Intercomparison of aerosol measurements performed with multi-wavelength Raman lidars, automatic lidars and ceilometers in the framework of INTERACT-II campaign
-
Published:2018-04-27
Issue:4
Volume:11
Page:2459-2475
-
ISSN:1867-8548
-
Container-title:Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Atmos. Meas. Tech.
Author:
Madonna FabioORCID, Rosoldi Marco, Lolli SimoneORCID, Amato Francesco, Vande Hey Joshua, Dhillon Ranvir, Zheng Yunhui, Brettle Mike, Pappalardo Gelsomina
Abstract
Abstract. Following the previous efforts of INTERACT (INTERcomparison of Aerosol and
Cloud Tracking), the INTERACT-II campaign used multi-wavelength Raman lidar
measurements to assess the performance of an automatic compact micro-pulse
lidar (MiniMPL) and two ceilometers (CL51 and CS135) in providing reliable
information about optical and geometric atmospheric aerosol properties. The
campaign took place at the CNR-IMAA Atmospheric Observatory
(760 ma.s.l.; 40.60∘ N, 15.72∘ E) in the
framework of ACTRIS-2 (Aerosol Clouds Trace gases Research InfraStructure)
H2020 project. Co-located simultaneous measurements involving a MiniMPL, two
ceilometers and two EARLINET multi-wavelength Raman lidars were performed
from July to December 2016. The intercomparison highlighted that the MiniMPL
range-corrected signals (RCSs) show, on average, a fractional difference with
respect to those of CNR-IMAA Atmospheric Observatory (CIAO) lidars ranging
from 5 to 15 % below 2.0 km a.s.l. (above sea level), largely
due to the use of an inaccurate overlap correction, and smaller than 5 %
in the free troposphere. For the CL51, the attenuated backscatter values have
an average fractional difference with respect to CIAO
lidars < 20–30 % below 3 km and larger above. The
variability of the CL51 calibration constant is within ±46 %. For the
CS135, the performance is similar to the CL51 below 2.0 kma.s.l.,
while in the region above 3 kma.s.l. the differences are about
±40 %. The variability of the CS135 normalization constant is within
±47 %. Finally, additional tests performed during the campaign using the CHM15k
ceilometer operated at CIAO showed the clear need to investigate the CHM15k
historical dataset (2010–2016) to evaluate potential effects of ceilometer
laser fluctuations on calibration stability. The number of laser pulses shows
an average variability of 10 % with respect to the nominal power which
conforms to the ceilometer specifications. Nevertheless, laser pulses
variability follows seasonal behavior with an increase in the number of laser
pulses in summer and a decrease in winter. This contributes to explain the
dependency of the ceilometer calibration constant on the environmental
temperature hypothesized during INTERACT.
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
Atmospheric Science
Reference24 articles.
1. Baars, H., Kanitz, T., Engelmann, R., Althausen, D., Heese, B., Komppula, M.,
Preißler, J., Tesche, M., Ansmann, A., Wandinger, U., Lim, J.-H.,
Ahn, J. Y., Stachlewska, I. S., Amiridis, V., Marinou, E., Seifert, P.,
Hofer, J., Skupin, A., Schneider, F., Bohlmann, S., Foth, A., Bley, S.,
Pfüller, A., Giannakaki, E., Lihavainen, H., Viisanen, Y., Hooda, R. K.,
Pereira, S. N., Bortoli, D., Wagner, F., Mattis, I., Janicka, L.,
Markowicz, K. M., Achtert, P., Artaxo, P., Pauliquevis, T., Souza, R. A. F.,
Sharma, V. P., van Zyl, P. G., Beukes, J. P., Sun, J., Rohwer, E. G.,
Deng, R., Mamouri, R.-E., and Zamorano, F.: An overview of the first decade
of PollyNET: an emerging network of automated Raman-polarization
lidars for continuous aerosol profiling, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 5111–5137,
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5111-2016, 2016. 2. Campbell, J. R., Hlavka, D. L., Welton, E. J., Flynn, C. J., Turner, D. D.,
Spinhirne, J. D., Scott, V. S., and Hwang, I. H.: Full-time, eye-safe cloud
and aerosol lidar observation at Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program
sites: instruments and data processing, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 19, 431–442,
2002. 3. D'Amico, G., Amodeo, A., Mattis, I., Freudenthaler, V., and Pappalardo, G.:
EARLINET Single Calculus Chain – technical – Part 1: Pre-processing of raw lidar data,
Atmos. Meas. Tech.,
9, 491–507, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-491-2016, 2016. 4. Flynn, C. J., Mendoza, A., Zheng, Y., and Mathur, S.: Novel
polarization-sensitive micropulse lidar measurement technique, Opt. Express,
15, 2785–2790, 2007. 5. Freudenthaler, V.: The Telecover Test: A Quality Assurance Tool for the
Optical Part of a Lidar System, in: Proceed. of 24th International Laser
Radar Conference, (https://www.meteo.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~st212fre/ILRC24/ILRC24-2008-S01P_30_Freudenthaler_Proceedings.pdf last access: 11
February 2015), 2008.
Cited by
17 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|