% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Schallhart:278669,
author = {Schallhart, S. and Rantala, P. and Nemitz, E. and Mogensen,
D. and Tillmann, R. and Mentel, T. F. and Rinne, J. and
Ruuskanen, T. M.},
title = {{C}haracterization of total ecosystem scale biogenic {VOC}
exchange at a {M}editerranean oak-hornbeam forest},
journal = {Atmospheric chemistry and physics / Discussions},
volume = {15},
number = {19},
issn = {1680-7375},
address = {Katlenburg-Lindau},
publisher = {EGU},
reportid = {FZJ-2015-06994},
pages = {27627 - 27673},
year = {2015},
abstract = {Recently, the number and amount of biogenically emitted
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) has been discussed
vigorously. Depending on the ecosystem the published number
varies between a dozen and several hundred compounds. We
present ecosystem exchange fluxes from a mixed oak-hornbeam
forest in the Po Valley, Italy. The fluxes were measured by
a proton transfer reaction-time-of-flight (PTR-ToF) mass
spectrometer and calculated by the eddy covariance (EC)
method. Detectable fluxes were observed for twelve
compounds, dominated by isoprene, which comprised over 65
$\%$ of the total flux emission. The daily average of the
total VOC emission was 9.5 nmol m-2 s-1. Methanol had the
highest concentration and accounted for the largest
deposition. Methanol seemed to be deposited to dew, as the
deposition happened in the early morning, right after the
calculated surface temperature came closest to the
calculated dew point temperature.We estimated that up to 27
$\%$ of the upward flux of methyl vinyl ketone (MVK) and
methacrolein (MACR) originated from atmospheric oxidation of
isoprene. A comparison between two flux detection methods
(classical/visual and automated) was made. Their respective
advantages and disadvantages were discussed and the
differences in their results shown. Both provide comparable
results; however we recommend the automated method with a
compound filter, which combines the fast analysis and better
flux detection, without the overestimation due to double
counting.},
cin = {IEK-8},
ddc = {550},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-8-20101013},
pnm = {243 - Tropospheric trace substances and their
transformation processes (POF3-243)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-243},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
doi = {10.5194/acpd-15-27627-2015},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/278669},
}