Comment on “Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions” by Long et al. (2021)
<p>Long et al. (2021) conducted a detailed study of possible interferences in measurements of surface <span class="inline-formula">O<sub>3</sub></span> by UV spectroscopy, which measures the UV transmission in ambient and <span class="inline-formula&qu...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2022-05-01
|
| Series: | Atmospheric Measurement Techniques |
| Online Access: | https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/3189/2022/amt-15-3189-2022.pdf |
| _version_ | 1811255690562371584 |
|---|---|
| author | N. Bernays D. A. Jaffe D. A. Jaffe I. Petropavlovskikh I. Petropavlovskikh P. Effertz P. Effertz |
| author_facet | N. Bernays D. A. Jaffe D. A. Jaffe I. Petropavlovskikh I. Petropavlovskikh P. Effertz P. Effertz |
| author_sort | N. Bernays |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p>Long et al. (2021) conducted a detailed study of possible interferences in
measurements of surface <span class="inline-formula">O<sub>3</sub></span> by UV spectroscopy, which measures the UV transmission in ambient and <span class="inline-formula">O<sub>3</sub></span>-scrubbed air. While we appreciate the careful work done in this analysis, there were several omissions, and in one case, the type of scrubber used was misidentified as manganese dioxide (<span class="inline-formula">MnO<sub>2</sub></span>) when in fact it was manganese chloride (MnCl<span class="inline-formula"><sub>2</sub></span>). This misidentification led to the erroneous conclusion that all UV-based <span class="inline-formula">O<sub>3</sub></span> instruments employing solid-phase catalytic scrubbers exhibit significant positive artifacts, whereas previous research found this not to be the case when employing <span class="inline-formula">MnO<sub>2</sub></span> scrubber types. While the Long et al. (2021) study, and our results, confirm the substantial bias in instruments employing an MnCl<span class="inline-formula"><sub>2</sub></span> scrubber, a replication of the earlier work with an <span class="inline-formula">MnO<sub>2</sub></span> scrubber type and no humidity correction is needed.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T17:28:44Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-f39d58fc0ac64893adf999e9c328839d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1867-1381 1867-8548 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T17:28:44Z |
| publishDate | 2022-05-01 |
| publisher | Copernicus Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Atmospheric Measurement Techniques |
| spelling | doaj.art-f39d58fc0ac64893adf999e9c328839d2022-12-22T03:23:13ZengCopernicus PublicationsAtmospheric Measurement Techniques1867-13811867-85482022-05-01153189319210.5194/amt-15-3189-2022Comment on “Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions” by Long et al. (2021)N. Bernays0D. A. Jaffe1D. A. Jaffe2I. Petropavlovskikh3I. Petropavlovskikh4P. Effertz5P. Effertz6School of Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics, University of Washington, Bothell, WA 98011, USASchool of Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics, University of Washington, Bothell, WA 98011, USADepartment of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USANOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory, Boulder, CO 80305, USACooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USANOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory, Boulder, CO 80305, USACooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA<p>Long et al. (2021) conducted a detailed study of possible interferences in measurements of surface <span class="inline-formula">O<sub>3</sub></span> by UV spectroscopy, which measures the UV transmission in ambient and <span class="inline-formula">O<sub>3</sub></span>-scrubbed air. While we appreciate the careful work done in this analysis, there were several omissions, and in one case, the type of scrubber used was misidentified as manganese dioxide (<span class="inline-formula">MnO<sub>2</sub></span>) when in fact it was manganese chloride (MnCl<span class="inline-formula"><sub>2</sub></span>). This misidentification led to the erroneous conclusion that all UV-based <span class="inline-formula">O<sub>3</sub></span> instruments employing solid-phase catalytic scrubbers exhibit significant positive artifacts, whereas previous research found this not to be the case when employing <span class="inline-formula">MnO<sub>2</sub></span> scrubber types. While the Long et al. (2021) study, and our results, confirm the substantial bias in instruments employing an MnCl<span class="inline-formula"><sub>2</sub></span> scrubber, a replication of the earlier work with an <span class="inline-formula">MnO<sub>2</sub></span> scrubber type and no humidity correction is needed.</p>https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/3189/2022/amt-15-3189-2022.pdf |
| spellingShingle | N. Bernays D. A. Jaffe D. A. Jaffe I. Petropavlovskikh I. Petropavlovskikh P. Effertz P. Effertz Comment on “Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions” by Long et al. (2021) Atmospheric Measurement Techniques |
| title | Comment on “Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions” by Long et al. (2021) |
| title_full | Comment on “Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions” by Long et al. (2021) |
| title_fullStr | Comment on “Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions” by Long et al. (2021) |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comment on “Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions” by Long et al. (2021) |
| title_short | Comment on “Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions” by Long et al. (2021) |
| title_sort | comment on comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions by long et al 2021 |
| url | https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/3189/2022/amt-15-3189-2022.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nbernays commentoncomparisonofozonemeasurementmethodsinbiomassburningsmokeanevaluationunderfieldandlaboratoryconditionsbylongetal2021 AT dajaffe commentoncomparisonofozonemeasurementmethodsinbiomassburningsmokeanevaluationunderfieldandlaboratoryconditionsbylongetal2021 AT dajaffe commentoncomparisonofozonemeasurementmethodsinbiomassburningsmokeanevaluationunderfieldandlaboratoryconditionsbylongetal2021 AT ipetropavlovskikh commentoncomparisonofozonemeasurementmethodsinbiomassburningsmokeanevaluationunderfieldandlaboratoryconditionsbylongetal2021 AT ipetropavlovskikh commentoncomparisonofozonemeasurementmethodsinbiomassburningsmokeanevaluationunderfieldandlaboratoryconditionsbylongetal2021 AT peffertz commentoncomparisonofozonemeasurementmethodsinbiomassburningsmokeanevaluationunderfieldandlaboratoryconditionsbylongetal2021 AT peffertz commentoncomparisonofozonemeasurementmethodsinbiomassburningsmokeanevaluationunderfieldandlaboratoryconditionsbylongetal2021 |