Figures & data
Table 1. Summary of measurement methods used in this study. All instruments were operated with manufacturer default settings unless otherwise specified.
Figure 1. Laboratory experimental setup for biomass combustion tests.
Figure 2. NOx sampling flow diagram at NCORE monitoring station at Albuquerque, NM.
Figure 3. Instrument response to generation of known concentrations of NO, January 25, 2017.
Figure 4. Comparison of direct absorption and chemiluminescence methods using emissions from a propane torch (1-min average). The line drawn is the 1:1 fit.
Table 2. Select detailed combustion test instrument comparisons between direct absorption (model 405) and chemiluminescence (model 42C) instruments for the case studies shown in . For NOx, NO2, and NO, table shows regression statistics for 1-min data and single values for burn integrated data.
Figure 5. Combustion test time series case studies (1-min average data).
Figure 6. Comparison of direct absorption and chemiluminescence methods for 95 laboratory burns with southwestern U.S. biomass samples.
Table 3. Ambient data regression statistics comparing NOx techniques (model number from in parentheses) for February–March 2017 in Albuquerque, NM.
Figure 7. Comparison of ambient (a) NO and (b) NO2 concentrations at the EPA NCORE site in Albuquerque, NM, during February–March 2017 (1-hr average).
Figure 8. Comparison of ambient NO2 at the EPA NCORE site in Albuquerque, NM, for chemiluminescence (T200), NOy instrument (T200U-NOy), direct absorption (405), and CAPS (T500U) instruments (1-hr average for February–March 2017).
Figure 9. Time series of ambient (a) NO and (b) NO2 at the EPA NCORE site in Albuquerque, NM, for chemiluminescence (T200), NOy instrument (T200U-NOy), direct absorption (405), and CAPS (T500U) instruments on 14 March 2017 (1-min data).
