4.7 Article

The spatial distribution of the reactive iodine species IO from simultaneous active and passive DOAS observations

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 2117-2128

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/acp-10-2117-2010

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Commission [018332]
  2. NUIG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present investigations of the reactive iodine species (RIS) IO, OIO and I-2 in a coastal region from a field campaign simultaneously employing active long path differential optical absorption spectroscopy (LP-DOAS) as well as passive multi-axis differential optical absorption spectroscopy (MAX-DOAS). The campaign took place at the Martin Ryan Institute (MRI) in Carna, County Galway at the Irish West Coast about 6 km south-east of the atmospheric research station Mace Head in summer 2007. In order to study the horizontal distribution of the trace gases of interest, we established two almost parallel active LP-DOAS light paths, the shorter of 1034 m length just crossing the intertidal area, whereas the longer one of 3946 m length also crossed open water during periods of low tide. In addition we operated two passive Mini-MAX-DOAS instruments with the same viewing direction. While neither OIO nor I-2 could be unambiguously identified with any of the instruments, IO could be detected with active as well as passive DOAS. The IO column densities seen at both active LP-DOAS light paths are almost the same. Thus it can be concluded that coastal IO is almost exclusively located in the intertidal area, where we detected mixing ratios of up to 29 +/- 8.8 ppt (equivalent to pmol/mol). Nucleation events with particle concentrations of 10(6) cm(-3) particles were observed each day correlating with high IO mixing ratios. Therefore we feel that our detected IO concentrations confirm the results of model studies, which state that in order to explain such particle bursts, IO mixing ratios of 50 to 100 ppt in so called 'hot-spots' are required.

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

4.7
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