Black carbon aerosol in emissions from biomass burning in the laboratory and field G.R. McMeeking 1 , J.W. Taylor 1 , A.P. Sullivan 2 , M.J. Flynn 1 , S.K. Akagi 3 , C.M. Carrico 2 , J.L. Collett, Jr. 2 , E. Fortner 4 , T.B. Onasch 4 , S.M. Kreidenweis 2 , R.J. Yokelson 3 , C. Hennigan 5 , A. Robinson 5 , and H. Coe 1 Photo credit: Dan Welsh-Bon (NOAA) AGU 2010: A23C-02
16
Embed
Black carbon aerosol in emissions from biomass burning in the laboratory and field G.R. McMeeking 1, J.W. Taylor 1, A.P. Sullivan 2, M.J. Flynn 1, S.K.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Black carbon aerosol in emissions from biomass burning
Conclusions• Consistent [BC EF vs MCE] for aircraft and laboratory• BC EF range between 0-2 g/kg dry fuel• Optical properties depend on BC/TC ratio: abs. eff. and
wavelength dependence decreases for higher BC mass fractions
• BC mass absorption efficiency: 3.6 m2/g at λ = 780 nm, 7.9 m2/g at λ = 532 nm
• OC mass absorption efficiency: 0.1 m2/g at λ = 780 nm, 0.3 m2/g at λ = 532 nm
• BC becomes rapidly mixed/coated with other material for aircraft and smog chamber
Thanks!FLAME 3 project partners (not all pictured)
SLOBBErs
Supported by:
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)
UK Royal Society Travel Grant
BC emission factors
Emission factor = mass species emittedmass fuel consumed
“Desert” shrubs
pine needles & “duffs”
Mass of fuel consumed estimated from:CO2, CO, fuel carbon content, and mass consumed
Early results from CMU chamber
Proxies for coating thickness on BC increase with time following lights on!