To investigate formation mechanisms of secondary organic carbon(SOC) in Eastern China,measurements were conducted in an urban site in Shanghai in the summer of 2015. A period of high O_3 concentrations(daily peak 120 ppb) was observed, during which daily maximum SOC concentrations exceeding 9.0 μg/(C·m~3). Diurnal variations of SOC concentration and SOC/organic carbon(OC) ratio exhibited both daytime and nighttime peaks. The SOC concentrations correlated well with O_x(= O_3+ NO_2) and relative humidity in the daytime and nighttime, respectively, suggesting that secondary organic aerosol formation in Shanghai is driven by both photochemical production and aqueous phase reactions. Single particle mass spectrometry was used to examine the formation pathways of SOC. Along with the daytime increase of SOC, the number fraction of elemental carbon(EC) particles coated with OC quickly increased from 38.1% to 61.9% in the size range of 250–2000 nm, which was likely due to gas-to-particle partitioning of photochemically generated semi-volatile organic compounds onto EC particles. In the nighttime, particles rich in OC components were highly hygroscopic, and number fraction of these particles correlated well with relative humidity and SOC/OC nocturnal peaks. Meanwhile, as an aqueous-phase SOC tracer, particles that contained oxalate-Fe(III) complex also peaked at night. These observations suggested that aqueous-phase processes had an important contribution to the SOC nighttime formation. The influence of aerosol acidity on SOC formation was studied by both bulk and single particle level measurements, suggesting that the aqueous-phase formation of SOC was enhanced by particle acidity. 相似文献
Objectives: In this article, we evaluate the sensitivity to cognitive load of 3 versions of the Detection Response Task method (DRT), proposed in ISO Draft Standard DIS-17488.
Methods: We present a user study with 30 participants in which we compared the sensitivity to cognitive load of visual, audio, and tactile DRT in a simulated driving environment. The amount of cognitive load was manipulated with secondary n-back tasks at 2 levels of difficulty (0-back and 1-back). We also explored whether the DRT method is least sensitive to cognitive load when the stimuli and secondary task are of the same modality. For this purpose, we used 3 forms to present the n-back task stimuli: visual, audio, and tactile. Responses to the task were always vocal. The experiment was based on a between-subject design (the DRT modalities) with 2 levels of within-subject design study (modalities and difficulty of the secondary n-back tasks). The participants' primary task in the study was to drive safely, and a second priority was to answer to DRT stimuli and perform secondary tasks.
Results: The results indicate that all 3 versions of the DRT tested were sensitive to detecting the difference in cognitive load between the reference driving period and driving and engaging in the secondary tasks. Only the visual DRT discriminated between the 0-back and 1-back conditions on mean response time. Contrary to expectations, no interaction was observed between DRT modality and the stimuli modality used for presentation of the secondary tasks.
Conclusions: None of the 3 methods of presenting DRT stimuli showed a consistent advantage in sensitivity in differentiating multiple levels of cognitive load if all response times, hit rates, and secondary task performance are considered. If only response time is considered, the visual presentation of the DRT stimulus used in this study showed some advantages. In interpreting these data, it should be noted that the methods of DRT stimulus presentation varied somewhat from the currently proposed draft ISO standard and it is possible that the relative salience level of the visual DRT stimulus influenced the findings. It is further suggested that more than 2 levels of difficulty of the n-back task should be considered for further investigation of the relative sensitivity of different DRT stimuli modalities. Parameters that indicate change in cognitive load (response time, hit rate, task performance) should be analyzed together in assessing the overall impact on the driver and not individually, in order to obtain a fuller insight of the assessed cognitive load. 相似文献