<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE article SYSTEM "http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/inc/acpd/copernicus.dtd">
<article language="en">
	<journal>
		<journal_title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions</journal_title>
		<journal_url>www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net</journal_url>
		<issn>1680-7367</issn>
		<eissn>1680-7375</eissn>
		<volume_number>5</volume_number>
		<issue_number>5</issue_number>
		<publication_year>2005</publication_year>
	</journal>
	<doi>10.5194/acpd-5-9355-2005</doi>
	<article_url>http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/5/9355/2005/</article_url>
	<abstract_html>http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/5/9355/2005/acpd-5-9355-2005.html</abstract_html>
	<fulltext_pdf>http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/5/9355/2005/acpd-5-9355-2005.pdf</fulltext_pdf>
	<start_page>9355</start_page>
	<end_page>9404</end_page>
	<publication_date>2005-09-29</publication_date>
	<article_title content_type="html">Spectral light absorption by ambient aerosols influenced by biomass burning in the Amazon Basin – I. Comparison and field calibration of absorption measurement techniques</article_title>
	<authors>
		<author numeration="1" affiliations="1,6">
			<name>O. Schmid</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="2" affiliations="2">
			<name>P. Artaxo</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="3" affiliations="3">
			<name>W. P. Arnott</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="4" affiliations="1">
			<name>D. Chand</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="5" affiliations="4">
			<name>L. V. Gatti</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="6" affiliations="1">
			<name>G. P. Frank</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="7" affiliations="1">
			<name>A. Hoffer</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="8" affiliations="5">
			<name>M. Schnaiter</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="9" affiliations="1">
			<name>M. O. Andreae</name>
		</author>
	</authors>
	<affiliations>
		<affiliation numeration="1" content_type="html">Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Department of Biogeochemistry, PO Box 3060, 55020 Mainz, Germany</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="2" content_type="html">University of S&amp;#227;o Paulo, Institute of Physics, S&amp;#227;o Paulo, Brazil</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="3" content_type="html">Desert Research Institute, Division of Atmospheric Science, Reno, NV, USA</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="4" content_type="html">Institute of Nuclear Energy Research, Atmospheric Chemistry Laboratory, S˜ao Paulo, SP, Brazil</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="5" content_type="html">Research Center Karlsruhe, Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research, PO Box 3640, 76021 Karlsruhe, Germany</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="6" content_type="html">now at: GSF – National Research Center for Environment and Health, Institute for Inhalation Biology, PO Box 1129, 85758 Neuherberg/Munich, Germany</affiliation>
	</affiliations>
	<abstract content_type="html">Spectral aerosol light absorption is an important parameter for the
assessment of the radiation budget of the atmosphere. Although on-line
measurement techniques for aerosol light absorption, such as the
Aethalometer and the Particle Soot Absorption Photometer (PSAP), have been
available for two decades, they are limited in accuracy and spectral
resolution because of the need to deposit the aerosol on a filter substrate
before measurement. Recently, a 7-wavelength (&amp;lambda;) Aethalometer
became commercially available, which covers the visible (VIS) to
near-infrared (NIR) spectral range (&amp;lambda;=450&amp;ndash;950 nm), and
laboratory calibration studies improved the degree of confidence in these
measurement techniques. However, the applicability of the laboratory
calibration factors to ambient conditions has not been investigated
thoroughly yet.

&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;
As part of the LBA-SMOCC (Large scale Biosphere atmosphere experiment in
Amazonia &amp;ndash; SMOke aerosols, Clouds, rainfall and Climate) campaign from
September to November 2002 in the Amazon basin we performed an extensive
field calibration of a 1-&amp;lambda;&amp;nbsp;PSAP and a 7-&amp;lambda;&amp;nbsp;Aethalometer
utilizing a photoacoustic spectrometer (PAS, 532 nm) as reference device.
Especially during the dry period of the campaign, the aerosol population was
dominated by pyrogenic emissions. The most pronounced artifact of
integrating-plate type attenuation techniques is due to multiple scattering
effects within the filter matrix. For the PSAP, we essentially confirmed the
laboratory calibration factor by Bond (1999). On the other hand, for
the Aethalometer we found a multiple scattering enhancement of 5.23 (or
4.55, if corrected for aerosol scattering), which is significantly larger
than the factors previously reported (~2). While the exact reason for
this discrepancy is unknown, the available data from the present and
previous studies suggest aerosol mixing (internal versus external) as a
likely cause. While it is well-known that &lt;i&gt;RH&lt;/i&gt; may (moderately) affect aerosol
absorption, we found no dependence of either PSAP or Aethalometer on
relative humidity (&lt;i&gt;RH&lt;/i&gt;) for 30%&amp;lt;&lt;i&gt;RH&lt;/i&gt;&amp;lt;55% and 40%&amp;lt;&lt;i&gt;RH&lt;/i&gt;&amp;lt;80%,
respectively. However, a substantial decrease in PSAP sensitivity
was observed for low &lt;i&gt;RH&lt;/i&gt; (20%&amp;lt;&lt;i&gt;RH&lt;/i&gt;&amp;lt;30%). In addition, while the
PSAP demonstrated no sensitivity to gaseous adsorption, the Aethalometer
response was clearly positively correlated with the gradient in pollution
level. Hence, although very similar in measurement principle, the PSAP and
Aethalometer require markedly different correction factors, which is
probably due to the different filter media used. Although on-site
calibration of the PSAP and Aethalometer is suggested for best data
quality, we recommend a set of PSAP and Aethalometer correction factors for
ambient sampling based on the data from the present and previous studies.
For this study, the estimated accuracies of the absorption coefficients
determined by the PAS, PSAP and Aethalometer were 10, 15 and 20%,
respectively.</abstract>
	<references>
	</references>
</article>

