270 research outputs found

    Evaluation of night-time aerosols measurements and lunar irradiance models in the frame of the first multi-instrument nocturnal intercomparison campaign

    Get PDF
    The first multi-instrument nocturnal aerosol optical depth (AOD) intercom-parison campaign was held at the high-mountain Iza ̃na Observatory (Tener-ife, Spain) in June 2017, involving 2-minutes synchronous measurements fromtwo different types of lunar photometers (Cimel CE318-T and Moon Preci-sion Filter Radiometer, LunarPFR) and one stellar photometer. The Robotic Lunar Observatory (ROLO) model developed by the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) was compared with the open-access ROLO Implementation for Moonphotometry Observation (RIMO) model. Results showed rather small differ-ences at Iza ̃na over a 2-month time period covering June and July, 2017(±0.01 in terms of AOD calculated by means of a day/night/day coherencetest analysis and±2 % in terms of lunar irradiance). The RIMO model hasbeen used in this field campaign to retrieve AOD from lunar photometricmeasurements. No evidence of significant differences with the Moon’s phase angle wasfound when comparing raw signals of the six Cimel photometers involved inthis field campaign.The raw signal comparison of the participating lunar photometers (Cimeland LunarPFR) performed at coincident wavelengths showed consistent mea-surements and AOD differences within their combined uncertainties at 870 nmand 675 nm. Slightly larger AOD deviations were observed at 500 nm, point-ing to some unexpected instrumental variations during the measurement pe-riod.Lunar irradiances retrieved using RIMO for phase angles varying between0◦and 75◦(full Moon to near quarter Moon) were compared to the irradi-ance variations retrieved by Cimel and LunarPFR photometers. Our resultsshowed a relative agreement within±3.5 % between the RIMO model andthe photometer-based lunar irradiances.The AOD retrieved by performing a Langley-plot calibration each nightshowed a remarkable agreement (better than 0.01) between the lunar pho-tometers. However, when applying the Lunar-Langley calibration using RIMO,AOD differences of up to 0.015 (0.040 for 500 nm) were found, with differ-ences increasing with the Moon’s phase angle. These differences are thoughtto be partly due to the uncertainties in the irradiance models, as well asinstrumental deficiencies yet to be fully understood.High AOD variability in stellar measurements was detected during thecampaign. Nevertheless, the observed AOD differences in the Cimel/stellarcomparison were within the expected combined uncertainties of these twophotometric techniques. Our results indicate that lunar photometry is amore reliable technique, especially for low aerosol loading conditions.The uncertainty analysis performed in this paper shows that the com-bined standard AOD uncertainty in lunar photometry is dependent on thecalibration technique (up to 0.014 for Langley-plot with illumination-basedcorrection, 0.012-0.022 for Lunar-Langley calibration, and up to 0.1 for the 2 Sun-Moon Gain Factor method). This analysis also corroborates that theuncertainty of the lunar irradiance model used for AOD calculation is withinthe 5-10 % expected range.This campaign has allowed us to quantify the important technical diffi-culties that still exist when routinely monitoring aerosol optical propertiesat night-time. The small AOD differences observed between the three typesof photometers involved in the campaign are only detectable under pristinesky conditions such as those found in this field campaign. Longer campaignsare necessary to understand the observed discrepancies between instrumentsas well as to provide more conclusive results about the uncertainty involvedin the lunar irradiance model

    Evaluation of night-time aerosols measurements and lunar irradiance models in the frame of the first multi-instrument nocturnal intercomparison campaign

    Get PDF
    The first multi-instrument nocturnal aerosol optical depth (AOD) intercomparison campaign was held at the high-mountain Izaña Observatory (Tenerife, Spain) in June 2017, involving 2-min synchronous measurements from two different types of lunar photometers (Cimel CE318-T and Moon Precision Filter Radiometer, LunarPFR) and one stellar photometer. The Robotic Lunar Observatory (ROLO) model developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was compared with the open-access ROLO Implementation for Moon photometry Observation (RIMO) model. Results showed rather small differences at Izaña over a 2-month time period covering June and July, 2017 (±0.01 in terms of AOD calculated by means of a day/night/day coherence test analysis and ± 2% in terms of lunar irradiance). The RIMO model has been used in this field campaign to retrieve AOD from lunar photometric measurements. No evidence of significant differences with the Moon's phase angle was found when comparing raw signals of the six Cimel photometers involved in this field campaign. The raw signal comparison of the participating lunar photometers (Cimel and LunarPFR) performed at coincident wavelengths showed consistent measurements and AOD differences within their combined uncertainties at 870 nm and 675 nm. Slightly larger AOD deviations were observed at 500 nm, pointing to some unexpected instrumental variations during the measurement period. Lunar irradiances retrieved using RIMO for phase angles varying between 0° and 75° (full Moon to near quarter Moon) were compared to the irradiance variations retrieved by Cimel and LunarPFR photometers. Our results showed a relative agreement within ± 3.5% between the RIMO model and the photometer-based lunar irradiances. The AOD retrieved by performing a Langley-plot calibration each night showed a remarkable agreement (better than 0.01) between the lunar photometers. However, when applying the Lunar-Langley calibration using RIMO, AOD differences of up to 0.015 (0.040 for 500 nm) were found, with differences increasing with the Moon's phase angle. These differences are thought to be partly due to the uncertainties in the irradiance models, as well as instrumental deficiencies yet to be fully understood. High AOD variability in stellar measurements was detected during the campaign. Nevertheless, the observed AOD differences in the Cimel/stellar comparison were within the expected combined uncertainties of these two photometric techniques. Our results indicate that lunar photometry is a more reliable technique, especially for low aerosol loading conditions. The uncertainty analysis performed in this paper shows that the combined standard AOD uncertainty in lunar photometry is dependent on the calibration technique (up to 0.014 for Langley-plot with illumination-based correction, 0.012–0.022 for Lunar-Langley calibration, and up to 0.1 for the Sun-Moon Gain Factor method). This analysis also corroborates that the uncertainty of the lunar irradiance model used for AOD calculation is within the 5–10% expected range. This campaign has allowed us to quantify the important technical difficulties that still exist when routinely monitoring aerosol optical properties at night-time. The small AOD differences observed between the three types of photometers involved in the campaign are only detectable under pristine sky conditions such as those found in this field campaign. Longer campaigns are necessary to understand the observed discrepancies between instruments as well as to provide more conclusive results about the uncertainty involved in the lunar irradiance models.This work has been developed within the framework of the activities of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observations (CIMO) Izaña Testbed for Aerosols and Water Vapour Remote Sensing Instruments. AERONET sun photometers at Izaña have been calibrated within the AERONET Europe TNA, supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement no. 654109 (ACTRIS‒2). CE318-T linearity check has been performed as part of the ESA-funded project “Lunar spectral irradiance measurement and modelling for absolute calibration of EO optical sensors” under ESA contract number: 4000121576/17/NL/AF/hh. LunarPFR has been performing measurements since 2014 in Norway thanks to Svalbard Science Forum funded project, 2014–2016. The authors would like to thank AERONET team for their support and also to NASA’s Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility (NAIF) at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to help the implementation of the “SPICE” ancillary information system used in this study. We also thank Izaña's ITs for their work to implement the RIMO model in the free-access server. Special thanks should be given to Tom Stone, who has kindly provided us with the USGS/ROLO irradiance values used in the model comparison analysis. This work has also received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and from Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships (IF) ACE-GFAT (grant agreement no. 659398). The authors are grateful to Spanish MINECO (CTM2015-66742-R) and Junta de Castilla y León (VA100P17)

    Increased Hydrogen Production by Genetic Engineering of Escherichia coli

    Get PDF
    Escherichia coli is capable of producing hydrogen under anaerobic growth conditions. Formate is converted to hydrogen in the fermenting cell by the formate hydrogenlyase enzyme system. The specific hydrogen yield from glucose was improved by the modification of transcriptional regulators and metabolic enzymes involved in the dissimilation of pyruvate and formate. The engineered E. coli strains ZF1 (ΔfocA; disrupted in a formate transporter gene) and ZF3 (ΔnarL; disrupted in a global transcriptional regulator gene) produced 14.9, and 14.4 µmols of hydrogen/mg of dry cell weight, respectively, compared to 9.8 µmols of hydrogen/mg of dry cell weight generated by wild-type E. coli strain W3110. The molar yield of hydrogen for strain ZF3 was 0.96 mols of hydrogen/mol of glucose, compared to 0.54 mols of hydrogen/mol of glucose for the wild-type E. coli strain. The expression of the global transcriptional regulator protein FNR at levels above natural abundance had a synergistic effect on increasing the hydrogen yield in the ΔfocA genetic background. The modification of global transcriptional regulators to modulate the expression of multiple operons required for the biosynthesis of formate hydrogenlyase represents a practical approach to improve hydrogen production

    Splitting and blaming: The psychic life of neoliberal executive women

    Get PDF
    The aim of the article is to explore the psychic life of executive women under neoliberalism using psychosocial approaches. The article shows how, despite enduring unfair treatment and access to opportunities, many executive women remain emotionally invested in upholding the neoliberal ideal that if one perseveres, one shall be successful, regardless of gender. Drawing on psychosocial approaches, we explore how the accounts given by some executive women of repudiation, as denying gender inequality, and individualization, as subjects completely agentic, are underpinned by the unconscious, intertwined processes of splitting and blaming. Women sometimes split off undesirable aspects of the workplace, which repudiates gender inequality, or blame other women, which individualizes failure and responsibility for change. We explain that splitting and blaming enable some executive women to manage the anxiety evoked from threats to the neoliberal ideal of the workplace. This article thereby makes a contribution to existing postfeminist scholarship by integrating psychosocial approaches to the study of the psychic life of neoliberal executive women, by exploring why they appear unable to engage directly with and redress instances of gender discrimination in the workplace
    corecore