4.8 Article

Modified Thermal-Optical Analysis Using Spectral Absorption Selectivity To Distinguish Black Carbon from Pyrolized Organic Carbon

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 42, 期 22, 页码 8459-8464

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es800448n

关键词

-

资金

  1. Guido Franco and the California Energy Commission [MR-06-0113]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a method for analyzing the black carbon (BC) mass loading on a quartz fiber filter using a modified thermal-optical analysis method, wherein light transmitted through the sample is measured over a spectral region instead of at a single wavelength. Evolution of the spectral light transmission signal depends on the relative amounts of light-absorbing BC and char, the latter of which forms when organic carbon in the sample pyrolyzes during heating. Absorption selectivities of BC and char are found to be distinct and bare used to apportion the amount of light attenuated by each component in the sample. Light attenuation is converted to mass concentration on the basis of derived mass attenuation efficiencies (MAEs) of BC and char. The fractions of attenuation due to each component are scaled by their individual MAE values and added together as the total mass of light absorbing carbon (LAC). An iterative algorithm is used to find the MAE values for both BC and char that provide the best fit to the carbon mass remaining on the filter (derived from direct measurements of thermally evolved CO2) at temperatures higher than 480 degrees C. This method was applied to measure the BC concentration in precipitation samples collected in northern California. The uncertainty in the measured BC concentration of samples that contained a high concentration of organics susceptible to char ranged from 12% to 100%, depending on the mass loading of BC on the filter. The lower detection limit for this method was approximately 0.35 mu g of BC, and the uncertainty approached 20% for BC mass loading greater than 1.0 mu g of BC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据