| Volumes and Issues Contents of Issue 2 |
www.atmos-meas-tech-discuss.net/3/1511/2010/
doi:10.5194/amtd-3-1511-2010
© Author(s) 2010. This work is distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Characterization and intercomparison of aerosol absorption photometers: result of two intercomparison workshops
1Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Leipzig, Germany
2Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, TNO, 80015 Utrecht, The Netherlands
3Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI), Climate Change Unit, Helsinki, Finland
4Finnish Meteorological Institute, Air Quality Research, Helsinki, Finland
5Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI), Kuopio Unit, Kuopio, Finland
6University of Helsinki, Dept of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
7Institute for Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain
8Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy (INRNE), Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
9University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Health Science, Ljubljana, Slovenia
10MeteoSwiss, Aerological Station, Les Invuardes, 1530 Payerne, Switzerland
11University of Stockholm, Department of Meteorology, Stockholm, Sweden
12European Commission – DG Joint Research Centre, IES/CCU, Ispra, Italy
13Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Pannonia, P.O. Box 158, 8201 Veszprém, Hungary
14National University of Ireland, Galway, School of Physics/Environmental Change Institute, Galway, Ireland
15Key Laboratory for Atmospheric Chemistry, Center for Atmosphere Watch and Services, Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing 100081, China
16Nikos Kalivitis, Environmental Chemical Processes Laboratory, Department of Chemistry, University of Crete, Greece
17Department of Applied Environmental Science(ITM), Stockholm University, Sweden
18CNRS/LaMP Université Blaise Pascal, 24, avenue des Landais, 63177 Aubière cedex, France
19Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l'Environnement Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble 1/CNRS, 38400 St Martin d'Hères, France
20Air Quality Research Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment Canada, 4905 Dufferin Street, Toronto, Ontario M3H 5T4, Canada
21Climate Research Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment Canada, 4905 Dufferin Street, Toronto, Ontario M3H 5T4, Canada
22Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU), Kjeller, Norway
23Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (ISAC-CNR), Via Gobetti 101, 40129 Bologna, Italy
24European Commission - DG Joint Research Centre, IES/CCU, Ispra, Italy
25NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, CO 80305, USA
26Institute für Physik der Atmosphäre, DLR, Oberpfaffenhofen, 82234, Wessling, Germany
27Izaña Atmospheric Research Center, AEMET, Associated Unit to CSIC "Studies on Atmospheric Pollution", La Marina 20, planta 6, 38071, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
28University of Huelva, Associated Unit to CSIC "Air Pollution", Campus El Carmen, 21071, Huelva, Spain
29Laboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
30German Weather Service, Meteorological Observatory Hohenpeißenberg, Department GAW, 82383 Hohenpeißenberg, Germany
31Centre for Atmosphere Watch and Services (CAWAS), Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences (CAMS), Beijing 100081, China
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.
Discussion Paper (PDF, 4004 KB) Interactive Discussion (Closed, 4 Comments) Final Revised Paper (AMT)
Notice on Discussion StatusCitation: Müller, T., Henzing, J. S., de Leeuw, G., Wiedensohler, A., Alastuey, A., Angelov, H., Bizjak, M., Collaud Coen, M., Engström, J. E., Gruening, C., Hillamo, R., Hoffer, A., Imre, K., Ivanow, P., Jennings, G., Sun, J. Y., Kalivitis, N., Karlsson, H., Komppula, M., Laj, P., Li, S.-M., Lunder, C., Marinoni, A., Martins dos Santos, S., Moerman, M., Nowak, A., Ogren, J. A., Petzold, A., Pichon, J. M., Rodriquez, S., Sharma, S., Sheridan, P. J., Teinilä, K., Tuch, T., Viana, M., Virkkula, A., Weingartner, E., Wilhelm, R., and Wang, Y. Q.: Characterization and intercomparison of aerosol absorption photometers: result of two intercomparison workshops, Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss., 3, 1511-1582, doi:10.5194/amtd-3-1511-2010, 2010. Bibtex EndNote Reference Manager XML
