4.6 Article

Influence of Uncertainties in the Diameter and Refractive Index of Calibration Polystyrene Beads on the Retrieval of Aerosol Optical Properties Using Cavity Ring Down Spectroscopy

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY A
卷 114, 期 26, 页码 7077-7084

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp103246t

关键词

-

资金

  1. NERC [NE/C512537/1]
  2. EPSRC
  3. Royal Society
  4. Wolfson Foundation
  5. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/G007713/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/C512537/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. EPSRC [EP/G007713/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We consider the impact of uncertainties in the refractive index and size of polystyrene beads on the retrieved optical properties of aerosol particles by aerosol cavity ring down spectroscopy (A-CRDS). Polystyrene beads are frequently used to verify and calibrate light extinction measurements by cavity ring down instruments. Any uncertainties in either the polymer particle size or the refractive index can contribute to systematic errors in properties retrieved for any subsequent measurements on other aerosol types. We demonstrate that the tolerances on bead size reported by the manufacturers can lead to a range in the real part of the refractive index of the polymer beads retrieved from A-CRDS measurements of as large as 2.9%. Further, we show that the current uncertainty in the refractive index of polystyrene beads in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum limits the accuracy with which the real part of the refractive index of other aerosol types can be retrieved to uncertainties of -0.5% and +0.3% at a minimum. This error should be included in any subsequent retrieval of aerosol optical properties from aerosol cavity ring down instruments that are dependent on polystyrene bead calibration. It is expected that such calibrations could lead to significantly larger uncertainties if the complex part of the refractive index is to be retrieved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据