The winter 2019 air pollution (PM_2.5) measurement campaign in Christchurch, New Zealand

• Main Authors: E. R. Dale, S. Kremser, J. S. Tradowsky, G. E. Bodeker, L. J. Bird, G. Olivares, G. Coulson, E. Somervell, W. Pattinson, J. Barte, J.-N. Schmidt, N. Abrahim, A. J. McDonald, P. Kuma
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Copernicus Publications 2021-05-01
• Series: Earth System Science Data
• Online Access: https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/13/2053/2021/essd-13-2053-2021.pdf
• ISSN: 1866-3508; 1866-3516

<p>MAPM (Mapping Air Pollution eMissions) is a project whose goal is to develop a method to infer airborne particulate matter (PM) emissions maps from in situ PM concentration measurements. In support of MAPM, a winter field campaign was conducted in New Zealand in 2019 (June to September) to obtain the measurements required to test and validate the MAPM methodology. Two different types of instruments measuring PM were deployed: ES-642 remote dust monitors (17 instruments) and Outdoor Dust Information Nodes (ODINs; 50 instruments). The measurement campaign was bracketed by two intercomparisons where all instruments were co-located, with a permanently installed tapered element oscillating membrane (TEOM) instrument, to determine any instrument biases. Changes in biases between the pre- and post-campaign intercomparisons were used to determine instrument drift over the campaign period. Once deployed, each ES-642 was co-located with an ODIN. In addition to the PM measurements, meteorological variables (temperature, pressure, wind speed, and wind direction) were measured at three automatic weather station (AWS) sites established as part of the campaign, with additional data being sourced from 27 further AWSs operated by other agencies. Vertical profile measurements were made with 12 radiosondes during two 24 h periods and complimented measurements made with a mini micropulse lidar and ceilometer. Here we present the data collected during the campaign and discuss the correction of the measurements made by various PM instruments. We find that when compared to measurements made with a simple linear correction, a correction based on environmental conditions improves the quality of measurements retrieved from ODINs but results in over-fitting and increases the uncertainties when applied to the more sophisticated ES-642 instruments. We also compare PM<span class="inline-formula">_2.5</span> and PM<span class="inline-formula">₁₀</span> measured by ODINs which, in some cases, allows us to identify PM from natural and anthropogenic sources. The PM data collected during the campaign are publicly available from <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4542559">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4542559</a> <span class="cit" id="xref_paren.1">(<a href="#bib1.bibx8">Dale et al.</a>, <a href="#bib1.bibx8">2020</a><a href="#bib1.bibx8">b</a>)</span>, and the data from other instruments are available from <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4536640">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4536640</a> <span class="cit" id="xref_paren.2">(<a href="#bib1.bibx7">Dale et al.</a>, <a href="#bib1.bibx7">2020</a><a href="#bib1.bibx7">a</a>)</span>.</p>