Literature DB >> 17007137

Comparison of ultraviolet absorbance, chemiluminescence, and DOAS instruments for ambient ozone monitoring.

E J Williams1, F C Fehsenfeld, B T Jobson, W C Kuster, P D Goldan, J Stutz, W A McClenny.   

Abstract

This paper evaluates the accuracy of ozone measurements made by monitors that determine ozone concentrations in ambient air by UV absorption. These monitors are typically used to measure ozone for the purpose of establishing local compliance to air-quality standards. The study was predicated by the concern that commercially available UV absorbance O3 monitors may be subject to interference from volatile organic carbon (VOC) species that absorb light at 254 nm. To test for these and other effects, we compared simultaneous O3 measurements made by a commercial UV O3 monitor with an O3-NO chemiluminescence instrument, which is not subject to interference by VOC compounds. The comparisons were carried out in the summers of 1999 and 2000 at urban/industrial sites in Nashville and Houston, and in 2004 aboard a ship in the Gulf of Maine. In the two urban areas, we also compared the 03 measurements from these two methods with O3 measurements made by a long-path differential optical absorption spectrometer (DOAS). Our tests indicate that, with well-maintained monitors, there are no significant interferences even in areas with significant ambient concentrations of potentially interfering VOCs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17007137     DOI: 10.1021/es0523542

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Sci Technol        ISSN: 0013-936X            Impact factor:   9.028


  6 in total

1.  Influence of temperature changes on ambient air NOx chemiluminescence measurements.

Authors:  Marta Doval Miñarro; Enrique González Ferradás; Francisco J Marzal Martínez
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2011-10-04       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Evaluation of low-cost electro-chemical sensors for environmental monitoring of ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide.

Authors:  Nima Afshar-Mohajer; Christopher Zuidema; Sinan Sousan; Laura Hallett; Marcus Tatum; Ana M Rule; Geb Thomas; Thomas M Peters; Kirsten Koehler
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 2.155

3.  Specific fluorogenic probes for ozone in biological and atmospheric samples.

Authors:  Amanda L Garner; Claudette M St Croix; Bruce R Pitt; George D Leikauf; Shin Ando; Kazunori Koide
Journal:  Nat Chem       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 24.427

4.  Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions.

Authors:  Russell W Long; Andrew Whitehill; Andrew Habel; Shawn Urbanski; Hannah Halliday; Maribel Colón; Surender Kaushik; Matthew S Landis
Journal:  Atmos Meas Tech       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Effects of Water Removal Devices on Ambient Inorganic Air Pollutant Measurements.

Authors:  Dong-June Kim; Trieu-Vuong Dinh; Joo-Yeon Lee; In-Young Choi; Dong-Jin Son; In-Young Kim; Young Sunwoo; Jo-Chun Kim
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-09-17       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Sensitive detection of ozone by a practical resorufin-based spectroscopic probe with extremely low background signal.

Authors:  Yangyang Zhang; Wen Shi; Xiaohua Li; Huimin Ma
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.