2001
DOI: 10.1080/02786820152051454
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Species Contributions to PM2.5 Mass Concentrations: Revisiting Common Assumptions for Estimating Organic Mass

Abstract: In virtually all published literature wherein closure between gravimetric and chemical measurements is tested, the concentration of particulate organics is estimated by multiplying the measured concentration of organic carbon (micrograms carbon/cubic meter air) by a factor of 1.2 -1.4. This factor, which is an estimate of the average molecular weight per carbon weight for the organic aerosol, stems from very limited theoretical and laboratory studies conducted during the 1970s. This investigation suggests that… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

69
905
8
2

Year Published

2006
2006
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 741 publications
(984 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
69
905
8
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The difference could be due to the assumption used in conversion from number to mass concentration by the density value (1.4 g/m 3 ), however, as the PM 0.5 mass was mainly composed of OM, that has typically the density in the range of 0.8-1.5 g/m 3 (Turpin and Lim 2001), that does not explain the smaller values calculated from the SMPS data. The most likely and plausible explanation is the measurement size range that has much smaller upper limit for the SMPS (0.5 mm) than for the ToF-ACSM (»800 nm) and MAAP (1 mm; Table S1).…”
Section: Mass Concentrations and Chemical Composition Of Particlescontrasting
confidence: 39%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The difference could be due to the assumption used in conversion from number to mass concentration by the density value (1.4 g/m 3 ), however, as the PM 0.5 mass was mainly composed of OM, that has typically the density in the range of 0.8-1.5 g/m 3 (Turpin and Lim 2001), that does not explain the smaller values calculated from the SMPS data. The most likely and plausible explanation is the measurement size range that has much smaller upper limit for the SMPS (0.5 mm) than for the ToF-ACSM (»800 nm) and MAAP (1 mm; Table S1).…”
Section: Mass Concentrations and Chemical Composition Of Particlescontrasting
confidence: 39%
“…That average value was calculated based on the particle chemical composition measured by the ToF-ACSM and MAAP. The densities used for the chemical species were 1.2 g/cm 3 for OM (Turpin and Lim 2001), 1.77 g/cm 3 for ammonium sulfate, 1.72 g/cm 3 for ammonium nitrate, and 1.8 g/cm 3 for BC (McMeeking et al 2010). APS number concentrations were converted to mass concentrations by using a density value of 2.0 g/cm 3 because it was assumed that super-micrometer particles contain more minerals.…”
Section: Online Chemical Characterization Of Sub-micrometer Particlesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Organic matter was obtained from OC, using a mean molecular to carbon ratio of 1.8, considering that in Milan area air masses are usually aged due to the frequently occurrence of stability conditions (Turpin and Lim 2001). Organic matter was the major contributor to PM10 mass (Fig.…”
Section: Meteorological Conditions and Mass Concentrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sulfur from XRF analyses was assumed to be in the form of ammonium sulfate and OC concentrations were multiplied by 1.4, an estimate of the average organic molecular weight per carbon weight in urban areas (Turpin and Lim, 2001), to yield particulate organic matter (OM). Soil dust concentrations were calculated as the sum of the oxides of Al, Si, Ca, Ti, Fe, and K (Brook et al, 1997;Lee et al, 2002).…”
Section: Species Mass Balancementioning
confidence: 99%