Cargando…

Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions

In recent years wildland fires in the United States have had significant impacts on local and regional air quality and negative human health outcomes. Although the primary health concerns from wildland fires come from fine particulate matter (PM(2.5)), large increases in ozone (O(3)) have been obser...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Long, Russell W., Whitehill, Andrew, Habel, Andrew, Urbanski, Shawn, Halliday, Hannah, Colón, Maribel, Kaushik, Surender, Landis, Matthew S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8128704/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34017362
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1783-2021
_version_ 1783694152835268608
author Long, Russell W.
Whitehill, Andrew
Habel, Andrew
Urbanski, Shawn
Halliday, Hannah
Colón, Maribel
Kaushik, Surender
Landis, Matthew S.
author_facet Long, Russell W.
Whitehill, Andrew
Habel, Andrew
Urbanski, Shawn
Halliday, Hannah
Colón, Maribel
Kaushik, Surender
Landis, Matthew S.
author_sort Long, Russell W.
collection PubMed
description In recent years wildland fires in the United States have had significant impacts on local and regional air quality and negative human health outcomes. Although the primary health concerns from wildland fires come from fine particulate matter (PM(2.5)), large increases in ozone (O(3)) have been observed downwind of wildland fire plumes (DeBell et al., 2004; Bytnerowicz et al., 2010; Preisler et al., 2010; Jaffe et al., 2012; Bytnerowicz et al., 2013; Jaffe et al., 2013; Lu et al., 2016; Lindaas et al., 2017; McClure and Jaffe, 2018; Liu et al., 2018; Baylon et al., 2018; Buysse et al., 2019). Conditions generated in and around wildland fire plumes, including the presence of interfering chemical species, can make the accurate measurement of O(3) concentrations using the ultraviolet (UV) photometric method challenging if not impossible. UV photometric method instruments are prone to interferences by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are present at high concentrations in wildland fire smoke. Four different O(3) measurement methodologies were deployed in a mobile sampling platform downwind of active prescribed grassland fire lines in Kansas and Oregon and during controlled chamber burns at the United States Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Fire Sciences Laboratory in Missoula, Montana. We demonstrate that the Federal Reference Method (FRM) nitric oxide (NO) chemiluminescence monitors and Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) gas-phase (NO) chemical scrubber UV photometric O(3) monitors are relatively interference-free, even in near-field combustion plumes. In contrast, FEM UV photometric O(3) monitors using solid-phase catalytic scrubbers show positive artifacts that are positively correlated with carbon monoxide (CO) and total gas-phase hydrocarbon (THC), two indicator species of biomass burning. Of the two catalytic scrubber UV photometric methods evaluated, the instruments that included a Nafion® tube dryer in the sample introduction system had artifacts an order of magnitude smaller than the instrument with no humidity correction. We hypothesize that Nafion®-permeating VOCs (such as aromatic hydrocarbons) could be a significant source of interference for catalytic scrubber UV photometric O(3) monitors and that the inclusion of a Nafion® tube dryer assists with the mitigation of these interferences. The chemiluminescence FRM method is highly recommended for accurate measurements of O(3) in wildland fire plume studies and at regulatory ambient monitoring sites frequently impacted by wildland fire smoke.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8128704
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81287042022-03-04 Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions Long, Russell W. Whitehill, Andrew Habel, Andrew Urbanski, Shawn Halliday, Hannah Colón, Maribel Kaushik, Surender Landis, Matthew S. Atmos Meas Tech Article In recent years wildland fires in the United States have had significant impacts on local and regional air quality and negative human health outcomes. Although the primary health concerns from wildland fires come from fine particulate matter (PM(2.5)), large increases in ozone (O(3)) have been observed downwind of wildland fire plumes (DeBell et al., 2004; Bytnerowicz et al., 2010; Preisler et al., 2010; Jaffe et al., 2012; Bytnerowicz et al., 2013; Jaffe et al., 2013; Lu et al., 2016; Lindaas et al., 2017; McClure and Jaffe, 2018; Liu et al., 2018; Baylon et al., 2018; Buysse et al., 2019). Conditions generated in and around wildland fire plumes, including the presence of interfering chemical species, can make the accurate measurement of O(3) concentrations using the ultraviolet (UV) photometric method challenging if not impossible. UV photometric method instruments are prone to interferences by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are present at high concentrations in wildland fire smoke. Four different O(3) measurement methodologies were deployed in a mobile sampling platform downwind of active prescribed grassland fire lines in Kansas and Oregon and during controlled chamber burns at the United States Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Fire Sciences Laboratory in Missoula, Montana. We demonstrate that the Federal Reference Method (FRM) nitric oxide (NO) chemiluminescence monitors and Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) gas-phase (NO) chemical scrubber UV photometric O(3) monitors are relatively interference-free, even in near-field combustion plumes. In contrast, FEM UV photometric O(3) monitors using solid-phase catalytic scrubbers show positive artifacts that are positively correlated with carbon monoxide (CO) and total gas-phase hydrocarbon (THC), two indicator species of biomass burning. Of the two catalytic scrubber UV photometric methods evaluated, the instruments that included a Nafion® tube dryer in the sample introduction system had artifacts an order of magnitude smaller than the instrument with no humidity correction. We hypothesize that Nafion®-permeating VOCs (such as aromatic hydrocarbons) could be a significant source of interference for catalytic scrubber UV photometric O(3) monitors and that the inclusion of a Nafion® tube dryer assists with the mitigation of these interferences. The chemiluminescence FRM method is highly recommended for accurate measurements of O(3) in wildland fire plume studies and at regulatory ambient monitoring sites frequently impacted by wildland fire smoke. 2021-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8128704/ /pubmed/34017362 http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1783-2021 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Long, Russell W.
Whitehill, Andrew
Habel, Andrew
Urbanski, Shawn
Halliday, Hannah
Colón, Maribel
Kaushik, Surender
Landis, Matthew S.
Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions
title Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions
title_full Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions
title_fullStr Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions
title_short Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions
title_sort comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8128704/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34017362
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1783-2021
work_keys_str_mv AT longrussellw comparisonofozonemeasurementmethodsinbiomassburningsmokeanevaluationunderfieldandlaboratoryconditions
AT whitehillandrew comparisonofozonemeasurementmethodsinbiomassburningsmokeanevaluationunderfieldandlaboratoryconditions
AT habelandrew comparisonofozonemeasurementmethodsinbiomassburningsmokeanevaluationunderfieldandlaboratoryconditions
AT urbanskishawn comparisonofozonemeasurementmethodsinbiomassburningsmokeanevaluationunderfieldandlaboratoryconditions
AT hallidayhannah comparisonofozonemeasurementmethodsinbiomassburningsmokeanevaluationunderfieldandlaboratoryconditions
AT colonmaribel comparisonofozonemeasurementmethodsinbiomassburningsmokeanevaluationunderfieldandlaboratoryconditions
AT kaushiksurender comparisonofozonemeasurementmethodsinbiomassburningsmokeanevaluationunderfieldandlaboratoryconditions
AT landismatthews comparisonofozonemeasurementmethodsinbiomassburningsmokeanevaluationunderfieldandlaboratoryconditions