% 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{PerimdeFaria:890236,
author = {Perim de Faria, Julia and Bundke, Ulrich and Freedman,
Andrew and Onasch, Timothy B. and Petzold, Andreas},
title = {{L}aboratory {V}alidation and {F}ield {D}eployment of a
{C}ompact {S}ingle-{S}cattering {A}lbedo ({SSA}) {M}onitor},
journal = {Atmospheric measurement techniques discussions},
volume = {146},
issn = {1867-8610},
address = {Katlenburg-Lindau},
publisher = {Copernicus},
reportid = {FZJ-2021-00823},
pages = {},
year = {2019},
abstract = {Abstract. An evaluation of the performance and accuracy of
a Cavity Attenuated Phase-Shift Single Scattering Albedo
Monitor (CAPS PMssa, Aerodyne Res. Inc.) was conducted in an
optical closure study with proven technologies: Cavity
Attenuated Phase-Shift Particle Extinction Monitor (CAPS
PMex, Aerodyne Res. Inc.); 3-wavelengh Integrating
Nephelometer (TSI Model 3563); and 3-wavelength filter-based
Particle Soot Absorption Photometer (PSAP, Radiance
Research). The evaluation was conducted by connecting the
instruments to a controlled aerosol generation system and
comparing the measured scattering, extinction, and
absorption coefficients measured by the CAPS PMssa with the
independent measurements. Three different particle types
were used to generate aerosol samples with single-scattering
albedos (SSA) ranging from 0.4 to 1.0 at 630 nm wavelength.
The CAPS PMssa measurements compared well with the proven
technologies. Extinction measurement comparisons exhibited a
slope of the linear regression line for the full data set of
0.96 $(−0.02/\+0.06),$ an intercept near zero, and a
regression coefficient R2 > 0.99; whereas, scattering
measurements had a slope of 1.01 $(−0.07/\+0.06),$ an
intercept of less than $\+/−2$ × 10−6 m−1
(Mm−1), and a coefficient R2 ∼ 1.0. The derived CAPS
PMssa absorption compared well to the PSAP measurements at
low levels (< 70 Mm−1) for the small particle sizes and
modest (0.4 to 0.6) SSA values tested, with a linear
regression slope of 1.0, an intercept of −4 Mm−1, and a
coefficient R2 = 0.97. Comparisons at higher particle
loadings were compromised by loading effects on the PSAP
filters. For the SSA measurements, agreement was highest
(regression slopes within $1\%$ ) for SSA = 1.0 particles,
though the difference between the measured values increased
to 9 $\%$ for extinction coefficients lower than 55 Mm−1.
SSA measurements for absorbing particles exhibited absolute
differences up to 18 $\%,$ though it is not clear which
measurement had the lowest accuracy. For a given particle
type, the CAPS PMssa instrument exhibited the lowest scatter
around the average. This study demonstrates that the CAPS
PMssa is a robust and reliable instrument for the direct
measurement of the scattering and extinction coefficients
and thus SSA. This conclusion also holds as well for the
indirect measurement of the absorption coefficient with the
constraint that the accuracy of this particular measurement
degrades as the SSA and particle size increases.},
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/amt-2019-146},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/890236},
}