Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Intercomparison of Four Different in-situ Techniques for Ambient Formaldehyde Measurements in Urban Air|
|Authors:||HAK Claudia; PUNDT Irene; ORDÓÑEZ Carlos; PREVOT Andre; JUNKERMANN Wolfgang; LARSEN BO; MELLQVIST Johan; GALLE Bo; BRAATHEN Geir|
|Citation:||ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS no. 5 p. 2881-2900|
|Publisher:||European Geosciences Union|
|Type:||Articles in periodicals and books|
|Abstract:||Results from an intercomparison of several currently used in-situ techniques for the measurement of atmospheric formaldehyde (CH2O) are presented. The measurements were carried out at Bresso, an urban site in the peripheryvof Milan (Italy) as part of the FORMAT-I field campaign.vEight instruments were employed by six independent research groups using four different techniques: DifferentialvOptical Absorption Spectroscopy (DOAS), FouriervTransform Infra Red (FTIR) interferometry, the fluorimetric Hantzsch reaction technique (five instruments) and a chromatographic technique employing C18-DNPH-cartridges (2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine). White type multi-reflection systems were employed for the optical techniques in order to avoid spatial CH2O gradients and ensure the sampling of nearly the same air mass by all instruments. Between 23 and 31 July 2002, up to 13 ppbv of CH2O were observed. The concentrations lay well above the detection limits of all instruments. The formaldehyde concentrations determined with DOAS, FTIR and the Hantzsch instruments were found to agree within ±11%, with the exception of one Hantzsch instrument, which gave systematically higher values. The two hour integrated samples by DNPH yielded up to 25% lower concentrations than the data of the continuously measuring instruments averaged over the same time period. The Correspondence to: C. Hak (firstname.lastname@example.org) consistency between the DOAS and the Hantzsch method was better than during previous intercomparisons in ambient air with slopes of the regression line not significantly differing from one. The differences between the individual Hantzsch instruments could be attributed in part to the calibration standards used. Possible systematic errors of the methods are discussed.|
|JRC Institute:||Institute for Environment and Sustainability|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.