1 / 23

Presented at the EMEP Workshop on Particulate Matter Measurement and Modeling April 20, 2004

Rationalizing the differences between thermo-optical OC/EC methods. Kochy Fung Atmoslytic Inc. Calabasas, CA Judith C. Chow, and John G. Watson Desert Research Institute Reno, NV. Presented at the EMEP Workshop on Particulate Matter Measurement and Modeling April 20, 2004. Objectives.

kassia
Download Presentation

Presented at the EMEP Workshop on Particulate Matter Measurement and Modeling April 20, 2004

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Rationalizing the differences between thermo-optical OC/EC methods. Kochy Fung Atmoslytic Inc. Calabasas, CA Judith C. Chow, and John G. Watson Desert Research Institute Reno, NV Presented at the EMEP Workshop on Particulate Matter Measurement and Modeling April 20, 2004

  2. Objectives • Provide an overview of methods to measure particulate carbon in ambient air • Rationalize the differences • Resolve them?

  3. Difficulties with OC and EC sampling and analysis • No common definition of what “EC” is for atmospheric applications • It’s not graphite, diamond, or fullerenes • Light absorption efficiencies are not constant • They vary depending on particle shape and mixing with other substances • OC and EC properties on a filter differ from those in the atmosphere • OC gases are adsorbed onto the quartz filter at the same time that semi-volatile particles evaporate

  4. Sampling Quartz fiber filter: • Positive artifact due to gas adsorption Correction: Parallel sampling with backup filter behind Teflon or quartz filter. Approach inadequate - variable adsorption characteristics. • Negative artifact from evaporation of SVOC Impactor

  5. At Least 15 International Thermal Combustion Carbon Measurement Methods are Present with Different Operating Parameters • Combustion atmospheres • Temperature ramping rates • Temperature plateaus • Residence time at each plateau • Optical pyrolysis monitoring configuration/wavelength • Standardization • Oxidation and reduction catalysts • Sample aliquot and size • Evolved carbon detection method • Carrier gas flow through or across the sample • Location of the temperature monitor relative to the sample • Oven flushing conditions

  6. Speciation Principles Selective Oxidation: OC oxidized first • 100% O2 at 340oC - 2-step method ( Cachier, 1989) • 100% O2 temp. ramping- Evolved Gas Analysis (Novakov, 1981) • MnO2 at 525oC - TMO (Fung, 1982, 1990) Thermo-volatilization in Helium: • EC is non-volatile • Needs charring correction - T, R • NIOSH 5040 & variations - STN, MSC-1, others • IMPROVE

  7. 13TOR 11TOT 10TOT 12TOT 11bTOT 11TOT 12TOT 13TOR 10TOT 11bTOT Different thermal evolution protocols give different results for black carbon Schmid, H.P., Laskus, L., Abraham, H.J., Baltensperger, U., Lavanchy, V.M.H., Bizjak, M., Burba, P., Cachier, H., Crow, D.J., Chow, J.C., Gnauk, T., Even, A., ten Brink, H.M., Giesen, K.P., Hitzenberger, R., et al., 2001. Results of the "Carbon Conference" international aerosol carbon round robin test: Stage 1. Atmospheric Environment 35 (12), 2111-2121.Many called TOT, but temperature protocols differ from STN

  8. IMPROVE protocol corrects for pyrolysis by reflectance (TOR), has low initial temperatures (120 and 250˚C ), long residence time (150-580 seconds) at each temperature, carbon peaks back to baseline, 550 ˚C max in He

  9. STN protocol corrects for pyrolysis by transmittance (TOT), has high initial temperature (310˚C), fixed and short residence times (45-120 seconds), 900 ˚C max in He

  10. To understand differences, test a few variables at a time, keeping everything else the sameCase 1: 1) TOT/TOR correction, 2) IMPROVE/STN temperatures

  11. IMPROVE and STN total carbon are the same

  12. EC differs within protocol: Larger pyrolysis correction for TOT. Thus TOT-EC < TOR-EC

  13. IMPROVE-TOR and STN-TOR yield the same ECWhy?

  14. Case 2: Front and back half of filterMuch of low temperature OC is adsorbed organic vapor

  15. Adsorbed organic vapor within the filter char

  16. Within filter charring is larger for STN because initial temperature steps are higher: less OC to char with IMPROVE and correction is smaller TOR is less sensitive to internal charringthan TOT because it is dominated by the surface deposit, not by charred organic vapors in the filter

  17. Case 3: Soot and iron oxide mixtures UC-Davis : Ethylene / Acetylene / Fe(CO)5

  18. IMPROVE - Soot only • Most soot at 550oC in O2/He • Broad soot peak means slow oxidation in O2/He • Gradual rise in laser signals R T

  19. IMPROVE - Soot with iron oxides • Most soot is still at 550oC in O2/He • Sharper soot peak means faster oxidation in O2/He • Iron oxides promote soot oxidation • Sharp rise in laser signals

  20. STN - Soot only • Laser R and T rise >700oC in He • Most soot at 900 oC in He • Some soot in O2/He

  21. STN - Soot with iron oxides • Laser R and T rise >700oC in He • Sharp R and T increase at 900 oC in He • No soot in O2/He

  22. Summary - factors contributing to the difference between STN and IMPROVE • Temperature: • Higher temperatures enhance matrix effects such as oxidation & catalytic reactions • Charring more likely at higher temperatures • Temperatures specified by thermal protocols may not be the actual sample temperatures • This temperature bias causes variations in carbon fractions and contribute to discrepancies in interlab comparisons and uncertainties in receptor modeling using carbon fractions.

  23. Summary - continued • Residence time: • Shorter time at a given temperature leads to less resolved OC fractions, causing more OC to evolve at the next step • Shifting OC towards higher temperature could result in higher charring propensity • Pyrolysis Correction: • Transmittance is influenced by internal charring, leading to a greater correction. • Reflectance is affected mainly by the particulate deposit, so a smaller correction.

More Related