TY - JOUR
T1 - Field inter-comparison of eleven atmospheric ammonia measurement techniques
AU - von Bobrutzki, K
AU - Braban, CF
AU - Famulari, Daniela
AU - Jones, SK
AU - Blackall, T
AU - Smith, TEL
AU - Blom, M
AU - Coe, H
AU - Gallagher, M
AU - Ghalaieny, M
AU - McGillen, MR
AU - Percival, CJ
AU - Whitehead, JD
AU - Ellis, R
AU - Murphy, J
AU - Mohacsi, A
AU - Pogany, A
AU - Junninen, H
AU - Rantanen, S
AU - Sutton, Mark A
AU - Nemitz, Eiko
PY - 2010/1/27
Y1 - 2010/1/27
N2 - Eleven instruments for the measurement of ambient concentrations of atmospheric ammonia gas (NH3), based on eight different measurement methods were intercompared above an intensively managed agricultural field
in late summer 2008 in Southern Scotland. To test the instruments over a wide range of concentrations, the field was fertilised with urea midway through the experiment, leading to an increase in the average concentration from 10 to
100 ppbv. The instruments deployed included three wet chemistry systems, one with offline analysis (annular rotating batch denuder, RBD) and two with online-analysis (Annular Denuder sampling with online Analysis, AMANDA;
AiRRmonia), two Quantum Cascade Laser Absorption Spectrometers
(a large-cell dual system; DUAL-QCLAS, and a compact system; c-QCLAS), two photo-acoustic spectrometers (WaSul-Flux; Nitrolux-100), a Cavity Ring Down Spectrosmeter (CRDS), a Chemical Ionisation Mass Spectrometer
(CIMS), an ion mobility spectrometer (IMS) and an Open- Path Fourier Transform Infra-Red (OP-FTIR) Spectrometer. The instruments were compared with each other and with the average concentration of all instruments. An overall good
agreement of hourly average concentrations between the instruments
(R2>0.84), was observed for NH3 concentrations at the field of up to 120 ppbv with the slopes against the average ranging from 0.67 (DUAL-QCLAS) to 1.13 (AiRRmonia) with intercepts of −0.74 ppbv (RBD) to +2.69 ppbv (CIMS). More variability was found for performance for lower concentrations (<10 ppbv). Here the main factors affecting measurement precision are (a) the inlet design, (b) the
state of inlet filters (where applicable), and (c) the quality of gas-phase standards (where applicable). By reference to the fast (1 Hz) instruments deployed during the study, it was possible to characterize the response times of the slower instruments.
AB - Eleven instruments for the measurement of ambient concentrations of atmospheric ammonia gas (NH3), based on eight different measurement methods were intercompared above an intensively managed agricultural field
in late summer 2008 in Southern Scotland. To test the instruments over a wide range of concentrations, the field was fertilised with urea midway through the experiment, leading to an increase in the average concentration from 10 to
100 ppbv. The instruments deployed included three wet chemistry systems, one with offline analysis (annular rotating batch denuder, RBD) and two with online-analysis (Annular Denuder sampling with online Analysis, AMANDA;
AiRRmonia), two Quantum Cascade Laser Absorption Spectrometers
(a large-cell dual system; DUAL-QCLAS, and a compact system; c-QCLAS), two photo-acoustic spectrometers (WaSul-Flux; Nitrolux-100), a Cavity Ring Down Spectrosmeter (CRDS), a Chemical Ionisation Mass Spectrometer
(CIMS), an ion mobility spectrometer (IMS) and an Open- Path Fourier Transform Infra-Red (OP-FTIR) Spectrometer. The instruments were compared with each other and with the average concentration of all instruments. An overall good
agreement of hourly average concentrations between the instruments
(R2>0.84), was observed for NH3 concentrations at the field of up to 120 ppbv with the slopes against the average ranging from 0.67 (DUAL-QCLAS) to 1.13 (AiRRmonia) with intercepts of −0.74 ppbv (RBD) to +2.69 ppbv (CIMS). More variability was found for performance for lower concentrations (<10 ppbv). Here the main factors affecting measurement precision are (a) the inlet design, (b) the
state of inlet filters (where applicable), and (c) the quality of gas-phase standards (where applicable). By reference to the fast (1 Hz) instruments deployed during the study, it was possible to characterize the response times of the slower instruments.
U2 - 10.5194/amt-3-91-2010
DO - 10.5194/amt-3-91-2010
M3 - Article
SN - 1867-1381
VL - 3
SP - 91
EP - 112
JO - Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
JF - Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
ER -