Influence of Tropospheric Ozone Control on Exposure to Ultraviolet Radiation at the Surface

2011 ◽  
Vol 45 (16) ◽  
pp. 6919-6923 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sasha Madronich ◽  
Mark Wagner ◽  
Philip Groth
2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (9) ◽  
pp. 333-338
Author(s):  
Claudio Carnevale ◽  
Enrico Pisoni ◽  
Marialuisa Volta

Atmosphere ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 132
Author(s):  
D. Jean du Preez ◽  
Hassan Bencherif ◽  
Thierry Portafaix ◽  
Kévin Lamy ◽  
Caradee Yael Wright

Biomass burning has an impact on atmospheric composition as well as human health and wellbeing. In South Africa, the biomass burning season extends from July to October and affects the aerosol loading and tropospheric ozone concentrations which in turn impact solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) levels at the surface. Using ground-based observations of aerosols, tropospheric ozone and solar UVR (as well as modelled solar UVR) we investigated the impact of aerosols and tropospheric ozone on solar UVR in August, September, and October over Pretoria. Aerosol optical depth (AOD) and tropospheric ozone reached a peak between September and October each year. On clear-sky days, the average relative difference between the modelled and observed solar Ultraviolet Index (UVI) levels (a standard indicator of surface UVR) at solar noon was 7%. Using modelled UVR—which included and excluded the effects of aerosols and tropospheric ozone from biomass burning—aerosols had a larger radiative effect compared to tropospheric ozone on UVI levels during the biomass burning season. Excluding only aerosols resulted in a 10% difference between the modelled and observed UVI, while excluding only tropospheric ozone resulted in a difference of −2%. Further understanding of the radiative effect of aerosols and trace gases, particularly in regions that are affected by emissions from biomass burning, is considered important for future research.


1998 ◽  
Vol 103 (D20) ◽  
pp. 26107-26113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali A. Sabziparvar ◽  
Piers M. de F. Forster ◽  
Keith P. Shine

Author(s):  
William J. Baxter

In this form of electron microscopy, photoelectrons emitted from a metal by ultraviolet radiation are accelerated and imaged onto a fluorescent screen by conventional electron optics. image contrast is determined by spatial variations in the intensity of the photoemission. The dominant source of contrast is due to changes in the photoelectric work function, between surfaces of different crystalline orientation, or different chemical composition. Topographical variations produce a relatively weak contrast due to shadowing and edge effects.Since the photoelectrons originate from the surface layers (e.g. ∼5-10 nm for metals), photoelectron microscopy is surface sensitive. Thus to see the microstructure of a metal the thin layer (∼3 nm) of surface oxide must be removed, either by ion bombardment or by thermal decomposition in the vacuum of the microscope.


2006 ◽  
Vol 175 (4S) ◽  
pp. 260-260
Author(s):  
Nicholas J. Rukin ◽  
Samuel J. Moon ◽  
Dhaval Bodiwala ◽  
Christopher J. Luscombe ◽  
Mark F. Saxby ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document