A Comparison Study of Various Types of Ozone and Oxidant Detectors Which Are Used for Atmospheric Air Sampling

Cherniack, Irving; Bryan, R.J.

doi:10.1080/00022470.1965.10468391

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…KI-arsenite/UV (A) 0.78 n/a Dauvillier (1935) KI-arsenite/UV (L) 1 ±0.02 Volz and Kley (1988) Ehmert/UV (A) 0.98 ±0.09 Galbally (1979) Ehmert/UV (A) 0.947 ±0.009 Grasso (2011) KI/UV (A) 0.93 ±0.04 Vassy (1958) ECC/Ehmert (A) 1.02 ±0.12 WMO (1972), Galbally (1979) MPI-Pruch/Ehmert (A) 1 ±0.05 Pruchniewicz (1973) NBKI Colorimetric/Ehmert (L) 1.1 n/a Renzetti (1959) NBKI colorimetric/Ehmert (A) 1.22 ±0.15 Galbally (1979) Mast Brewer ozonesonde/Ehmert (A) 0.88 ±0.10 Galbally (1979) Cauer/Ehmert (A) 0.66 n/a Warmbt (1964) Cauer/Ehmert (corrected) (A) 0.9 n/a Warmbt (1964) Cryotrapping O 3 /KI-thiosulfate 1 ±0.05 Edgar and Paneth (1941a) ECC/UV (A) Cherniack and Bryan (1965) NBKI colorimetric/UV (A) 1.02 n/a Cherniack and Bryan (1965) 1% NBKI/UV (L) 1.09 ±0.02 Schnadt Poberaj et al (2007) 2% NBKI colorimetric/UV (L and A) 1.23 ±0.06 Pitts et al (1976a, b) 2% unbuffered KI titration/UV (L and A) 0.9 n/a Pitts et al (1976b) Pressure/Volume/UV (L) 1.03 n/a Watanabe and Stephens (1979) Regener chemiluminescent/UV (L) 1 n/a Regener (1964) Ethylene-Chemiluminescent/UV (A) 0.94 ±0.16 Attmannspacher and Hartmannsgruber (1982) Ozonograph-KI/UV (A) 1.09 ±0.20 Attmannspacher and Hartmannsgruber (1982) Mast Ozone Meter/Pressure/Volume (L) 1.04 n/a Watanabe and Stephens (1979) Mast Ozone Meter/NBKI colorimetric (L and A) 0.86 n/a Cherniack and Bryan (1965) Mast Ozone Meter/NBKI colorimetric (L) 0.71 n/a Gudiksen et al (1966) Regener chemiluminescent/Mast Ozone Meter (A)…”

Section: Methods Comparison Ratio Uncertainty Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report: Tropospheric ozone from 1877 to 2016, observed levels, trends and uncertainties

Tarasick

Galbally

Cooper

et al. 2019

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene

164

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the earliest observations of ozone in the lower atmosphere in the 19th century, both measurement methods and the portion of the globe observed have evolved and changed. These methods have different uncertainties and biases, and the data records differ with respect to coverage (space and time), information content, and representativeness. In this study, various ozone measurement methods and ozone datasets are reviewed and selected for inclusion in the historical record of background ozone levels, based on relationship of the measurement technique to the modern UV absorption standard, absence of interfering pollutants, representativeness of the well-mixed boundary layer and expert judgement of their credibility. There are significant uncertainties with the 19th and early 20th-century measurements related to interference of other gases. Spectroscopic methods applied before 1960 have likely underestimated ozone by as much as 11% at the surface and by about 24% in the free troposphere, due to the use of differing ozone absorption coefficients.There is no unambiguous evidence in the measurement record back to 1896 that typical mid-latitude background surface ozone values were below about 20 nmol mol -1 , but there is robust evidence for increases in the temperate and polar regions of the northern hemisphere of 30-70%, with large uncertainty, between the period of historic observations, 1896-1975, and the modern period (1990-2014). Independent historical observations from balloons and aircraft indicate similar changes in the free troposphere. Changes in the southern hemisphere are much less. Regional representativeness of the available observations remains a potential source of large errors, which are difficult to quantify.The great majority of validation and intercomparison studies of free tropospheric ozone measurement methods use ECC ozonesondes as reference. Compared to UV-absorption measurements they show a modest (~1-5% ±5%) high bias in the troposphere, but no evidence of a change with time. Umkehr, lidar, and FTIR methods all show modest low biases relative to ECCs, and so, using ECC sondes as a transfer standard, all appear to agree to within one standard deviation with the modern UV-absorption standard. Other sonde types show an increase of 5-20% in sensitivity to tropospheric ozone from 1970-1995. Biases and standard deviations of satellite retrieval comparisons are often 2-3 times larger than those of other free tropospheric measurements. The lack of information on temporal changes of bias for satellite measurements of tropospheric ozone is an area of concern for long-term trend studies.

show abstract

Section: Methods Comparison Ratio Uncertainty Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report: Tropospheric ozone from 1877 to 2016, observed levels, trends and uncertainties

Tarasick

Galbally

Cooper

et al. 2019

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene

164

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such methods have been used in California in two series of tests for measuring atmospheric ozone directly simultaneously with color ime trie neutral KI methods which measured total oxidant. While the correlation of atmospheric ozone with the ambient total oxidant concentration demonstrated by these selected intercomparison investigations 15 -24 has been found to be very high, 99% at times of peak diurnal oxidant levels in a Los Angeles area study 24 ; the correlation of ozone to total oxidant concentrations was quite poor at other times of the day. 15 The ozone content was lowest, approaching zero, during darkness and in poor light.…”

Section: Categories Of Plant Research Which Provide Data For the Air mentioning

confidence: 83%

Effects of Photochemical Air Pollution on Vegetation with Relation to the Air Quality Requirements

Jaffe

1967

Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1 When total oxidants in ambient air are high, ozone may be more than 95% of the total. 2 Levels measured with an ultraviolet photometer, considered specific for ozone, have exceeded 0.5 ppm in the Los Angeles area. Other known toxicants in the smog complex affecting vegetation are peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN) and nitrogen dioxide.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Consideration of Air Quality Standards for Vegetation With Respect to Ozone

Heggestad¹

1969

Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Present evidence suggests that ozone is the most damaging of all air pollutants affecting vegetation. It is the principal oxidant in the photochemical smog complex. Concentrations of ozone have exceeded 0.5 part per million (ppm) in the Los Angeles area. One-tenth of this level for 8 hours is known to injure very sensitive tobacco varieties. Many plant species are visibly affected after a few hours exposure at concentrations much lower than 0.5 ppm. There is also some evidence that ozone reduces plant growth. Many factors must be taken into account when considering standards to protect vegetation from ozone damage. These include ozone concentration and methods of measurement, time of exposure, possible additive effects of other pollutants, sensitivity of plant species, their economic value, and the extent of injury which can be tolerated. The response of a species to the pollutant is conditioned by genetic factors and environmental conditions. Lack of specific routine methods for measuring ozone in ambient air is a handicap. California and Colorado established standards for oxidants at 0.15 and 0.10 ppm, respectively, for 1 hour. How these standards relate to the ozone dosage causing acute and chronic injury to various plant species is discussed.

show abstract

A Comparison Study of Various Types of Ozone and Oxidant Detectors Which Are Used for Atmospheric Air Sampling

Cited by 12 publications

References 6 publications

Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report: Tropospheric ozone from 1877 to 2016, observed levels, trends and uncertainties

Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report: Tropospheric ozone from 1877 to 2016, observed levels, trends and uncertainties

Effects of Photochemical Air Pollution on Vegetation with Relation to the Air Quality Requirements

Consideration of Air Quality Standards for Vegetation With Respect to Ozone

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About