...
首页> 外文期刊>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions >Peroxy radical measurements by ethane – nitric oxide chemical amplification and laser-induced fluorescence during the IRRONIC field campaign in a forest in Indiana
【24h】

Peroxy radical measurements by ethane – nitric oxide chemical amplification and laser-induced fluorescence during the IRRONIC field campaign in a forest in Indiana

机译:印第安纳州森林中紫外线运动期间乙烷 - 一氧化氮化学扩增和激光诱导荧光的过氧自由基测量

获取原文
           

摘要

Peroxy radicals were measured in a mixed deciduous forest atmosphere in Bloomington, Indiana, USA, during the Indiana Radical, Reactivity and Ozone Production Intercomparison (IRRONIC) during the summer of 2015. Total peroxy radicals ([XO2]≡[HO2]+Σ[RO2]) were measured by a newly developed technique involving chemical amplification using nitric oxide (NO) and ethane (C2H6) followed by NO2 detection by cavity-attenuated phase-shift spectroscopy (hereinafter referred to as ECHAMP – Ethane CHemical AMPlifier). The sum of hydroperoxy radicals (HO2) and a portion of organic peroxy radicals ([HO2*]=[HO2]+Σαi[RiO2], 0α1) was measured by the Indiana University (IU) laser-induced fluorescence–fluorescence assay by gas expansion instrument (LIF-FAGE). Additional collocated measurements include concentrations of NO, NO2, O3, and a wide range of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and meteorological parameters. XO2 concentrations measured by ECHAMP peaked between 13:00 and 16:00 local time (LT), with campaign average concentrations of 41±15ppt (1σ) at 14:00LT. Daytime concentrations of isoprene averaged 3.6±1.9ppb (1σ), whereas average concentrations of NOx ([NO]+[NO2]) and toluene were 1.2 and 0.1ppb, respectively, indicating a low impact from anthropogenic emissions at this site. We compared ambient measurements from both instruments and conducted a calibration source comparison. For the calibration comparison, the ECHAMP instrument, which is primarily calibrated with an acetone photolysis method, sampled the output of the LIF-FAGE calibration source which is based on the water vapor photolysis method and, for these comparisons, generated a 50%–50% mixture of HO2 and either butane or isoprene-derived RO2. A bivariate fit of the data yields the relation [XO2]ECHAMP=(0.88±0.02;[HO2]+[RO2])IU_cal+(6.6±4.5)ppt. This level of agreement is within the combined analytical uncertainties for the two instruments' calibration methods. A linear fit of the daytime (09:00–22:00LT) 30min averaged [XO2] ambient data with the 1min averaged [HO2*] data (one point per 30min) yields the relation [XO2]=(1.08±0.05)[HO2*]-(1.4±0.3). Day-to-day variability in the [XO2]/[HO2*] ratio was observed. The lowest [XO2]/[HO2*] ratios between 13:00 and 16:00LT were 0.8 on 13 and 18?July, whereas the highest ratios of 1.1 to 1.3 were observed on 24 and 25?July – the same 2d on which the highest concentrations of isoprene and ozone were observed. Although the exact composition of the peroxy radicals during IRRONIC is not known, zero-dimensional photochemical modeling of the IRRONIC dataset using two versions of the Regional Atmospheric Chemistry Mechanism (RACM2 and RACM2-LIM1) and the Master Chemical Mechanism (MCM 3.2 and MCM 3.3.1) all predict afternoon [XO2]/[HO2*] ratios of between 1.2 and 1.5. Differences between the observed ambient [XO2]/[HO2*] ratio and that predicted with the 0-D modeling can be attributed to deficiencies in the model, errors in one of the two measurement techniques, or both. Time periods in which the ambient ratio was less than 1 are definitely caused by measurement errors (including calibration differences), as such ratios are not physically meaningful. Although these comparison results are encouraging and demonstrate the viability in using the new ECHAMP technique for field measurements of peroxy radicals, further research investigating the overall accuracy of the measurements and possible interferences from both methods is warranted.
机译:在2015年夏天,在美国印第安纳州的印第安纳州的布卢明顿(印第安纳州),印第安纳州布卢明顿的混合落叶林气大气中,测量了过氧化物的激进分子。全部过氧基团([XO2]≡[HO2] +σ[通过使用一氧化氮(NO)和乙烷(C2H6)的新开发的技术通过新开发的技术进行测量,然后通过腔缓和相移光谱(下文称为eChamp-乙烷化学放大器)的NO 2检测。通过印第安纳大学(IU)通过气体激光诱导的荧光 - 荧光测定法测量氢过氧基自由基(HO2)和一部分的有机过氧基团([HO2 *] = [HO2] +Σαi[RIO2],0α1)扩展仪器(LIF-FAGE)。额外的并置测量包括NO,NO 2,O 3和各种挥发性有机化合物(VOC)和气象参数的浓度。 XO2浓度通过Echamp测量,达到13:00至16:00局部时间(LT)之间,活动平均浓度为41±15PPT(1σ),在14:00LT。异戊二烯的白天浓度平均为3.6±1.9ppb(1σ),而NOx的平均浓度([No] + [No2])和甲苯分别为1.2和0.1ppb,表明该网站上的人为排放较低。我们将来自两个仪器的环境测量比较并进行了校准源比较。对于校准比较,振动仪主要用丙酮光解法校准,采样了基于水蒸气光解法的Lif-Fuage校准源的输出,并且对于这些比较,产生50%-50 HO2和丁烷或异戊二烯衍生的RO2的%混合物。数据的双变量拟合产生关系[XO2] ECHAMP =(0.88±0.02; [HO2] + [RO2])IU_CAL +(6.6±4.5)PPT。这种协议水平在两个仪器校准方法的合并分析不确定性范围内。白天的线性拟合(09:00-22:00LT)30min平均[XO2]环境数据,其中1min平均[HO2 *]数据(每30分钟的一个点)产生关系[XO2] =(1.08±0.05)[ HO2 *] - (1.4±0.3)。观察到[XO2] / [HO2 *]比的日常变异性。在13:00至16:00LT之间的最低[XO2] / [HO2 *]比率在13和18日为0.8?7月,而在24和25日观察到1.1至1.3的最高比率?七月 - 同样的2D观察到最高浓度的异戊二烯和臭氧。虽然使用两个版本的区域大气化学机制(RACM2和RACM2-LIM1)和母材化学机制(MCM 3.2和MCM 3.3 .1)所有预测下午[XO2] / [HO2 *]比率为1.2和1.5。观察到的环境[XO2] / [HO2 *]比率与0-D建模预测的差异可以归因于模型中的缺陷,两个测量技术之一中的错误,或两者。环境比率小于1的时间段绝对是由测量误差(包括校准差异)引起的,因为这种比率在物理上没有物理上有意义。虽然这些比较结果令人鼓舞并展示使用新的echamp技术的可行性进行过氧化物自由基的现场测量,但需要进一步研究测量的整体准确性和两种方法的可能干扰。
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号