Estimation of hygroscopic growth for ambient single particles · 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 or 150-191 nm...
Transcript of Estimation of hygroscopic growth for ambient single particles · 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 or 150-191 nm...
Estimation of hygroscopic growth for ambient
single particles
IAC Busan 30 Aug 2014
Robert Healy, Greg Evans, Michael Murphy, Zsofia Juranyi, Torsten Tritscher,
Ernest Weingartner, Martin Gysel, Laurent Poulain, Katharina Kamilli, Alfred
Wiedensohler, Ian O’Connor, Eoin McGillicuddy, John Sodeau, John Wenger
2
Overview
- Background on particle composition and hygroscopicity
- The Aerosol Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometer
- Predicting hygroscopic growth for single particles
- Conclusions and future directions
3
Background – hygroscopicity (single component)
Organic aerosol (OA)
Black carbon (BC)
(NH4)2SO4
90 % RH
Growth factor (GF) for BC ~1, for OA ~1.2 and for (NH4)2SO4 ~1.66 at 90% RH
4
Background – hygroscopicity (mixture)
Organic aerosol (OA)
Black carbon (BC) 90 % RH
???
(NH4)2SO4
5
Traditional growth factor predictions based on the ZSR
mixing rule
The Zdanovskii–Stokes–Robinson (ZSR) mixing rule is often used to
predict hygroscopic growth for bulk aerosol mixtures (gmix)*:
𝑔𝑚𝑖𝑥 ≈
𝑖
𝑁
𝜀𝑖𝑔𝑖3
13
where N is the number of species, εi is the volume fraction of species i and
gi is the growth factor of species i
*Zdanovskii, 1948 / Stokes & Robinson 1966
6
• Bulk aerosol ZSR mixing rule example for RH = 90%:
• Mass fractions of OA, BC and (NH4)2SO4 can be converted to volume
fractions using densities of separate components
• The GF and volume fraction of each component species can be used to
predict the GF of the bulk mixture:
𝑔𝑚𝑖𝑥 ≈
𝑖
𝑁
𝜀𝑖𝑔𝑖3
13
*e.g. Gysel et al. 2004, 2007
GFmix = 1.41
*GF = 1.66
*GF = 1 *GF = 1.20
Bulk aerosol ZSR mixing rule example
7
Single particle hygroscopicity?
• What about ambient particle populations like this:
• Internally/externally mixed species
• Different particle compositions will lead to different growth behaviours at a
given RH
• Using bulk aerosol composition is not representative
?????RH = 90%
8
Overview
- Background on particle composition and hygroscopicity
- The Aerosol Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometer
- Predicting hygroscopic growth for single particles
- Conclusions and future directions
9
Single particle sampling- online:
Aerosol Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometer (ATOFMS)
- Detection of organic aerosol, inorganics, metals and rBC
- High time resolution (1 s)
- Size resolved data (150-3000 nm)
*
*TSI Inc. (Model 3800)
10
Single particle sampling- online:
ATOFMS
11
Single particle sampling- online:
ATOFMS
- Single particle information retained
- Enables source identification and investigation of chemical processing
- Data typically qualitative only
Data output:Single particlemixing state(qualitative)
12
Quantitative approach
- Derived ATOFMS mass spectral relative sensitivity factors (RSF) for OA, BC,
NH4, NO3 and SO4 constrained using support AMS and MAAP data
- Calculated quantitative chemical composition estimates for each single particle
*Healy et al. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2013
RSF
*
quantitative
13
Overview
- Background on particle composition and hygroscopicity
- The Aerosol Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometer
- Predicting hygroscopic growth for single particles
- Conclusions and future directions
14
• Particles assumed to be composed of only BC, OA NH4, SO4 and NO3
• Inorganics combined and assigned hygroscopic properties of (NH4)2SO4
• The GF and volume fraction of BC, OA and inorganic aerosol (IA) are used
to predict the GF of each single particle at 90% RH:
𝑔𝑚𝑖𝑥 ≈
𝑖
𝑁
𝜀𝑖𝑔𝑖3
13
*e.g. Gysel et al. 2004, 2007
GFmix = 1.41
*GF = 1.66
*GF = 1 *GF = 1.20
Single particle ZSR mixing rule approach
15
Single particle GF vs size for Paris, France
*Healy et al. J. Geophys. Res. 2014
*
16
Single particle GF vs size for Paris, France
*Healy et al. J. Geophys. Res. 2014
*
17
GF probability density function for different sizes
110 nm
18
GF probability density function for different sizes
165 nm
19
GF probability density function for different sizes
265 nm
20
External mixing of 165 nm particles
21
ATOFMS GF predictions vs HTDMA GF measurements
PARIS
SIRTA
LHVP
20km
GOLF
Livry
- ‘MEGAPOLI’ winter campaign site locations
Hygroscopicity tandem differential mobility analyser (HTDMA)
ATOFMS
22
ATOFMS predicted GF vs HTDMA measured GF
23
ATOFMS vs HTDMA GF temporal correlation
Continental air mass periods only
Total dataset
26. Jan 2010 18:00 to 21:00
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 3042
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
[ns/kg]0.005 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.64 1.28 2.56
24
Conclusions
• ATOFMS data can be used to predict hygroscopic growth
• Single particle information can be used to generate a growth factor
probability density function (GF-PDF) analogous to that measured by
HTDMA
• External mixing can be determined for particles of a given diameter
• Predicted and measured mean GF values agree within 6% for 110 nm, 165
nm particles and 265 nm particles in Paris, France
25
Future Directions
• ATOFMS and HTDMA measurements at the same site
• Coupling of ATOFMS and support instrumentation to the outflow of HTDMA
would avoid uncertainty introduced by particle shape and density assumptions
• Use size-resolved relative sensitivity factors for ATOFMS (e.g. use a soot
particle aerosol mass spectrometer)
26
Thanks to…
• John Wenger, UCC
• Greg Evans, Michael Murphy, U of T
• Laurent Poulain, Katharina Kamilli, I f T
• Zsofi Juranyi, Marie Laborde, Martin Gysel,
Ernest Weingartner, PSI
QUESTIONS?
27
28
Assumptions!
• All particles are spherical with a density of 1.5 g cm-3 for aerodynamic
diameter to mobility diameter conversions
• Ammonium, nitrate and sulphate in all forms have equivalent density to
ammonium sulphate
• Density of BC, OA and ‘inorganic aerosol’ is 2.0, 1.4 and 1.77 g cm-3
respectively
• ATOFMS ‘sees’ all particle types with equal efficiency at a given size
29
102
103
104
105
Sca
ling
fa
cto
r
150-
191
nm
191-
244
nm
244-
312
nm
312-
399
nm
399-
511
nm
511-
653
nm
653-
835
nm
835-
1067
nm
Box-plot of hourly size-dependent scaling factors for the entire measurement
period (n = 624). Median, 75th percentile and 90th percentile are denoted by
the solid line, box and whisker respectively.
Size-dependent number scaling factors
30
Relative sensitivity factors by species
3
4
56
1
2
3
4
56
10
2
3
4R
ela
tive
sen
sitiv
ity facto
r (a
rbitra
ry u
nits)
SO4
OANH4
NO3
BC
Box-plot of hourly mass spectral relative sensitivity factors (n = 610). Median,
75th percentile and 90th percentile are denoted by the solid line, box and
whisker respectively.
31
ATOFMS reconstructed mass vs AMS/MAAP
32
ATOFMS reconstructed composition vs AMS/MAAP
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Ma
ss f
ractio
n
15/1
/201
0
16/1
/201
0
17/1
/201
0
18/1
/201
0
19/1
/201
0
20/1
/201
0
21/1
/201
0
22/1
/201
0
23/1
/201
0
24/1
/201
0
25/1
/201
0
26/1
/201
0
27/1
/201
0
28/1
/201
0
29/1
/201
0
30/1
/201
0
31/1
/201
0
1/2/
2010
2/2/
2010
3/2/
2010
4/2/
2010
5/2/
2010
6/2/
2010
7/2/
2010
8/2/
2010
9/2/
2010
10/2
/201
0
11/2
/201
0
Date
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
ATOFMS-derived bulk mass fractions
AMS/MAAP bulk mass fractions
OA NH4
NO3
SO4
BC
33
ATOFMS reconstructed mass vs AMS
(size resolved)
34
Composition comparison between sites
35
Composition comparison between sites
20
15
10
5
0
Ma
ss c
on
ce
ntr
atio
n (
g m
-3)
1/15
/201
0
1/16
/201
0
1/17
/201
0
1/18
/201
0
1/19
/201
0
1/20
/201
0
1/21
/201
0
1/22
/201
0
1/23
/201
0
1/24
/201
0
1/25
/201
0
1/26
/201
0
1/27
/201
0
1/28
/201
0
1/29
/201
0
1/30
/201
0
1/31
/201
0
2/1/
2010
2/2/
2010
2/3/
2010
2/4/
2010
2/5/
2010
2/6/
2010
2/7/
2010
2/8/
2010
2/9/
2010
2/10
/201
0
2/11
/201
0
Date
SIRTA LHVP
Organic aerosol
36
Composition comparison between sites
10
8
6
4
2
0
Ma
ss c
on
ce
ntr
atio
n (
g m
-3)
1/15
/201
0
1/16
/201
0
1/17
/201
0
1/18
/201
0
1/19
/201
0
1/20
/201
0
1/21
/201
0
1/22
/201
0
1/23
/201
0
1/24
/201
0
1/25
/201
0
1/26
/201
0
1/27
/201
0
1/28
/201
0
1/29
/201
0
1/30
/201
0
1/31
/201
0
2/1/
2010
2/2/
2010
2/3/
2010
2/4/
2010
2/5/
2010
2/6/
2010
2/7/
2010
2/8/
2010
2/9/
2010
2/10
/201
0
2/11
/201
0
Date
SIRTA LHVP
NH4
37
Composition comparison between sites
25
20
15
10
5
0
Ma
ss c
on
ce
ntr
atio
n (
g m
-3)
1/15
/201
0
1/16
/201
0
1/17
/201
0
1/18
/201
0
1/19
/201
0
1/20
/201
0
1/21
/201
0
1/22
/201
0
1/23
/201
0
1/24
/201
0
1/25
/201
0
1/26
/201
0
1/27
/201
0
1/28
/201
0
1/29
/201
0
1/30
/201
0
1/31
/201
0
2/1/
2010
2/2/
2010
2/3/
2010
2/4/
2010
2/5/
2010
2/6/
2010
2/7/
2010
2/8/
2010
2/9/
2010
2/10
/201
0
2/11
/201
0
Date
SIRTA LHVP
NO3
38
Composition comparison between sites
20
15
10
5
0
Ma
ss c
on
ce
ntr
atio
n (
g m
-3)
1/15
/201
0
1/16
/201
0
1/17
/201
0
1/18
/201
0
1/19
/201
0
1/20
/201
0
1/21
/201
0
1/22
/201
0
1/23
/201
0
1/24
/201
0
1/25
/201
0
1/26
/201
0
1/27
/201
0
1/28
/201
0
1/29
/201
0
1/30
/201
0
1/31
/201
0
2/1/
2010
2/2/
2010
2/3/
2010
2/4/
2010
2/5/
2010
2/6/
2010
2/7/
2010
2/8/
2010
2/9/
2010
2/10
/201
0
2/11
/201
0
Date
SIRTA LHVP
SO4