2013
DOI: 10.5194/acp-13-10609-2013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of relative humidity on aerosol light scattering: results from different European sites

Abstract: Abstract. The effect of aerosol water uptake on the aerosol particle light scattering coefficient (σ sp ) is described in this study by comparing measurements from five European sites: the Jungfraujoch, located in the Swiss Alps at 3580 m a.s.l.; Ny-Ålesund, located on Spitsbergen in the Arctic; Mace Head, a coastal site in Ireland; Cabauw, a rural site in the Netherlands; and Melpitz, a regional background site in Eastern Germany. These sites were selected according to the aerosol type usually encountered at … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

10
195
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 207 publications
(209 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
10
195
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The average modeled enhancement factor f (RH = 85 %) during the campaign period was 4.03 ± 0.50 (mean ± standard deviation), which is higher than 3.24 ± 0.63 reported in Zieger et al (2010). One possible reason for this could be an overestimation of the apparent hygroscopicity (i.e., sea salt only attributed to the fine mode below 790 nm) leading to an overestimation of the resulting f (RH) (see also Zieger et al, 2013). Another reason for this bias could be the different dry scattering coefficient data used in the studies.…”
Section: Wet Scattering Coefficient Measurements Vs the Mie Model Dumentioning
confidence: 53%
“…The average modeled enhancement factor f (RH = 85 %) during the campaign period was 4.03 ± 0.50 (mean ± standard deviation), which is higher than 3.24 ± 0.63 reported in Zieger et al (2010). One possible reason for this could be an overestimation of the apparent hygroscopicity (i.e., sea salt only attributed to the fine mode below 790 nm) leading to an overestimation of the resulting f (RH) (see also Zieger et al, 2013). Another reason for this bias could be the different dry scattering coefficient data used in the studies.…”
Section: Wet Scattering Coefficient Measurements Vs the Mie Model Dumentioning
confidence: 53%
“…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.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the hygroscopic particle growth the following parameterization (Petters and Kreidenweis, 2007;Zieger et al, 2013) r wet (RH)…”
Section: Calculation Of Optical Properties Of Particle Ensemblesmentioning
confidence: 99%