4.5 Article

Bias in filter-based aerosol light absorption measurements due to organic aerosol loading: Evidence from laboratory measurements

Journal

AEROSOL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 42, Issue 12, Pages 1022-1032

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/02786820802389285

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NOAA Climate Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Light absorption by soot or nigrosin dye aerosol particles were measured in the laboratory using a particle soot absorption photometer (PSAP) and a photo-acoustic spectrometer (PAS) to assess the influence of non-absorbing organic aerosol (OA) on the PSAP measurements. For the PSAP, particle light absorption is measured after collection on a filter, whereas for the PAS light absorption is measured while the particles remain suspended in the gas phase. OA was generated from the reaction of alpha-pinene with ozone. It was observed that the presence of this OA in an external mixture of absorbing aerosol and OA can cause an increase in the light absorption measured by the PSAP, relative to that measured by the PAS, by more than a factor of two. This enhancement in the PSAP absorption was found to increase as the amount of OA increased relative to the absorbing compound. Additionally, experiments where absorbing aerosol was deposited on a PSAP filter prior to addition of OA demonstrated that the non-absorbing OA can actually appear as if it were absorbing, with measured single scattering albedo values as low as 0.92. These results indicate that filter-based measurement techniques may significantly overestimate light absorption by aerosols in the atmosphere under conditions where the organic loading is large, with consequent implications for understanding and calculating the Earth's radiation budget. These laboratory experiments aid in the interpretation of results from a recent field study, discussed in a companion article (Lack et al. 2008).

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