Search

Aerosol light absorption was measured during a 1-month field campaign in June–July 2019 at the Pallas Global Atmospheric Watch (GAW) station in northern Finland. Very low aerosol concentrations prevailed during the campaign, which posed a challenge for the instruments' detection capabilities. The campaign provided a real-world test for different absorption measurement techniques supporting the goals of the European Metrology Programme for Innovation and Research (EMPIR) Black Carbon (BC) project in developing aerosol absorption standard and reference methods. In this study we compare the results from five filter-based absorption techniques – aethalometer models AE31 and AE33, a particle soot absorption photometer (PSAP), a multi-angle absorption photometer (MAAP), and a continuous soot monitoring system (COSMOS) – and from one indirect technique called extinction minus scattering (EMS). The ability of the filter-based techniques was shown to be adequate to measure aerosol light absorption coefficients down to around 0.01 Mm-1 levels when data were averaged to 1–2 h. The hourly averaged atmospheric absorption measured by the reference MAAP was 0.09 Mm-1 (at a wavelength of 637 nm). When data were averaged for >1 h, the filter-based methods agreed to around 40 %. COSMOS systematically measured the lowest absorption coefficient values, which was expected due to the sample pre-treatment in the COSMOS inlet. PSAP showed the best linear correlation with MAAP (slope=0.95 , R2=0.78), followed by AE31 (slope=0.93). A scattering correction applied to PSAP data improved the data accuracy despite the added noise. However, at very high scattering values the correction led to an underestimation of the absorption. The AE31 data had the highest noise and the correlation with MAAP was the lowest (R2=0.65). Statistically the best linear correlations with MAAP were obtained for AE33 and COSMOS (R2 close to 1), but the biases at around the zero values led to slopes clearly below 1. The sample pre-treatment in the COSMOS instrument resulted in the lowest fitted slope. In contrast to the filter-based techniques, the indirect EMS method was not adequate to measure the low absorption values found at the Pallas site. The lowest absorption at which the EMS signal could be distinguished from the noise was >0.1 Mm-1 at 1–2 h averaging times. The mass absorption cross section (MAC) value measured at a range 0–0.3 Mm-1 was calculated using the MAAP and a single particle soot photometer (SP2), resulting in a MAC value of 16.0±5.7 m2g-1. Overall, our results demonstrate the challenges encountered in the aerosol absorption measurements in pristine environments and provide some useful guidelines for instrument selection and measurement practices. We highlight the need for a calibrated transfer standard for better inter-comparability of the absorption results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Arctic absorbing aerosols have a high potential to accelerate global warming. Accurate and sensitive measurements of their concentrations, variability and atmospheric mixing are needed. Filter-based aerosol light absorption measurement methods are the most widely applied in the Arctic. Those will be the focus of this study. Aerosol light absorption was measured during one month field campaign in June–July 2019 at the Pallas Global AtmosphericWatch (GAW) station in northern Finland. The campaign provided a real-world test for different absorption measurement techniques supporting the goals of the EMPIR BC metrology project in developing aerosol absorption standard and reference methods. Very low aerosol concentrations prevailed during the campaign which imposed a challenge for the instruments detection. In this study we compare the results from five filter-based absorption techniques: Aethalometer models AE31 and AE33, Particle Soot Absorption Photometer (PSAP), Multi Angle Absorption Photometer (MAAP) and Continuous Soot Monitoring System (COSMOS), and from one indirect method called Extinction Minus Scattering (EMS). The sensitivity of the filter-based techniques was adequate to measure aerosol light absorption coefficients down to around 0.05 Mm-1 levels. The average value measured during the campaign using MAAP was 0.09 Mm-1 (at wavelength of 637 nm). When data were averaged for >1h, an agreement of around 20% was obtained between instruments. COSMOS measured systematically the lowest absorption coefficient values, which was expected due to the sample pre-treatment in COSMOS inlet. PSAP showed the best linear correlation with MAAP (R2 = 0.85), followed by AE33 and COSMOS (R2 = 0.84). The noisy data from AE31 resulted in a slightly lower, yet a significant, correlation with MAAP (R2 = 0.46). In contrast to the filter-based techniques, the sensitivity of the indirect EMS method to measure aerosol absorption was not adequate at such low concentrations levels. An absorption coefficient on the order of >1 Mm-1 was estimated as the lowest limit, to reliably distinguish the signal from the noise. Throughout the campaign the aerosol was highly scattering with an average single-scattering albedo of 0.97. Two different air-mass origins could be identified: the north-east and from the north-west. The north-eastern air masses contained higher fraction of thickly coated light absorbing particles than the westerly air masses. Aerosol scattering, absorption and the particle coating thickness increased on the last ten days of the campaign during the north-eastern air flow. The simultaneous changes in aerosol source region, mixing state, concentration and particle optical size were reflected in the instruments' response in a complex way. The observed decrease in aerosol size suggested additional activation of secondary particle formation mechanisms. The results demonstrate the challenges encountered in the Arctic absorbing aerosol measurements. The applicability and uncertainties of different techniques are discussed and new knowledge on the absorbing aerosol characteristics in summer Arctic air masses reference to the source region is provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]