Rationalizing the differences between thermo-optical OC/EC methods.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
PM 2.5 Carbon Measurements in EPA Region 10 Robert Kotchenruther, Ph.D. NW-AIRQUEST June, 2011.
Advertisements

What are the important parameters that need to be defined for a carbonaceous aerosol analysis ? Hélène CACHIER Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de.
Chemical Composition of Organic Carbon Fractions Barbara Zielinska.
Example Conceptual Models for Organic Sampling Artifacts on Quartz Fiber Filter Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the IMPROVE/CSN Carbon Monitoring Workshop.
Carbon artifact adjustments for the IMPROVE and CSN speciated particulate networks Mark Green, Judith Chow, John Watson Desert Research Institute Ann Dillner.
Gas/Particle Partitioning. Why is gas/particle partitioning important? Dispersion of Pollutants Introduced into the Atmosphere as Determined by Residence.
AA and Atomic Fluorescence Spectroscopy Chapter 9
Overview of CSN Data Relevant to OC/EC Artifact Adjustments presented by James Flanagan RTI International Davis, CA January 22-23, 2008.
Soot Particle Aerosol Mass Spectrometer: Development, Validation, and Initial Application T. B. Onasch,A. Trimborn,E. C. Fortner,J. T. Jayne,G. L. Kok,L.
Charring Minimization in Thermal Analysis of Aerosol Carbon Jian Zhen Yu and Qianfeng Li Department of Chemistry Hong Kong University of Science & Technology.
Carbon Measurements and Adjustments Measurement of organics by IMPROVE & STN networks, Use of blank data to correct carbon concentration measurements,
Brown and black carbon: Light absorbing carbonaceous matter in atmospheric aerosols M. O. Andreae, T. W. Andreae, P. Artaxo, A. Gelencser, B. Graham, P.
Section highlights Organic Aerosol and Field Studies.
Nolwenn PERRON Göteborg, OC and EC separation for 14 C analyses N. Perron 1, L. Besnier 1, S. Szidat 2, A. S. H. Prévôt.
Equivalence in OC and EC between Single- and Multi-wavelength Carbon Analyzers Judith C. Chow John G. Watson, Xiaoliang Wang, Dana.
SECONDARY ORGANIC AEROSOLS WORKSHOP OVERVIEW John G. Watson Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV February 5, 2002.
Insights from Thermal Analysis of Individual Organic Compounds, Mixtures, Black Carbon Surrogates, Airborne PM and Extracts Lara Gundel, R.L. Dod, T.W.
Effects of Iron Oxides on the Determination of Organic and Elemental Carbon using Thermal Optical Techniques Kochy Fung AtmAA, Inc., Calabasas, CA, USA.
Fossil vs Contemporary Carbon at 12 Rural and Urban Sites in the United States Bret A. Schichtel (NPS) William C. Malm (NPS) Graham Bench (LLNL) Graham.
How Does the Sample Affect the Measurement of Different Carbon Fractions? Judith C. Chow Desert Research Institute Reno, NV presented at the International.
VII. How might current analysis methods be enhanced or combined to obtain more information about the nature of OC, EC, and other carbon fractions in filter.
1 TOPIC #8 What New and Innovative Sampling, Analytical, and Interpretive Techniques are Needed to Determine the Properties and Sources of Carbonaceous.
Carbon Artifact Adjustment in IMPROVE Lowell Ashbaugh Crocker Nuclear Lab University of California, Davis January 22, 2008.
Absorption by ambient aerosols during CalNex Chris Cappa (UCD) Paola Massoli Tim Onasch Doug Worsnop Katheryn Kolesar Jani Hakala Shao-Meng Li Ibraheem.
M ULTI -W AVELENGTH O PTICAL C ALIBRATION OF T HERMAL /O PTICAL ANALYZER AND POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS John G. Watson, Judith C. Chow, L.-W. Antony Chen,
Critical Review 2014 Discussion: Public Health and Components of Particulate Matter: The Changing Assessment of Black Carbon John G. Watson Desert Research.
State of the Science on Sources of Carbonaceous Aerosols and Their Contribution to Regional Haze John G. Watson Judith C. Chow Desert Research.
Effects of Pollution on Visibility and the Earth’s Radiation Balance John G. Watson Judith C. Chow Desert Research Institute Reno,
CCN measurements at an urban location Julia Burkart University of Vienna Istitute of Aerosol Physics, Biophysics and Environmental Physics.
25/05/20071 About comparability of measured and modeled metrics Jean-Philippe Putaud Fabrizia Cavalli DG JRC Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Model Evaluation Comparing Model Output to Ambient Data Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, California.
Identification of Transportation Contributions to Urban PM Levels AQRB Mid-Term Review 2004 J.R. Brook + many contributors MSC.
Regional Air Quality Modeling Results for Elemental and Organic Carbon John Vimont, National Park Service WRAP Fire, Carbon, and Dust Workshop Sacramento,
Shaping the Future Diesel Engine Combustion and Heat Release.
Aerosols and climate - a crash course Marianne T. Lund CICERO Nove Mesto 17/9-15.
TOPIC # 6 … How does carbonaceous particle composition, shape, and size affect optical properties in the air and when sampled on a filter? How might optical.
NAFA Guide To Air Filtration Chapter 11 Airborne Molecular Contaminants presented by the National Air Filtration Association Fourth Edition.
A First Look at the Effect of Heating on Aerosol Optical Properties Chris Cappa, Dan Mellon *, Tim Onasch, Paola Massoli CalNex-Atlantis Data Workshop.
1. Which of the following is NOT a conversion factor for 1 mole of a substance? A. 1.0 g B. molar mass C X particles D L E. Avogadro’s.
2016 TFEIP meeting, Zagreb, 16-18th May 2016 Cross-cutting WG TFMM-TFEIP on SVOC emissions Working document for the workshop on condensables & Semi-Volatiles.
Ambient air sampling and monitoring Topic 5 Ms. Sherina Kamal.
Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division Photo image area measures.
The Nature of Liquids.
IMPROVE/STN Comparison & Implications for Visibility and PM2.5
Ann M. Dillner, Mark C. Green
Matteo Reggente Giulia Ruggeri Gözde Ergin Christophe Delval
第四節 氢穩定同位素 氢同位素的基本特征 测量方法 国际标准 分馏系数 常见应用.
College Prep Chemistry Mr. Pompilii
Adsorption 2018/7/1.
NAFA Guide To Air Filtration
You need to find the mass of an atom
Andrey Khlystov and Dave Campbell
NOAA Single Particle Soot Photometer (SP2) in ATom
Bob Cary and David Smith
Cross-cutting WG TFMM-TFEIP on SVOC emissions
D. Foster, T. Root, T. Kawai, E. Wirojsakunchai, E. Schroeder, N
Chapter 13 States of Matter 13.2 The Nature of Liquids
The Nature of Liquids.
with EUSAAR NA2 Partners
A Review of Time Integrated PM2.5 Monitoring Data in the United States
Results of the inter-laboratory exercise for TC, OC and EC measurement OCEC Fabrizia Cavalli and Jean-Philippe Putaud.
Chapter 13 States of Matter 13.2 The Nature of Liquids
About comparability of measured and modeled metrics
Time-Integrated Particle Measurements : Status in Canada
Challenges with Integrated Measurements of OC and BC (or EC)
Jean-Philippe Putaud, Fabrizia Cavalli
DETERMINATION OF CARBONATE CARBON
Molecular Filtration National Air Filtration Association
EMEP-Intensive-Measuring-Campaigns Summer 06 and Winter 07
EC/OC – monitoring within EMEP
Presentation transcript:

Rationalizing the differences between thermo-optical OC/EC methods. Kochy Fung Atmoslytic Inc. Calabasas, CA Judith C. Chow, and John G. Watson Desert Research Institute Reno, NV Presented at the EMEP Workshop on Particulate Matter Measurement and Modeling April 20, 2004

Objectives Provide an overview of methods to measure particulate carbon in ambient air Rationalize the differences Resolve them?

Difficulties with OC and EC sampling and analysis No common definition of what “EC” is for atmospheric applications It’s not graphite, diamond, or fullerenes Light absorption efficiencies are not constant They vary depending on particle shape and mixing with other substances OC and EC properties on a filter differ from those in the atmosphere OC gases are adsorbed onto the quartz filter at the same time that semi-volatile particles evaporate

Sampling Quartz fiber filter: Impactor Positive artifact due to gas adsorption Correction: Parallel sampling with backup filter behind Teflon or quartz filter. Approach inadequate - variable adsorption characteristics. Negative artifact from evaporation of SVOC Impactor

At Least 15 International Thermal Combustion Carbon Measurement Methods are Present with Different Operating Parameters Combustion atmospheres Temperature ramping rates Temperature plateaus Residence time at each plateau Optical pyrolysis monitoring configuration/wavelength Standardization Oxidation and reduction catalysts Sample aliquot and size Evolved carbon detection method Carrier gas flow through or across the sample Location of the temperature monitor relative to the sample Oven flushing conditions

Speciation Principles Selective Oxidation: OC oxidized first 100% O2 at 340oC - 2-step method ( Cachier, 1989) 100% O2 temp. ramping - Evolved Gas Analysis (Novakov, 1981) MnO2 at 525oC - TMO (Fung, 1982, 1990) Thermo-volatilization in Helium: EC is non-volatile Needs charring correction - T, R NIOSH 5040 & variations - STN, MSC-1, others IMPROVE

Different thermal evolution protocols give different results for black carbon Schmid, H.P., Laskus, L., Abraham, H.J., Baltensperger, U., Lavanchy, V.M.H., Bizjak, M., Burba, P., Cachier, H., Crow, D.J., Chow, J.C., Gnauk, T., Even, A., ten Brink, H.M., Giesen, K.P., Hitzenberger, R., et al., 2001. Results of the "Carbon Conference" international aerosol carbon round robin test: Stage 1. Atmospheric Environment 35 (12), 2111-2121. Many called TOT, but temperature protocols differ from STN 11TOT 10TOT 11bTOT 12TOT 13TOR

IMPROVE protocol corrects for pyrolysis by reflectance (TOR), has low initial temperatures (120 and 250˚C ), long residence time (150-580 seconds) at each temperature, carbon peaks back to baseline, 550 ˚C max in He

STN protocol corrects for pyrolysis by transmittance (TOT), has high initial temperature (310˚C), fixed and short residence times (45-120 seconds), 900 ˚C max in He

To understand differences, test a few variables at a time, keeping everything else the same Case 1: 1) TOT/TOR correction, 2) IMPROVE/STN temperatures

IMPROVE and STN total carbon are the same

EC differs within protocol:. Larger pyrolysis correction for TOT EC differs within protocol: Larger pyrolysis correction for TOT. Thus TOT-EC < TOR-EC

IMPROVE-TOR and STN-TOR yield the same EC Why?

Case 2: Front and back half of filter Much of low temperature OC is adsorbed organic vapor

Adsorbed organic vapor within the filter char

Within filter charring is larger for STN because initial temperature steps are higher: less OC to char with IMPROVE and correction is smaller TOR is less sensitive to internal charring than TOT because it is dominated by the surface deposit, not by charred organic vapors in the filter

Case 3: Soot and iron oxide mixtures UC-Davis : Ethylene / Acetylene / Fe(CO)5

IMPROVE - Soot only Most soot at 550oC in O2/He Broad soot peak means slow oxidation in O2/He Gradual rise in laser signals R T

IMPROVE - Soot with iron oxides Most soot is still at 550oC in O2/He Sharper soot peak means faster oxidation in O2/He Iron oxides promote soot oxidation Sharp rise in laser signals

STN - Soot only Laser R and T rise >700oC in He Most soot at 900 oC in He Some soot in O2/He

STN - Soot with iron oxides Laser R and T rise >700oC in He Sharp R and T increase at 900 oC in He No soot in O2/He

Summary - factors contributing to the difference between STN and IMPROVE Temperature: Higher temperatures enhance matrix effects such as oxidation & catalytic reactions Charring more likely at higher temperatures Temperatures specified by thermal protocols may not be the actual sample temperatures This temperature bias causes variations in carbon fractions and contribute to discrepancies in interlab comparisons and uncertainties in receptor modeling using carbon fractions.

Summary - continued Residence time: Shorter time at a given temperature leads to less resolved OC fractions, causing more OC to evolve at the next step Shifting OC towards higher temperature could result in higher charring propensity Pyrolysis Correction: Transmittance is influenced by internal charring, leading to a greater correction. Reflectance is affected mainly by the particulate deposit, so a smaller correction.