A comparison of measurements of atmospheric ammonia by filter packs,transition-flow reactors,simple and annular denuders and fourier transform infrared spectroscopy |
| |
| Institution: | 2. Statewide Air Pollution Research Center, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, U.S.A.;3. Air and Industrial Hygiene Laboratory, California Department of Health Services, Barkeley, CA 94704, U.S.A.;4. Environmental Engineering Science Department and Environmental Quality Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, U.S.A.;5. Kananaskis Centre for Environmental Research, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 1N4;11. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA 95812, U.S.A.;1. Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, 3173-25 Showa-machi, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan;2. National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries, Fisheries Research Agency, 2-12-4 Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan;3. Hachinohe Station, Tohoku National Fisheries Research Institute, Fisheries Research Agency, 25-259 Shimomekurakubo, Same-cho, Hachinohe, Aomori, Japan;4. Meteorological Research Institute, Japan Meteorological Agency, 1-1 Nagamine, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan;5. School of Marine Science and Technology, Tokai University, 3-20-1 Orido, Shimizu-ku, Shizuoka, Shizuoka, Japan;1. Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah, 115 S 1460 E, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA;2. Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA;3. Global Change and Sustainability Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA;1. USDA-ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, P.O. Box 166, Clay Center, NE, USA;2. USDA-ARS, Agroecosystem Management Research Unit, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA;3. West Texas A&M University, Canyon, TX 79016, USA;4. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA;1. University of Nebraska-Lincoln, United States;2. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, United States;3. Argonne National Laboratory, United States;4. University of Tuscia DIBAF, Italy;5. University of Florida, United States;6. University of California-Berkeley, United States;7. University of Delaware, United States;1. Institut für Geowissenschaften, Klaus-Tschira-Labor für Kosmochemie, Universität Heidelberg, INF 236, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany;2. Institut für Nukleare Entsorgung (INE), Karlsruher Institut of Technologie (KIT), Hermann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1, 76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany;3. Institut für Theoretische Astrophysik, Zentrum für Astronomie, Universität Heidelberg, Albert-Ueberle-Str. 2, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany;4. MTA Atomki, Bem tér 18/c, 4026 Debrecen, Hungary;5. Max-Planck-Institut für Chemie, Hahn-Meitner-Weg 1, 55128 Mainz, Germany;1. Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269, United States;2. Department of Environmental Engineering, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin Province, 130022, China;3. Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269, United States |
| |
| Abstract: | Using data obtained during the 1985 Nitrogen Species Methods Comparison Study (1988,Atmospheric Environment22, 1517), several measurement methods for sampling ambient NH3 are compared. Eight days of continuous measurements at Pomona College, a smog receptor site in Los Angeles, provided an extensive data base for comparing the following methods: Fourier transform i.r. spectroscopy (FTIR), three filter pack configurations, a simple and an annular denuder, and the transition flow reactor. FTIR was defined as the reference method and it reported hourly NH3 concentrations ranging from > 60 to 2280 nmol m−3 (1.5−57ppb) during the course of the study, the highest values coming from the influence of nearby livestock operations.Although only limited quality assurance procedures were carried out, the following conclusions can, nevertheless, be drawn: most of the methods correlated highly with the FTIR method (correlation coefficientr > 0.96); generally, the linear regression slopes were close to unity and the intercepts were insignificantly different from zero at the 95% confidence level); relative to the FTIR average values, (1) for 4–6 h sampling periods, the averages of the three filter packs from three research groups were 83–130% and the annular denuder average was 87%, and (2) for 10–12 h sampling periods, the simple denuder averaged 90% and the two transition flow reactors were 77–98%. Possible reasons for the reported systematic biases are presented, but these are not able to fully explain the large range of differences reported by the various methods. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
