Aerosol Chemical and Optical Properties during the Mt. Zirkel Visibility Study
John G. Watson*,a,
Judith C. Chowa,
Douglas H. Lowenthala,
Catherine F. Cahillb,
Donald L. Blumenthalc,
L.Willard Richardsc and
Helena González Jorged
a Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512
b University of Alaska, 303 IARC, Fairbanks, AK 99775
c Sonoma Technology, Inc., 1360 Redwood Way, Suite C, Petaluma, CA 94954
d Univ. of La Laguna, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain

View larger version (54K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1. Mt. Zirkel Visibility Study area.
|
|

View larger version (24K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2. Measured PM2.5 (particles with aerodynamic diameters less than 2.5 µm) mass versus reconstructed mass with (a) front-filter organic carbon, (b) front-filter minus backup-filter organic carbon, (c) front-filter plus backup-filter organic carbon.
|
|

View larger version (32K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3. Hourly average ratio of Optec (ambient) total particle scattering to TSI (quasi-dry) PM2.5 (particles with aerodynamic diameters less than 2.5 µm) particle scattering (bsp) at 550 nm as a function of relative humidity (RH) (N = 1125).
|
|

View larger version (13K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4. Relationship between the derived geometric mean diameter (GMD) and the ratio of geological dust concentration to reconstructed mass.
|
|

View larger version (17K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5. Comparison of measured dry PM2.5 (particles with aerodynamic diameters less than 2.5 µm) particle scattering (bspg) based on uncorrected front-filter organic carbon (OC) with (a) particle scattering reconstructed from the Elastic Light Scattering Interactive Efficiencies (ELSIE) model and (b) particle scattering (bsp) based on Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) scattering efficiencies (outlier excluded from regression).
|
|
Copyright © 2001 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.