MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3089560720 · doi:10.5194/amt-2020-192

Comparison of co–located rBC and EC mass concentration measurements during field campaigns at several European sites

2020· article· en· W3089560720 on OpenAlexaff
Rosaria E. Pileci, Robin L. Modini, Michele Bertó, Jinfeng Yuan, Joel C. Corbin, Angela Marinoni, Bas Henzing, M. Moerman, Jean Philippe Putaud, Gerald Spindler, Birgit Wehner, Thomas Müller, Thomas Tuch, Arianna Trentini, Marco Zanatta, Urs Baltensperger, Martin Gysel‐Beer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersStaatssekretariat für Bildung, Forschung und InnovationEuropean Research CouncilHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsMass concentration (chemistry)Carbon blackSootAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryAerosolAtmosphere (unit)CalibrationCarbon fibersEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryMaterials scienceMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The mass concentration of black carbon (BC) particles in the atmosphere has traditionally been quantified with two methods: as elemental carbon (EC) concentrations measured by thermal-optical analysis and as equivalent black carbon (eBC) concentrations when BC mass is derived from particle light absorption coefficient measurements. Over the last decade, ambient measurements of refractory black carbon (rBC) mass concentrations based on laser-induced incandescence (LII) have become more common, mostly due to the development of the Single-Particle Soot Photometer (SP2) instrument. In this work, EC and rBC mass concentration measurements from field campaigns across several background European sites (Paris, Bologna, Cabauw and Melpitz) have been collated and examined to identify the similarities and differences between BC mass concentrations measured by the two techniques. All EC concentration measurements in PM2.5 were performed with the EUSAAR-2 thermal-optical protocol. All rBC concentration measurements were performed with SP2s calibrated with the same calibration material as recommended in the literature. The median ratio between observed rBC and EC mass concentrations was 0.92, when considering all data points from all five campaigns, and the corresponding geometric standard deviation (GSD) was 1.5. The minimal and maximal observed values of median rBC to EC mass concentration ratios on single campaign level were 0.53 and 1.29, respectively. This shows that substantial systematic bias between these two quantities occurred during some campaigns, which also contributes to the large overall GSD. On single campaign level, the relative spread of individual rBC to EC mass concentration ratios was typically between a factor of 1.2 and 1.3 (1 GSD), which indicates fairly good precision of both methods. Despite considerable variability of BC properties and sources across the whole data set, it was not possible to clearly assign reasons for discrepancies to one or the other method, both known to have their own specific limitations and uncertainties. However, differences in the particle size range covered by these two methods were identified as one likely reason for discrepancies. In particular, rBC to EC mass concentration ratios were found to be systematically less than unity, despite applying a correction for small BC cores that remain undetected by the SP2. This was observed when the rBC mass size distribution was shifted towards smaller modal diameter, which occurred during traffic emission dominated episodes. Overall, the high correlation between rBC and EC mass concentrations indicates that both methods essentially quantify the same property of atmospheric aerosols, whereas systematic differences in measured absolute values by up to a factor of 2 can occur. This finding for the level of agreement between two current state-of-the-art techniques has important implications for studies based on BC mass concentration measurements, for example for the interpretation of uncertainties of inferred BC mass absorption coefficient values, which are required for modelling the radiative forcing of BC. Homogeneity between BC mass determination techniques is very important also towards a routine BC mass measurement for air quality or human health regulations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.149
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAir Quality and Health Impacts→French-language works237,207→