Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:45:12.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring Submicron-Size Fractionated Particulate Matter on Aluminum Impactor Disks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Bruce A Buchholz ,
Paula Zermeño ,
Hyun-Min Hwang ,
Thomas M Young  and
Thomas P Guilderson
Bruce A Buchholz
Affiliation:
Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O. Box 808, Livermore, California 94551, USA Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616, USA
Paula Zermeño
Affiliation:
Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O. Box 808, Livermore, California 94551, USA
Hyun-Min Hwang
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616, USA
Thomas M Young
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616, USA
Thomas P Guilderson
Affiliation:
Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O. Box 808, Livermore, California 94551, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Submicron-sized airborne particulate matter (PM) is not collected well on regular quartz or glass fiber filter papers. We used a micro-orifice uniform deposit impactor (MOUDI) to fractionate PM into 6 size fractions and deposit it on specially designed high-purity thin aluminum disks. The MOUDI separated PM into fractions 56–100, 100–180, 180–320, 320–560, 560–1000, and 1000–1800 nm. Since the MOUDI has a low flow rate (30 L/min), it takes several days to collect sufficient carbon on 47-mm foil disks. The small carbon mass (20–200 μg C) and large aluminum substrate (∼25 mg Al) present several challenges to production of graphite targets for accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) analysis. The Al foil consumes large amounts of oxygen as it is heated and tends to melt into quartz combustion tubes, causing gas leaks. We describe sample processing techniques to reliably produce graphitic targets for 14C AMS analysis of PM deposited on Al impact foils.

Type
Accelerator Mass Spectrometry
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 52 , Issue 2: 20th Int. Radiocarbon Conference Proceedings , 2010 , pp. 278 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Bench, G. 2004. Measurement of contemporary and fossil carbon contents of PM2.5 aerosols: results from Turtleback Dome, Yosemite National Park. Environmental Science & Technology 38(8):2424–7.Google Scholar
Brown, TA, Southon, JR. 1997. Corrections for contamination background in AMS 14C measurements. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 123(1–4):208–13.Google Scholar
Buchholz, BA, Freeman, SPHT, Haack, KW, Vogel, JS. 2000. Tips and traps in the 14C bio-AMS preparation laboratory. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 172(1–4):404–8.Google Scholar
Dockery, DW. 2009. Health effects of particulate air pollution. Annals of Epidemiology 19(4):257–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geller, VD, Sardar, SB, Phuleria, H, Fine, PN, Sioutas, C. 2005. Measurements of particle number and mass concentrations and size distributions in a tunnel environment. Environmental Science & Technology 39(22):8653–63.Google Scholar
Kleeman, MJ, Riddle, SG, Jakober, CA. 2008. Size distribution of particle-phase molecular markers during a severe winter pollution episode. Environmental Science & Technology 42(17):6469–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleeman, MJ, Riddle, SG, Robert, MA, Jakober, CA, Fine, PM, Hays, MD, Schauer, JJ, Hannigan, MP. 2009. Source apportionment of fine (PM1.8) and ultrafine (PM0.1) airborne particulate matter during a severe winter pollution episode. Environmental Science & Technology 43(2):272–9.Google Scholar
Kleindienst, TE, Jaoul, M, Lewandowski, M, Offenberg, JH, Lewis, CW, Bhave, PV, Edney, EO. 2007. Estimates of the contributions of biogenic and anthropogenic hydroarbons to secondary organic aerosol at a southeastern US location. Atmospheric Environment 41(37):8288–300.Google Scholar
Krudysz, MA, Froines, JR, Fine, PM, Sioutas, C. 2008. Intra-community spatial variation of size-fractionated PM mass, OC, EC, and trace elements in the Long Beach, CA area. Atmospheric Environment 42(21):5374–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, CW, Klouda, GA, Ellenson, WD. 2004. Radiocarbon measurement of the biogenic contribution to summertime PM-2.5 ambient aerosol in Nashville, TN. Atmospheric Environment 38(35):6053–61.Google Scholar
Pope, CA, Dockery, DW. 2006. Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: lines that connect. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 56(6):709–42.Google Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Brown, TA, Reimer, RW. 2004. Discussion: reporting and calibration of post-bomb 14C data. Radiocarbon 46(3):1299–304.Google Scholar
Ristovski, ZD, Jayaratne, ER, Lim, M, Ayoko, GA, Morawska, L. 2006. Influence of diesel fuel sulfur on nanoparticle emissions from city buses. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 40(4):1314–20.Google Scholar
Robert, MA, Van Bergen, S, Kleeman, MJ, Jakober, CA. 2007a. Size and composition distributions of particulate matter emissions: part 1—light-duty gasoline vehicles. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 57(12):1414–28.Google Scholar
Robert, MA, VanBergen, S, Kleeman, MJ, Jakober, CA. 2007b. Size and composition distributions of particulate matter emissions: part 2—heavy-duty diesel vehicles. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 57(12):1429–38.Google Scholar
Santos, GM, Southon, JR, Druffel-Rodriguez, K, Griffin, S, Mazon, M. 2004. Magnesium perchlorate as an alternative water trap in AMS graphite sample preparation: a report on sample preparation at KCCAMS at the University of California, Irvine. Radiocarbon 46(1):165–73.Google Scholar
Scott, EM. 2003. The Third International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (TIRI) and the Fourth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (FIRI), 1990–2002: results, analyses, and conclusions. Radiocarbon 45(2):135–408.Google Scholar
Seigneur, C. 2009. Current understanding of ultrafine particulate matter emitted from mobile sources. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 59(1):3–17.Google Scholar
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. The Particle Pollution Report: Current Understanding of Air Quality and Emissions through 2003. EPA 454-R-04-002. Research Triangle Park: Monitoring and Analysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emissions.Google Scholar
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Revisions to ambient air monitoring regulations; final rule. Federal Register 71(200):61,236–328.Google Scholar
Vogel, JS, Southon, JR, Nelson, DE. 1987. Catalyst and binder effects in the use of filamentous graphite for AMS. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 29(1–2):50–6.Google Scholar