Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/amtd-7-293-2014
https://doi.org/10.5194/amtd-7-293-2014
15 Jan 2014
 | 15 Jan 2014
Status: this preprint was under review for the journal AMT but the revision was not accepted.

Interference of sulphur dioxide to balloon-borne ECC ozone sensors over the Valley of Mexico

I. Kanda, R. Basaldud, N. Horikoshi, Y. Okazaki, S. E. Benítez Garcia, A. Ortínez, V. R. Ramos Benítez, B. Cárdenas, and S. Wakamatsu

Abstract. Abnormal decrease in the ozonesonde sensor signal occurred during air-pollution study campaigns in November 2011 and March 2012 in Mexico City. Sharp drops around 5 km a.s.l. and above were observed in November 2011, and a broad deficit in the convective boundary layer in March 2012. Various circumstantial evidence indicates that the decrease was due to interference of SO2 gas to Electrochemical Concentration Cell (ECC) ozone sensors. The sharp drops in November 2011 are considered to be caused by the SO2 plume from the Popocatépetl volcano to the south-east of Mexico City. Response experiments of the ECC sensor to representative atmospheric trace gases showed that only SO2 could generate the observed abrupt drops. The vertical structure of the plume reproduced by a Lagrangian particle diffusion simulation also supported this assumption. The near-ground deficit in March 2012 is considered to be generated by the SO2 plume from the Tula industrial complex to the north-west of Mexico City. Sporadic large SO2 emission is known to occur from this region, and before and at the ozonesonde launching time, large intermittent peaks of SO2 concentration were recorded at the ground-level monitoring stations. The difference between the O3 concentration obtained by ozonesonde and that by UV-based O3 monitor was consistent with the SO2 concentration measured by a UV-based monitor on the ground. The plume vertical profiles estimated by the Lagrangian particle diffusion simulation agreed fairly well with the observed profile. Statistical analysis of the wind field in Mexico City revealed that the Popocatépetl effect is most likely to occur from June to October, and the Tula effect all the year.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
I. Kanda, R. Basaldud, N. Horikoshi, Y. Okazaki, S. E. Benítez Garcia, A. Ortínez, V. R. Ramos Benítez, B. Cárdenas, and S. Wakamatsu
 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
I. Kanda, R. Basaldud, N. Horikoshi, Y. Okazaki, S. E. Benítez Garcia, A. Ortínez, V. R. Ramos Benítez, B. Cárdenas, and S. Wakamatsu
I. Kanda, R. Basaldud, N. Horikoshi, Y. Okazaki, S. E. Benítez Garcia, A. Ortínez, V. R. Ramos Benítez, B. Cárdenas, and S. Wakamatsu

Viewed

Total article views: 1,685 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
1,046 490 149 1,685 113 108
  • HTML: 1,046
  • PDF: 490
  • XML: 149
  • Total: 1,685
  • BibTeX: 113
  • EndNote: 108
Views and downloads (calculated since 15 Jan 2014)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 15 Jan 2014)

Saved

Latest update: 13 Dec 2024