Ice Nucleation Characteristics of Atmospheric Trace Gas Aged Mineral Dust Aerosols with a Continuous Flow Diffusion Chamber

  • Abdus Salam
  • Glen Lesins
  • Ulrike Lohmann
Conference paper

Ice nucleation characteristics of montmorillonite mineral dust aerosol particless with and without surface modification by atmospheric trace gas (ammonia and sulfur dioxide) were studied at different temperatures and saturation conditions with a continuous flow diffusion chamber (CFDC) at Dalhousie University, Canada. There was no significant change in the size distributions due to ammonia and sulfur dioxide exposure to the mineral dust particles. The percentage of activation of ammonia exposed montmorillonite attains a saturation level when the exposure times reach 120 min. Ammonia aged montmorillonite aerosols are more efficient as ice nuclei (IN) with increasing relative humidities and decreasing temperatures. Ammonia gas enhanced the ice nucleation efficiency of montmorillonite mineral dust particles from 4 to 11 times at our experimental conditions. The activation temperature of ammonia exposed montmorillonite was higher than for pure montmorillonite particles. Sulfur dioxide gas aged montmorillonite particles were also efficient in ice nucleation. But there was no significant difference in the ice nucleation efficiency of pure montmorillonite and sulfur dioxide exposed montmorillonite.

Keywords Ice nucleation, montmorillonite, ammonia, sulfur dioxide

Keywords

Sulfur Dioxide Aerosol Particle Mineral Dust Aerodynamic Particle Sizer Montmorillonite Particle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lohmann, U., Feichter, J., Penner, J.E., and Leaitch, R., J. Geophy. Res., 105, 12193–12206 (2000).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Isono, K., Komabayasi, M., and Ono, A., J. Meteoro. Soc. Japan, 37, 211–233 (1959).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zuberi, B., Bertram, A.K., Cassa, C.A., Molina, L.T., and Molina, M.J., Geophy. Res. Letter, 29(10), 1504, doi: 10.1029/2001GL014289 (2002).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Salam, A., Lohmann, U., Crenna, B., Lesins, G., Klages, P., Rogers, D., Irani, R., MacGillivray, A., and Coffin, M., Aero. Sci. Techn., 40, 134–143 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hung, H.-M., Malinowski, A., and Martin, S.T., J. Phy. Chem. A, 107, 1296–1306 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Knopf, D.A. and Koop, T., J. Geophys. Res., 111, D12201, doi: 10.1029/2005JD006894 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdus Salam
    • 1
  • Glen Lesins
    • 2
  • Ulrike Lohmann
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of ChemistryUniversity of DhakaBangladesh
  2. 2.Department of Physics and Atmospheric ScienceDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  3. 3.Institute of Atmospheric and Climate ScienceETH ZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations