Characterization and intercomparison of aerosol absorption photometers: Result of two intercomparison workshops

T. Müller, J. S. Henzing, G. De Leeuw, A. Wiedensohler, A. Alastuey, H. Angelov, M. Bizjak, M. Collaud Coen, J. E. Engström, C. Gruening, R. Hillamo, A. Hoffer, K. Imre, P. Ivanow, G. Jennings, J. Y. Sun, N. Kalivitis, H. Karlsson, M. Komppula, P. LajS. M. Li, C. Lunder, A. Marinoni, S. Martins Dos Santos, M. Moerman, A. Nowak, J. A. Ogren, A. Petzold, J. M. Pichon, S. Rodriquez, S. Sharma, P. J. Sheridan, K. Teinilä, T. Tuch, M. Viana, A. Virkkula, E. Weingartner, R. Wilhelm, Y. Q. Wang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

143 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)245-268
Number of pages24
JournalAtmospheric Measurement Techniques
Volume4
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Fingerprint

photometer
aerosol
filter
aerosol property
absorption coefficient
soot
black carbon
scattering
particle

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Atmospheric Science

Cite this

Müller, T., Henzing, J. S., De Leeuw, G., Wiedensohler, A., Alastuey, A., Angelov, H., ... Wang, Y. Q. (2011). Characterization and intercomparison of aerosol absorption photometers: Result of two intercomparison workshops. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 4(2), 245-268. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-245-2011

Characterization and intercomparison of aerosol absorption photometers : Result of two intercomparison workshops. / 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.

In: Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2011, p. 245-268.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Müller, T, Henzing, JS, De Leeuw, G, Wiedensohler, A, Alastuey, A, Angelov, H, Bizjak, M, Collaud Coen, M, Engström, JE, Gruening, C, Hillamo, R, Hoffer, A, Imre, K, Ivanow, P, Jennings, G, Sun, JY, Kalivitis, N, Karlsson, H, Komppula, M, Laj, P, Li, SM, Lunder, C, Marinoni, A, Martins Dos Santos, S, Moerman, M, Nowak, A, Ogren, JA, Petzold, A, Pichon, JM, Rodriquez, S, Sharma, S, Sheridan, PJ, Teinilä, K, Tuch, T, Viana, M, Virkkula, A, Weingartner, E, Wilhelm, R & Wang, YQ 2011, 'Characterization and intercomparison of aerosol absorption photometers: Result of two intercomparison workshops', Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 245-268. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-245-2011
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. / Characterization and intercomparison of aerosol absorption photometers : Result of two intercomparison workshops. In: Atmospheric Measurement Techniques. 2011 ; Vol. 4, No. 2. pp. 245-268.
@article{5fb238d40f174be789907c0c68fdfab2,
title = "Characterization and intercomparison of aerosol absorption photometers: Result of two intercomparison workshops",
abstract = "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.",
author = "T. M{\"u}ller and Henzing, {J. S.} and {De Leeuw}, G. and A. Wiedensohler and A. Alastuey and H. Angelov and M. Bizjak and {Collaud Coen}, M. and Engstr{\"o}m, {J. E.} and C. Gruening and R. Hillamo and A. Hoffer and K. Imre and P. Ivanow and G. Jennings and Sun, {J. Y.} and N. Kalivitis and H. Karlsson and M. Komppula and P. Laj and Li, {S. M.} and C. Lunder and A. Marinoni and {Martins Dos Santos}, S. and M. Moerman and A. Nowak and Ogren, {J. A.} and A. Petzold and Pichon, {J. M.} and S. Rodriquez and S. Sharma and Sheridan, {P. J.} and K. Teinil{\"a} and T. Tuch and M. Viana and A. Virkkula and E. Weingartner and R. Wilhelm and Wang, {Y. Q.}",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.5194/amt-4-245-2011",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "245--268",
journal = "Atmospheric Measurement Techniques",
issn = "1867-1381",
publisher = "Copernicus Gesellschaft mbH",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Characterization and intercomparison of aerosol absorption photometers

T2 - Result of two intercomparison workshops

AU - Müller, T.

AU - Henzing, J. S.

AU - De Leeuw, G.

AU - Wiedensohler, A.

AU - Alastuey, A.

AU - Angelov, H.

AU - Bizjak, M.

AU - Collaud Coen, M.

AU - Engström, J. E.

AU - Gruening, C.

AU - Hillamo, R.

AU - Hoffer, A.

AU - Imre, K.

AU - Ivanow, P.

AU - Jennings, G.

AU - Sun, J. Y.

AU - Kalivitis, N.

AU - Karlsson, H.

AU - Komppula, M.

AU - Laj, P.

AU - Li, S. M.

AU - Lunder, C.

AU - Marinoni, A.

AU - Martins Dos Santos, S.

AU - Moerman, M.

AU - Nowak, A.

AU - Ogren, J. A.

AU - Petzold, A.

AU - Pichon, J. M.

AU - Rodriquez, S.

AU - Sharma, S.

AU - Sheridan, P. J.

AU - Teinilä, K.

AU - Tuch, T.

AU - Viana, M.

AU - Virkkula, A.

AU - Weingartner, E.

AU - Wilhelm, R.

AU - Wang, Y. Q.

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84862833587&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84862833587&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5194/amt-4-245-2011

DO - 10.5194/amt-4-245-2011

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84862833587

VL - 4

SP - 245

EP - 268

JO - Atmospheric Measurement Techniques

JF - Atmospheric Measurement Techniques

SN - 1867-1381

IS - 2

ER -