Comparison of aerosol measurement systems during the 2016 airborne ARISTO campaign

被引:4
|
作者
Ortega, John [1 ]
Snider, Jefferson R. [2 ]
Smith, James N. [3 ]
Reeves, J. Michael [4 ]
机构
[1] Natl Ctr Atmospher Res, Atmospher Chem Observat & Modeling Lab, POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80301 USA
[2] Univ Wyoming, Dept Atmospher Sci, Laramie, WY 82071 USA
[3] Univ Calif Irvine, Dept Chem, Irvine, CA 92717 USA
[4] Natl Ctr Atmospher Res, Earth Observing Lab, Res Aviat Facil, Broomfield, CO USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
SPECTROMETER; AIRCRAFT; MOBILITY; PERFORMANCE; CALIBRATION; MORPHOLOGY; PARTICLES; SULFATE;
D O I
10.1080/02786826.2019.1610554
中图分类号
TQ [化学工业];
学科分类号
0817 ;
摘要
Several different types of measurements of particle size and concentration were compared during the 2016 Airborne Research Instrumentation Testing Opportunity (ARISTO) campaign. The scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) measured number-size distributions for mobility diameters between similar to 20-350 and similar to 8-110 nm, depending on the mobility analyzer chosen. Also included were two stand-alone condensation particle counters (CPC) for determining size-integrated particle concentrations. A wing-mounted and a rack-mounted Ultra-High Sensitivity Aerosol Spectrometer (UHSAS) were used to measure size distributions between 60 and 1000 nm. Lastly, two different sampling inlets were used to investigate performance and observe any systematic biases. Most sampling occurred during cloud-free summer conditions in the western United States. Number concentrations from the two CPCs typically agreed within 12% once the flows in the ultrafine particle counter were corrected as a function of pressure. As expected, the size-integrated number concentrations from the SMPS and UHSAS were generally less than those of the CPCs, as the former cover only part of the total range of particle sizes measured by the CPCs. Integrated number concentrations from the wing-mounted and rack-mounted UHSAS generally agreed within 20% for all diameter ranges analyzed. The overlap region between the SMPS and the UHSAS showed reasonable agreement of +/- 20%. Some of the uncertainty regarding these measurement comparisons originates from a variety of factors, including sampling frequency, particle refractive index, differences between physical and mobility diameters, and counting efficiency uncertainties in the UHSAS optical cavity, especially for the smallest diameters (60-100 nm). Copyright (c) 2019 American Association for Aerosol Research
引用
收藏
页码:871 / 885
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Aerosol scattering: Relation to primary and secondary aerosol production in the coastal atmosphere during the parforce campaign
    Kleefeld, C.
    O'Reilly, S.
    Jennings, S.G.
    Becker, E.
    O'Dowd, C.
    Kunz, G.
    De Leeuw, G.
    1600, Elsevier Ltd (31):
  • [42] Vertical Resolved Aerosol Characterization during the GAMARF Campaign: Aerosol Size Distribution and Radiative Properties
    Luis Gomez-Amo, Jose
    Meloni, Daniela
    di Sarra, Alcide
    Di Iorio, Tatiana
    Junkermann, Wolfgang
    Estelles, Victor
    Pace, Giandomenico
    Lorente, Jeroni
    RADIATION PROCESSES IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND OCEAN (IRS2012), 2013, 1531 : 151 - 154
  • [43] Water-soluble organic aerosol in the Los Angeles Basin and outflow regions: Airborne and ground measurements during the 2010 CalNex field campaign
    Duong, Hanh T.
    Sorooshian, Armin
    Craven, Jill S.
    Hersey, Scott P.
    Metcalf, Andrew R.
    Zhang, Xiaolu
    Weber, Rodney J.
    Jonsson, Haflidi
    Flagan, Richard C.
    Seinfeld, John H.
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2011, 116
  • [44] Airborne lidar observations of wind, water vapor, and aerosol profiles during the NASA Aeolus calibration and validation (Cal/Val) test flight campaign
    Bedka, Kristopher M.
    Nehrir, Amin R.
    Kavaya, Michael
    Barton-Grimley, Rory
    Beaubien, Mark
    Carroll, Brian
    Collins, James
    Cooney, John
    Emmitt, G. David
    Greco, Steven
    Kooi, Susan
    Lee, Tsengdar
    Liu, Zhaoyan
    Rodier, Sharon
    Skofronick-Jackson, Gail
    ATMOSPHERIC MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES, 2021, 14 (06) : 4305 - 4334
  • [45] Aerosol closure study by lidar, Sun photometry, and airborne optical counters during DAMOCLES field campaign at El Arenosillo sounding station, Spain
    Guerrero-Rascado, J. L.
    Andrey, J.
    Sicard, M.
    Molero, F.
    Comeron, A.
    Pujadas, M.
    Rocadenbosch, F.
    Pedros, R.
    Serrano-Vargas, O.
    Gil, M.
    Olmo, F. J.
    Lyamani, H.
    Navas-Guzman, F.
    Alados-Arboledas, L.
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2011, 116
  • [46] Comparison of heat flux measurement techniques during the DIII-D metal ring campaign
    Barton, J. L.
    Nygren, R. E.
    Unterberg, E. A.
    Watkins, J. G.
    Makowski, M. A.
    Moser, A.
    Rudakov, D. L.
    Buchenauer, D.
    PHYSICA SCRIPTA, 2017, T170
  • [47] Comparison of Airborne In Situ, Airborne Radar-Lidar, and Spaceborne Radar-Lidar Retrievals of Polar Ice Cloud Properties Sampled during the POLARCAT Campaign
    Delanoe, Julien
    Protat, Alain
    Jourdan, Olivier
    Pelon, Jacques
    Papazzoni, Mathieu
    Dupuy, Regis
    Gayet, Jean-Francois
    Jouan, Caroline
    JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY, 2013, 30 (01) : 57 - 73
  • [48] Comparison of airborne in situ, airborne radar-lidar, and spaceborne radar-lidar retrievals of polar ice cloud properties sampled during the POLARCAT campaign
    Laboratoire Atmosphère, Milieux, et Observations Spatiales, Guyancourt, France
    不详
    不详
    不详
    J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 2013, 1 (57-73):
  • [49] Carbon mass determinations during the AIDA soot aerosol campaign 1999
    Saathoff, H
    Naumann, KH
    Schnaiter, M
    Schöck, W
    Weingartner, E
    Baltensperger, U
    Krämer, L
    Bozoki, Z
    Pöschl, U
    Niessner, R
    Schurath, U
    JOURNAL OF AEROSOL SCIENCE, 2003, 34 (10) : 1399 - 1420
  • [50] Modelling soil dust aerosol in the Bodele depression during the BoDEx campaign
    Tegen, I.
    Heinold, B.
    Todd, M.
    Helmert, J.
    Washington, R.
    Dubovik, O.
    ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 2006, 6 : 4345 - 4359