Laboratory and field comparison of measurements obtained using the available diffusive samplers for ozone and nitrogen dioxide in ambient air

Abstract

This study presents an evaluation of the extent of differences between measurements performed by O(3) and NO(2) diffusive samplers and by the reference methods for diffusive samplers commercially available. The tests were performed in an exposure chamber under extreme conditions of controlling factors and under field conditions. For NO(2), the results of the laboratory experiments showed that most of the diffusive samplers were affected by extreme exposure conditions. The agreement between the samplers and the reference method was better for the field tests than for the laboratory ones. The estimate of the uptake rate for the exposure conditions using a model equation improved the agreement between the diffusive samplers and the reference methods. The agreement between O(3) measured by the diffusive samplers and by the reference method was satisfactory for 1-week exposure. For 8-hour exposures, the diffusive samplers with high uptake rates quantified better the O(3) concentration than the samplers with low uptake rates. As for NO(2), the results of the O(3) field tests were in better agreement with the reference method than the ones of the laboratory tests. The field tests showed that the majority of diffusive samplers fulfils the 25% uncertainty requirement of the NO(2) European Directive and the 30% uncertainty requirement of the O(3) European Directive for 1-week exposure.

Simultaneous measurement of nitrous acid, nitric acid, and nitrogen dioxide by means of a novel multipollutant diffusive sampler in libraries and archives

“…The standard deviations for multipollutant samples were found to be 4 % for NO 2 and 20 % for HNO 3 and for Analyst samplers 5 % for NO 2 and 26 % for HNO 3 . These results were in agreement with the variations found by other studies [34,35] and also fulfil the ±25 % uncertainty requirement of the European Directive for indicative monitoring with diffusion samplers [36]. Higher values of the standard deviations were found for HONO measured by the multipollutant samplers (approximately 68 %).…”

Measurements of ground-level ozone in Czech mountain forests: what we have learnt from using diffusive samplers

“…In contrast to some other studies (e.g. Gerboles et al 2006;Gibson et al 2009), the theoretical uptake rate of 21.8 cm 3 min −1 stated by the producer (Ogawa Company 2001) did not prove realistic in this study. Therefore, we developed an empirical uptake rate based on collocated measurements of diffusive samplers and continuous monitoring, similar to Bytnerowicz et al (2008).…”

A national fine spatial scale land-use regression model for ozone

“…The sampling rate for the Ogawa passive sampler given in the Ogawa protocol was used as a constant of 21.8 mL min À 1 (Ogawa, 2001). The same sampling rate has been used different articles using the Ogawa passive sampler (Geyh et al, 2000;Gibson et al, 2009;Gerboles et al, 2006;Salem et al, 2009). The collection rate of passive samplers was shown not to be affected by temperature and humidity (Geyh et al, 2000;Gibson et al, 2009).…”