Shang Liu1, Lynn M. Russell1, Douglas A. Day1,2, Yunliang Zhao3, Allen H. Goldstein3, Robin Weber3

Formation of biogenic and anthropogenic secondary organic aerosols at Bakersfield, California

1. Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. 2. Now at: Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder. 3. Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley.

COMPARING METHODS (WITH GRAPHICS INSPIRED BY MANJULA’S PRESENTATION)

Agreement of orthogonal methods could suggests accuracy

Disagreement of orthogonal methods can provide additional information

Agreement of similar methods can provide additional confidence

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)

Aromatic Alkene

Hydroxyl

Alkane

Carboxylic acid

Carbonyl

Amine

CONTRIBUTIONS OF THREE ORGANIC SOURCE TYPES

PMF FACTORS FOR 12 FTIR AEROSOL MEASUREMENT

CAMPAIGNS*

aMaria et al. (2002); bMaria et al. (2003) and Quinn et al. (2003); cMari and Russell (2005); dGilardoni et al. (2007) and Bahadur et al. (2010); eGilardoni et al. (2009) and Liu et al. (2009); fDay et al. (2009); gRussell et al. (2009); hRussell et al. (2010); iHawkins and Russell (2010) and Day et al. (2010); jSchwartz et al. (2010); kHawkins et al. (2010); lShaw et al. (2010);

High O/C Low O/C

Biogenic Biomass Burning

Marine Polluted Marine

SOURCES FOR 12 FTIR AEROSOL MEASUREMENT CAMPAIGNS*

*1368  atmospheric  aerosol  par3cle  spectra  from  urban,  remote,  and  marine  loca3ons.  

aMaria et al. (2002); bMaria et al. (2003) and Quinn et al. (2003); cMaria and Russell (2005); dGilardoni et al. (2007) and Bahadur et al. (2010); eGilardoni et al. (2009) and Liu et al. (2009); fDay et al. (2009); gRussell et al. (2009); hRussell et al. (2010); iHawkins and Russell (2010) and Day et al. (2010); jSchwartz et al. (2010); kHawkins et al. (2010); lShaw et al. (2010);

Filters

FTIR Sample Collection Size Range Sampling Time

PM1

00:00 - 06:00 06:00 - 12:00 12:00 - 15:00 15:00 - 18:00 18:00 - 23:00

PM2.5 00:00 - 23:00 Note: Teflon filters are very poor at adsorbing (or absorbing) gases – just like Teflon tubing…back filters are consistently below detection. (Cf. OC measured by EGA can have back filters with 2 to 10 times the mass of the front filters, significantly reducing accuracy.

PAST COMPARISONS OF AMS AND FTIR “ORGANIC MASS (OM)”

Marine/dust: AMS < FTIR

BiomassBurning: AMS~FTIR

Biogenic: AMS~FTIR

Urban: AMS > FTIR

Russell et al., 2009, Atmos. Env.

Time Series of Organic Functional Group Concentrations

2010

35%

21%

22% 9% 11%

2%

(ON)

Components Identified from the AMS Measurements Factor Identification

C2H3O+

C2H3O+

Δm/z = 14

pinonaldehyde Factor m/z spectrum

Nighttime Biogenic OA

O:C = 0.01

Hexadecanoic acid C6H10O+

COA

O:C = 0.23

Correlation to FTIR alkane SOA

Propane Butane

Low O/C Alkane OA

O:C = 0.2

High O/C Alkane SOA

O:C = 0.47

Low O/C PAH OA

O:C = 0.27

High O/C PAH SOA

O:C = 0.51

V Petroleum Operation (PO) OA

O:C = 0.15

Factor Identification

pinonaldehyde

Si, Ca, Al, Mg

V

tetradecanone undecanone

Components Identified from the FTIR Measurements

Alkane Acid Hydroxyl ON Amine Carbonyl

Nighttime Biogenic SOA

Vegetative Detritus

Alkane SOA

PAH SOA

Petroleum Operation SOA

phenol

PM1 PM2.5

Comparison of OM1 and OM2.5 Component Mass

0% 33% 12% -17% 55%

OM1 = 83% OM2.5

€

OM2.5 −OM1

OM1

PM1

PM2.5

FTIR

AMS

Comparison of FTIR and AMS Components

COA

Vegetative Detritus

PO SOA

PAH SOA

Alkane SOA

Nighttime Biogenic SOA