Abstract
Abstract. The mass concentration of black carbon (BC) particles in the atmosphere has traditionally been quantified with two methods: as elemental carbon (EC) concentrations measured by thermal–optical analysis and as equivalent black carbon (eBC) concentrations when BC mass is derived from particle light absorption coefficient measurements. Over the last decade, ambient measurements of refractory black carbon (rBC) mass concentrations based on laser-induced incandescence (LII) have become more common, mostly due to the development of the Single Particle Soot Photometer (SP2) instrument. In this work, EC and rBC mass concentration measurements from field campaigns across several background European sites (Palaiseau, Bologna, Cabauw and Melpitz) have been collated and examined to identify the similarities and differences between BC mass concentrations measured by the two techniques. All EC concentration measurements in PM2.5 were performed with the EUSAAR-2 thermal–optical protocol. All rBC concentration measurements were performed with SP2 instruments calibrated with the same calibration material as recommended in the literature. The observed values of median rBC-to-EC mass concentration ratios on the single-campaign level were 0.53, 0.65, 0.97, 1.20 and 1.29, respectively, and the geometric standard deviation (GSD) was 1.5 when considering all data points from all five campaigns. This shows that substantial systematic bias between these two quantities occurred during some campaigns, which also contributes to the large overall GSD. Despite considerable variability in BC properties and sources across the whole dataset, it was not possible to clearly assign reasons for discrepancies to one or the other method, both known to have their own specific limitations and uncertainties. However, differences in the particle size range covered by these two methods were identified as one likely reason for discrepancies. Overall, the observed correlation between rBC and EC mass reveals a linear relationship with a constant ratio, thus providing clear evidence that both methods essentially quantify the same property of atmospheric aerosols, whereas systematic differences in measured absolute values by up to a factor of 2 can occur. This finding for the level of agreement between two current state-of-the-art techniques has important implications for studies based on BC mass concentration measurements, for example for the interpretation of uncertainties in inferred BC mass absorption coefficient values, which are required for modeling the radiative forcing of BC. Homogeneity between BC mass determination techniques is also very important for moving towards a routine BC mass measurement for air quality regulations.
Highlights
Light-absorbing aerosols exert a positive radiative forcing through direct absorption of solar radiation
The mass concentration of black carbon (BC) particles in the atmosphere has traditionally been quantified with two methods: as elemental carbon (EC) concentrations measured by thermal–optical analysis and as equivalent black carbon concentrations when BC mass is derived from particle light absorption coefficient measurements
We examined and quantified the level of agreement or disagreement between BC mass concentrations measured by thermal–optical analysis and the laser-induced incandescence (LII) technique
Summary
Light-absorbing aerosols exert a positive radiative forcing through direct absorption of solar radiation. BC mass concentration data from atmospheric measurements are used in many applications such as validation of model simulations (Grahame et al, 2014; Hodnebrog et al, 2014) and quantification of the mass absorption coefficient of BC (MACBC). The latter is defined as the ratio of the light absorption coefficient caused by BC to the BC mass concentration and is a crucial parameter in modeling the BC radiative forcing (Matsui et al, 2018). It is important to assess the accuracy and comparability of different BC mass measurement techniques
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
