Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/amtd-8-9649-2015
https://doi.org/10.5194/amtd-8-9649-2015
16 Sep 2015
 | 16 Sep 2015
Status: this preprint was under review for the journal AMT but the revision was not accepted.

Thermal-optical analysis for the measurement of elemental carbon (EC) and organic carbon (OC) in ambient air a literature review

A. Karanasiou, M. C. Minguillón, M. Viana, A. Alastuey, J.-P. Putaud, W. Maenhaut, P. Panteliadis, G. Močnik, O. Favez, and T. A. J. Kuhlbusch

Abstract. Thermal-optical analysis is currently under consideration by the European standardization body (CEN) as the reference method to quantitatively determine organic carbon (OC) and elemental carbon (EC) in ambient air. This paper presents an overview of the critical parameters related to the thermal-optical analysis including thermal protocols, critical factors and interferences of the methods examined, method inter-comparisons, inter-laboratory exercises, biases and artifacts, and reference materials. The most commonly used thermal protocols include NIOSH-like, IMPROVE_A and EUSAAR_2 protocols either with light transmittance or reflectance correction for charring. All thermal evolution protocols are comparable for total carbon (TC) concentrations but the results vary significantly concerning OC and especially EC concentrations. Thermal protocols with a rather low peak temperature in the inert mode like IMPROVE_A and EUSAAR_2 tend to classify more carbon as EC compared to NIOSH-like protocols, while charring correction based on transmittance usually leads to smaller EC values compared to reflectance. The difference between reflectance and transmittance correction tends to be larger than the difference between different thermal protocols. Nevertheless, thermal protocols seem to correlate better when reflectance is used as charring correction method. The difference between EC values as determined by the different protocols is not only dependent on the optical pyrolysis correction method, but also on the chemical properties of the samples due to different contributions from various sources. The overall conclusion from this literature review is that it is not possible to identify the "best" thermal-optical protocol based on literature data only, although differences attributed to the methods have been quantified when possible.

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.
A. Karanasiou, M. C. Minguillón, M. Viana, A. Alastuey, J.-P. Putaud, W. Maenhaut, P. Panteliadis, G. Močnik, O. Favez, and T. A. J. Kuhlbusch
 
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
A. Karanasiou, M. C. Minguillón, M. Viana, A. Alastuey, J.-P. Putaud, W. Maenhaut, P. Panteliadis, G. Močnik, O. Favez, and T. A. J. Kuhlbusch
A. Karanasiou, M. C. Minguillón, M. Viana, A. Alastuey, J.-P. Putaud, W. Maenhaut, P. Panteliadis, G. Močnik, O. Favez, and T. A. J. Kuhlbusch

Viewed

Total article views: 6,261 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
2,899 3,172 190 6,261 126 159
  • HTML: 2,899
  • PDF: 3,172
  • XML: 190
  • Total: 6,261
  • BibTeX: 126
  • EndNote: 159
Views and downloads (calculated since 16 Sep 2015)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 16 Sep 2015)

Cited

Saved

Latest update: 21 Nov 2024