An interlaboratory comparison of aerosol inorganic ion measurements by ion chromatography: implications for aerosol pH estimate

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

An interlaboratory comparison of aerosol inorganic ion measurements by ion chromatography: implications for aerosol pH estimate. / Xu, Jingsha; Song, Shaojie; Harrison, Roy M.; Song, Congbo; Wei, Lianfang; Zhang, Qiang; Sun, Yele; Lei, Lu; Zhang, Chao; Yao, Xiaohong; Chen, Dihui; Li, Weijun; Wu, Miaomiao; Tian, Hezhong; Luo, Lining; Tong, Shengrui; Li, Weiran; Wang, Junling; Shi, Guoliang; Huangfu, Yanqi; Tian, Yingze; Ge, Baozhu; Su, Shaoli; Peng, Chao; Chen, Yang; Yang, Fumo; Mihajlidi-zelić, Aleksandra; Đorđević, Dragana; Swift, Stefan J.; Andrews, Imogen; Hamilton, Jacqueline F.; Sun, Ye; Kramawijaya, Agung; Han, Jinxiu; Saksakulkrai, Supattarachai; Baldo, Clarissa; Hou, Siqi; Zheng, Feixue; Daellenbach, Kaspar R.; Yan, Chao; Liu, Yongchun; Kulmala, Markku; Fu, Pingqing; Shi, Zongbo.

In: Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, Vol. 13, No. 11, 25.11.2020, p. 6325-6341.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Xu, J, Song, S, Harrison, RM, Song, C, Wei, L, Zhang, Q, Sun, Y, Lei, L, Zhang, C, Yao, X, Chen, D, Li, W, Wu, M, Tian, H, Luo, L, Tong, S, Li, W, Wang, J, Shi, G, Huangfu, Y, Tian, Y, Ge, B, Su, S, Peng, C, Chen, Y, Yang, F, Mihajlidi-zelić, A, Đorđević, D, Swift, SJ, Andrews, I, Hamilton, JF, Sun, Y, Kramawijaya, A, Han, J, Saksakulkrai, S, Baldo, C, Hou, S, Zheng, F, Daellenbach, KR, Yan, C, Liu, Y, Kulmala, M, Fu, P & Shi, Z 2020, 'An interlaboratory comparison of aerosol inorganic ion measurements by ion chromatography: implications for aerosol pH estimate', Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 6325-6341. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-6325-2020

APA

Xu, J., Song, S., Harrison, R. M., Song, C., Wei, L., Zhang, Q., Sun, Y., Lei, L., Zhang, C., Yao, X., Chen, D., Li, W., Wu, M., Tian, H., Luo, L., Tong, S., Li, W., Wang, J., Shi, G., ... Shi, Z. (2020). An interlaboratory comparison of aerosol inorganic ion measurements by ion chromatography: implications for aerosol pH estimate. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 13(11), 6325-6341. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-6325-2020

Vancouver

Author

Xu, Jingsha ; Song, Shaojie ; Harrison, Roy M. ; Song, Congbo ; Wei, Lianfang ; Zhang, Qiang ; Sun, Yele ; Lei, Lu ; Zhang, Chao ; Yao, Xiaohong ; Chen, Dihui ; Li, Weijun ; Wu, Miaomiao ; Tian, Hezhong ; Luo, Lining ; Tong, Shengrui ; Li, Weiran ; Wang, Junling ; Shi, Guoliang ; Huangfu, Yanqi ; Tian, Yingze ; Ge, Baozhu ; Su, Shaoli ; Peng, Chao ; Chen, Yang ; Yang, Fumo ; Mihajlidi-zelić, Aleksandra ; Đorđević, Dragana ; Swift, Stefan J. ; Andrews, Imogen ; Hamilton, Jacqueline F. ; Sun, Ye ; Kramawijaya, Agung ; Han, Jinxiu ; Saksakulkrai, Supattarachai ; Baldo, Clarissa ; Hou, Siqi ; Zheng, Feixue ; Daellenbach, Kaspar R. ; Yan, Chao ; Liu, Yongchun ; Kulmala, Markku ; Fu, Pingqing ; Shi, Zongbo. / An interlaboratory comparison of aerosol inorganic ion measurements by ion chromatography: implications for aerosol pH estimate. In: Atmospheric Measurement Techniques. 2020 ; Vol. 13, No. 11. pp. 6325-6341.

Bibtex

@article{06c765c49b004910b8d670311080e1c9,
title = "An interlaboratory comparison of aerosol inorganic ion measurements by ion chromatography: implications for aerosol pH estimate",
abstract = "Water-soluble inorganic ions such as ammonium, nitrate and sulfate are major components of fine aerosols in the atmosphere and are widely used in the estimation of aerosol acidity. However, different experimental practices and instrumentation may lead to uncertainties in ion concentrations. Here, an intercomparison experiment was conducted in 10 different laboratories (labs) to investigate the consistency of inorganic ion concentrations and resultant aerosol acidity estimates using the same set of aerosol filter samples. The results mostly exhibited good agreement for major ions Cl−, SO2−4, NO−3, NH+4 and K+. However, F−, Mg2+ and Ca2+ were observed with more variations across the different labs. The Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor (ACSM) data of nonrefractory SO2−4, NO−3 and NH+4 generally correlated very well with the filter-analysis-based data in our study, but the absolute concentrations differ by up to 42 %. Cl− from the two methods are correlated, but the concentration differ by more than a factor of 3. The analyses of certified reference materials (CRMs) generally showed a good detection accuracy (DA) of all ions in all the labs, the majority of which ranged between 90 % and 110 %. The DA was also used to correct the ion concentrations to showcase the importance of using CRMs for calibration check and quality control. Better agreements were found for Cl−, SO2−4, NO−3, NH+4 and K+ across the labs after their concentrations were corrected with DA; the coefficient of variation (CV) of Cl−, SO2−4, NO−3, NH+4 and K+ decreased by 1.7 %, 3.4 %, 3.4 %, 1.2 % and 2.6 %, respectively, after DA correction. We found that the ratio of anion to cation equivalent concentrations (AE / CE) and ion balance (anions–cations) are not good indicators for aerosol acidity estimates, as the results in different labs did not agree well with each other. In situ aerosol pH calculated from the ISORROPIA II thermodynamic equilibrium model with measured ion and ammonia concentrations showed a similar trend and good agreement across the 10 labs. Our results indicate that although there are important uncertainties in aerosol ion concentration measurements, the estimated aerosol pH from the ISORROPIA II model is more consistent.",
author = "Jingsha Xu and Shaojie Song and Harrison, {Roy M.} and Congbo Song and Lianfang Wei and Qiang Zhang and Yele Sun and Lu Lei and Chao Zhang and Xiaohong Yao and Dihui Chen and Weijun Li and Miaomiao Wu and Hezhong Tian and Lining Luo and Shengrui Tong and Weiran Li and Junling Wang and Guoliang Shi and Yanqi Huangfu and Yingze Tian and Baozhu Ge and Shaoli Su and Chao Peng and Yang Chen and Fumo Yang and Aleksandra Mihajlidi-zeli{\'c} and Dragana {\D}or{\d}evi{\'c} and Swift, {Stefan J.} and Imogen Andrews and Hamilton, {Jacqueline F.} and Ye Sun and Agung Kramawijaya and Jinxiu Han and Supattarachai Saksakulkrai and Clarissa Baldo and Siqi Hou and Feixue Zheng and Daellenbach, {Kaspar R.} and Chao Yan and Yongchun Liu and Markku Kulmala and Pingqing Fu and Zongbo Shi",
year = "2020",
month = nov,
day = "25",
doi = "10.5194/amt-13-6325-2020",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "6325--6341",
journal = "Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss",
issn = "1867-1381",
publisher = "European Geosciences Union",
number = "11",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - An interlaboratory comparison of aerosol inorganic ion measurements by ion chromatography: implications for aerosol pH estimate

AU - Xu, Jingsha

AU - Song, Shaojie

AU - Harrison, Roy M.

AU - Song, Congbo

AU - Wei, Lianfang

AU - Zhang, Qiang

AU - Sun, Yele

AU - Lei, Lu

AU - Zhang, Chao

AU - Yao, Xiaohong

AU - Chen, Dihui

AU - Li, Weijun

AU - Wu, Miaomiao

AU - Tian, Hezhong

AU - Luo, Lining

AU - Tong, Shengrui

AU - Li, Weiran

AU - Wang, Junling

AU - Shi, Guoliang

AU - Huangfu, Yanqi

AU - Tian, Yingze

AU - Ge, Baozhu

AU - Su, Shaoli

AU - Peng, Chao

AU - Chen, Yang

AU - Yang, Fumo

AU - Mihajlidi-zelić, Aleksandra

AU - Đorđević, Dragana

AU - Swift, Stefan J.

AU - Andrews, Imogen

AU - Hamilton, Jacqueline F.

AU - Sun, Ye

AU - Kramawijaya, Agung

AU - Han, Jinxiu

AU - Saksakulkrai, Supattarachai

AU - Baldo, Clarissa

AU - Hou, Siqi

AU - Zheng, Feixue

AU - Daellenbach, Kaspar R.

AU - Yan, Chao

AU - Liu, Yongchun

AU - Kulmala, Markku

AU - Fu, Pingqing

AU - Shi, Zongbo

PY - 2020/11/25

Y1 - 2020/11/25

N2 - Water-soluble inorganic ions such as ammonium, nitrate and sulfate are major components of fine aerosols in the atmosphere and are widely used in the estimation of aerosol acidity. However, different experimental practices and instrumentation may lead to uncertainties in ion concentrations. Here, an intercomparison experiment was conducted in 10 different laboratories (labs) to investigate the consistency of inorganic ion concentrations and resultant aerosol acidity estimates using the same set of aerosol filter samples. The results mostly exhibited good agreement for major ions Cl−, SO2−4, NO−3, NH+4 and K+. However, F−, Mg2+ and Ca2+ were observed with more variations across the different labs. The Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor (ACSM) data of nonrefractory SO2−4, NO−3 and NH+4 generally correlated very well with the filter-analysis-based data in our study, but the absolute concentrations differ by up to 42 %. Cl− from the two methods are correlated, but the concentration differ by more than a factor of 3. The analyses of certified reference materials (CRMs) generally showed a good detection accuracy (DA) of all ions in all the labs, the majority of which ranged between 90 % and 110 %. The DA was also used to correct the ion concentrations to showcase the importance of using CRMs for calibration check and quality control. Better agreements were found for Cl−, SO2−4, NO−3, NH+4 and K+ across the labs after their concentrations were corrected with DA; the coefficient of variation (CV) of Cl−, SO2−4, NO−3, NH+4 and K+ decreased by 1.7 %, 3.4 %, 3.4 %, 1.2 % and 2.6 %, respectively, after DA correction. We found that the ratio of anion to cation equivalent concentrations (AE / CE) and ion balance (anions–cations) are not good indicators for aerosol acidity estimates, as the results in different labs did not agree well with each other. In situ aerosol pH calculated from the ISORROPIA II thermodynamic equilibrium model with measured ion and ammonia concentrations showed a similar trend and good agreement across the 10 labs. Our results indicate that although there are important uncertainties in aerosol ion concentration measurements, the estimated aerosol pH from the ISORROPIA II model is more consistent.

AB - Water-soluble inorganic ions such as ammonium, nitrate and sulfate are major components of fine aerosols in the atmosphere and are widely used in the estimation of aerosol acidity. However, different experimental practices and instrumentation may lead to uncertainties in ion concentrations. Here, an intercomparison experiment was conducted in 10 different laboratories (labs) to investigate the consistency of inorganic ion concentrations and resultant aerosol acidity estimates using the same set of aerosol filter samples. The results mostly exhibited good agreement for major ions Cl−, SO2−4, NO−3, NH+4 and K+. However, F−, Mg2+ and Ca2+ were observed with more variations across the different labs. The Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor (ACSM) data of nonrefractory SO2−4, NO−3 and NH+4 generally correlated very well with the filter-analysis-based data in our study, but the absolute concentrations differ by up to 42 %. Cl− from the two methods are correlated, but the concentration differ by more than a factor of 3. The analyses of certified reference materials (CRMs) generally showed a good detection accuracy (DA) of all ions in all the labs, the majority of which ranged between 90 % and 110 %. The DA was also used to correct the ion concentrations to showcase the importance of using CRMs for calibration check and quality control. Better agreements were found for Cl−, SO2−4, NO−3, NH+4 and K+ across the labs after their concentrations were corrected with DA; the coefficient of variation (CV) of Cl−, SO2−4, NO−3, NH+4 and K+ decreased by 1.7 %, 3.4 %, 3.4 %, 1.2 % and 2.6 %, respectively, after DA correction. We found that the ratio of anion to cation equivalent concentrations (AE / CE) and ion balance (anions–cations) are not good indicators for aerosol acidity estimates, as the results in different labs did not agree well with each other. In situ aerosol pH calculated from the ISORROPIA II thermodynamic equilibrium model with measured ion and ammonia concentrations showed a similar trend and good agreement across the 10 labs. Our results indicate that although there are important uncertainties in aerosol ion concentration measurements, the estimated aerosol pH from the ISORROPIA II model is more consistent.

U2 - 10.5194/amt-13-6325-2020

DO - 10.5194/amt-13-6325-2020

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 6325

EP - 6341

JO - Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss

JF - Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss

SN - 1867-1381

IS - 11

ER -