4.7 Article

Characterization and evaluation of smoke tracers in PM: Results from the 2003 Montana wildfire season

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
Volume 40, Issue 36, Pages 7005-7017

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.06.034

Keywords

PM2.5; smoke; wildland forest fire; chemical tracers; levoglucosan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Throughout August and September 2003, Missoula, Montana was heavily impacted by smoke from wildland forest fires burning throughout western Montana. In an effort to study the organic compounds contributing to smoke particulate matter impacting downwind communities, three co-located PM2.5 cyclones collected 24-h samples during significant smoke events in Missoula. Filter samples were then analyzed at two independent laboratories to quantify the concentrations of several chemical markers of wood smoke generated under natural combustion conditions, as well as to provide an intercomparison study of analytical methods (HPLC and GC/MS) used in the determination of levoglucosan concentrations. Concentrations of monosaccharide anhydrides, methoxyphenols and soluble potassium were measured from PM2.5 samples collected during periods of smoke and baseline (non-impacted) conditions. From these analyses, the associations between the wood smoke markers and PM2.5 mass were examined. Levoglucosan was found to be the most useful marker for wood smoke generated from natural forest fire events in the northern Rocky Mountains, whereas measurement of other species (mannosan, methoxyphenols) provided information on the type of vegetative material burned (e.g., hardwood versus softwood). The emission ratios of levoglucosan to PM2.5 and organic carbon from the wildfire smoke was found to be 0.042 and 0.062, respectively. Results of the statistical analyses showed that the GC/MS and HPLC approaches to levoglucosan analysis were statistically equivalent. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available