<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Li, Z. Y.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Zhu, R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Xie, P. H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wang, H. C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lu, K. D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wang, D.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Intercomparison of in situ CRDS and CEAS for measurements of atmospheric N2O5 in Beijing, China</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Science of the Total Environment</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sci Total Environ</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">aerosol</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">air-quality</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ambient no3</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">boundary-layer</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cavity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ceas</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">crds</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">enhanced absorption spectrometer</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">induced fluorescence</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ionization mass-spectrometry</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">n2o5</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pm2.5</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">rh</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ring-down spectroscopy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">temperature-dependence</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2018</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Feb 1</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">613</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">131-139</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">0048-9697</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">English</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dinitrogen pentoxide (N2O5) is one of the basic trace gases which plays a key role in nighttime atmosphere. An intercomparison and validation of different N2O5 measurement methods is important for determining the true accuracy of these methods. Cavity ring down spectroscopy (CRDS) and cavity enhanced absorption spectrometer (CEAS) were used to measure N2O5 at the campus of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (UCAS) from February 21, 2016 to March 4, 2016. The detection limits were 1.6 ppt (1 sigma) at 30 s intervals for the CEAS instrument and 3.9 ppt (1 sigma) at 10 s time resolution for the CRDS instrument respectively. In this study, a comparison of the 1 min observations from the two instruments was presented. The two data sets showed a good agreement within their uncertainties, with an absolute shift of 15.6 ppt, slope of 0.94 and a correlation coefficient R-2 = 0.97. In general, the difference between the CRDS and CEAS instruments for N2O5 measurement can be explained by their combined measurement uncertainties. However, high relative humidity (&amp;gt; 60%) and high PM2.5 concentration (&amp;gt; 200 mu g/m(3)) may contribute to the discrepancies. The excellent agreement between the measurement by the CRDS and CEAS instruments demonstrates the capability of the two instruments for accurately measuring N2O5 with high sensitivity. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</style></abstract><accession-num><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">WOS:000414160500015</style></accession-num><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Fl3xtTimes Cited:1Cited References Count:36&lt;/p&gt;</style></notes><auth-address><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Chinese Acad Sci, Anhui Inst Opt &amp;amp;amp; Fine Mech, Key Lab Environm Opt &amp;amp;amp; Technol, Hefei 230031, Anhui, Peoples R ChinaUniv Sci &amp;amp;amp; Technol China, Sci Isl Branch, Grad Sch, Hefei 230026, Anhui, Peoples R ChinaChinese Acad Sci, Inst Urban Environm, CAS Ctr Excellence Reg Atmospher Environm, Xiamen 361000, Peoples R ChinaPeking Univ, Coll Environm Sci &amp;amp;amp; Engn, State Key Joint Lab Environm Simulat &amp;amp;amp; Pollut Con, Beijing 100871, Peoples R ChinaAnhui Univ Technol, Sch Math &amp;amp;amp; Phys, Maanshan 243032, Peoples R China</style></auth-address></record></records></xml>