Cited by 60Atmospheric chemistry and aerosolsAir Quality Monitoring and ForecastingAtmospheric aerosols and clouds

On-flight intercomparison of three miniature aerosol absorption sensors using unmanned aerial systems (UASs)

Open access
Pikridas, Michael, Bezantakos, Spiros, Močnik, Griša, Keleshis, Christos, Brechtel, Fred, Stavroulas, Iasonas, Demetriades, Gregoris, Antoniou, Panayiota +9 more·2019·Atmospheric Measurement Techniques

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The present study investigates and compares the ground and in-flight performance of three miniaturized aerosol absorption sensors integrated on board small-sized Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs). These sensors were evaluated during two contrasted field campaigns performed at an urban site, impacted mainly by local traffic and domestic wood burning sources (Athens, Greece), and at a remote regional background site, impacted by long-range transported sources including dust (Cyprus Atmospheric Observatory, Agia Marina Xyliatou, Cyprus). The miniaturized sensors were first intercompared at the ground-level against two commercially available instruments used as a reference. The measured signal of the miniaturized sensors was converted into the absorption coefficient and equivalent black carbon concentration (eBC). When applicable, signal saturation corrections were applied, following the suggestions of the manufacturers. The aerosol absorption sensors exhibited similar behavior against the reference instruments during the two campaigns, despite the diversity of the aerosol origin, chemical composition, sources, and concentration levels. The deviation from the reference during both campaigns concerning (eBC) mass was less than 8 %, while for the absorption coefficient it was at least 15 %. This indicates that those sensors that report black carbon mass are tuned and corrected to measure eBC more accurately than the absorption coefficient. The overall potential use of miniature aerosol absorption sensors on board small UASs is also illustrated. UAS-based absorption measurements were used to investigate the vertical distribution of eBC over Athens up to 1 km above sea level during January 2016, exceeding the top of the planetary boundary layer (PBL). Our results reveal a heterogeneous boundary layer concentration of absorbing aerosol within the PBL intensified in the early morning hours due to the concurrent peak traffic emissions at ground-level and the fast development of the boundary layer. After the full development of the PBL, homogenous concentrations are observed from 100 m a.g.l. to the PBL top.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5194/amt-12-6425-2019

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The STAP b_abs showed good agreement with other filter-based reference instruments such as the multiangle absorption photometer (MAAP).

    “The performance of the STAP was previously reported by Bates et al. (2013), Pikridas et al. (2019) and Pilz et al. (2022), and b abs showed good agreement with other filterbased reference instruments such as the multiangle absorption photometer (MAAP).”

    From In situ vertical observations of the layered structure of air pollution in a continental high-latitude urban boundary layer during winter (2025) · cites this paper as Pikridas et al. (2019)

    Section 7.2 (page not provided) reports that STAP’s absorption coefficient showed good agreement, within 10%, against the reference in the Athens ground-based comparison. However, the reported STAP comparison is against a corrected AE33, not directly against MAAP; the paper’s MAAP comparison concerns the AE33 (Sections 5.1 and 7.2). Thus the good-agreement finding is supported, but the specific MAAP example is not established for STAP. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Petrakakis, M. J., Kelessis, A. G., Tzoumaka, P., and Samara, C.: Levels of Suspended Particulate Matter before and after the Eco- nomic Crisis in Thessaloniki, Greece, Proceedings of 17th In- ternational Symposium on Environmental Pollution and its Im- pact on Life in the Mediterranean Region, Istanbul, Turkey, 28 September-1 October, Mediterranean Scientific Association of Environmental Protection (MESAEP), 2013.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pikridas, M., Bezantakos, S., Močnik, G., Keleshis, C., Brechtel, F., Stavroulas, I., Demetriades, G., Antoniou, P., Vouterakos, P., Argyrides, M., Liakakou, E., Drinovec, L., Marinou, E., Amiridis, V., Vrekoussis, M., Mihalopoulos, N., & Sciare, J.
Affiliations
  • Cyprus Institute (CY)
  • University of Nova Gorica (SI)
  • Brechtel (United States) (US)
  • National Observatory of Athens (GR)
  • Jožef Stefan Institute (SI)
  • Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e. V. (DLR) (DE)
Corresponding author
Pikridas, Michael
Venue
Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
Published
2019-12-09
Volume
12
Issue
12
Pages
6425-6447
ISSN
  • 1867-1381 (ISSN-L)
  • 1867-8548
OpenAlex
W2952856487
Cited by
60
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5
FWCI
2.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Atmospheric measurement techniques (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RUNG (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • elib (German Aerospace Center) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • European Commission (654109)
  • Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • Research and Innovation Foundation
  • European Regional Development Fund
  • H2020 European Research Council (725698)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Air Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
Keywords
black carbon, equivalent black carbon, sensor intercomparison, unmanned aerial systems, in-flight measurement, vertical distribution of aerosols, atmospheric boundary layer, urban air pollution, wood combustion emissions, dust transport, Athens

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review