The importance of size ranges in aerosol instrument intercomparisons: a case study for the Atmospheric Tomography Mission
<p>Aerosol intercomparisons are inherently complex as they convolve instrument-dependent detection efficiencies vs. size (which often change with pressure, temperature, or humidity) and variations in the sampled aerosol population, in addition to differences in chemical detection principles (e...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2021-05-01
|
Series: | Atmospheric Measurement Techniques |
Online Access: | https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/3631/2021/amt-14-3631-2021.pdf |
id |
doaj-43cbaca782244fd39a552a5c2fc5447d |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
H. Guo H. Guo P. Campuzano-Jost P. Campuzano-Jost B. A. Nault B. A. Nault B. A. Nault D. A. Day D. A. Day J. C. Schroder J. C. Schroder J. C. Schroder D. Kim D. Kim J. E. Dibb M. Dollner B. Weinzierl J. L. Jimenez J. L. Jimenez |
spellingShingle |
H. Guo H. Guo P. Campuzano-Jost P. Campuzano-Jost B. A. Nault B. A. Nault B. A. Nault D. A. Day D. A. Day J. C. Schroder J. C. Schroder J. C. Schroder D. Kim D. Kim J. E. Dibb M. Dollner B. Weinzierl J. L. Jimenez J. L. Jimenez The importance of size ranges in aerosol instrument intercomparisons: a case study for the Atmospheric Tomography Mission Atmospheric Measurement Techniques |
author_facet |
H. Guo H. Guo P. Campuzano-Jost P. Campuzano-Jost B. A. Nault B. A. Nault B. A. Nault D. A. Day D. A. Day J. C. Schroder J. C. Schroder J. C. Schroder D. Kim D. Kim J. E. Dibb M. Dollner B. Weinzierl J. L. Jimenez J. L. Jimenez |
author_sort |
H. Guo |
title |
The importance of size ranges in aerosol instrument intercomparisons: a case study for the Atmospheric Tomography Mission |
title_short |
The importance of size ranges in aerosol instrument intercomparisons: a case study for the Atmospheric Tomography Mission |
title_full |
The importance of size ranges in aerosol instrument intercomparisons: a case study for the Atmospheric Tomography Mission |
title_fullStr |
The importance of size ranges in aerosol instrument intercomparisons: a case study for the Atmospheric Tomography Mission |
title_full_unstemmed |
The importance of size ranges in aerosol instrument intercomparisons: a case study for the Atmospheric Tomography Mission |
title_sort |
importance of size ranges in aerosol instrument intercomparisons: a case study for the atmospheric tomography mission |
publisher |
Copernicus Publications |
series |
Atmospheric Measurement Techniques |
issn |
1867-1381 1867-8548 |
publishDate |
2021-05-01 |
description |
<p>Aerosol intercomparisons are inherently complex as they convolve
instrument-dependent detection efficiencies vs. size (which often change
with pressure, temperature, or humidity) and variations in the sampled
aerosol population, in addition to differences in chemical detection
principles (e.g., inorganic-only nitrate vs. inorganic plus
organic nitrate for two instruments). The NASA Atmospheric Tomography
Mission (ATom) spanned four separate aircraft deployments which sampled the remote marine troposphere from 86<span class="inline-formula"><sup>∘</sup></span> S to 82<span class="inline-formula"><sup>∘</sup></span> N over
different seasons with a wide range of aerosol concentrations and
compositions. Aerosols were quantified with a set of carefully characterized and calibrated instruments, some based on particle sizing and some on composition measurements. This study aims to provide a critical evaluation of inlet transmissions impacting aerosol intercomparisons, and of aerosol quantification during ATom, with a focus on the aerosol mass spectrometer (AMS). The volume determined from physical sizing instruments (aerosol microphysical properties, AMP, 2.7 nm to 4.8 <span class="inline-formula">µm</span> optical diameter) is compared in detail with that derived from the chemical measurements of the AMS and the single particle soot photometer (SP2). Special attention was paid to characterize the upper end of the AMS size-dependent transmission with in-field calibrations, which we show to be critical for accurate comparisons across instruments with inevitably different size cuts. Observed differences between campaigns emphasize the importance of characterizing AMS transmission for each instrument and field study for meaningful interpretation of instrument comparisons. Good agreement (regression slope <span class="inline-formula">=0.949</span> and <span class="inline-formula">1.083</span> for ATom-1 and ATom-2, respectively; SD <span class="inline-formula">=0.003</span>) was found between the composition-based volume (including AMS-quantified sea salt) and that derived from AMP after applying the AMS inlet transmission. The AMS captured, on average, <span class="inline-formula">95±15</span> % of the standard PM<span class="inline-formula"><sub>1</sub></span> volume (referred to as the URG Corp. standard cut 1 <span class="inline-formula">µm</span> cyclone operated at its nominal efficiency). These results support the absence of significant unknown biases and the appropriateness of the accuracy estimates for AMS total mass and volume for the mostly aged air masses encountered in ATom. The particle size ranges (and their altitude dependence) that are sampled by the AMS and complementary composition instruments (such as soluble acidic gases and aerosol, SAGA, and particle analysis by laser mass spectrometry, PALMS) are investigated to inform their use in future studies.</p> |
url |
https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/3631/2021/amt-14-3631-2021.pdf |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT hguo theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT hguo theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT pcampuzanojost theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT pcampuzanojost theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT banault theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT banault theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT banault theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT daday theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT daday theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT jcschroder theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT jcschroder theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT jcschroder theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT dkim theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT dkim theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT jedibb theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT mdollner theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT bweinzierl theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT jljimenez theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT jljimenez theimportanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT hguo importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT hguo importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT pcampuzanojost importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT pcampuzanojost importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT banault importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT banault importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT banault importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT daday importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT daday importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT jcschroder importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT jcschroder importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT jcschroder importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT dkim importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT dkim importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT jedibb importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT mdollner importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT bweinzierl importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT jljimenez importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission AT jljimenez importanceofsizerangesinaerosolinstrumentintercomparisonsacasestudyfortheatmospherictomographymission |
_version_ |
1721435547742765056 |
spelling |
doaj-43cbaca782244fd39a552a5c2fc5447d2021-05-20T07:06:13ZengCopernicus PublicationsAtmospheric Measurement Techniques1867-13811867-85482021-05-01143631365510.5194/amt-14-3631-2021The importance of size ranges in aerosol instrument intercomparisons: a case study for the Atmospheric Tomography MissionH. Guo0H. Guo1P. Campuzano-Jost2P. Campuzano-Jost3B. A. Nault4B. A. Nault5B. A. Nault6D. A. Day7D. A. Day8J. C. Schroder9J. C. Schroder10J. C. Schroder11D. Kim12D. Kim13J. E. Dibb14M. Dollner15B. Weinzierl16J. L. Jimenez17J. L. Jimenez18Department of Chemistry, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309, USACooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309, USADepartment of Chemistry, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309, USACooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309, USADepartment of Chemistry, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309, USACooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309, USAnow at: Aerodyne Research Incorporated, Billerica, MA, 01821, USADepartment of Chemistry, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309, USACooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309, USADepartment of Chemistry, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309, USACooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309, USAnow at: Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO, 80246, USADepartment of Chemistry, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309, USACooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309, USAEarth Systems Research Center, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 03824, USAUniversity of Vienna, Faculty of Physics, Aerosol Physics and Environmental Physics, Vienna, 1090, AustriaUniversity of Vienna, Faculty of Physics, Aerosol Physics and Environmental Physics, Vienna, 1090, AustriaDepartment of Chemistry, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309, USACooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309, USA<p>Aerosol intercomparisons are inherently complex as they convolve instrument-dependent detection efficiencies vs. size (which often change with pressure, temperature, or humidity) and variations in the sampled aerosol population, in addition to differences in chemical detection principles (e.g., inorganic-only nitrate vs. inorganic plus organic nitrate for two instruments). The NASA Atmospheric Tomography Mission (ATom) spanned four separate aircraft deployments which sampled the remote marine troposphere from 86<span class="inline-formula"><sup>∘</sup></span> S to 82<span class="inline-formula"><sup>∘</sup></span> N over different seasons with a wide range of aerosol concentrations and compositions. Aerosols were quantified with a set of carefully characterized and calibrated instruments, some based on particle sizing and some on composition measurements. This study aims to provide a critical evaluation of inlet transmissions impacting aerosol intercomparisons, and of aerosol quantification during ATom, with a focus on the aerosol mass spectrometer (AMS). The volume determined from physical sizing instruments (aerosol microphysical properties, AMP, 2.7 nm to 4.8 <span class="inline-formula">µm</span> optical diameter) is compared in detail with that derived from the chemical measurements of the AMS and the single particle soot photometer (SP2). Special attention was paid to characterize the upper end of the AMS size-dependent transmission with in-field calibrations, which we show to be critical for accurate comparisons across instruments with inevitably different size cuts. Observed differences between campaigns emphasize the importance of characterizing AMS transmission for each instrument and field study for meaningful interpretation of instrument comparisons. Good agreement (regression slope <span class="inline-formula">=0.949</span> and <span class="inline-formula">1.083</span> for ATom-1 and ATom-2, respectively; SD <span class="inline-formula">=0.003</span>) was found between the composition-based volume (including AMS-quantified sea salt) and that derived from AMP after applying the AMS inlet transmission. The AMS captured, on average, <span class="inline-formula">95±15</span> % of the standard PM<span class="inline-formula"><sub>1</sub></span> volume (referred to as the URG Corp. standard cut 1 <span class="inline-formula">µm</span> cyclone operated at its nominal efficiency). These results support the absence of significant unknown biases and the appropriateness of the accuracy estimates for AMS total mass and volume for the mostly aged air masses encountered in ATom. The particle size ranges (and their altitude dependence) that are sampled by the AMS and complementary composition instruments (such as soluble acidic gases and aerosol, SAGA, and particle analysis by laser mass spectrometry, PALMS) are investigated to inform their use in future studies.</p>https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/3631/2021/amt-14-3631-2021.pdf |