Filters

2011 - 20182

More filters

2019 - 201912020 - 20211
Reset filters

Settings

Author: Tuch, T. × Start date: 2010 × Type: Article × Subject: black carbon ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Variability of black carbon mass concentrations, sub-micrometer particle number concentrations and size distributions: results of the German Ultrafine Aerosol Network ranging from city street to High Alpine locations
    (Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 2018) Sun, J.; Birmili, W.; Hermann, M.; Tuch, T.; Weinhold, K.; Spindler, G.; Schladitz, A.; Bastian, S.; Löschau, G.; Cyrys, J.; Gu, J.; Flentje, H.; Briel, B.; Asbac, C.; Kaminski, H.; Ries, L.; Sohme, R.; Gerwig, H.; Wirtz, K.; Meinhardt, F.; Schwerin, A.; Bath, O.; Ma, N.; Wiedensohler, A.
    This work reports the first statistical analysis of multi-annual data on tropospheric aerosols from the German Ultrafine Aerosol Network (GUAN). Compared to other networks worldwide, GUAN with 17 measurement locations has the most sites equipped with particle number size distribution (PNSD) and equivalent black carbon (eBC) instruments and the most site categories in Germany ranging from city street/roadside to High Alpine. As we know, the variations of eBC and particle number concentration (PNC) are influenced by several factors such as source, transformation, transport and deposition. The dominant controlling factor for different pollutant parameters might be varied, leading to the different spatio-temporal variations among the measured parameters. Currently, a study of spatio-temporal variations of PNSD and eBC considering the influences of both site categories and spatial scale is still missing. Based on the multi-site dataset of GUAN, the goal of this study is to investigate how pollutant parameters may interfere with spatial characteristics and site categories. © 2019 The Authors
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Characterization and intercomparison of aerosol absorption photometers: Result of two intercomparison workshops
    (München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2011) 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.; Wang, Y.Q.
    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.