2006
DOI: 10.5194/acp-6-3163-2006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Technical note: Evaluation of standard ultraviolet absorption ozone monitors in a polluted urban environment

Abstract: Correspondence to: E. J. Dunlea (edward.dunlea@colorado.edu) particular monitor was poor owing to a combination of interferences from a contaminated particle filter and/or ozone scrubber. Suggestions for improved operation practices of these UV O 3 monitors and recommendations for future testing are made.

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
40
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
1
40
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A significant difference is observed during afternoon hours. The main cause for the observed discrepancy is the interference in the chemiluminescence measurements [Dunlea et al, 2007], although some difficulties remain when comparing a point measurement with a long path measurement (DOAS) due to spatial incoherence, which is expected to be more of an issue overnight [Dunlea et al, 2006;San Martini et al, 2006]. The main interfering constituents are the oxidation products of NO x such as HNO 3 , PAN, and other organic nitrates [Winer et al, 1974;U.S.…”
Section: Comparison With Doas Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A significant difference is observed during afternoon hours. The main cause for the observed discrepancy is the interference in the chemiluminescence measurements [Dunlea et al, 2007], although some difficulties remain when comparing a point measurement with a long path measurement (DOAS) due to spatial incoherence, which is expected to be more of an issue overnight [Dunlea et al, 2006;San Martini et al, 2006]. The main interfering constituents are the oxidation products of NO x such as HNO 3 , PAN, and other organic nitrates [Winer et al, 1974;U.S.…”
Section: Comparison With Doas Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dunlea et al 19 explored this question using data from the Mexico City region. They observed positive and negative differences between UV O 3 monitors and long-path DOAS instruments, depending on the particular site and the time of day.…”
Section: Effect Of Selected Chemicals On Omentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Arshinov et al 17 observed large differences between UV and solid-phase chemiluminescence O 3 measurements aboard a research ship and attributed the discrepancies to interference with the UV instrument caused by fine particles. Dunlea et al 19 compared UV absorption, DOAS, and open-path Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy O 3 measurements made at two urban locations. Average discrepancies between the UV instruments and the spectroscopic methods ranged from ϩ13 to Ϫ18% and were attributed to incorrect calibration factors for the UV O 3 monitors, although they acknowledged that interferences could not be ruled out.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Past studies of VOC interferences have typically been of three types: (1) measurement of total net ozone biases during irradiation of simulated atmospheres in smog chambers (Kleindeist et al, 1993;Leston et al, 2005), (2) simultaneous atmospheric measurements by different analyzers using different measurement techniques (Ollison et al, 2013;Dunlea et al, 2006), and (3) addition of selected VOCs to ozone analyzers to determine the interference from that particular VOC (Grosjean and Harrison, 1985;Spicer et al, 2010). All of these approaches contribute to our understanding of the significance of VOC interferences in ozone monitors; however, we have chosen the latter approach to initially evaluate our heated graphite scrubber because it is a more direct approach and reproducible signals can be easily quantified.…”
Section: Volatile Organic Compounds (Vocs)mentioning
confidence: 99%