30.P.13 Workshop on intercomparison of condensation nuclei and aerosol particle counters, vienna, 1993: an overview

Ankilov, A. N.; Baklanov, A.; Colhoun, M.; Enderle, K. H.; Filipovicova, D.; Gras, J. L.; Julanov, Yu.V.; Lindner, Andreas; Lushnikov, A. A.; Majerowicz, A.; Mavliev, Rashid; McGovern, Fiona; Mirme, A.; O'Connor, Thomas; Podzimek, Josef; Preining, O.; Reischl, G.; Rudolf, R.; Sem, Gilmore J.; Szymanski, Wladyslaw W.; Tamm, E.; Wagner, Paul; Winklmayr, Wolfgang; Zagaynov, V. A.

doi:10.1016/0021-8502(94)90496-0

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It measures particle size distribution in the size range 10 nm to 10 ¹m using only the electrical mobility method (Mirme 1994;Ankilov et al 1994;Kikas et al 1996;Tuch et al 2000). Particles of the ultra ne and submicrometer size range were measured using diffusion charging, and the coarse particles were measured using eld charging.…”

Section: The Intercomparison Of Spectrometersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intercomparison of Aerosol Spectrometers for Ambient Air Monitoring

Mirme¹,

Kreyling²,

Khlystov³

et al. 2002

Aerosol Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three aerosol spectrometers measuring the number concentration distribution of particles in the diameter range 0.01 to 2.5 ¹m were compared by running them side-by-side for 385 h under ambient air conditions in Erfurt, Germany in October 1997. From the spectral data the measured hourly number concentrations in 3 size fractions, the ultra ne fraction (0.01-0.1 ¹m), the accumulation fraction (0.1-0.5 ¹m), and the coarse fraction (0.5-2.5 ¹m), were analyzed. The systematic component of the difference between the instruments was assessed as the geometric mean of the ratio of the measured concentrations (GMR) and the random component as the geometric standard deviation of this ratio (GSR). Previous statistical methods to compare instruments were developed further. A nonlinear multivariate regression method was used to compare the aerosol distribution consisting of several size fractions. Also, the imprecision of the individual instruments (GSI) was estimated. Comparing the instruments within the ultra ne and accumulation fractions, both the GMRs and GSRs ranged between 1.06 and 1.23 and correlations were above 0.98. In the coarse fraction, the GMR of the number concentrations ranged between 0.25 and 4.19, the GSRs between 1.81 and 2.61, and the correlations between 0.72 and 0.85. The GSIs of the instruments were below 1.2 for all fractions but the coarse fraction. To explore possible differences in the classi cation of particles into the accumulation and coarse fractions, coarse fractions were regressed with the coarse and the accumulation fractions of the other instruments. Using a conversion based on this regression, the GSRs between instruments were minimized to 1.35 and the GSI to below 1.3. In conclusion, the aerosol spectrometers were in good agreement in the ultra ne and accumulation size fractions. The differences in the measured number concentrations in the coarse fraction were effectively corrected by using a regression method taking into account also the concentration in accumulation fraction, which suggests possible differences in particle sizing at 0.5 ¹m.

show abstract

Section: The Intercomparison Of Spectrometersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These instruments have mostly been developed to measure aerosol characteristics under laboratory conditions and their performance is usually tested with known laboratory-generated aerosols (Ankilov et al 1994;Fissan et al 1996). The results obtained in the laboratory can, however, only be partly transferred to ambient air measurements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%