Comparison of sampling methods for Carbonaceous aerosols in ambient air

S. V. Hering; B. R. Appel; W. Cheng; F. Salaymeh; S. H.P.A. Cadle Mulawa; T. A. Cahill; A. Eldred; M. Surovik; D. Fitz; J. E. Howes; K. T. Knapp; L. Stockburger; B. J. Turpin; J. J. Huntzicker; X. Q. Zhang; P. H. McMurry

doi:10.1080/02786829008959340

Comparison of sampling methods for Carbonaceous aerosols in ambient air

S. V. Hering, B. R. Appel, W. Cheng, F. Salaymeh, S. H.P.A. Cadle Mulawa, T. A. Cahill, A. Eldred, M. Surovik, D. Fitz, J. E. Howes, K. T. Knapp, L. Stockburger, B. J. Turpin, J. J. Huntzicker, X. Q. Zhang, P. H. McMurry

Mechanical Engineering

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

68 Scopus citations

Abstract

Measurement methods for fine particle carbon were compared under field sampling conditions. Sampling methods included filtration, impaction, and adsorptioncorrected filtration. Systems were operated side-by-side for nine consecutive days in the Los Angeles Basin. Analytical M methods were compared separately. For organic carbon and total carbon, ambient measurements showed greater variability than could be accounted for by differences in analytical methods, and these differences are attributed to sampling methodology. The highest reported concentrations were obtained by quartz filter sampling; the lowest were from the sum of the impactor stages (excluding the quartz alterfilters). Positive artifact from the adsorption of gaseous vapors on quartz fiber filters was significant. However, correction for vapor adsorption by subtraction of the carbon value on the second of two filters in series did not completely elimenate the dependence of the apparent total aerosol carbon concentration on filter face velocity or sample duration.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	200-213
Number of pages	14
Journal	Aerosol Science and Technology
Volume	12
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829008959340
State	Published - 1990

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
(Rosemead, CA) who provided the electrical power, is gratefully acknowledged. Funding for the participant groups in this study came from ARB (contract nos. A415832A (AIHL), A402893 (UCD), and A514932 (OGC)), the US Environmental Protection Agency (contract 68024084, EMSI), the Coordinating Research Council (contract AP13-1/86,UM), and the Electric Power Research Institute (contract 1630-11, AV). Support for the project management and data analysis was provided by ARB contract A515432.

Access

10.1080/02786829008959340

OpenUrl availability

Full text

Cite this

Hering, S. V., Appel, B. R., Cheng, W., Salaymeh, F., Cadle Mulawa, S. H. P. A., Cahill, T. A., Eldred, A., Surovik, M., Fitz, D., Howes, J. E., Knapp, K. T., Stockburger, L., Turpin, B. J., Huntzicker, J. J., Zhang, X. Q., & McMurry, P. H. (1990). Comparison of sampling methods for Carbonaceous aerosols in ambient air. Aerosol Science and Technology, 12(1), 200-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829008959340

Hering, SV, Appel, BR, Cheng, W, Salaymeh, F, Cadle Mulawa, SHPA, Cahill, TA, Eldred, A, Surovik, M, Fitz, D, Howes, JE, Knapp, KT, Stockburger, L, Turpin, BJ, Huntzicker, JJ, Zhang, XQ & McMurry, PH 1990, 'Comparison of sampling methods for Carbonaceous aerosols in ambient air', Aerosol Science and Technology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 200-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829008959340

@article{827a9a1e76fb456da7de79a0274ce8a8,

title = "Comparison of sampling methods for Carbonaceous aerosols in ambient air",

abstract = "Measurement methods for fine particle carbon were compared under field sampling conditions. Sampling methods included filtration, impaction, and adsorptioncorrected filtration. Systems were operated side-by-side for nine consecutive days in the Los Angeles Basin. Analytical M methods were compared separately. For organic carbon and total carbon, ambient measurements showed greater variability than could be accounted for by differences in analytical methods, and these differences are attributed to sampling methodology. The highest reported concentrations were obtained by quartz filter sampling; the lowest were from the sum of the impactor stages (excluding the quartz alterfilters). Positive artifact from the adsorption of gaseous vapors on quartz fiber filters was significant. However, correction for vapor adsorption by subtraction of the carbon value on the second of two filters in series did not completely elimenate the dependence of the apparent total aerosol carbon concentration on filter face velocity or sample duration.",

author = "Hering, {S. V.} and Appel, {B. R.} and W. Cheng and F. Salaymeh and {Cadle Mulawa}, {S. H.P.A.} and Cahill, {T. A.} and A. Eldred and M. Surovik and D. Fitz and Howes, {J. E.} and Knapp, {K. T.} and L. Stockburger and Turpin, {B. J.} and Huntzicker, {J. J.} and Zhang, {X. Q.} and McMurry, {P. H.}",

note = "Funding Information: (Rosemead, CA) who provided the electrical power, is gratefully acknowledged. Funding for the participant groups in this study came from ARB (contract nos. A415832A (AIHL), A402893 (UCD), and A514932 (OGC)), the US Environmental Protection Agency (contract 68024084, EMSI), the Coordinating Research Council (contract AP13-1/86,UM), and the Electric Power Research Institute (contract 1630-11, AV). Support for the project management and data analysis was provided by ARB contract A515432.",

year = "1990",

doi = "10.1080/02786829008959340",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "12",

pages = "200--213",

journal = "Aerosol Science and Technology",

issn = "0278-6826",

publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of sampling methods for Carbonaceous aerosols in ambient air

AU - Hering, S. V.

AU - Appel, B. R.

AU - Cheng, W.

AU - Salaymeh, F.

AU - Cadle Mulawa, S. H.P.A.

AU - Cahill, T. A.

AU - Eldred, A.

AU - Surovik, M.

AU - Fitz, D.

AU - Howes, J. E.

AU - Knapp, K. T.

AU - Stockburger, L.

AU - Turpin, B. J.

AU - Huntzicker, J. J.

AU - Zhang, X. Q.

AU - McMurry, P. H.

N1 - Funding Information: (Rosemead, CA) who provided the electrical power, is gratefully acknowledged. Funding for the participant groups in this study came from ARB (contract nos. A415832A (AIHL), A402893 (UCD), and A514932 (OGC)), the US Environmental Protection Agency (contract 68024084, EMSI), the Coordinating Research Council (contract AP13-1/86,UM), and the Electric Power Research Institute (contract 1630-11, AV). Support for the project management and data analysis was provided by ARB contract A515432.

PY - 1990

Y1 - 1990

N2 - Measurement methods for fine particle carbon were compared under field sampling conditions. Sampling methods included filtration, impaction, and adsorptioncorrected filtration. Systems were operated side-by-side for nine consecutive days in the Los Angeles Basin. Analytical M methods were compared separately. For organic carbon and total carbon, ambient measurements showed greater variability than could be accounted for by differences in analytical methods, and these differences are attributed to sampling methodology. The highest reported concentrations were obtained by quartz filter sampling; the lowest were from the sum of the impactor stages (excluding the quartz alterfilters). Positive artifact from the adsorption of gaseous vapors on quartz fiber filters was significant. However, correction for vapor adsorption by subtraction of the carbon value on the second of two filters in series did not completely elimenate the dependence of the apparent total aerosol carbon concentration on filter face velocity or sample duration.

AB - Measurement methods for fine particle carbon were compared under field sampling conditions. Sampling methods included filtration, impaction, and adsorptioncorrected filtration. Systems were operated side-by-side for nine consecutive days in the Los Angeles Basin. Analytical M methods were compared separately. For organic carbon and total carbon, ambient measurements showed greater variability than could be accounted for by differences in analytical methods, and these differences are attributed to sampling methodology. The highest reported concentrations were obtained by quartz filter sampling; the lowest were from the sum of the impactor stages (excluding the quartz alterfilters). Positive artifact from the adsorption of gaseous vapors on quartz fiber filters was significant. However, correction for vapor adsorption by subtraction of the carbon value on the second of two filters in series did not completely elimenate the dependence of the apparent total aerosol carbon concentration on filter face velocity or sample duration.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025198554&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025198554&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/02786829008959340

DO - 10.1080/02786829008959340

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0025198554

SN - 0278-6826

VL - 12

SP - 200

EP - 213

JO - Aerosol Science and Technology

JF - Aerosol Science and Technology

IS - 1

ER -

Comparison of sampling methods for Carbonaceous aerosols in ambient air

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Access

OpenUrl availability

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this