A field intercomparison of three passive air samplers for gaseous mercury in ambient air
-
Published:2021-05-20
Issue:5
Volume:14
Page:3657-3672
-
ISSN:1867-8548
-
Container-title:Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Atmos. Meas. Tech.
Author:
Naccarato AttilioORCID, Tassone Antonella, Martino Maria, Moretti Sacha, Macagnano Antonella, Zampetti Emiliano, Papa Paolo, Avossa Joshua, Pirrone Nicola, Nerentorp Michelle, Munthe John, Wängberg Ingvar, Stupple Geoff W., Mitchell Carl P. J.ORCID, Martin Adam R.ORCID, Steffen Alexandra, Babi Diana, Prestbo Eric M., Sprovieri FrancescaORCID, Wania FrankORCID
Abstract
Abstract. Passive air samplers (PASs), which provide time-averaged concentrations of
gaseous mercury over the timescale of weeks to months, are promising for
filling a gap in the monitoring of atmospheric mercury worldwide. Their
usefulness will depend on their ease of use and robustness under field
conditions, their availability and affordability, and most notably, their
ability to provide results of acceptable precision and accuracy. Here we
describe a comparative evaluation of three PASs with respect to their
ability to precisely and accurately record atmospheric background mercury
concentrations at sites in both southern Italy and southern Ontario, Canada. The study includes the CNR-PAS with gold nanoparticles as a sorbent, developed by the Italian National Research Council, the IVL-PAS using an activated carbon-coated disk, developed by the Swedish Environmental Research Institute, and the MerPAS® using a sulfur-impregnated activated carbon sorbent, developed at the University of Toronto and commercialized by Tekran. Detection limits are deduced from the variability in the amount of mercury quantified in more than 20 field blank
samples for each PAS. Analytical and sampling precision is quantified
through 22 triplicate deployments for each PAS, ranging in duration from 2 to 12 weeks. Accuracy and bias are assessed through comparison with
gaseous elemental mercury concentrations recorded by Tekran 2537 automated
mercury analyzers operating alongside the PASs at both locations. The
performance of the PASs was significantly better in Italy, with all of them
providing concentrations that are not significantly different from the
average concentrations of the Tekran 2537 instruments. In Canada, where
weather conditions were much harsher and more variable during the February
through April deployment period, there are differences amongst the PASs. At both sites, the MerPAS® is currently the most sensitive, precise, and accurate among the three PASs. A key reason for this is the larger size and the radial configuration of the
MerPAS®, which results in lower blank levels relative to the sequestered amounts of mercury when compared to the other two PASs, which rely on axial diffusion geometries. Since blank correction becomes relatively smaller with longer deployments, performance tends to be closer amongst the PASs during deployments of 8 and 12 weeks.
Funder
European Metrology Programme for Innovation and Research Horizon 2020 Framework Programme Environment and Climate Change Canada European Commission IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
Atmospheric Science
Reference33 articles.
1. Arctic Council: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Arctic Council, Tromsø, Norway, available at: https://www.amap.no/ (last access: 5 August 2020), 1991. 2. Aspmo, K., Gauchard, P. A., Steffen, A., Temme, C., Berg, T., Bahlmann, E.,
Banic, C., Dommergue, A., Ebinghaus, R., Ferrari, C., Pirrone, N.,
Sprovieri, F., and Wibetoe, G.: Measurements of atmospheric mercury species
during an international study of mercury depletion events at Ny-Ålesund,
Svalbard, spring 2003. How reproducible are our present methods?,
Atmos. Environ., 39, 7607–7619, 2005. 3. Brown, R. J. C., Pirrone, N., Van Hoek, C., Sprovieri, F., Fernandez, R., and
Toté, K.: Standardisation of a European measurement method for the
determination of total gaseous mercury: Results of the field trial campaign
and determination of a measurement uncertainty and working range, J.
Environ. Monit., 12, 689–695, https://doi.org/10.1039/b924955a, 2010. 4. D'Amore, F., Bencardino, M., Cinnirella, S., Sprovieri, F., and Pirrone, N.:
Data quality through a web-based QA/QC system: Implementation for
atmospheric mercury data from the global mercury observation system,
Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts, 17, 1482–1491, https://doi.org/10.1039/c5em00205b,
2015. 5. Dinoi, A., Cesari, D., Marinoni, A., Bonasoni, P., Riccio, A., Chianese, E.,
Tirimberio, G., Naccarato, A., Sprovieri, F., Andreoli, V., Moretti, S.,
Gullì, D., Calidonna, C. R., Ammoscato, I., and Contini, D.:
Inter-comparison of carbon content in PM2.5 and PM10 collected at five measurement sites in Southern Italy, Atmosphere, 8, 243,
https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos8120243, 2017.
Cited by
25 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
|
|