4.5 Article

Comparison of methods for the determination of NO-O3-NO2 fluxes and chemical interactions over a bare soil

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
卷 5, 期 6, 页码 1241-1257

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/amt-5-1241-2012

关键词

-

资金

  1. French-German project PHOTONA (CNRS/INSU/DFG)
  2. French national project Vulnoz (ANR, VMC)
  3. European program NitroEurope-IP
  4. R2DS (region Ile-de-France)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tropospheric ozone (O-3) is a known greenhouse gas responsible for impacts on human and animal health and ecosystem functioning. In addition, O-3 plays an important role in tropospheric chemistry, together with nitrogen oxides. The determination of surface-atmosphere exchange fluxes of these trace gases is a prerequisite to establish their atmospheric budget and evaluate their impact onto the biosphere. In this study, O-3, nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) fluxes were measured using the aerodynamic gradient method over a bare soil in an agricultural field. Ozone and NO fluxes were also measured using eddy-covariance and automatic chambers, respectively. The aerodynamic gradient measurement system, composed of fast response sensors, was capable to measure significant differences in NO and O-3 mixing ratios between heights. However, due to local advection, NO2 mixing ratios were highly non-stationary and NO2 fluxes were, therefore, not significantly different from zero. The chemical reactions between O-3, NO and NO2 led to little ozone flux divergence between the surface and the measurement height (less than 1% of the flux on average), whereas the NO flux divergence was about 10% on average. The use of fast response sensors allowed reducing the flux uncertainty. The aerodynamic gradient and the eddy-covariance methods gave comparable O-3 fluxes. The chamber NO fluxes were down to 70% lower than the aerodynamic gradient fluxes, probably because of either the spatial heterogeneity of the soil NO emissions or the perturbation due to the chamber itself.

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