A field intercomparison of three passive air samplers for gaseous mercury in ambient air

Naccarato, Attilio; Tassone, Antonella; Martino, Maria; Moretti, Sacha; Macagnano, Antonella; Zampetti, Emiliano; Papa, Paolo; Avossa, Joshua; Pirrone, Nicola; Nerentorp, Michelle; Munthe, John; Wängberg, Ingvar; Stupple, Geoff W.; Mitchell, Carl P. J.; Martin, Adam R.; Steffen, Alexandra; Babi, Diana; Prestbo, Eric M.; Sprovieri, Francesca; Wania, Frank

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-3657-2021

Articles | Volume 14, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-3657-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Research results from the 14th International Conference on...

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-3657-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 14, issue 5

Research article

|

20 May 2021

Research article |

| 20 May 2021

A field intercomparison of three passive air samplers for gaseous mercury in ambient air

Attilio Naccarato, Antonella Tassone, Maria Martino, Sacha Moretti, Antonella Macagnano, Emiliano Zampetti, Paolo Papa, Joshua Avossa, Nicola Pirrone, Michelle Nerentorp, John Munthe, Ingvar Wängberg, Geoff W. Stupple, Carl P. J. Mitchell, Adam R. Martin, Alexandra Steffen, Diana Babi, Eric M. Prestbo, Francesca Sprovieri, and Frank Wania

Download

Final revised paper (published on 20 May 2021)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 29 Dec 2020)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review Naccarato et al ACPD', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Jan 2021
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Attilio Naccarato, 15 Mar 2021
RC2: 'Referee Report amt-2020-455 A field intercomparison of three passive air samplers for gaseous mercury in ambient air', Anonymous Referee #4, 21 Jan 2021
- AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Attilio Naccarato, 15 Mar 2021
RC3: 'informative study comparing performance of GEM passive samplers', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Jan 2021
- AC1: 'Reply on RC3', Attilio Naccarato, 15 Mar 2021
RC4: 'a useful comparison of passive samplers with active instruments like the Tekran', Anonymous Referee #3, 01 Feb 2021
- AC2: 'Reply on RC4', Attilio Naccarato, 15 Mar 2021

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Attilio Naccarato on behalf of the Authors (16 Mar 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (23 Mar 2021) by Pierre Herckes

AR by Attilio Naccarato on behalf of the Authors (24 Mar 2021)

Short summary

Mercury monitoring in support of the Minamata Convention requires effective and reliable analytical tools. Passive sampling is a promising approach for creating a sustainable long-term network for atmospheric mercury with improved spatial resolution and global coverage. In this study the analytical performance of three passive air samplers (CNR-PAS, IVL-PAS, and MerPAS) was assessed over extended deployment periods and the accuracy of concentrations was judged by comparison with active sampling.