基于光声光谱气溶胶吸收测量的标定方法研究

doi:10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2024)01-0088-07

Abstract
References
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (4031 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Atmospheric aerosols modify the energy balance of the atmosphere and the Earth's surface, visibility, and climateby absorbing solar radiation. Photoacoustic spectroscopy (PAS) is the most direct and effective method to measure the absorption of aerosols due to the advantages of high sensitivity, no change of aerosol stateand simple structure. The calibration method is the key factor of measurement accuracy of aerosol optical absorption coefficient using a PAS working at the near-infrared band. In order to explore the differences between different calibration schemes, NO₂ (532 nm) and monodisperse nigrosin aerosol (532 and 1 064 nm) were selected to carry out calibration experiments of gas and aerosol separately. Based on Mie's theory, the absorption coefficients of the monodisperse nigrosin aerosol at wavelengths of 532 nm and 1064 nm were calculated using the concentration of aerosol particles, the complex refractive index and the particle diameter. The experimental results show that: the value of the calibration coefficient obtained by NO₂ is between the calibration coefficient obtained by nigrosin aerosol at 532 and 1 064 nm wavelength, moreover, which is close to the value of calibration coefficient of nigrosin monodisperse aerosol with particle diameter of 225 nm (λ=532 nm) and 125 nm (λ=1 064 nm) butnot the same in other particle sizes. Despite the similar continuous absorption properties at specific wavelengths of NO₂ and nigrosin aerosol, for the same calibration system, there are still uncertainties in the calibration process such as light-matter interaction, calibration medium loss, and measurement environment other than photoacoustic effect due to the different properties and states of calibration gas and aerosol. All these will lead to the difference of calibration results between these two calibration methods. The calibration coefficients of nigrosin aerosol obtained by using different wavelength light sources are significantly different, and the calibration coefficient values of the same particle size at 532 nm wavelength is about 1.5～2 times that at 1064 nm wavelength. There are two possible reasons for this result: one is that theobtained complex refractive index of nigrosine at 1 064 nm is not accurate, and the other is that the matching mode of the 532 nm wavelength beam and 1064 nm wavelength beam with the resonator is not consistent during the calibration process. There was an inverse relationship between the calibration coefficient and the particle size of monodisperse aerosol. With an increase of 50 nm in the particle size of nigrosin aerosol, the calibration coefficient decreased by 19% for the 532 nm wavelength light source and decreased by 12% for the 1 064 nm wavelength light source. The inverse relationship between calibration coefficient and particle size may be caused by the different losses of nigrosin aerosol particles with different particle sizes through the pipeline and the photoacoustic cell. It can be seen that the gas calibration method and the aerosol calibration method have their advantages and disadvantages, but the two calibration methods can obtain the corresponding calibration coefficients. It is necessary to consider various factors comprehensively in selecting the actual calibration method.

Key words：Photoacoustic spectrometry; Aerosol; Optical absorption coefficient; Calibration of aerosol optical absorption coefficient

Received: 2022-12-01 Accepted: 2023-04-07

ZTFLH:

O433.5

Corresponding Authors: LIU Qiang E-mail: liuq@aiofm.ac.cn

Cite this article:

XU Qiu-yi,ZHU Wen-yue,CHEN Jie, et al. Calibration Method of Aerosol Absorption Coefficient Based on Photoacoustic Spectroscopy[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2024, 44(01): 88-94.

URL:

https://www.gpxygpfx.com/EN/10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2024)01-0088-07 OR https://www.gpxygpfx.com/EN/Y2024/V44/I01/88

[1] IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013.
[2] Guo X, Nakayama T, Yamada H, et al. Atmospheric Environment, 2014, 94: 428.
[3] Liu Q, Huang H H, Wang Y, et al. Chinese Physics B, 2014, 23(6): 064205.
[4] Utry N, Ajtai T, Pintér M, et al. International Journal of Thermophysics, 2014, 35(12): 2246.
[5] Chen J, Zhu W, Liu Q, et al. Atmosphere, 2021, 12(12): 1553.
[6] Cao Y, Liu K, Wang R, et al. Optics Express, 2021, 29(2): 2258.
[7] Fischer D A, Smith G D. Aerosol Science and Technology, 2018, 52(4): 393.
[8] Nakayama T, Suzuki H, Kagamitani S, et al. Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan. Ser. II, 2015, 93(2): 285.
[9] Arnott W P, Moosmüller H, Walker J W. Review of Scientific Instruments, 2000, 71(12): 4545.
[10] Tian G, Moosmüller H, Arnott W P. Aerosol Science and Technology, 2009, 43(11): 1084.
[11] Gillis K A, Havey D K, Hodges J T. Review of Scientific Instruments, 2010, 81(6): 064902.
[12] Lack D A, Lovejoy E R, Baynard T, et al. Aerosol Science and Technology, 2006, 40(9): 697.
[13] Foster K, Pokhrel R, Burkhart M, et al. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 2019, 12(6): 3351.
[14] Zangmeister C D, Grimes C D, Dickerson R R, et al. Aerosol Science and Technology, 2019, 53(11): 1322.
[15] CHEN Jie, QIAN Xian-mei, LIU Qiang, et al(陈杰，钱仙妹，刘强，等). Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis(光谱学与光谱分析), 2020, 40(10): 2989.
[16] LIU Qiang, WANG Gui-shi, LIU Kun, et al(刘强, 王贵师, 刘锟, 等). Infrared and Laser Engineering(红外与激光工程), 2014, 43(9): 3010.
[17] LIU Qiang, NIU Ming-sheng, WANG Gui-shi, et al(刘强, 牛明生, 王贵师, 等). Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis (光谱学与光谱分析), 2013, 33(7): 1729.
[18] Bluvshtein N, Flores J M, He Q, et al. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 2017, 10(3): 1203.
[19] Lang-Yona N, Rudich Y, Segre E, et al. Analytical Chemistry, 2009, 81(5): 1762.
[20] Liu P, Zhang Y, Martin S T. Environmental Science and Technology, 2013, 47(23): 13594.
[21] Dinar E, Abo Riziq A, Spindler C, et al. Faraday Discuss., 2008, 137: 279.
[22] DU Xiao-fan, QIAN Xian-mei, LIU Qiang, et al(都小凡, 钱仙妹, 刘强, 等). Acta Optica Sinica(光学学报), 2017, 37(2): 0230003.
[23] CHENG Gang, CHEN Jia-jin, CAO Ya-nan, et al(程刚, 陈家金, 曹亚南, 等). Acta Photonica Sinica(光子学报), 2020, 49(2): 0230001.
[24] Miklós A, Hess P, Bozóki Z. Review of Scientific Instruments, 2001, 72(4): 1937.
[25] https: //hitran. org/.