4.5 Article

Hygroscopic growth of aerosol scattering coefficient: A comparative analysis between urban and suburban sites at winter in Beijing

期刊

PARTICUOLOGY
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 52-60

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.partic.2008.11.009

关键词

Humidity control inlet system; Aerosol scattering coefficient; Hygroscopic growth factor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A humidity controlled inlet system was developed to measure the hygroscopic growth of aerosol scattering coefficient in conjunction with nephelometry at an urban site of Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences (CAMS) in Beijing and a rural site at Shangdianzi Regional Background Air Pollution Monitoring Station (SDZ) outside Beijing during winter, from December 2005 to January 2006. Measurements were carried out at a wavelength of 525 nm with an Ecotech M9003 nephelometer. The hygroscopic growth function (or factor) of the aerosol scattering coefficient f(RH) increased continuously with increasing relative humidity (RH) and showed no obvious step-like deliquescent behavior at both sites during the experiment. The average growth factor f(RH) at the SDZ site could reach 1.5 when RH increased from less than 40% to 92%, and to 2.1 at the CAMS site when RH increased from less than 40% to 93%. The average hygroscopic growth factor at a relative humidity of 80%, f(RH = 80 +/- 1%), was found to be about 1.26 +/- 0.15 at CAMS and 1.24 +/- 0.11 at SDZ. Further analysis indicated that under relatively polluted conditions, the average hygroscopic growth factor was higher at the CAMS site than that at the SDZ site. However, under relatively clean air conditions, the difference between the two sites was small, showing a hygroscopic growth behavior similar to those of burning biomass or blowing dust. These results reflected the different characteristics of aerosol types at the two sites. (C) 2008 Chinese Society of Particuology and Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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