$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
In the original method development work by Fibiger et al., the NOx collection method was rigorously tested in the laboratory under a variety of conditions4. Here, the focus is on updates to the method and field applications under a variety of environmental conditions. Results are reported on (1) field collection efficiency, (2) sample solution stability in terms of time before sample reduction and sensitivity to high concentrations of ammonium (NH4+) in solution, and (3) reproducibility in the field. The versatility of the method is demonstrated in its application for ambient air, near-road, and on-road measurements.
The average concentrations collected in solution were compared with those from 1 min NOx concentrations from the chemiluminescence NOx analyzer over a two-day diurnal study in ambient urban air in Providence, RI. Figure 2 details the collection efficiency during a period when concentrations varied over a large range, from ~2.5-18 ppbv NOx. Figure 2A displays a direct comparison of median NOx concentrations from the NOx analyzer compared with concentrations calculated from the solution and flow measurements, indicating that, on average, solution concentrations are 92% of median in situ concentrations. This falls within the expected uncertainty range of ±10%, but the difference likely reflects varying concentrations during the collection periods (Figure 2B). Based upon examination of the percentiles of the distribution of the 1-min NOx concentration data, the solution-based NOx concentrations are within the distribution for every collection interval (Figure 2B).
It has been recommended to complete the reduction of the samples collected in the field within 1 day after collection is complete (i.e., complete all of step 3). This target was suggested to reduce the potential for interference from the collection of other soluble nitrogen species, such as NH3, that could be converted to nitrate in the highly oxidizing KMnO4/NaOH solution over time. To test this more specifically, samples were collected in May and July 2015 in Providence, RI on the campus of Brown University, at a loading dock that is near a regularly traveled local road where diesel delivery trucks are regularly running in idling mode to unload. Samples were collected, and then aliquots of the samples were separated and reduced at different times (1 day, 4-7 days, and 13-15 days) after the sample collection (Figure 3A). Samples in Figure 3B were also collected during May and July but were prepared by adding 5 ml of 10 mM ammonium chloride to 450 ml of solution. This yielded a concentration of 111 µM NH4+ in solution, corresponding to collecting 220 ppbv of NH3 in the air, if only NH3 was collected. These concentrations are the maximum expected during on-road measurements near vehicle NH3 sources16. With or without the added NH4+, samples reduced within 7 days after collection had consistent isotope ratios when compared to the first reduction (within 1 day of collection), all falling within the expected uncertainty range of ±1.5% (Figure 3A and 3B). Note that the ±1.5% uncertainty is representative of isotopic determinations of repeated collections of tank NOx4. The uncertainty associated with repeated measures of isotopic reference materials alone is typically 0.3%. After two weeks, however, samples with or without added NH4+ were not necessarily stable. While in some cases the isotope values still appear to be consistent (e.g., Figure 3A), samples exhibited small NO3- concentration increases (<1 µM) when compared with the first reduction and, in some cases, decreases in NO3- concentrations. With the added NH4+, it would have been expected that NO3- concentration would increase over time above the expected uncertainty range (~0.8 µM) for concentration measurements, suggesting that even after two weeks, the NH4+ was not the source of interference. Further experiments are needed to better understand the source of this instability, though it is noted that blank solutions left untreated over the same time course consistently showed no change or slight increases in concentrations, and therefore, the instability must be created by the presence of other species found in the ambient urban air. Until this is resolved, it is recommended that sample solutions be reduced within 7 days from the time of collection.
Figure 4 details the collection of samples with the mobile setup over various field campaigns in urban, near-road, and on-road settings. The NOx concentration range spans three orders of magnitude, and the isotope ratios range from -1 to -13‰. This sampling set includes 51 on-road samples taken over 52 hr, covering over 4,000 km, and in a myriad of driving conditions (e.g., heavy stop-and-go traffic to very light traffic at high speeds on the highway). The sampling took place on roads in and between 6 major cities, including Providence, RI, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, PA, and Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, OH. Average vehicle speeds ranged from 12.4 km/hr to 119.7 km/hr. The near-roadside samples (N = 27) were obtained at a monitoring site at I-95 in Providence, RI. The ambient urban air samples (N = 44 samples taken over 117.5 hr) were taken from two rooftop locations in Providence, RI, one near the I-95, I-195 interchange and one 775 meters away from the interchange site. This represents the first steps towards building new capabilities to resolve the ranges of isotopic signatures from NOx sources, in this case, vehicle emissions and ambient urban sources. The variations in daytime on-road and road-side δ15N-NOx (Figure 4) were not correlated with variations in driving conditions and occurred across relatively constant vehicle fuel-class traffic counts. A more detailed discussion of the variations of isotopic signatures due to vehicle fuel types is the subject of another manuscript (Miller, D.J., et al. 2016. J. Geophys. Atmos. Submitted).
Finally, Table 1 details field and laboratory collections where two collection systems were deployed at the same time to test reproducibility. The comparisons show excellent agreement for the isotopic data, quantified here as the absolute deviation between the two data points for each collection period. The data are displayed from urban air collections at a rooftop location in Providence, RI; near-roadside collections in Providence, RI; and from collections in a laboratory-based smog chamber at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Figure 1: Collection Schematic and Image. (A) Diagram of the Automated NOx Collection System. Gray is airflow, blue is water/solution flow, green is electronics connections, yellow is the frit, and purple is the permanganate solution. The syringe pump is used to add and remove rinsing solution (ultrapure water) and to add new solution for the start of sample collection (the syringe pump is a commercially available stepper motor syringe pump with a 50 ml syringe, a 5-port distribution valve, and driver/control boards equipped with an RS-232 serial interface). The sample is removed manually via the black valve at the bottom of the gas washing bottle. (B) Picture of the NOx collection system and NOx box in the mobile laboratory. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Collection Efficiency of the Automated Collection System. (A) The NOx concentrations calculated from the NO3- concentrations measured in solution and the flow data compared against the median concentration measured by a chemiluminescent NOx concentration analyzer at a rooftop site in Providence, RI. The error bars are the standard deviation (±1σ) of the solution-based NOx mixing ratio estimates derived from the propagated errors of the pooled standard deviations of the quality controls (0.4 µM) across colorimetric concentration measurement runs and the flow rate uncertainty (±1%). The NOx analyzer concentration uncertainties are ±5%. (B) The time series of NOx concentration distributions during diurnal measurements at a rooftop site in Providence, RI. The boxes represent the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles. The whiskers represent the extremes without outliers. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Comparison of the reduction times for NOx samples collected at Brown University in May and July 2015. (A) The results are recorded as deviations from the first reduction, performed within 1 day of sampling. May samples are displayed as triangles and July samples as circles, with colors denoting different collection periods. Samples in (B) were pre-treated with ammonium chloride prior to air collection to test the interference of NH4+ in solution over time. The dashed lines represent the expected overall precision of the isotopic collection method, expressed as a standard deviation of ±1.5%. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: The δ15N-NOx (‰) and NOx concentration of samples collected in ambient urban air, on-road, and near-road sites. The types of samples are delineated by different colors, and represent a range of conditions (see the text) and NOx concentrations. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| Sample Name | System Number | Collection Date | Hours of Collection | Temperature (ºC) | [NO3-] (µM) | Blank/total N | δ 15N (‰) | Deviation δ 15N (%) |
| Urban Air PVD 1 | 1 | 10/8/2013 - 10/9/2013 | 6.75 | 15.8 | 14.43 | 0.3 | -0.6 | 0.7 |
| 2 | 16.78 | 0.26 | -1.3 |
| Urban Air PVD 2 | 1 | 11/6/2013 - 11/7/2013 | 2.5* | 17.1 | 30.86 | 0.2 | -7.7 | 1 |
| 2 | 5.25 | 37.05 | 0.17 | -6.7 |
| Urban Air PVD 3 | 1 | 11/20/2013 - 11/21/2013 | 8.9 | 3.28 | 44.29 | 0.14 | -7.1 | 0.4 |
| 2 | 29.66 | 0.21 | -6.7 |
| Near Roadside 1 | 1 | 8/14/2014 - 8/15/2014 | 29 | 19.2 | 13.3 | 0.37 | -9.47 | 0.69 |
| 2 | 16.4 | 0.3 | -10.16 |
| Near Roadside 2 | 1 | 8/17/2014 - 8/18/2014 | 30 | 21.85 | 9.4 | 0.68 | -8.95 | 1.56 |
| 2 | 11.6 | 0.55 | -7.39 |
| Near Roadside 3 | 1 | 5/25/2015 | 3.5 | 20 | 6.86 | 0.51 | -7.67 | 0.86 |
| 2 | 9.49 | 0.42 | -8.53 |
| Near Roadside 4 | 1 | 5/26/2015 | 2.75 | 25.56 | 6.07 | 0.656 | -8.7 | 1.57 |
| 2 | 6.49 | 0.61 | -7.13 |
| Smog Chamber 1 | 1 | 8/26/2014 - 8/27/2014 | 24.4 | 21 | 24.392 | 0.27 | -12.28 | 0.33 |
| 2 | 33.2 | 0.2 | -12.61 |
| Smog Chamber 2 | 1 | 8/27/2014 - 8/28/2014 | 19.8 | 21 | 10.96 | 0.54 | -10.22 | 1.25 |
| 1 | 14.245 | 0.41 | -11.47 |
| Smog Chamber 3 | 1 | 8/28/2014 - 8/29/2014 | 24.2 | 21 | 7.476 | 0.8 | -5.86 | 1.27 |
Table 1: Reproducibility of samples collected at the same time using two identical collection systems. *The collection had to be stopped due to a clogged filter. Urban Air PVD (PVD = Providence, RI) 1-3 were previously published4. Near Roadside represents roadside collections in Providence, RI; Smog chamber represents samples collected from air inside a smog chamber at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst4.