Latitudinal and Seasonal Distribution of Particulate MSA over the

Subscriber access provided by UB + Fachbibliothek Chemie | (FU-Bibliothekssystem)

Article

Latitudinal and Seasonal Distribution of Particulate MSA over the Atlantic using a Validated Quantification Method with HR-ToF-AMS Shan Huang, Laurent Poulain, Dominik van Pinxteren, Manuela van Pinxteren, Zhijun Wu, Hartmut Herrmann, and Alfred Wiedensohler Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b03186 • Publication Date (Web): 06 Dec 2016 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on December 7, 2016

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 30

Environmental Science & Technology

1

Latitudinal and Seasonal Distribution of Particulate

2

MSA over the Atlantic using a Validated

3

Quantification Method with HR-ToF-AMS

4 5

Shan Huang†‡, Laurent Poulain†*, Dominik van Pinxteren†, Manuela van Pinxteren†, Zhijun

6

Wu§, Hartmut Herrmann†, Alfred Wiedensohler†

7

†

Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Leipzig, Sachsen, 04318, Germany

8

‡

Institute for Environmental and Climate Research, Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong,

9

511443, China

10

§

11

China

College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Peking University, Beijing, 100871,

12 13

*Corresponding author: Laurent Poulain, Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research,

14

Permoserstr. 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany. Email: [email protected]; Tel: +49 341 2717 7316;

15

Fax: +49 341 2717 997316.

16 1

ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Page 2 of 30

17

Abstract

18

Methanesulfonic acid (MSA) has been widely used as a proxy for marine biogenic sources, but it

19

is still a challenge to provide an accurate MSA mass concentration with high time resolution.

20

This study offers an improved MSA quantification method using high resolution time-of-flight

21

aerosol mass spectrometer (HR-ToF-AMS). Particularly, the method was validated based on an

22

excellent agreement with parallel offline measurements (slope = 0.88, R2 = 0.89). This

23

comparison is much better than those using previously reported methods, resulting in

24

underestimations of 31 to 54% of MSA concentration. With this new method, MSA mass

25

concentrations were obtained during 4 North/South Atlantic cruises in spring and autumn of

26

2011 and 2012. The seasonal and spatial variation of the particulate MSA mass concentration as

27

well as the MSA to non-sea-salt sulfate ratio (MSA:nssSO4) over the North/South Atlantic

28

Ocean were determined for the first time. Seasonal variation of the MSA mass concentration was

29

observed, with higher values in spring (0.03 µg m-3) than in autumn (0.01 µg m-3). The

30

investigation of MSA:nssSO4 suggests a ubiquitous and significant influence of anthropogenic

31

sources on aerosols in the marine boundary layer .

32

33

1. Introduction

34

Methanesulfonic acid (MSA) has been widely found in submicrometer marine aerosol particles,

35

and could be even a dominant secondary organic compound.1 Because it is formed exclusively

36

by the oxidation of dimethylsulfide (DMS), which is released by phytoplankton, MSA can be a

37

tracer for marine secondary organic aerosol (SOA).2-5 Also, MSA can enhance the formation of 2


Page 3 of 30


38

molecular clusters of sulfuric acid and amines6 and contribute significantly to particle growth.7-9

39

For better understanding SOA formation and transport, accurate quantification methods of MSA

40

mass concentration with a high time resolution are required.

41

In the past, MSA was almost only detected by offline methods offering a time resolution from

42

several hours to days. Improvements in online techniques over the last decade have allowed the

43

opportunity to access a high time resolution (several minutes); these techniques include chemical

44

ionization mass spectrometry (CIMS),7 particle-into-liquid sampler - ion chromatography (PILS-

45

IC),10 quadrupole aerosol mass spectrometer (Q-AMS),11-13 and high resolution time-of-flight

46

aerosol mass spectrometer (HR-ToF-AMS).14-17 Among these techniques, the aerosol mass

47

spectrometer (AMS) is considered as one of the most widespread online instruments, measuring

48

non-refractory (NR) components of particles in the submicrometer size range. MSA is not an

49

individual compound typically provided by the AMS, as its signals are interpreted as organics,

50

sulfate, and nitrate. The previously published quantification methods of MSA using AMS are

51

similar but not identical. Additionally, a method validation by direct comparison between AMS

52

and parallel measurements using a chromatographic MSA quantification by offline analysis has

53

rarely been reported.11, 12 Therefore, the accuracy of the resulting MSA mass concentration in

54

field measurement conditions based on the different approaches is still questionable.

55

Inconsistencies have been found among the MSA mass concentrations provided by different

56

quantification methods working on the same AMS measurement dataset.18 Both a systematic

57

calibrated relative ionisation efficiency (RIE) of MSA and a more precise reference (MSA mass

58

concentration in submicrometer particles from those measurements parallel to AMS) were

59

absent.

3



Page 4 of 30

60

To fill this gap, the present study improves the MSA quantification method using HR-ToF-AMS

61

and evaluates three previously published methods.14,

62

concentrations derived from a unique dataset containing HR-ToF-AMS measurements on board

63

the German research vessel Polarstern during 4 cruises over the Atlantic Ocean are investigated.

15,

17

Additionally, MSA mass

64 65

2. Experiment

66

Standard calibrations. To obtain mass spectral patterns of MSA, standard calibrations using the

67

HR-ToF-AMS (Aerodyne Research, Inc., USA; referred to as AMS in the following text unless

68

otherwise noted) were performed in the laboratory (i.e., between the cruises) and on site during

69

the Polarstern campaigns. In both cases, MSA aerosol particles were nebulized by a nebulizer

70

(TSI, Model 3076) from an aqueous solution of pure MSA (Sigma-Aldrich, purity >= 99.5%)

71

prior to entering the AMS. Generated aerosol particles crossed a silica gel dryer to remove a

72

large amount of water and keep the relative humidity (RH) of measured particles lower than

73

40%. Both polydispersed MSA particles and monodispersed particles with specific size were

74

selected by a differential mobility analyser (DMA, Hauke-type) and were measured by the AMS.

75

The principle and instruction of the AMS was already detailed in previous publications.19, 20

76

Inside the AMS, NR submicrometer particles were flash vaporized at approximately 600°C and

77

then ionized to become charged fragments, which were analysed by the mass spectrometer of the

78

AMS.

79

To determine the RIE of MSA (RIEMSA), laboratory calibrations were carried out jointly using

80

the AMS and a condensation particle counter (CPC, Model 3010, TSI Inc., USA). Different sizes 4


Page 5 of 30


81

(200, 225, 250, 300, and 350 nm) of monodispersed MSA aerosol particles were measured. The

82

mass concentrations were kept low (< 2 µg m-3) to avoid multiple charging of particles. The

83

dilution of the MSA during the calibration was made by mixing generated MSA particles with

84

particle-free air. With a known particle diameter (Dp), the MSA density (ρ = 1.42 g cm-3) and the

85

particle number concentration (PNC) measured by the CPC, PNC-derived MSA mass

86

concentration ([MSA]CPC, in µg m-3) could be calculated using eq 1:

87

[] =

(1)

88

Ambient measurements. The intensive aerosol particle measurements on Polarstern were

89

performed during 4 scientific cruises (CR) between Bremerhaven (BH, Germany, 53°33′N,

90

8°35′E) and Cape Town (CPT, Republic of South Africa, 33°55′S, 18°25′E) or Punta Arenas

91

(PA, Republic of Chile, 53°10′S, 70°56′W). These expeditions included: (1) two spring seasons

92

(in the Northern Hemisphere, NH) cruises: CR1 (ANT-XXVII/4, CPT - BH, 20.04 - 20.05.2011)

93

and CR3 (ANT-XXVIII/5, PA - BH, 10.04 - 15.05.2012), and (2) two autumn seasons (in the

94

NH) cruises: CR2 (ANT-XXVIII/1, BH - CPT, 28.10 - 01.12.2011) and CR4 (ANT-XXIX/1, BH

95

- CPT, 27.10 - 27.11.2012). The ship track of each cruise is shown in Figure 2. During the

96

Polarstern campaigns, the AMS was deployed in an air-conditioned container located on the first

97

deck of the ship (just above the bridge). It ran alternatively between V-mode (MS + PToF modes;

98

MS for “mass spectrum”, and PToF for “particle time of flight”) and W-mode (only MS-mode)

99

at a time resolution of 2 min. A constant collection efficiency (CE) of 0.7 was determined by the

100

inter-comparison of total or speciation mass concentrations between AMS and parallel

101

measurements (detailed in SI-1). This CE was applied in all Polarstern measurements to calculate

102

bulk and speciation mass concentrations. Additionally, the composition dependent collection 5



Page 6 of 30

103

efficiency (CDCE)21 is discussed in SI-1. All AMS data were analysed with the toolbox Squirrel

104

v1.56D for the unit mass resolution (UMR) data analysis and the Pika v1.15D for the high

105

resolution (HR) data analysis based in Igor Pro (WaveMetrics Inc., version 6.22A).

106

To reduce the signal noise, 20min-average (corresponding to approximately 0.05° of latitude)

107

values of the MSA mass concentrations will be used in the following analysis. Particle-free

108

measurements provide the detection limit of MSA, which could be calculated as three times the

109

standard deviation of the mass concentration.20 For the 20min averaged data, the detection limits

110

are equal to original detection limits (2min data) divided by √10 (the square root of the ratio

111

between averaged time resolution and default time resolution). The detection limits of MSA

112

(20min) during the four cruises are: 0.002 µg m-3 (CR1), 0.003 µg m-3 (CR2), 0.002 µg m-3

113

(CR3), and 0.006 µg m-3 (CR4). They are within the range of 0.0009 µg m-3 reported by Zorn et

114

al.14 using HR-ToF-AMS to 0.025 µg m-3 reported by Langley et al.12 using Q-AMS.

115

For offline measurements, a high volume Digitel filter sampler (DHA-80, Digitel Elektronik AG,

116

Switzerland) was sitting on the roof of the container to collect daily filter samples of particulate

117

matter with diameter smaller than 1 µm (PM1) from midnight to midnight (coordinated universal

118

time). To obtain MSA mass concentrations, these filter samples were later analysed using

119

capillary electrophoresis with a UV-detector (CE-DAD, Spectra Phoresis 1000, Thermo

120

Separation Products, Waltham, MA, USA) as described in previous study.22 Due to

121

contamination by either ship exhausts (soot) or seawater in stormy weather, only 45 filter

122

samples (i.e., 45 days’ worth of data out of 86 sampling days) can represent Atlantic aerosols.

123

6


Page 7 of 30


124 125

3. Results and discussions

126

Quantification of MSA. According to the standard calibrations using polydisperse MSA aerosol

127

particles, the mass spectral pattern of pure MSA is obtained and shown together with those

128

provided in previous studies (SI-2, Figure S2).11, 17 Compared to the Q-AMS which can only

129

provide the UMR mass spectra, the HR-ToF-AMS can easily identify ions missed (e.g., CH2+,

130

m/z 14) or wrongly recognized (CH2S+, m/z 46, as “nitrate”) in the UMR mass spectra. The

131

intensity variation of each MSA fragment (error bars in Figure S2) is on average 23.7 ± 11.0 %

132

(standard deviation / the mean intensity), indicating that the MSA mass spectral pattern based on

133

several standard calibrations covering two years is relatively stable. Exceptions involve

134

ammonium related ions such as NH2+ (m/z 16) and NH3+ (m/z 17) with intensity variations of

135

approximately 40%. NH2+ and NH3+ do not correspond to MSA, but could be attributed to

136

ambient NH3 contamination or even the water effect (the huge water peak may influence the

137

quantification of the adjacent NH+ peak). Moreover, the signal at m/z 18 (H2O+) could mainly be

138

related to residual water from particle generation. Thus, these signals are removed from the MSA

139

spectral pattern used later for quantification.

140

As the most prominent MSA fragment containing a sulfur atom14 and a negligible ion

141

contribution in ammonium sulfate, sulfuric acid, and organo-sulfates,12, 17 the fragment CH3SO2+

142

is selected as the reference ion for MSA. With the stable mass spectral pattern of pure MSA,

143

other MSA fragments can be calculated in relation to the CH3SO2+ intensity obtained from the

144

HR mass spectra analysis. Accordingly, all MSA fragments can be extracted from the ambient

145

aerosol particle signals. Although MSA mass concentration can be calculated solely using HR 7



Page 8 of 30

146

data, the fragmentation table23 embedded in the UMR data analysis tool Squirrel allows users to

147

obtain both MSA mass concentration and more accurate mass concentrations of sulfate, organics

148

and nitrate which exclude MSA signals. For this purpose, the fragmentation table was modified

149

from the default one as follows: (1) establishing a specific MSA column containing MSA

150

fragments at 32 different mass-to-charge ratios based on their individual ratio to CH3SO2+ and

151

(2) excluding MSA signals from the default organics, sulfate and nitrate. Finally, the sum of all

152

cells in the MSA column gives the total MSA intensities, which can be converted to mass

153

concentration.

154

Since the UMR fragmentation table was used, the cell at m/z 79 of the MSA column originally

155

represents all fragments at this m/z. There are 5 different ions detected at m/z 79 adjacent to

156

CH3SO2+ (SI-2, Figure S3) by the HR mass spectrometer, including Br+ (m/z 78.918), CH3O4+

157

(m/z 79.003), C5H3O+ (m/z 79.018), C5H5N+ (m/z 79.042) and C6H7+ (m/z 79.055). All of these

158

ions were possible to be found in ambient measurements, so all of them were chosen to fit the

159

mass spectrum. Hence, a factor representing the fractional contribution of the key ion CH3SO2+

160

to the total m/z 79 is needed for extracting the CH3SO2+ signal. This factor f(CH3SO2+) can be

161

calculated with HR data as shown in eq 2: =

162

!"# ∑ %&'(

(2)

163

where ICH3SO2 is the signal intensity of CH3SO2+ and ∑Imz79 is the total signal intensity of all ions

164

at m/z 79. The f(CH3SO2+) is not a constant value, but varies as a function of time, which can

165

enhance the accuracy of MSA quantification. The modified fragmentation table with the factor at

166

m/z 79 is presented in Table S2. 8


Page 9 of 30


167

According to the comparison between MSA mass concentrations from AMS and those estimated

168

by PNC from CPC (detailed in SI-3, Figure S4), an RIE of 1.2 can be determined for MSA for

169

the current instrumental conditions. The resulting value of RIE is comparable to the one (1.15)

170

used by Langley et al.12 and Phinney et al.11 and the average (1.3) of RIEs for organics and

171

sulfate estimated by Zorn et al.14 and Huang et al.17 Although the RH was always lower than 40%

172

in calibrations, a certain amount of residual water cannot be excluded. Hence, a unit CE was

173

used because MSA particles should be liquid droplets with virtually no loss due to bouncing on

174

the AMS vaporizer. Also, the organic components in aerosol particles may be independent of the

175

water content, making the residual water only affect the particle diameter. Given that the

176

uncertainty of the size accuracy of DMA was small (±3.5%),24 the water content should have

177

negligible influence on the PNC estimation, and a limited effect on RIE determination.

178

Method validation. The present quantification method was directly applied to the AMS dataset

179

during the Polarstern measurements. The calculated MSA mass concentration is compared to that

180

obtained from parallel filter measurements. As shown in Figure 1a, excellent agreement is found

181

(slope = 0.88, R2 = 0.89), which validates the present method for ambient measurements. The

182

intercept of 0.002 is considered to be negligible as compared with the median of MSA mass

183

concentrations derived from offline measurements (0.023 µg m-3). Considering that MSA mass

184

concentrations are not normally distributed (the standard deviation is as high as the average

185

value), the median value is used in this study to present the variation of MSA. Using offline

186

measurements as the reference, the AMS slightly underestimated the MSA mass concentration

187

by 12%, which is within the AMS measurement uncertainty of ±30%.25-27 It is worth noting that

188

this discrepancy includes not only AMS uncertainties but also those of the individual upper size

9



Page 10 of 30

189

cutting (PM1 for offline and near-PM1 for the AMS) as well as uncertainties associated with the

190

offline techniques (e.g., adsorption and desorption of reactive species and water, analytical

191

uncertainties, etc.).

192

On the other hand, all of the previous methods could not properly estimate MSA mass

193

concentration when applying them individually on the Polarstern campaigns as shown in Figure

194

1b (the Phinney-Langley method), 1c (the Ge method) and 1d (the HKUST method). The

195

Phinney-Langley method refers to the MSA quantification method with Q-AMS firstly published

196

by Phinney et al.11 and later detailed by Langley et al.12 The Ge method estimates MSA mass

197

concentration by scaling up three characteristic ions (see SI-4) suggested by Ge et al.15 The

198

HKUST method, described in SI-4, is published by Huang et al.17 from Hong Kong University of

199

Science and Technology (HKUST) based on a HR-ToF-AMS. In general, all three methods

200

underestimate the MSA mass concentration compared to that from filter measurements, only

201

taking 31% to 54% of the latter. The relatively best representativeness (slope = 0.54) but worst

202

correlation (R2 = 0.78) is found in the case using the Phinney-Langley method with its RIE of

203

1.15 (Figure 1b). The intercept is not negligible (0.007 µg m-3), accounting for 30% of the

204

median of MSA mass concentrations derived from filter measurements. This could be attributed

205

to the low mass resolution (i.e., UMR) provided by Q-AMS. In the Phinney-Langley method, the

206

intensity of the key ion CH3SO2+ (m/z 78.985) is equal to total intensity of all fragments at m/z

207

79 minus the intensity of non-MSA ions (e.g., C6H7+, m/z 79.055), which is assumed to be the

208

same as their relative ions such as C7H9+ (m/z 93.070). This may lead to an incorrect intensity of

209

the key ions if those relative ions are from different origins. It will consequently enlarge the

210

uncertainties of MSA estimation. Moreover, the Q-AMS may improperly interpret some

211

fragments of MSA, e.g., CH2+ and CH2S+ as mentioned before, resulting in an underestimation of 10


Page 11 of 30


212

the MSA mass concentration. Nevertheless, both the Ge method and the HKUST method provide

213

MSA mass loadings using the HR approach that correlated well with that from the offline

214

approach (R2 = 0.90 and 0.89, both with a negligible intercept: 0.001). It confirms that the

215

selected key ion(s) are well representative for MSA.

216

In the Ge method, three characteristic fragments are considered and scaled up to calculate the

217

total MSA mass concentration (SI-4, eq S1).15 Organic-equivalent mass concentrations of the

218

three key ions take 14.7% (i.e., the scaling factor) of the total MSA mass concentration

219

according to the HR mass spectrum of pure MSA.15 The MSA mass concentration by applying

220

this scaling factor only represents one-third (33%) of that from offline measurements (Figure 1c),

221

suggesting that this factor is not properly used, at least for the Polarstern measurements. A

222

similar scaling factor derived from the standard MSA spectral pattern in the Polarstern study was

223

0.068 ± 0.007. However, when applying this factor to the equation used by Ge et al.,15 the

224

updated MSA mass concentration is still 33% lower than that from offline measurements (slope

225

= 0.67, intercept = 0.002, R2 = 0.90).

226

The HKUST method considered the RIE of each species and the CE (details are provided in SI-4,

227

eq S2 and eq S3). However, it also cannot appropriately estimate the MSA mass concentration

228

during the Polarstern cruises compared with results from the offline method, giving only 31% of

229

what the filter measured (Figure 1d). In this method, 9.7% is a key value (eq S2) showing the

230

contribution of CH3SO2+ intensity to total MSA fragments in the standard mass spectrum, and

231

the RIEMSA of 1.3 is the average of RIEs for organics and sulfate.17 However, in the present

232

study, these two factors were 4.2 ± 0.5% and 1.2, respectively, according to the standard

233

calibrations. Applying them to the HKUST method can markedly reduce the gap between MSA 11



Page 12 of 30

234

mass concentrations from AMS and from filter measurements (slope = 0.88, intercept = 0.001,

235

R2 = 0.91). Thus, this could be used as a simpler estimation method without modifying the

236

fragmentation table but cannot give more accurate mass concentrations of organics, sulfate, and

237

nitrate excluding MSA signals.

238

Although the three different methods can properly reproduce the dynamics of the MSA

239

concentrations, they all strongly underestimated the real concentration if directly applying them.

240

The differences of MSA concentrations from the three quantification methods can be directly

241

attributed to discrepancy of the MSA fragment pattern (fractional contribution). For example, the

242

low intensities of the main sulfate ion SO+ and SO2+ (comparing with the key ion CH3SO2+) in

243

the Phinney-Langley method (SI-2, Figure S2) significantly contributed to the underestimation of

244

MSA mass concentrations when applying this method to the Polarstern dataset. The

245

fragmentation pattern and RIE might be linked to instrumental dependency (e.g., vaporization

246

temperature, ionization source and mass spectrometer tuning). Nevertheless, the influence of

247

variable AMS vaporizer temperature on the standard MSA mass spectrum remains unclear. Zorn

248

et al.14 suggested an instrument dependency of MSA quantification because the MSA spectral

249

pattern varied dramatically while changing the vaporizer temperature from 160°C to 800°C. In

250

contrast, Ovadnevaite et al.16 reported only a 2% variation in the signal intensity of a pure MSA

251

mass spectrum over a smaller range from 550°C to 650°C; this range more closely approximates

252

the AMS working conditions in the ambient measurements. Therefore, even though the

253

previously reported methods have been used without calibration in some studies,13, 28 performing

254

the standard calibrations before quantifying MSA using AMS is still highly recommended

255

according to the method comparison and evaluation in this study.

12


Page 13 of 30


256

Latitudinal distribution of MSA. Based on the validated quantification method using AMS as

257

previously discussed, the marine secondary product tracer MSA can be derived in high time

258

resolution during the different Polarstern measurements. As shown in Figure 2, the spatial and

259

seasonal distribution of MSA mass concentration along the ship tracks during the four cruises is

260

provided. Five-day air mass back trajectories at 950 hPa are also illustrated in Figure 2, with the

261

background graph showing simultaneous mass concentration of chlorophyll-a (Chl-a).

262

masses at 950 hPa (approximately 500 m above sea level) were selected to represent a well-

263

mixing situation in the marine boundary layer (MBL) since the height of the MBL in the open

264

ocean is from 400 m to around 1700 m.29 The data of the marine biomass indicator Chl-a (rolling

265

32-day average) was obtained from the moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS)

266

aboard the satellite Aqua (http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi/l3). The time resolution of Chl-a is

267

lower than that of the MSA mass concentration (20min). Nevertheless, typical seasonal blooms,

268

the spring blooms due to the seasonal increase in solar radiation and redistributed nutrients to

269

surface waters, could often persist for a few weeks to months.30 Hence, the monthly Chl-a level

270

can at least represent the spring blooms and report the highest spots of Chl-a observed during the

271

selected period, consequently still providing the strongest source of DMS.

272

Detailed seasonal average, median, and standard deviation values in both hemispheres are

273

provided in Table S1. In general, MSA shows a relatively higher mass concentration in spring

274

(0.03 µg m-3) than in autumn (0.01 µg m-3) in both hemispheres. This seasonal variation on mass

275

concentrations is consistent with the previous measurements taken over the ocean.4, 16, 31-33 The

276

median value of MSA concentrations in this study is similar to those values observed in the

277

summer over the Atlantic Ocean in its northern (median varying from 0.02 to 0.04 µg m-3 for

278

different marine air masses),16 tropical (from 0.027 to 0.063µg m-3, average: 0.042 µg m-3),34 and 13


Air


Page 14 of 30

279

southern regions (from

Latitudinal and Seasonal Distribution of Particulate MSA over the

Recommend Documents