2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- ItemFormation and growth of nucleated particles into cloud condensation nuclei: Model-measurement comparison(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2013) Westervelt, D.M.; Pierce, J.R.; Riipinen, I.; Trivitayanurak, W.; Hamed, A.; Kulmala, M.; Laaksonen, A.; Decesari, S.; Adams, P.J.Aerosol nucleation occurs frequently in the atmosphere and is an important source of particle number. Observations suggest that nucleated particles are capable of growing to sufficiently large sizes that they act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), but some global models have reported that CCN concentrations are only modestly sensitive to large changes in nucleation rates. Here we present a novel approach for using long-term size distribution observations to evaluate a global aerosol model's ability to predict formation rates of CCN from nucleation and growth events. We derive from observations at five locations nucleation-relevant metrics such as nucleation rate of particles at diameter of 3 nm (J3), diameter growth rate (GR), particle survival probability (SP), condensation and coagulation sinks, and CCN formation rate (J100). These quantities are also derived for a global microphysical model, GEOS-Chem-TOMAS, and compared to the observations on a daily basis. Using GEOS-Chem-TOMAS, we simulate nucleation events predicted by ternary (with a 10−5 tuning factor) or activation nucleation over one year and find that the model slightly understates the observed annual-average CCN formation mostly due to bias in the nucleation rate predictions, but by no more than 50% in the ternary simulations. At the two locations expected to be most impacted by large-scale regional nucleation, Hyytiälä and San Pietro Capofiume, predicted annual-average CCN formation rates are within 34 and 2% of the observations, respectively. Model-predicted annual-average growth rates are within 25% across all sites but also show a slight tendency to underestimate the observations, at least in the ternary nucleation simulations. On days that the growing nucleation mode reaches 100 nm, median single-day survival probabilities to 100 nm for the model and measurements range from less than 1–6% across the five locations we considered; however, this does not include particles that may eventually grow to 100 nm after the first day. This detailed exploration of new particle formation and growth dynamics adds support to the use of global models as tools for assessing the contribution of microphysical processes such as nucleation to the total number and CCN budget.
- ItemIntercomparison of air ion spectrometers: An evaluation of results in varying conditions(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2011) Gagné, S.; Lehtipalo, K.; Manninen, H.E.; Nieminen, T.; Schobesberger, S.; Franchin, A.; Yli-Juuti, T.; Boulon, J.; Sonntag, A.; Mirme, S.; Mirme, A.; Hõrrak, U.; Petäjä, T.; Asmi, E.; Kulmala, M.We evaluated 11 air ion spectrometers from Airel Ltd. after they had spent one year in field measurements as a part of the EUCAARI project: 5 Air Ion Spectrometers (AIS), 5 Neutral cluster and Air Ion Spectrometers (NAIS) and one Airborne NAIS (ANAIS). This is the first time that an ANAIS is evaluated and compared so extensively. The ion spectrometers' mobility and concentration accuracy was evaluated. Their measurements of ambient air were compared between themselves and to reference instruments: a Differential Mobility Particle Sizer (DMPS), a Balanced Scanning Mobility Analyzer (BSMA), and an Ion-DMPS. We report on the simultaneous measurement of a new particle formation (NPF) event by all 11 instruments and the 3 reference instruments. To our knowledge, it is the first time that the size distribution of ions and particles is measured by so many ion spectrometers during a NPF event. The new particle formation rates (~0.2 cm−3 s−1 for ions and ~2 cm−3 s−1 for particles) and growth rates (~25 nm h−1 in the 3–7 nm size range) were calculated for all the instruments. The NAISs and the ANAIS gave higher concentrations and formation rates than the AISs. For example, the AISs agreed with the BSMA within 11 % and 28 % for negative and positive ion concentration respectively, whereas the NAISs agreed within 23 % and 29 %. Finally, based on the results presented here, we give guidelines for data evaluation, when data from different individual ion spectrometers are compared.