Articles | Volume 3, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-163-2010
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-163-2010
08 Feb 2010
 | 08 Feb 2010

Sources of uncertainty in eddy covariance ozone flux measurements made by dry chemiluminescence fast response analysers

J. B. A. Muller, C. J. Percival, M. W. Gallagher, D. Fowler, M. Coyle, and E. Nemitz

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Technique: In Situ Measurement | Topic: Validation and Intercomparisons
Evaluation of optimized flux chamber design for measurement of ammonia emission after field application of slurry with full-scale farm machinery
Johanna Pedersen, Sasha D. Hafner, Andreas Pacholski, Valthor I. Karlsson, Li Rong, Rodrigo Labouriau, and Jesper N. Kamp
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 4493–4505, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4493-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4493-2024, 2024
Short summary
Preparation of low-concentration H2 test gas mixtures in ambient air for calibration of H2 sensors
Niklas Karbach, Lisa Höhler, Peter Hoor, Heiko Bozem, Nicole Bobrowski, and Thorsten Hoffmann
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 4081–4086, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4081-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4081-2024, 2024
Short summary
Pico-Light H2O: intercomparison of in situ water vapour measurements during the AsA 2022 campaign
Mélanie Ghysels, Georges Durry, Nadir Amarouche, Dale Hurst, Emrys Hall, Kensy Xiong, Jean-Charles Dupont, Jean-Christophe Samake, Fabien Frérot, Raghed Bejjani, and Emmanuel D. Riviere
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 3495–3513, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3495-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3495-2024, 2024
Short summary
Mobile air quality monitoring and comparison to fixed monitoring sites for instrument performance assessment
Andrew R. Whitehill, Melissa Lunden, Brian LaFranchi, Surender Kaushik, and Paul A. Solomon
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 2991–3009, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2991-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2991-2024, 2024
Short summary
Intercomparison of eddy-covariance software for urban tall-tower sites
Changxing Lan, Matthias Mauder, Stavros Stagakis, Benjamin Loubet, Claudio D'Onofrio, Stefan Metzger, David Durden, and Pedro-Henrique Herig-Coimbra
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 2649–2669, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2649-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2649-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Ashmore, M. R.: Assessing the future global impacts of ozone on vegetation, Plant Cell Environ., 28, 949–964, 2005.
Bassin, S., Calanca, P., Weidinger, T., Gerosa, G., and Fuhrer, J.: Modeling seasonal ozone fluxes to grassland and wheat: model improvement, testing, and application, Atmos. Environ., 38, 2349–2359, 2004.
Bauer, M. R., Hultman, N. E., Panek, J. A., and Goldstein, A. H.: Ozone deposition to a ponderosa pine plantation in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (CA): A comparison of two different climatic years, J. Geophys. Res., 105(D17), 22123–22136, 2000.
Businger, J. A.: Evaluation of the accuracy with which dry deposition can be measured with current micrometeorological techniques, J. Clim. Appl. Meteorol., 25, 1100–1124, 1986.
Coyle, M.: The Gaseous Exchange of Ozone at Terrestrial Surfaces: Non-stomatal Deposition to Grassland, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, UK, 2005.
Download