Articles | Volume 8, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-1835-2015
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-1835-2015
Research article
 | 
23 Apr 2015
Research article |  | 23 Apr 2015

Instrument intercomparison of glyoxal, methyl glyoxal and NO2 under simulated atmospheric conditions

R. Thalman, M. T. Baeza-Romero, S. M. Ball, E. Borrás, M. J. S. Daniels, I. C. A. Goodall, S. B. Henry, T. Karl, F. N. Keutsch, S. Kim, J. Mak, P. S. Monks, A. Muñoz, J. Orlando, S. Peppe, A. R. Rickard, M. Ródenas, P. Sánchez, R. Seco, L. Su, G. Tyndall, M. Vázquez, T. Vera, E. Waxman, and R. Volkamer

Viewed

Total article views: 4,801 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
2,847 1,814 140 4,801 611 180 179
  • HTML: 2,847
  • PDF: 1,814
  • XML: 140
  • Total: 4,801
  • Supplement: 611
  • BibTeX: 180
  • EndNote: 179
Views and downloads (calculated since 19 Aug 2014)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 19 Aug 2014)

Cited

Saved (final revised paper)

Saved (preprint)

Latest update: 23 Apr 2024
Download
Short summary
Measurements of α-dicarbonyl compounds, like glyoxal (CHOCHO) and methyl glyoxal (CH3C(O)CHO), are informative about the rate of hydrocarbon oxidation, oxidative capacity, and secondary organic aerosol (SOA) formation in the atmosphere. We have compared nine instruments and seven techniques to measure α-dicarbonyl, using simulation chamber facilities in the US and Europe. We assess our understanding of calibration, precision, accuracy and detection limits, as well as possible sampling biases.