Comparison of ambient aerosol extinction coefficients obtained from in-situ, MAX-DOAS and LIDAR measurements at Cabauw

Abstract

Abstract. In the field, aerosol in-situ measurements are often performed under dry conditions (relative humidity RH<30-40%). Since ambient aerosol particles experience hygroscopic growth at enhanced RH, their microphysical and optical properties -especially the aerosol light scatteringare also strongly dependent on RH. The knowledge of this RH effect is of crucial importance for climate forcing calculations or for the comparison of remote sensing with insitu measurements. Here, we will present results from a four-month campaign which took place in summer 2009 in Cabauw, The Netherlands. The aerosol scattering coefficient σ sp (λ) was measured dry and at various, predefined RH conditions between 20 and 95% with a humidified nephelometer. The scattering enhancement factor f (RH,λ) is the key parameter to describe the effect of RH on σ sp (λ) and is defined as σ sp (RH,λ) measured at a certain RH divided by the dry σ sp (dry,λ). The measurement of f (RH,λ) together with the dry absorption measurement (assumed not to change with RH) allows the determination of the actual extinction coefficient σ ep (RH,λ) at ambient RH. In addition, a wide range of other aerosol properties were measured in parallel. The measurements were used to characterize the effects of RH on the Correspondence to: E. Weingartner (ernest.weingartner@psi.ch) aerosol optical properties. A closure study showed the consistency of the aerosol in-situ measurements. Due to the large variability of air mass origin (and thus aerosol composition) a simple parameterization of f (RH,λ) could not be established. If f (RH,λ) needs to be predicted, the chemical composition and size distribution need to be known. Measurements of four MAX-DOAS (multi-axis differential optical absorption spectroscopy) instruments were used to retrieve vertical profiles of σ ep (λ). The values of the lowest layer were compared to the in-situ values after conversion of the latter ones to ambient RH. The comparison showed a good correlation of R 2 = 0.62-0.78, but the extinction coefficients from MAX-DOAS were a factor of 1.5-3.4 larger than the insitu values. Best agreement is achieved for a few cases characterized by low aerosol optical depths and low planetary boundary layer heights. Differences were shown to be dependent on the applied MAX-DOAS retrieval algorithm. The comparison of the in-situ extinction data to a Raman LIDAR (light detection and ranging) showed a good correlation and higher values measured by the LIDAR (R 2 = 0.82 − 0.85, slope of 1.69-1.76) if the Raman retrieved profile was used to extrapolate the directly measured extinction coefficient to the ground. The comparison improved if only nighttime measurements were used in the comparison (R 2 = 0.96, slope of

Hygroscopic growth study in the framework of EARLINET during the SLOPE I campaign: synergy of remote sensing and in situ instrumentation

“…These systems have been shown to be robust, with high vertical and temporal resolutions that allow for study of the aerosol hygroscopic growth under unmodified ambient conditions. Recent studies presented by Zieger et al (2011) and Rosati et al (2016) show good agreement between in situ and RL extinction coefficients after taking into account the RH effect on the in situ measured extinction coefficient. Also, it is possible to use aerosol extinction coefficient to compare with in situ airborne measures and elastic lidar to study hygroscopic growth in unmodified ambient conditions.…”

Airborne high spectral resolution lidar observation of pollution aerosol during EUCAARI-LONGREX

“…The influence of the relative humidity on the aerosol optical properties was e.g. discussed by Zieger et al (2011). Theoretical model studies (Ackermann, 1998) revealed that low relative humidity leads to lower values of the lidar ratio of pollution aerosols.…”

Observations of relative humidity effects on aerosol light scattering in the Yangtze River Delta of China

“…The wavelength dependence of scattering enhancement factor f (RH,λ) varies with generalized aerosol types. Kotchenruther and Hobbs (1998) and Zieger et al (2010Zieger et al ( , 2011 found no pronounced wavelength dependence of f (RH,λ) for biomass burning aerosols and arctic aerosols, respectively; Zieger et al (2013) found small variations (< 5 %) of f (RH,λ) at 450, 550, and 700 nm for several European sites; Kotchenruther et al (1999) and Magi and Hobbs (2003) reported significant wavelength dependence of f (RH,λ) for urban/industrial aerosols off the east coast of the United States. In this study, the wavelength dependence of enhancement factors was also investigated.…”