Articles | Volume 8, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-4243-2015
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-4243-2015
Research article
 | 
14 Oct 2015
Research article |  | 14 Oct 2015

Intercomparison of the comparative reactivity method (CRM) and pump–probe technique for measuring total OH reactivity in an urban environment

R. F. Hansen, M. Blocquet, C. Schoemaecker, T. Léonardis, N. Locoge, C. Fittschen, B. Hanoune, P. S. Stevens, V. Sinha, and S. Dusanter

Related authors

Differences in BVOC oxidation and SOA formation above and below the forest canopy
Benjamin C. Schulze, Henry W. Wallace, James H. Flynn, Barry L. Lefer, Matt H. Erickson, B. Tom Jobson, Sebastien Dusanter, Stephen M. Griffith, Robert F. Hansen, Philip S. Stevens, Timothy VanReken, and Robert J. Griffin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 1805–1828, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-1805-2017,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-1805-2017, 2017
Short summary
Detailed characterizations of the new Mines Douai comparative reactivity method instrument via laboratory experiments and modeling
V. Michoud, R. F. Hansen, N. Locoge, P. S. Stevens, and S. Dusanter
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 3537–3553, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-3537-2015,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-3537-2015, 2015
Short summary
Measurements of total hydroxyl radical reactivity during CABINEX 2009 – Part 1: field measurements
R. F. Hansen, S. M. Griffith, S. Dusanter, P. S. Rickly, P. S. Stevens, S. B. Bertman, M. A. Carroll, M. H. Erickson, J. H. Flynn, N. Grossberg, B. T. Jobson, B. L. Lefer, and H. W. Wallace
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 2923–2937, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-2923-2014,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-2923-2014, 2014

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Technique: In Situ Measurement | Topic: Validation and Intercomparisons
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
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 Bobrwoski, and Thorsten Hoffmann
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-611,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-611, 2024
Short summary
Assessment of current methane emission quantification techniques for natural gas midstream applications
Yunsong Liu, Jean-Daniel Paris, Gregoire Broquet, Violeta Bescós Roy, Tania Meixus Fernandez, Rasmus Andersen, Andrés Russu Berlanga, Emil Christensen, Yann Courtois, Sebastian Dominok, Corentin Dussenne, Travis Eckert, Andrew Finlayson, Aurora Fernández de la Fuente, Catlin Gunn, Ram Hashmonay, Juliano Grigoleto Hayashi, Jonathan Helmore, Soeren Honsel, Fabrizio Innocenti, Matti Irjala, Torgrim Log, Cristina Lopez, Francisco Cortés Martínez, Jonathan Martinez, Adrien Massardier, Helle Gottschalk Nygaard, Paula Agregan Reboredo, Elodie Rousset, Axel Scherello, Matthias Ulbricht, Damien Weidmann, Oliver Williams, Nigel Yarrow, Murès Zarea, Robert Ziegler, Jean Sciare, Mihalis Vrekoussis, and Philippe Bousquet
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 1633–1649, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-1633-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-1633-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Amedro, D., Parker, A. E., Schoemaecker, C., and Fittschen, C.: Direct observation of OH radicals after 565 nm multi-photon excitation of NO2 in the presence of H2O, Chem. Phys. Lett., 513, 12–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2011.07.062, 2011.
Amedro, D., Miyazaki, K., Parker, A., Schoemaecker, C., and Fittschen, C.: Atmospheric and kinetic studies of OH and HO2 by the FAGE technique, J. Environ. Sci., 24, 78–86, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(11)60723-7, 2012.
Ashmore, M. R.: Assessing the future global impacts of ozone on vegetation, Plant Cell Environ., 28, 949–964, 2005.
Atkinson, R. and Arey, J.: Atmospheric Degradation of Volatile Organic Compounds, Chem. Rev., 103, 4605–4638, 2003.
Atkinson, R., Baulch, D. L., Cox, R. A., Crowley, J. N., Hampson, R. F., Hynes, R. G., Jenkin, M. E., Rossi, M. J., Troe, J., and IUPAC Subcommittee: Evaluated kinetic and photochemical data for atmospheric chemistry: Volume II – gas phase reactions of organic species, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 3625–4055, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-3625-2006, 2006.
Download
Short summary
This paper describes and presents results from a intercomparison, in an environment rich in NOx (i.e., NO+NO2), of two OH reactivity instruments: one based on the comparative reactivity method, and one based on the pump-probe method. Co-located measurements were made of both ambient air and standard mixtures. Ambient OH reactivity values measured by both instruments were found to be in good agreement for ambient NOx mixing ratios as high as 100 ppbv.