4.5 Article

Relative errors in derived multi-wavelength intensive aerosol optical properties using cavity attenuated phase shift single-scattering albedo monitors, a nephelometer, and tricolour absorption photometer measurements

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Volume 15, Issue 11, Pages 3279-3296

Publisher

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/amt-15-3279-2022

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Bundesministerium fur Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie [01LK1301A]
  2. Horizon 2020 ENVRIplus project [654182]
  3. Forschungszentrum Julich (HITEC Graduate School for Energy and Climate grant)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study uses an optical closure approach to measure the intensive optical properties of aerosols and quantifies the uncertainties in the determination of these properties. The results suggest that the derived coefficients of light absorption, scattering, and extinction from combining measurements of two independent instruments agree with measurements from single instruments, providing closure. However, the estimated uncertainties for absorption coefficients can exceed 100% for atmospherically relevant single-scattering albedo values, indicating that caution should be taken when interpreting these values.
Aerosol intensive optical properties, including Angstrom exponents for aerosol light extinction (EAEs), scattering (SAES) and absorption (AAEs) as well as and the single-scattering albedo (SSA), are indicators for aerosol size, chemical composition, radiative behaviour and particle sources. Derivation of these parameters requires the measurement of aerosol optical properties at multiple wavelengths, which usually involves the use of several instruments. Our study aims to quantify the uncertainties in the determination of these intensive properties using an optical closure approach. In our laboratory closure study, we measured the full set of optical properties for a range of light-absorbing particles with different properties externally mixed with ammonium sulfate to generate aerosols with controlled SSA values. The investigated absorbing particle types were fresh combustion soot emitted by an inverted flame soot generator (SOOT; fractal agglomerates), Aquadag (AQ; compact aggregates), Cabot black (BC; compact agglomerates) and an acrylic paint (magic black, shape unknown). The instruments used in this study were two cavity attenuated phase shift particle monitors for single-scattering albedo (CAPS PMssA's;lambda = 450, 630 nm) for measuring light-extinction and light-scattering coefficients, one integrating nephelometer (lambda, = 450, 550, 700 nm) for light-scattering coefficients, and one tricolour absorption photometer (TAP; lambda = 467, 528, 652 nm) for filter-based light-absorption coefficients. One key finding is that the coefficients of light absorption, scattering and extinction derived from combing the measurements of two independent instruments agree with measurements from single instruments; the slopes of regression lines are equal within reported uncertainties (i.e. closure is observed). Despite closure for measured absorption coefficients, we caution that the estimated uncertainties for absorption coefficients, propagated for the differential method (DM; absorption = extinction minus scattering), can exceed 100 % for atmospherically relevant SSA values (> 0.9). This increasing estimated uncertainty with increasing SSA yields AAE values that may be too uncertain for measurements in the range of atmospheric aerosol loadings. We recommend using the DM for measuring AAE values when the SSA < 0.9. EAE- and SAE-derived values achieved closure during this study within stated uncertainties for extinction coefficients greater than 15 Mm(-1). SSA values for 450 and 630 nm wavelengths internally agreed with each other within 10 % uncertainty for all instrument combinations and sampled aerosol types, which fulfils the defined goals for measurement uncertainty of 10 % proposed by Laj et al. (2020) for GCOS (Global Climate Observing System) applications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available