TY - JOUR
T1 - INTERCOMP2000: The comparability of methods in use in Europe for measuring the carbon content of aerosol
AU - ten Brink, Harry M.
AU - Maenhaut, Willy
AU - Hitzenberger, Regina
AU - Gnauk, Thomas
AU - Spindler, Gerald
AU - Even, Arja
AU - Chi, Xuguang
AU - Bauer, Heidi
AU - Puxbaum, Hans
AU - Putaud, Jean Philippe
AU - Tursic, Janja
AU - Berner, Axel
N1 - DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.08.027
Coden: AENVE
Affiliations: Ener. Res. Centre of the Netherlands, P.O. Box 1, Bdg 004, Westduinweg 3, 1755 ZG, P.; Ghent University (UGent), Institute for Nuclear Sciences, Gent, Belgium; Institut fuer Experimentalphysik, University of Vienna (UniV), Vienna, Austria; Leibniz-Inst. F. T., Leipzig, Germany; Inst. Chem. Technol. and Analytics, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria; Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy; National Institute of Chemistry, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Adressen: Ener. Res. Centre of the Netherlands; P.O. Box 1; Bdg 004, Westduinweg 3, 1755 ZG, P.email: [email protected]
Source-File: ExpPhysScopus.csv
Import aus Scopus: 2-s2.0-1842836811
Importdatum: 14.02.2007 17:33:39
07.11.2007: Datenanforderung 1968 (Import Sachbearbeiter)
PY - 2004
Y1 - 2004
N2 - We tested the comparability of methods, in use in Europe, for measuring the concentration of aerosol-carbon. The study was performed in the framework of INTERCOMP2000, a field campaign organised in the first two weeks of April 2000 in the vicinity of the village of Melpitz, 45 km NE of Leipzig, Germany. Sampling of the aerosol took place with 19 samplers. Total carbon (TC) was measured with eleven methods and the mean concentration found for PM10 was close to 3 œg m-3, of which 90% was in the PM2.5 fraction. Carbon and associated compounds constituted approximately 25% of the total aerosol mass in this fine fraction. Starting point of the evaluation of the data were the concentrations stemming from two identical PM2.5 high-volume samplers, of which the samples were analysed by four institutes. The daily values of TC were highly correlated and the (random) differences were of an absolute nature, with an overall standard deviation (SD) of 0.22 (‘0.12) œg m-3. This value for the SD is only twice that in the data of the individual institutes for a similar number of samples. In the series of four PM10 filter-samplers, the highest concentration was obtained with the sampler that collected the lowest amount per unit of surface area. This difference is indicative of an artefact caused by adsorption of gaseous carbon containing compounds. Evidence for such an adsorption artefact was provided by the presence of carbon in back-up filters, in amounts up to 20% of those of front filters. Adsorption can also be (part of) the explanation for a difference of 30% observed between concentrations obtained with filters and cascade impactors as samplers, because the latter collectors do not suffer from an adsorption artefact. Samples were also analysed for elemental carbon (EC). While differences of more than a factor of three between methods were observed, the correlation of the daily EC-concentrations over the period was high, better than 0.9 (R2). Two institutes analysed samples from filters and cascade impactors in the same way. Both observed that the EC-values from the filters were a factor of 1.4 higher than those from the impactors. Three methods were used to determine black carbon (BC) by optical means. Differences between the methods were large, but apparently of a systematic nature, because the correlation of the daily BC-values was very good. The correlation of daily BC and EC concentrations was also high. Œ 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
AB - We tested the comparability of methods, in use in Europe, for measuring the concentration of aerosol-carbon. The study was performed in the framework of INTERCOMP2000, a field campaign organised in the first two weeks of April 2000 in the vicinity of the village of Melpitz, 45 km NE of Leipzig, Germany. Sampling of the aerosol took place with 19 samplers. Total carbon (TC) was measured with eleven methods and the mean concentration found for PM10 was close to 3 œg m-3, of which 90% was in the PM2.5 fraction. Carbon and associated compounds constituted approximately 25% of the total aerosol mass in this fine fraction. Starting point of the evaluation of the data were the concentrations stemming from two identical PM2.5 high-volume samplers, of which the samples were analysed by four institutes. The daily values of TC were highly correlated and the (random) differences were of an absolute nature, with an overall standard deviation (SD) of 0.22 (‘0.12) œg m-3. This value for the SD is only twice that in the data of the individual institutes for a similar number of samples. In the series of four PM10 filter-samplers, the highest concentration was obtained with the sampler that collected the lowest amount per unit of surface area. This difference is indicative of an artefact caused by adsorption of gaseous carbon containing compounds. Evidence for such an adsorption artefact was provided by the presence of carbon in back-up filters, in amounts up to 20% of those of front filters. Adsorption can also be (part of) the explanation for a difference of 30% observed between concentrations obtained with filters and cascade impactors as samplers, because the latter collectors do not suffer from an adsorption artefact. Samples were also analysed for elemental carbon (EC). While differences of more than a factor of three between methods were observed, the correlation of the daily EC-concentrations over the period was high, better than 0.9 (R2). Two institutes analysed samples from filters and cascade impactors in the same way. Both observed that the EC-values from the filters were a factor of 1.4 higher than those from the impactors. Three methods were used to determine black carbon (BC) by optical means. Differences between the methods were large, but apparently of a systematic nature, because the correlation of the daily BC-values was very good. The correlation of daily BC and EC concentrations was also high. Œ 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
U2 - 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.08.027
DO - 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.08.027
M3 - Article
SN - 1352-2310
VL - 38
SP - 6507
EP - 6519
JO - Atmospheric Environment
JF - Atmospheric Environment
IS - 38
ER -