheric Composition Change: a European Network, project GOCE-CT-2004-505337) and the WMO GAW (Global Atmosphere Watch) program.
ISSN: 1867-8548
Appears in Collections:Artículos científicos 2010-2014

Files in This Item:
  File Description SizeFormat 
4,07 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
Show full item record

This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Arcimis Repository
Nota Legal Contacto y sugerencias