Airborne intercomparison of HO x measurements using laser-induced fluorescence and chemical ionization mass spectrometry during ARCTAS

• Published in: Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
• Main Authors: J. H. Crawford, J. R. Olson, E. Kosciuch, R. S. Hornbrook, R. L. Mauldin III, C. A. Cantrell, W. H. Brune, J. Mao, X. Ren, G. Chen, H. B. Singh
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Copernicus Publications 2012
• Subjects: Environmental engineering; TA170-171; Earthwork. Foundations; TA715-787; Arctic
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-2025-2012; https://doaj.org/article/9ebec36aeb4047049b515b6ec7e5ba40

The hydroxyl (OH) and hydroperoxyl (HO 2 ) radicals, collectively called HO x , play central roles in tropospheric chemistry. Accurate measurements of OH and HO 2 are critical to examine our understanding of atmospheric chemistry. Intercomparisons of different techniques for detecting OH and HO 2 are vital to evaluate their measurement capabilities. Three instruments that measured OH and/or HO 2 radicals were deployed on the NASA DC-8 aircraft throughout Arctic Research of the Composition of the Troposphere from Aircraft and Satellites (ARCTAS) in the spring and summer of 2008. One instrument was the Penn State Airborne Tropospheric Hydrogen Oxides Sensor (ATHOS) for OH and HO 2 measurements based on Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) spectroscopy. A second instrument was the NCAR Selected-Ion Chemical Ionization Mass Spectrometer (SI-CIMS) for OH measurement. A third instrument was the NCAR Peroxy Radical Chemical Ionization Mass Spectrometer (PeRCIMS) for HO 2 measurement. Formal intercomparison of LIF and CIMS was conducted for the first time on a same aircraft platform. The three instruments were calibrated by quantitative photolysis of water vapor by ultraviolet (UV) light at 184.9 nm with three different calibration systems. The absolute accuracies were ±32% (2σ) for the LIF instrument, ±65% (2σ) for the SI-CIMS instrument, and ±50% (2σ) for the PeRCIMS instrument. In general, good agreement was obtained between the CIMS and LIF measurements of both OH and HO 2 measurements. Linear regression of the entire data set yields [OH] CIMS = 0.89 × [OH] LIF + 2.8 × 10 4 cm −3 with a correlation coefficient r 2 = 0.72 for OH, and [HO 2 ] CIMS = 0.86 × [HO 2 ] LIF + 3.9 parts per trillion by volume (pptv, equivalent to pmol mol −1 ) with a correlation coefficient r 2 = 0.72 for HO 2 . In general, the difference between CIMS and LIF instruments for OH and HO 2 measurements can be explained by their combined measurement uncertainties. Comparison with box model results shows some similarities for both the CIMS and LIF ...