<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0"><?xmltex \makeatother\@nolinetrue\makeatletter?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">AMT</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Atmospheric Measurement Techniques</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">AMT</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Meas. Tech.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1867-8548</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/amt-12-2837-2019</article-id><title-group><article-title>Negligible influence of livestock contaminants and sampling system on
ammonia measurements with cavity ring-down spectroscopy</article-title><alt-title>Negligible influence of livestock contaminants and sampling system</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Negligible influence of livestock contaminants and sampling system}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{J.~N.~Kamp et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Kamp</surname><given-names>Jesper Nørlem</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Chowdhury</surname><given-names>Albarune</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff3">
          <name><surname>Adamsen</surname><given-names>Anders Peter S.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Feilberg</surname><given-names>Anders</given-names></name>
          <email>af@eng.au.dk</email>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Engineering, Aarhus University,  8000 Aarhus, Denmark</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Arctic Research Centre, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>a</label><institution>now at: APSA, 8800 Viborg, Denmark</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Anders Feilberg (af@eng.au.dk)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>17</day><month>May</month><year>2019</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>12</volume>
      <issue>5</issue>
      <fpage>2837</fpage><lpage>2850</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>25</day><month>October</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>29</day><month>November</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>12</day><month>April</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>1</day><month>May</month><year>2019</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2019 Jesper Nørlem Kamp et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2019</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/2837/2019/amt-12-2837-2019.html">This article is available from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/2837/2019/amt-12-2837-2019.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/2837/2019/amt-12-2837-2019.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/2837/2019/amt-12-2837-2019.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e121">Emission of ammonia (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is a ubiquitous problem
due to the adverse effects of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on the environment and human
health. The agricultural sector accounts for nearly all <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
emissions in Europe. Hence, technologies for the abatement of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
emissions from this sector have been in strong demand in recent years. In
order to document emissions and evaluate abatement technologies, there is
a strong need for reliable <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement methods. Photoacoustic
spectroscopy (PAS) is often used to measure <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations, but
recent research shows interference from compounds typically present in
livestock production and during agricultural activities. In this work, the
performance of cavity ring-down spectroscopy (CRDS) from Picarro, as an
alternative to PAS, has been tested with respect to method validation under
laboratory and field conditions. Potential interferences of 10 volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) on CRDS <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement were tested with
simultaneous VOC analysis performed by proton-transfer-reaction mass
spectrometry (PTR-MS). Both laboratory and field calibrations show excellent
linearity over a large dynamic range of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations. The
analyzer shows a small humidity effect of up to a few ppb in the extreme
case of a nearly water-saturated air stream. Apart from the negligible
humidity dependency, no interferences of the tested VOCs were observed.
Overall, the CRDS system performs satisfactory and is well suited for
measurements of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions from livestock production.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      <?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e235">Ammonia (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is an important atmospheric pollutant with several
adverse effects: deposition of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can lead to eutrophication and
acidification, which has negative effects on biodiversity (Sheppard et al.,
2011). <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a precursor of atmospheric aerosols thereby
influencing the global radiation budget as well as having a negative
influence on human health (Aneja et al., 2001; Baek et al., 2004). In
addition, microbial oxidation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> results in secondary
production of nitrous oxide (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and nitric oxide (NO) (Zhu et
al., 2013). <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a very potent greenhouse gas (GHG) and NO is
involved in atmospheric reactions producing tropospheric ozone (Aneja et al.,
2001).</p>
      <p id="d1e309">Agricultural activities, mainly manure application and management, account
for around 94 % of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions in Europe (Nielsen et al.,
2017). Reliable measurements in the agricultural sector are highly important
to give accurate estimates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions in order to reduce
emissions, for example, by validation of technological improvements within the
agricultural sector.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e336">Simulated absorption spectrum from the HITRAN database for 1 %
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (blue), 400 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (green), 100 ppb acetic acid,
100 ppb ethanol, and 100 ppb <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 45 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and
187 mbar.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/2837/2019/amt-12-2837-2019-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e390">The ventilation air from animal production facilities contains a variety of
chemical compounds, relatively high water content and high densities of
particulate matter. This includes a great number of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are emitted in
agricultural buildings from, e.g., silage, manure and the animals themselves (Feilberg et
al., 2010; Hafner et al., 2013; Hansen et al., 2012; Ngwabie et al., 2008;
Shaw et al., 2007; Yuan et al., 2017). Several <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> analyzers are
sensitive to water vapor and other gasses (Bobrutzki et al., 2010; Huszár
et al., 2008; Ni and Heber, 2008; Rom and Zhang, 2010; Rosenstock et al.,
2013). Such interferences<?pagebreak page2838?> can introduce errors depending on the instrument
used. Furthermore, it is challenging to measure <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations
correctly due to its high water solubility and polarity, which causes
adsorption on surfaces in the sampling system and within the instrument (Rom
and Zhang, 2010; Shah et al., 2006; Vaittinen et al., 2014). This “sticky
nature” of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> causes delays in the measurements, giving longer
response times (Rom and Zhang, 2010; Shah et al., 2006; Vaittinen et al.,
2014). It is an additional challenge to measure <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in livestock
buildings, where dust and particles provide large surface areas for
adsorption in particulate filters used to protect measuring instruments.</p>
      <p id="d1e437">In many agricultural emission studies, photoacoustic spectroscopy (PAS)
(Poissant et al., 2005; Rom and Zhang, 2010; Saha et al., 2010; Wu et al.,
2012; Zhang et al., 2005; Zong et al., 2014) has been used, but findings by
Rosenstock et al. (2013) and Liu et al. (2019) show high interference on
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements from a variety of organic compounds including
carboxylic acids and alcohols. Hassouna et al. (2013) reported nonconstant
bias in the results from PAS measurements on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
caused by organic compounds often present at agricultural sites, which makes
the PAS measurements unreliable in an agricultural setting. Another issue
with PAS measurements is the long response time of up to 25 min (Rom and
Zhang, 2010), which lowers the time resolution of emission measurements under
dynamic conditions. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is underestimated by approximately 14 %
and 2 % after 12.5 and 25 min, respectively (Rom and Zhang, 2010).
Typical measurements in cattle barns take place at multiple points. For
example, Rong et al. (2014) measured at 7 points in a dairy cow building and
Ngwabie et al. (2009) measured at 11 points in a dairy cow barn. The cycle
time for a typical setup in a barn would therefore be on the order of
3–5 h, which makes it impossible to monitor temporal variations with only
4–8 measurements per measurement point per day. Thus, the response time is a
key parameter for equipment measuring at multiple points as done in livestock
buildings.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e488"><bold>(a)</bold> Calibration curve of the CRDS from 0.20 to 16.8 ppm
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> conducted under laboratory conditions; <bold>(b)</bold> calibration
curve limited to 0 to 2 ppm. Symbols represent measured values, error bars
the standard deviation and the line is the fitted regression model.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/2837/2019/amt-12-2837-2019-f02.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e513">In a few recent studies, cavity ring-down spectroscopy (CRDS) has been used to measure ammonia concentrations
(Maasikmets et al., 2015; Sintermann et al., 2011) in agricultural settings.
The CRDS provides measurements in real time with high sensitivity, high
selectivity and a fast response time. The CRDS analyzer maintains high
linearity, precision and accuracy over changing environmental conditions
without the need for frequent calibration. The work of Martin et al. (2016)
led to an improvement of water vapor interference calculations on Picarro's
CRDS for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements. The scaling factor error they discovered
is approximately 2 % of the absolute water concentration.</p>
      <p id="d1e527">Bobrutzki et al. (2010) conducted a field intercomparison of 11
atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement techniques at concentrations up to
120 ppb including cavity ring-down spectroscopy (CRDS), and the results show
a good overall agreement between the instruments on an hourly basis
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.84</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>
      <p id="d1e557">Our aim is to demonstrate the performance of the CRDS analyzer for
measurements of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> gas concentration under laboratory and field
conditions. This includes identification and quantification of potential
interferences by compounds present in livestock buildings by using
proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry (PTR-MS) to document VOC
concentrations in laboratory tests.</p>
      <?pagebreak page2839?><p id="d1e571">Due to the major concerns regarding measurements of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with PAS
(Hassouna et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2012), it is pertinent
that any influence of VOC on CRDS is thoroughly documented, which to our
knowledge has not been done previously. The absorptions lines of, for example, acetic
acid and methanol found in the HITRAN database (Gordon et al., 2017) are in
the same range as the ammonia lines used for measurements in the CRDS; see
Fig. 1. This highlights the importance of the current study as the absorption
by VOCs in principle may cause similar interference, as reported by Rosenstock
et al. (2013) and Liu et al. (2019) for PAS.</p>
      <p id="d1e585">This study aims to validate CRDS for measurements in the agricultural
industry, thus we test for interference with a number of compounds typically
present in pig houses and cattle farms for which <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration
and emission measurements are routinely carried out. Laboratory tests include
determination of the response parameters linearity, response time, influence
of particulate filters and chemical interference. Field tests include
determination of the response parameters linearity, response time and
particulate filter effect.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e601"><bold>(a)</bold> Rise time and <bold>(b)</bold> fall time for the CRDS
measurements normalized to final concentrations during laboratory testing of
the response to a step change to 1.02 (blue) and 10.01 ppm (green). The
results show <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 1.02 ppm with rise time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s and fall time
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s and 10.01 ppm with rise time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3.6 s and fall
time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4.8 s. The red lines and areas represent the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
standard gas concentration with 10 % accuracy, the blue markers show the
normalized concentration from 1.02 ppm and the green markers show the
normalized concentration from 10.01 ppm.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/2837/2019/amt-12-2837-2019-f03.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e694">The response to a step change in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at <bold>(a)</bold> 0.203
and <bold>(b)</bold> 10.01 ppm with and without external inlet filters during
laboratory testing. The red line and area represent the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
standard gas concentration with 10 % accuracy. See the legend
abbreviations in Table 1.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/2837/2019/amt-12-2837-2019-f04.png"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Materials and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Chemicals, reagents and gasses</title>
      <p id="d1e746">We used the following chemicals during the experiments: 70 mM acetic acid
(VWR int. S.A.S., Fontenay-sous-Bois, France), 27 mM 1-propanol (Merck KGaA,
Darmstadt, Germany), 1.3 mM 2-propanol (Sigma-Aldrich Chemie GmbH,
Steinheim, Germany), 0.7 mM acetaldehyde (Sigma-Aldrich), 4 mM propionic
acid (Alfa Aesar GmbH &amp; Co KG, Karlsruhe, Germany), 0.8 mM acetone
(Merck), 10 mM methanol (VWR), 2.2 mM 1-butanol (Merck), 69 mM ethanol
(CCS Healthcare AB, Borlänge, Sweden) and 44 mM butanoic acid (Alfa
Aesar). Deionized water dissolved the chemicals to the desired concentrations.</p>
      <p id="d1e749">We used the following gasses during the experiments: 101 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %) in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> calibration gas (AGA A/S, Copenhagen,
Denmark), pure (99.99 %) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (AGA), pure (99.99 %)
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (AGA), and as compressed zero air passed through a bed of
silica gel and charcoal to remove water, ozone, hydrocarbons and other common
contaminants. Mass flow controllers (MFCs) from the EL-FLOW (Bronkhorst
High-Tech B.V., Ruurlo, Netherlands) series regulated all gas flows with an
accuracy of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e822">Specifications of tested particulate filters with abbreviations.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Filter material</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Pore size (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Thickness (mm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Diameter (mm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Porosity (%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Filter code</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PTFE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.08</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">74</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">PTFE 0.2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PTFE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.08</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">78</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">PTFE 0.5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PTFE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.08</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">79</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">PTFE 1.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PTFE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.08</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">83</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">PTFE 3.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PTFE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.08</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">PTFE 5.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Glass fiber</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.21</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">GA 55</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Glass fiber</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">GB 140</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Glass fiber</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.74</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">GA 200</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Quartz fiber</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.38</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">QR 100</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e825"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Polytetrafluoroethylene.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Instrumentation</title>
      <p id="d1e1137">The operational principle of CRDS relies on ring down time laser light. An
air sample enters a cavity at low pressure (18.665 kPa, 140 Torr) and laser light is
pulsed into the cavity, where almost all light is reflected by mirrors,
which gives an effective path length of kilometers. A small fraction of the
light penetrates the mirrors to reach the detector and the intensity of the
light is proportional to the concentration of target gas, as the target gas
will absorb light. The G2103 analyzer measures absorption from 6548.5 to
6549.2 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Martin et al., 2016), and Fig. 1 shows the absorption of
some selected compounds in this range obtained from the HITRAN<?pagebreak page2840?> 2016 database
(Gordon et al., 2017). The computed absorption lines in Fig. 1 correspond to
1 % <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 400 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 100 ppb acetic acid, 100 ppb
ethanol and 100 ppb ammonia at 45 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and 140 Torr. Line broadening
is not taken into account.</p>
      <p id="d1e1185">For the determination of interference, we used a Picarro <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
analyzer model G2103 (Picarro Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) to measure the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration continuously, this CRDS analyzer has not
incorporated the upgraded water correction. A high-sensitivity PTR-MS
(Ionicon Analytik, Innsbruck, Austria) measured concentrations of different
VOCs for the interference tests. The drift tube setting was 600 V,
2.1–2.2 mbar and 60 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, which yield an E/N of approximately
130 Td. Fragmentation of alcohols is normal<?pagebreak page2841?> in PTR-MS and we use the
fragmentation of alcohols as described by Brown et al. (2010) to calculate
the final concentration with all fragments taken into consideration.</p>
      <p id="d1e1228">One stream of clean air passed through the headspace air over an aqueous
solution containing a single compound. Another stream diluted the outflow
from the headspace. We changed the airflows to get different concentrations
of the compound in the gas phase. The CRDS and PTR-MS received the diluted
air streams.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1234">The CRDS signals of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (ppb) in zero air at different
concentrations of water vapor, ranging from 6 % to 99 % relative humidity
(RH) at 22 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C under laboratory conditions. Symbols represent
measured values and the line is the fitted linear regression model.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/2837/2019/amt-12-2837-2019-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1265">The CRDS signals of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in zero air response to various
concentrations of <bold>(a)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (480–5848 ppm) and
<bold>(b)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (2.42–350 ppm) under laboratory conditions.
Symbols represent measured values and vertical and horizontal bars the
standard deviation of the measurements.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/2837/2019/amt-12-2837-2019-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Linearity, calibration and filter effect</title>
      <p id="d1e1323">We used a flow dilution system with zero air and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> calibration
gas (101 ppm) to test the linearity of the CRDS measurements. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
gas concentrations for the calibration were in the range from 0.20 to
16.8 ppm in the laboratory and from 0.27 to 20.0 ppm under field
conditions. We performed the calibrations in the laboratory without external
filters. Introduction of all gasses in the field was through a multi-position
rotary valve (MPV, Cheminert low-pressure valve, model C25, VICI AG
International, Schenkon, Switzerland) for 6 min while the CRDS was in normal
sampling mode. We performed a single point calibration in the field to test
the system integrity and analyzer response time by introducing 7.8 ppm
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> calibration gas directly into the sampling lines that were manually
removed from their position. The response time for all experiments was found
by fitting an exponential function to the step changes, which gave the
e-folding time. We tested the PTFE filters in the laboratory for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> signals by connecting filters used for 2 weeks to a clean air
supply under heating to maximum 75 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. Monitoring of the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> signals continued until the concentration went below 5 ppb;
see Table 1 for abbreviations and specifications of the used filters.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e1393">Interference of different organic compounds on the CRDS
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement. Blue markers indicate the original data and red
markers indicate water-corrected data from the regression shown in Fig. 5.
The compounds are <bold>(a)</bold> 1-butanol, <bold>(b)</bold> 1-propanol,
<bold>(c)</bold> 2-propanol, <bold>(d)</bold> acetaldehyde, <bold>(e)</bold> acetic acid,
<bold>(f)</bold> acetone, <bold>(g)</bold> butanoic acid, <bold>(h)</bold> ethanol,
<bold>(i)</bold> methanol, and <bold>(j)</bold> propionic acid.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/2837/2019/amt-12-2837-2019-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e1446">Calibration curve of the CRDS from 0.27 to 20.04 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
conducted under field conditions. Symbols represent measured values and the
line is the fitted linear regression model.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/2837/2019/amt-12-2837-2019-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1467">We performed laboratory tests on the response time by switching between
ambient air and 1.02 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with the MPV without external filters
attached. We also tested response time to a step change in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
concentration with different external particulate filters attached. The
concentrations were 0.203 and 10.01 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with filters of
different pore sizes made of PTFE, glass fiber and quartz. Table 1 shows the
specifications of the filters.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Field testing</title>
      <p id="d1e1511">We conducted field tests in a cattle barn with natural ventilation located in
central Jutland outside Viborg, Denmark. The cattle barn is 9 m high, 60 m
long and 36 m wide and naturally ventilated. We measured <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
concentrations in the cattle building with the CRDS combined with a 10<?pagebreak page2842?> port
(P1-P10) MPV (C25-61800, VICI Valco Inst. Co. Inc., Texas, USA). Measurements
were set up according to Rong et al. (2014) and Wu et al. (2012). We
considered the division into three 20 m sections inside the cattle barn to
be representative of the animal-occupied zone of the barn. We sampled
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations from the three sections using PTFE tubes (inner
diameter 6 mm, 20 m long) with 20 uniformly distributed sampling openings.
The sampling points (SP) SP2, SP3 and SP4 were inside the building, with SP2
and SP4 on each of the end walls adjacent to the windows, i.e., sidewall
openings, placed 2.5 m above the floor. SP3 was just below the ridge opening
in the middle of the building, placed 9 m above the floor. SP1 and SP5 were
outside background measurements from two single points placed 5 m from the
building sidewalls at 2.5 m height. The sample tubes were between 5 and
50 m long with heating cables attached to avoid condensation inside the
tubing. The length of the sampling lines was approximately 5, 15, 35, 45 and
50 m for SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4 and SP5, respectively. See Fig. A1 in the
Appendix. Each sampling line had a secondary suction pump (flow rate of
6–7 L min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) with a PTFE membrane to generate a constant flow through
the lines. A PTFE filter (0.20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m pore size) removed airborne
particulate matter from the sample air before the sampling ports of the MPV.
Replacement of filters was done at least fortnightly. Measurement lasted 6 min for
each sampling port with automatic switching; i.e., a measurement cycle was
30 min.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1559">Limit of detection and limit of quantification from a 1 h
stable measurements on zero air.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.80}[.80]?><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">N</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">SD</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">LOD (3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SD)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">LOQ (10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SD)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> [%]</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2065</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.082</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.0019</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.019</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> [ppb]</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2065</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.636</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.115</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.345</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.151</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1687">We used pure deionized water to produce a range of different humidity levels.
Figure 5 shows the effects of the humidity on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> signal from
relative humidity (RH) ranging from 6.3 % to 98.6 %. The response to
the change in humidity is linear (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.83</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
measurements from 1.3 to 4.6 ppb over the given RH range.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e1730">Calibration of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> sampling and measurement system and
associated response times of the CRDS during field testing. Introduction of
7.8 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> gas was at <bold>(a)</bold> SP1, <bold>(b)</bold> SP2,
<bold>(c)</bold> SP4 and <bold>(d)</bold> SP5 while monitoring the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
concentration at the outlet port connected to the analyzer. SP denotes
sampling point. The rise times were 7.3, 3.0, 8.4 and 5.9 s for SP1, SP2,
SP4 and SP5, respectively. The red line and area represent the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
standard concentration with uncertainty.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/2837/2019/amt-12-2837-2019-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Laboratory tests</title>
      <?pagebreak page2843?><p id="d1e1812">The CRDS had a highly linear response (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.99998</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
concentrations over the dynamic range 0.20–16.8 ppm (Fig. 2). This range is
chosen from the expected concentration in a livestock facility as seen in
Figs. A2 and A3, which show the hourly mean concentration of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in
four rooms with finisher pigs and a dairy cattle barn, respectively. The
maximum concentration can exceed 15 ppm in the pig houses and 3 ppm in the
cattle barn. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> standard calibration gas used for all
calibrations had an accuracy of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % stated by the manufacturer.
The measured <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations in Fig. 2 are averages of several
hundred measurements and the standard deviations are indicators of stability.
Figure 3a and b shows the result of a step change in concentration from clean
air to 1.02 and 10.01 ppm, respectively, and back to clean air. The rise
time to the final concentration level minus <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was 8.1 and 3.6 s and the
fall time to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the final concentration level was 3.2 and 4.8 s for
1.02 and 10 ppm, respectively. Furthermore, Fig. 4 shows response times to
step changes to two concentrations (0.203 and 10.01 ppm) with different
types of external particulate filters. The response times varied for the
different filter types, with an average rise and fall time of 8.1 and 6.3 s
(for 0.203 ppm) and 3.1 and 3.7 s (for 10.01 ppm), respectively (Fig. 4).
Across all filter types, the response time was fastest for changes to the
highest concentration except the fall time for three filters; see details in
Table A2.</p>
      <p id="d1e1909">Measurements on zero air over an hour gave a standard deviation on the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration of 0.115 ppb. This gives a limit of detection
(LOD) of 0.35 ppb for three standard deviations and a limit of
quantification (LOQ) of 1.15 ppb for 10 standard deviations; see Table 2.</p>
      <p id="d1e1923">Figure 6 shows the CRDS signals from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with
random fluctuations in the low ppb level being observed. There are no
apparent interferences from these two compounds. All measured <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
concentrations for both compounds are below the LOQ.</p>
      <p id="d1e1959">Figure 7 shows the interferences of 10 different VOCs with VOC concentration
as a function of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration corrected for water contribution
and the uncorrected concentration as well. This correction was due to a clear
pattern<?pagebreak page2844?> for increased water vapor with VOC concentration as water is
introduced with the VOCs, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration increased with
increased water vapor for all compounds. The observed interferences were in
the range from 0.5 to 5 ppb <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> equivalents at VOC concentrations
from 6 to 8000 ppb. These VOC concentrations range from levels comparable to
field conditions up to levels 1–2 orders of magnitude higher than maximum
field conditions.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Field tests</title>
      <p id="d1e2003">In the field, the CRDS also has a highly linear response (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9995</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) in
the concentration range 0.27–20.04 ppm; see Fig. 8. Figure 9 shows the
results of a single point field calibration of the system integrity and
response time to a sudden change to 7.8 ppm with response times varying from
6 to 25 s. The calibration gas used in the measurements shown in Figs. 8
and 9 had an uncertainty of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %.</p>
      <p id="d1e2031">Figure 10 shows the ammonia concentrations released from external particulate
filters that have been exposed to ammonia in a livestock house for 2 weeks.
Vacuum pumps applied a gas flow rate of minimum 6 L min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> through the
filter over the 2-week period, thus a minimum volume of 120 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of air
went through each filter. The preexposed filters were flushed with zero air
and ammonia release was monitored by CRDS. The concentration maximum varied
between 25 and 38 ppb. The peak values are comparable to typical ambient
laboratory concentrations ranging from 14 to 37 ppb; see Table A1.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>4</label><title>Discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e2066">The CRDS analyzer had a linear response during both laboratory tests and field
validation (Figs. 2 and 8) in the range from approximately 0.2 to 20 ppm;
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations in livestock buildings are normally within this
range (Heber et al., 2006; Koerkamp et al., 1998) as seen in Figs. A1 and A2.
This is in agreement with the manufacturer specifications that guarantee the
range from 0 to 500 ppb and an operational and optional expanded range up
to 10 and 50 ppm, respectively (Picarro, 2017). The field calibrations show
excellent agreement with the standard gas concentrations. The standard gas
had an uncertainty of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %, according to the data sheet from the
manufacturer. This may well explain the small offset (&lt; 4 %)
from the obtained concentrations seen in Fig. 9, but the system causes minor
variations, as the bias is considered constant. The LOD (0.35 ppb) found in
the present study is comparable to the manufacturer's specifications for 1 s integration time, as seen in Table 2. The performance of a single
point field calibration showed very good agreement with the expected
concentrations, as seen in Fig. 9. The potential bias from the zero air might also
influence the other laboratory experiments, which can explain some of the
variations we see in, for example, filter response (Fig. 4) or water dependency
(Fig. 5).</p>
      <p id="d1e2090">It is a requirement to have fast responding analyzers to understand the
dynamic behavior and diurnal variations in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations in
animal buildings. Ni and Heber (2008) suggest a response time of less than
2 min to capture temporal <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration variations. The CRDS
shows sufficiently low response times under laboratory (Fig. 3 and Table A2)
and field conditions (Fig. 9). These times are also comparable to
&lt; 30 s for responses to 3 ppm, as reported by the manufacturer
(Picarro, 2017). Furthermore, there are no clear changes in response time
without the use of an external particulate matter filter. The tested filters
vary by &lt; 10 s in response time with a tendency towards shorter
response times at higher concentrations. The manufacturer reports rise- and
fall times of approximately 16 s, which is at a minimum twice as much
as the present results, Table A2 and Fig. 2. The response to a change from 0
to 1.02 ppm gave response times of 8.1  and 3.2 s for the rise and fall
time, respectively. A change from 0 to 10.02 gave response times of 3.6 and
4.8 s for the rise and fall time, respectively (Fig. 3). The rise times
with external particulate filters connected were 7.3, 3.0, 8.4 and 5.9 s,
for SP1, SP2, SP4 and SP5, respectively. Response times are, in general, faster
for higher concentration differences (see Fig. 4), which is ascribed to
faster surface saturation. The observed concentrations of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
released from particulate filters exposed to air from a livestock house for
2 weeks (Fig. 10) suggest that adsorption of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to the filter
material, surfaces and walls is negligible. The levels released over 1 min
(&lt; 50 ppb) should be compared to a filter exposure of ammonia of
&gt; 100 ppb (ranging in to low ppm levels) over 2 weeks. These
results indicate that the use of external<?pagebreak page2845?> filters gives satisfying response
times and no problems with adsorption of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on the filter
material.</p>
      <p id="d1e2148"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are present in the atmosphere in relatively
high concentrations compared to other trace gasses, and animals produce
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, thus elevated concentrations are normal in
animal houses. Over a large concentration range, we observed little scatter
and no interference of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
measurements, as seen in Fig. 6. The mean concentrations of both compounds are
below the LOQ.</p>
      <p id="d1e2228">For the interference of single VOCs, it was expected that the different
dilutions prepared from clean dry air mixed with humid headspace air over a
VOC solution gave a correlation between water vapor and VOC concentration.
This was also the case for all 10 volatile compounds. Martin et al. (2016)
observe an interference from water vapor on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements due to
spectral line broadening, which the manufacturer corrects for in all models
produced after the publication of that work. Our Picarro analyzer from December 2014 does
not make this extra correction, and we thus expected a small water dependency
for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is seen in Fig. 5. Figure 5 shows the humidity
effect on the CRDS signal generated from pure deionized water and reveals a
small dependency for water vapor, which the improvements suggested by Martin
et al. (2016) potentially remove. Nonetheless, our results show up to
4.5 ppb <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for a nearly water-saturated air stream with an
absolute <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration of approximately 1.1 %. Thus, in the
extreme case of low <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations of 100 pbb and very humid
air, a water vapor interference of up to 5 % of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> signal
may be present, but under normal conditions this is negligible.</p>
      <p id="d1e2301">The 10 tested compounds are normally present in sub-ppm levels in
agricultural environments (Copeland et al., 2012; Yuan et al., 2017). As seen
in Fig. 1, acetic acid and methanol have absorption lines in the wavelength
area used for the Picarro CRDS measurements. A concentration range that
covers a large dynamic area and exceeds the normal maximum concentration in
livestock buildings was used to obtain the potential maximum interference, and
we only observed very small water-induced interferences. Figure 7 shows the
contribution from the single VOCs that were either corrected for water or uncorrected, and, as
can be seen, the interferences are insignificant in general. Overall, the
difference between high and low concentration for a single VOC was
approximately 1–2 ppb <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 7), except for acetic acid with a
difference of nearly 4 ppb. It should be noted that the water to VOC
relation differs for the different compounds. With water correction applied,
only 1-propanol and acetic acid have increasing tendencies, where
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration increases about 0.8 ppb for an
increase of 7.5 ppm of 1-propanol and 2.9 ppb for an increase
of nearly 1.8 ppm of acetic acid. Acetic acid, 2-propanol and propionic
acids were the only compounds with absolute humidity above 1 % as we used
higher flow rates over the headspace to obtain the targeted concentrations.
The very moist sample of acetic acid had a corrected maximum of 3.7 ppb
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is very low<?pagebreak page2846?> compared to, for example, concentrations in animal
buildings, which typically range from &lt; 1 to 20 ppm but can, in extreme
cases, reach up to 50 ppm (Heber et al., 2006; Koerkamp et al., 1998). Thus, errors of
a few ppb, introduced by humidity effects, would have a small impact on the
results. For the given setup, the interferences from water vapor were in the
same order of magnitude as the LOQ of 1.15 ppb. For more than half of the
VOCs, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration falls below the LOQ for all or most
measurement. This demonstrates a very low interference from the investigated
VOCs.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e2350">Levels of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration in the 2-week-old external
particulate filters (PTFE, 0.20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m pore size) measured by the CRDS
in the laboratory. Filters collected from the field were installed before
each sampling port. SP denotes sampling point.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/2837/2019/amt-12-2837-2019-f10.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e2378"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>The results of this study clearly demonstrate the advantage of CRDS with only
few and small interferences, whereas the performance of the photoacoustic
analyzers under similar circumstances studied by Liu et al. (2019) showed
much more interference from non-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> species.</p>
      <p id="d1e2393">Our tests of the Picarro CRDS showed great linearity during both laboratory
and fieldwork. The response times with respect to concentration changes were
sufficiently low to measure temporal variations in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
concentrations in livestock emissions. Examinations of external particulate
filters lead to no clear recommendations for filter material, but all filters
gave acceptable response times and only small amounts of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
adsorption compared to background levels. Potential interferences were tested
for 10 VOCs in known concentrations and the compounds gave negligible
interference on CRDS <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codedataavailability"><title>Code and data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e2433">The data in the study are available upon request to the corresponding author (af@eng.au.dk).</p>
  </notes><?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?><app-group>

<?pagebreak page2847?><app id="App1.Ch1.S1">
  <?xmltex \currentcnt{A}?><label>Appendix A</label><title/>

<?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><table-wrap id="App1.Ch1.S1.T3"><?xmltex \hack{\textwidth\hsize}?><?xmltex \currentcnt{A1}?><label>Table A1</label><caption><p id="d1e2450">Measured concentrations of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in laboratory zero air (CV denotes coefficient of
variation).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Gas</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Concentration</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">CV (%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Measurement</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">duration (h)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">ppb</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">43</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">19</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">ppm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">480</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">19</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">ppm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">19</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><table-wrap id="App1.Ch1.S1.T4"><?xmltex \hack{\textwidth\hsize}?><?xmltex \currentcnt{A2}?><label>Table A2</label><caption><p id="d1e2625">The rise (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> response time) and fall (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> response time) times (s)
of the CRDS analyzer for measurements of NH3 concentrations (0.203 and
10.01 ppm) with or without external inlet particulate filters during
laboratory testing. For filters detail see Table 1.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Filter code</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center">0.203 ppm NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center">10.01 ppm NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Rise (s)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Fall (s)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Rise (s)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Fall (s)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">No filter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PTFE 0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.7</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PTFE 0.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">8.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PTFE 1.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">5.3</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PTFE 3.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PTFE 5.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">9.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">3.2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GA 55</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">12.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">8.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.3</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GB 140</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">12.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">7.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GA 200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">9.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">3.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">QR 100</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">8.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">5.7</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Min</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Max</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">12.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">9.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">7.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">8.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">6.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">3.7</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F11"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A1}?><label>Figure A1</label><caption><p id="d1e2959">Schematic of the sampling point inside the cattle building. SP1
and SP5 were placed outside for background measurement at 2.5 m height. SP2
and SP4 were on the walls at 2.5 m height. SP3 was placed below the ridge at
9 m height. The lines were approximately 5, 15, 35, 45 and
50 m for SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4 and SP5, respectively.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \hack{\textwidth\hsize}?>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/2837/2019/amt-12-2837-2019-f11.jpg"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F12"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A2}?><label>Figure A2</label><caption><p id="d1e2973">Hourly mean concentrations of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from four different rooms with
finisher pigs.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \hack{\textwidth\hsize}?>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/2837/2019/amt-12-2837-2019-f12.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F13"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A3}?><label>Figure A3</label><caption><p id="d1e2997">Hourly mean concentrations of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from a dairy cattle
barn, unpublished data.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \hack{\textwidth\hsize}?>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/2837/2019/amt-12-2837-2019-f13.png"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</app>
  </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e3025">JK and AC performed the experiments, analysis and drafted the initial manuscript.
The work was conceptualized and validated by AF, AC and JK with input from APA on the methodology.
All authors have contributed and edited the paper during the review.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e3031">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e3037">The authors thank laboratory technician Heidi Grønbæk Christiansen
and technician Peter Storegård Nielsen for their valuable help during the
experimental part of the study. The authors thank the Danish Milk Levy
Foundation for funding this research.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e3042">This research has been supported by the Danish Milk
Levy Foundation.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e3048">This paper was edited by Folkert Boersma and reviewed by two
anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Aneja, V. P., Roelle, P. A., Murray, G. C., Southerland, J., Erisman, J. W.,
Fowler, D., Asman, W. A. H., and Patni, N.: Atmospheric nitrogen compounds
II: emissions, transport, transformation, deposition and assessment, Atmos.
Environ., 35, 1903–1911, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00543-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00543-4</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Baek, B. H., Aneja, V. P., and Tong, Q.: Chemical coupling between ammonia,
acid gases, and fine particles, Environ. Pollut., 129, 89–98,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2003.09.022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.envpol.2003.09.022</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Bobrutzki, K. von, Braban, C. F., Famulari, D., Jones, S. K., Blackall, T.,
Smith, T. E. L., Blom, M., Coe, H., Gallagher, M., Ghalaieny, M., McGillen,
M. R., Percival, C. J., Whitehead, J. D., Ellis, R., Murphy, J., Mohacsi, A.,
Pogany, A., Junninen, H., Rantanen, S., Sutton, M. A., and Nemitz, E.: Field
inter-comparison of eleven atmospheric ammonia measurement techniques, Atmos.
Meas. Tech., 3, 91–112, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-91-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-3-91-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Brown, P., Watts, P., Märk, T. D., and Mayhew, C. A.: Proton transfer
reaction mass spectrometry investigations on the effects of reduced electric
field and reagent ion internal energy on product ion branching ratios for a
series of saturated alcohols, Int. J. Mass Spectrom., 294, 103–111,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2010.05.028" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ijms.2010.05.028</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Copeland, N., Cape, J. N., and Heal, M. R.: Volatile organic compound
emissions from Miscanthus and short rotation coppice willow bioenergy crops,
Atmos. Environ., 60, 327–335, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.06.065" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.06.065</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Feilberg, A., Liu, D., Adamsen, A. P. S., Hansen, M. J., and Jonassen, K. E.
N.: Odorant Emissions from Intensive Pig Production Measured by Online
Proton-Transfer-Reaction Mass Spectrometry, Environ. Sci. Technol., 44,
5894–5900, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es100483s" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es100483s</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., Hill, C., Kochanov, R. V, Tan, Y., Bernath, P.
F., Birk, M., Boudon, V., Campargue, A., Chance, K. V, Drouin, B. J., Flaud,
J., Gamache, R. R., Hodges, J. T., Jacquemart, D., Perevalov, V. I., Perrin,
A., Shine, K. P., Smith, M. H., Tennyson, J., Toon, G. C., Tran, H.,
Tyuterev, V. G., Barbe, A., Császár, A. G., Devi, V. M.,
Furtenbacher, T., Harrison, J. J., Hartmann, J., Jolly, A., Johnson, T. J.,
Karman, T., Kleiner, I., Kyuberis, A. A., Loos, J., Lyulin, O. M., Massie, S.
T., Mikhailenko, S. N., Moazzen-ahmadi, N., Müller, H. S. P., Naumenko,
O. V, Nikitin, A. V, Polyansky, O. L., Auwera, J. Vander, Wagner, G.,
Wilzewski, J., Wcis, P., Yu, S., and Zak, E. J.: Journal of Quantitative
Spectroscopy &amp; Radiative Transfer The HITRAN2016 molecular spectroscopic
database, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Ra., 203, 3–69,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.06.038" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.06.038</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Hafner, S. D., Howard, C., Muck, R. E., Franco, R. B., Montes, F., Green, P.
G., Mitloehner, F., Trabue, S. L., and Rotz, C. A.: Emission of volatile
organic compounds from silage: Compounds, sources, and implications, Atmos.
Environ., 77, 827–839, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.04.076" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.04.076</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Hansen, M. J., Liu, D., Guldberg, L. B., and Feilberg, A.: Application of
proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry to the assessment of odorant
removal in a biological air cleaner for pig production, J. Agr. Food Chem.,
60, 2599–2606, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/jf300182c" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/jf300182c</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Hassouna, M., Robin, P., Charpiot, A., Edouard, N., and Méda, B.:
Infrared photoacoustic spectroscopy in animal houses: Effect of
non-compensated interferences on ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane air
concentrations, Biosyst. Eng., 114, 318–326,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2012.12.011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2012.12.011</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Heber, A. J., Ni, J.-Q., Lim, T. T., Tao, P.-C., Schmidt, A. M., Koziel, J.
A., Beasley, D. B., Hoff, S. J., Nicolai, R. E., Jacobson, L. D., and Zhang,
Y.: Quality Assured Measurements of Animal Building Emissions: Gas
Concentrations, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 56, 1472–1483,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2006.10465680" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/10473289.2006.10465680</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Huszár, H., Pogány, A., Bozóki, Z., Mohácsi, Á.,
Horváth, L., and Szabó, G.: Ammonia monitoring at ppb level using
photoacoustic spectroscopy for environmental application, Sensors Actuat. B-Chem., 134, 1027–1033, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2008.05.013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.snb.2008.05.013</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Koerkamp, P. W. G. G., Metz, J. H. M., Uenk, G. H., Phillips, V. R., Holden,
M. R., Sneath, R. W., Short, J. L., White, R. P. P., Hartung, J., Seedorf,
J., Schröder, M., Linkert, K. H., Pedersen, S., Takai, H., Johnsen, J.
O., and Wathes, C. M.: Concentrations and Emissions of Ammonia in Livestock
Buildings in Northern Europe, J. Agr. Eng. Res., 70, 79–95,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1998.0275" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1006/jaer.1998.0275</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Liu, D., Rong, L., Kamp, J., Kong, X., Adamsen, A. P., Chowdhury, A., and
Feilberg, A.: Photoacoustic measurement may significantly overestimate
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions from cattle houses due to VOC interferences, Atmos.
Meas. Tech. Discuss., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2018-412" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-2018-412</ext-link>, in review, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page2850?><ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Maasikmets, M., Teinemaa, E., Kaasik, A., and Kimmel, V.: Measurement and
analysis of ammonia, hydrogen sulphide and odour emissions from the cattle
farming in Estonia, Biosyst. Eng., 139, 48–59,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2015.08.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2015.08.002</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Martin, N. A., Ferracci, V., Cassidy, N., and Hoffnagle, J. A.: The
application of a cavity ring-down spectrometer to measurements of ambient
ammonia using traceable primary standard gas mixtures, Appl. Phys. B, 122,
1–11, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00340-016-6486-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00340-016-6486-9</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Ngwabie, N. M., Schade, G. W., Custer, T. G., Linke, S., and Hinz, T.:
Abundances and Flux Estimates of Volatile Organic Compounds from a Dairy
Cowshed in Germany, J. Environ. Qual., 37, 565–573, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2006.0417" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2134/jeq2006.0417</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Ngwabie, N. M., Jeppsson, K. H., Nimmermark, S., Swensson, C., and
Gustafsson, G.: Multi-location measurements of greenhouse gases and emission
rates of methane and ammonia from a naturally-ventilated barn for dairy cows,
Biosyst. Eng., 103, 68–77, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.02.004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.02.004</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Ni, J.-Q. and Heber, A. J.: Sampling and Measurement of Ammonia at Animal
Facilities, Adv. Agron., 98, 201–269, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Nielsen, O. K., Plejdrup, M. S., Winther, M., Mikkelsen, M. H., Nielsen, M.,
Gyldenkærne, S., Fauser, P., Albrektsen, R., Hjelgaard, K. H., Bruun, H.
G., and Thomsen, M.: Annual Danish Informative Inventory Report to UNECE,
Emission inventories from the base year of the protocols to year 2015, Aarhus
University, DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Picarro, I.: NH3 Analyzer for Ambient Air Datasheet, archived by
WebCite<sup>®</sup>, available at:
<uri>http://www.webcitation.org/70JfzdB0u</uri> (last access: 20 June 2018), 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Poissant, L., Pilote, M., Beauvais, C., Constant, P., and Zhang, H. H.: A
year of continuous measurements of three atmospheric mercury species (GEM,
RGM and Hg p) in southern Québec, Canada, Atmos. Environ., 39,
1275–1287, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.11.007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.11.007</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Rom, H. B. and Zhang, G. Q.: Time delay for aerial Ammonia concentration
measurements in livestock buildings, Sensors, 10, 4634–4642,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/s100504634" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/s100504634</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Rong, L., Liu, D., Pedersen, E. F., and Zhang, G.: Effect of climate
parameters on air exchange rate and ammonia and methane emissions from a
hybrid ventilated dairy cow building, Energy Build., 82, 632–643,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.07.089" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.07.089</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Rosenstock, T. S., Diaz-Pines, E., Zuazo, P., Jordan, G., Predotova, M.,
Mutuo, P., Abwanda, S., Thiong'o, M., Buerkert, A., Rufino, M. C., Kiese, R.,
Neufeldt, H., and Butterbach-Bahl, K.: Accuracy and precision of
photoacoustic spectroscopy not guaranteed, Glob. Change Biol., 19,
3565–3567, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12332" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.12332</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Saha, C. K., Zhang, G., Kai, P., and Bjerg, B.: Effects of a partial pit
ventilation system on indoor air quality and ammonia emission from a
fattening pig room, Biosyst. Eng., 105, 279–287,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.11.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.11.006</ext-link>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Shah, S. B., Grabow, G. L., and Westerman, P. W.: Ammonia Adsorption in Five
Types of Flexible Tubing Materials, Am. Soc. Agr. Biol. Eng., 22, 919–923,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Shaw, S. L., Mitloehner, F. M., Jackson, W., Depeters, E. J., Fadel, J. G.,
Robinson, P. H., Holzinger, R., and Goldstein, A. H.: Volatile organic
compound emissions from dairy cows and their waste as measured by
proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry, Environ. Sci. Technol., 41,
1310–1316, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es061475e" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es061475e</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Sheppard, L. J., Leith, I. D., Mizunuma, T., Neil Cape, J., Crossley, A.,
Leeson, S., Sutton, M. A., van Dijk, N., and Fowler, D.: Dry deposition of
ammonia gas drives species change faster than wet deposition of ammonium
ions: evidence from a long-term field manipulation, Glob. Change Biol., 17,
3589–3607, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02478.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02478.x</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Sintermann, J., Ammann, C., Kuhn, U., Spirig, C., Hirschberger, R.,
Gärtner, A., and Neftel, A.: Determination of field scale ammonia
emissions for common slurry spreading practice with two independent methods,
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 4, 1821–1840, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-1821-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-4-1821-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Vaittinen, O., Metsälä, M., Persijn, S., Vainio, M., and Halonen, L.:
Adsorption of ammonia on treated stainless steel and polymer surfaces, Appl.
Phys. B, 115, 185–196, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00340-013-5590-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00340-013-5590-3</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Wu, W., Zhang, G., and Kai, P.: Ammonia and methane emissions from two
naturally ventilated dairy cattle buildings and the influence of climatic
factors on ammonia emissions, Atmos. Environ., 61, 232–243,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.07.050" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.07.050</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Yuan, B., Coggon, M. M., Koss, A. R., Warneke, C., Eilerman, S., Peischl, J.,
Aikin, K. C., Ryerson, T. B., and De Gouw, J. A.: Emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs):
Chemical compositions and separation of sources, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17,
4945–4956, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-4945-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-4945-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, G., Strøm, J. S., Li, B., Rom, H. B., Morsing, S., Dahl, P., and
Wang, C.: Emission of ammonia and other contaminant gases from naturally
ventilated dairy cattle buildings, Biosyst. Eng., 92, 355–364,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2005.08.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2005.08.002</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Zhao, Y., Pan, Y., Rutherford, J., and Mitloehner, F. M.: Estimation of the
interference in Multi-Gas measurements using infrared photoacoustic
analyzers, Atmosphere, 3, 246–265, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos3020246" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/atmos3020246</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Zhu, X., Burger, M., Doane, T. A., and Horwath, W. R.: Ammonia oxidation
pathways and nitrifier denitrification are significant sources of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and NO under low oxygen availability, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110,
6328–6333, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Zong, C., Feng, Y., Zhang, G., and Hansen, M. J.: Effects of different air
inlets on indoor air quality and ammonia emission from two experimental
fattening pig rooms with partial pit ventilation system – Summer condition,
Biosyst. Eng., 122, 163–173, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2014.04.005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2014.04.005</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Negligible influence of livestock contaminants and sampling system on ammonia measurements with cavity ring-down spectroscopy</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Emission of ammonia (NH<sub>3</sub>) is a ubiquitous problem
due to the adverse effects of NH<sub>3</sub> on the environment and human
health. The agricultural sector accounts for nearly all NH<sub>3</sub>
emissions in Europe. Hence, technologies for the abatement of NH<sub>3</sub>
emissions from this sector have been in strong demand in recent years. In
order to document emissions and evaluate abatement technologies, there is
a strong need for reliable NH<sub>3</sub> measurement methods. Photoacoustic
spectroscopy (PAS) is often used to measure NH<sub>3</sub> concentrations, but
recent research shows interference from compounds typically present in
livestock production and during agricultural activities. In this work, the
performance of cavity ring-down spectroscopy (CRDS) from Picarro, as an
alternative to PAS, has been tested with respect to method validation under
laboratory and field conditions. Potential interferences of 10 volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) on CRDS NH<sub>3</sub> measurement were tested with
simultaneous VOC analysis performed by proton-transfer-reaction mass
spectrometry (PTR-MS). Both laboratory and field calibrations show excellent
linearity over a large dynamic range of NH<sub>3</sub> concentrations. The
analyzer shows a small humidity effect of up to a few&thinsp;ppb in the extreme
case of a nearly water-saturated air stream. Apart from the negligible
humidity dependency, no interferences of the tested VOCs were observed.
Overall, the CRDS system performs satisfactory and is well suited for
measurements of NH<sub>3</sub> emissions from livestock production.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Aneja, V. P., Roelle, P. A., Murray, G. C., Southerland, J., Erisman, J. W.,
Fowler, D., Asman, W. A. H., and Patni, N.: Atmospheric nitrogen compounds
II: emissions, transport, transformation, deposition and assessment, Atmos.
Environ., 35, 1903–1911, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00543-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00543-4</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Baek, B. H., Aneja, V. P., and Tong, Q.: Chemical coupling between ammonia,
acid gases, and fine particles, Environ. Pollut., 129, 89–98,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2003.09.022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2003.09.022</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Bobrutzki, K. von, Braban, C. F., Famulari, D., Jones, S. K., Blackall, T.,
Smith, T. E. L., Blom, M., Coe, H., Gallagher, M., Ghalaieny, M., McGillen,
M. R., Percival, C. J., Whitehead, J. D., Ellis, R., Murphy, J., Mohacsi, A.,
Pogany, A., Junninen, H., Rantanen, S., Sutton, M. A., and Nemitz, E.: Field
inter-comparison of eleven atmospheric ammonia measurement techniques, Atmos.
Meas. Tech., 3, 91–112, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-91-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-91-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Brown, P., Watts, P., Märk, T. D., and Mayhew, C. A.: Proton transfer
reaction mass spectrometry investigations on the effects of reduced electric
field and reagent ion internal energy on product ion branching ratios for a
series of saturated alcohols, Int. J. Mass Spectrom., 294, 103–111,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2010.05.028" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2010.05.028</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Copeland, N., Cape, J. N., and Heal, M. R.: Volatile organic compound
emissions from Miscanthus and short rotation coppice willow bioenergy crops,
Atmos. Environ., 60, 327–335, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.06.065" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.06.065</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Feilberg, A., Liu, D., Adamsen, A. P. S., Hansen, M. J., and Jonassen, K. E.
N.: Odorant Emissions from Intensive Pig Production Measured by Online
Proton-Transfer-Reaction Mass Spectrometry, Environ. Sci. Technol., 44,
5894–5900, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es100483s" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es100483s</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., Hill, C., Kochanov, R. V, Tan, Y., Bernath, P.
F., Birk, M., Boudon, V., Campargue, A., Chance, K. V, Drouin, B. J., Flaud,
J., Gamache, R. R., Hodges, J. T., Jacquemart, D., Perevalov, V. I., Perrin,
A., Shine, K. P., Smith, M. H., Tennyson, J., Toon, G. C., Tran, H.,
Tyuterev, V. G., Barbe, A., Császár, A. G., Devi, V. M.,
Furtenbacher, T., Harrison, J. J., Hartmann, J., Jolly, A., Johnson, T. J.,
Karman, T., Kleiner, I., Kyuberis, A. A., Loos, J., Lyulin, O. M., Massie, S.
T., Mikhailenko, S. N., Moazzen-ahmadi, N., Müller, H. S. P., Naumenko,
O. V, Nikitin, A. V, Polyansky, O. L., Auwera, J. Vander, Wagner, G.,
Wilzewski, J., Wcis, P., Yu, S., and Zak, E. J.: Journal of Quantitative
Spectroscopy &amp; Radiative Transfer The HITRAN2016 molecular spectroscopic
database, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Ra., 203, 3–69,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.06.038" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.06.038</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Hafner, S. D., Howard, C., Muck, R. E., Franco, R. B., Montes, F., Green, P.
G., Mitloehner, F., Trabue, S. L., and Rotz, C. A.: Emission of volatile
organic compounds from silage: Compounds, sources, and implications, Atmos.
Environ., 77, 827–839, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.04.076" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.04.076</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Hansen, M. J., Liu, D., Guldberg, L. B., and Feilberg, A.: Application of
proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry to the assessment of odorant
removal in a biological air cleaner for pig production, J. Agr. Food Chem.,
60, 2599–2606, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/jf300182c" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/jf300182c</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Hassouna, M., Robin, P., Charpiot, A., Edouard, N., and Méda, B.:
Infrared photoacoustic spectroscopy in animal houses: Effect of
non-compensated interferences on ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane air
concentrations, Biosyst. Eng., 114, 318–326,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2012.12.011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2012.12.011</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Heber, A. J., Ni, J.-Q., Lim, T. T., Tao, P.-C., Schmidt, A. M., Koziel, J.
A., Beasley, D. B., Hoff, S. J., Nicolai, R. E., Jacobson, L. D., and Zhang,
Y.: Quality Assured Measurements of Animal Building Emissions: Gas
Concentrations, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 56, 1472–1483,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2006.10465680" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2006.10465680</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Huszár, H., Pogány, A., Bozóki, Z., Mohácsi, Á.,
Horváth, L., and Szabó, G.: Ammonia monitoring at&thinsp;ppb level using
photoacoustic spectroscopy for environmental application, Sensors Actuat. B-Chem., 134, 1027–1033, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2008.05.013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2008.05.013</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Koerkamp, P. W. G. G., Metz, J. H. M., Uenk, G. H., Phillips, V. R., Holden,
M. R., Sneath, R. W., Short, J. L., White, R. P. P., Hartung, J., Seedorf,
J., Schröder, M., Linkert, K. H., Pedersen, S., Takai, H., Johnsen, J.
O., and Wathes, C. M.: Concentrations and Emissions of Ammonia in Livestock
Buildings in Northern Europe, J. Agr. Eng. Res., 70, 79–95,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1998.0275" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1998.0275</a>, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, D., Rong, L., Kamp, J., Kong, X., Adamsen, A. P., Chowdhury, A., and
Feilberg, A.: Photoacoustic measurement may significantly overestimate
NH<sub>3</sub> emissions from cattle houses due to VOC interferences, Atmos.
Meas. Tech. Discuss., <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2018-412" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2018-412</a>, in review, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Maasikmets, M., Teinemaa, E., Kaasik, A., and Kimmel, V.: Measurement and
analysis of ammonia, hydrogen sulphide and odour emissions from the cattle
farming in Estonia, Biosyst. Eng., 139, 48–59,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2015.08.002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2015.08.002</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Martin, N. A., Ferracci, V., Cassidy, N., and Hoffnagle, J. A.: The
application of a cavity ring-down spectrometer to measurements of ambient
ammonia using traceable primary standard gas mixtures, Appl. Phys. B, 122,
1–11, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00340-016-6486-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00340-016-6486-9</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Ngwabie, N. M., Schade, G. W., Custer, T. G., Linke, S., and Hinz, T.:
Abundances and Flux Estimates of Volatile Organic Compounds from a Dairy
Cowshed in Germany, J. Environ. Qual., 37, 565–573, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2006.0417" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2006.0417</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Ngwabie, N. M., Jeppsson, K. H., Nimmermark, S., Swensson, C., and
Gustafsson, G.: Multi-location measurements of greenhouse gases and emission
rates of methane and ammonia from a naturally-ventilated barn for dairy cows,
Biosyst. Eng., 103, 68–77, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.02.004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.02.004</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Ni, J.-Q. and Heber, A. J.: Sampling and Measurement of Ammonia at Animal
Facilities, Adv. Agron., 98, 201–269, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Nielsen, O. K., Plejdrup, M. S., Winther, M., Mikkelsen, M. H., Nielsen, M.,
Gyldenkærne, S., Fauser, P., Albrektsen, R., Hjelgaard, K. H., Bruun, H.
G., and Thomsen, M.: Annual Danish Informative Inventory Report to UNECE,
Emission inventories from the base year of the protocols to year 2015, Aarhus
University, DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Picarro, I.: NH3 Analyzer for Ambient Air Datasheet, archived by
WebCite<span style="position:relative; bottom:0.5em; " class="text">®</span>, available at:
<a href="http://www.webcitation.org/70JfzdB0u" target="_blank">http://www.webcitation.org/70JfzdB0u</a> (last access: 20 June 2018), 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Poissant, L., Pilote, M., Beauvais, C., Constant, P., and Zhang, H. H.: A
year of continuous measurements of three atmospheric mercury species (GEM,
RGM and Hg p) in southern Québec, Canada, Atmos. Environ., 39,
1275–1287, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.11.007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.11.007</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Rom, H. B. and Zhang, G. Q.: Time delay for aerial Ammonia concentration
measurements in livestock buildings, Sensors, 10, 4634–4642,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/s100504634" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/s100504634</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Rong, L., Liu, D., Pedersen, E. F., and Zhang, G.: Effect of climate
parameters on air exchange rate and ammonia and methane emissions from a
hybrid ventilated dairy cow building, Energy Build., 82, 632–643,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.07.089" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.07.089</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Rosenstock, T. S., Diaz-Pines, E., Zuazo, P., Jordan, G., Predotova, M.,
Mutuo, P., Abwanda, S., Thiong'o, M., Buerkert, A., Rufino, M. C., Kiese, R.,
Neufeldt, H., and Butterbach-Bahl, K.: Accuracy and precision of
photoacoustic spectroscopy not guaranteed, Glob. Change Biol., 19,
3565–3567, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12332" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12332</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Saha, C. K., Zhang, G., Kai, P., and Bjerg, B.: Effects of a partial pit
ventilation system on indoor air quality and ammonia emission from a
fattening pig room, Biosyst. Eng., 105, 279–287,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.11.006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.11.006</a>, 2010.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Shah, S. B., Grabow, G. L., and Westerman, P. W.: Ammonia Adsorption in Five
Types of Flexible Tubing Materials, Am. Soc. Agr. Biol. Eng., 22, 919–923,
2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Shaw, S. L., Mitloehner, F. M., Jackson, W., Depeters, E. J., Fadel, J. G.,
Robinson, P. H., Holzinger, R., and Goldstein, A. H.: Volatile organic
compound emissions from dairy cows and their waste as measured by
proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry, Environ. Sci. Technol., 41,
1310–1316, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es061475e" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es061475e</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Sheppard, L. J., Leith, I. D., Mizunuma, T., Neil Cape, J., Crossley, A.,
Leeson, S., Sutton, M. A., van Dijk, N., and Fowler, D.: Dry deposition of
ammonia gas drives species change faster than wet deposition of ammonium
ions: evidence from a long-term field manipulation, Glob. Change Biol., 17,
3589–3607, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02478.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02478.x</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Sintermann, J., Ammann, C., Kuhn, U., Spirig, C., Hirschberger, R.,
Gärtner, A., and Neftel, A.: Determination of field scale ammonia
emissions for common slurry spreading practice with two independent methods,
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 4, 1821–1840, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-1821-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-1821-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Vaittinen, O., Metsälä, M., Persijn, S., Vainio, M., and Halonen, L.:
Adsorption of ammonia on treated stainless steel and polymer surfaces, Appl.
Phys. B, 115, 185–196, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00340-013-5590-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00340-013-5590-3</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Wu, W., Zhang, G., and Kai, P.: Ammonia and methane emissions from two
naturally ventilated dairy cattle buildings and the influence of climatic
factors on ammonia emissions, Atmos. Environ., 61, 232–243,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.07.050" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.07.050</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Yuan, B., Coggon, M. M., Koss, A. R., Warneke, C., Eilerman, S., Peischl, J.,
Aikin, K. C., Ryerson, T. B., and De Gouw, J. A.: Emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs):
Chemical compositions and separation of sources, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17,
4945–4956, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-4945-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-4945-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, G., Strøm, J. S., Li, B., Rom, H. B., Morsing, S., Dahl, P., and
Wang, C.: Emission of ammonia and other contaminant gases from naturally
ventilated dairy cattle buildings, Biosyst. Eng., 92, 355–364,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2005.08.002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2005.08.002</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Zhao, Y., Pan, Y., Rutherford, J., and Mitloehner, F. M.: Estimation of the
interference in Multi-Gas measurements using infrared photoacoustic
analyzers, Atmosphere, 3, 246–265, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos3020246" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos3020246</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Zhu, X., Burger, M., Doane, T. A., and Horwath, W. R.: Ammonia oxidation
pathways and nitrifier denitrification are significant sources of N<sub>2</sub>O
and NO under low oxygen availability, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110,
6328–6333, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Zong, C., Feng, Y., Zhang, G., and Hansen, M. J.: Effects of different air
inlets on indoor air quality and ammonia emission from two experimental
fattening pig rooms with partial pit ventilation system – Summer condition,
Biosyst. Eng., 122, 163–173, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2014.04.005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2014.04.005</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
