Corrigendum to “ambient Mixing Ratios of Chlorofluorocarbons, Hydrochlorofluorocarbons and Hydrofluorocarbons in 46 Chinese Cities” [atmos. Environ. 54 (2012) 387–392]

Xuekun Fang,Jing Wu,Jianhua Xu,Daikuan Huang,Yehong Shi,Dan Wan,Hai Wu,Min Shao,Jianxin Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.01.048

IF: 5

2013-01-01

Atmospheric Environment

Abstract:The authors regret that the fifth sentence in section 2.2 should be “The NIMC standard gas with a dilution factor of 1000 times by ultra pure nitrogen were calibrated by the standard gas reported on SIO-2005 (used for halocarbon measurements in some background sites, http://agage.eas.gatech.edu/instruments-overview.htm). The inter-comparison experiments were carried out twice in Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, November 4, 2011 and November 15, 2011, respectively. In the second experiment, four parallel canisters of the diluted NIMC standard gas were calibrated, instead of only one canister in the former experiment. Therefore inter-comparison results reported here were derived from statistics in the second inter-comparison. For most species, discrepancies of only several percentages were found, 3.4e7.6% for HCFC-141b, 0.2e3.8% for HCFC-142b, 1.6 to 3.1% for HFC-134a, 0.6 to 3.5% for HFC-152a. But HCFC-22 concentration in NIMCwas found to be 118.0% (average value in four canisters) of that in standard gas reported on SIO-2005, so the HCFC-22 concentration in the NIMCwas revised by dividing a factor of 118.0%. In other words, HCFC-22 concentrations of ambient samples are reported on this revised NIMC scale in this study and in our researches afterward”. In Table 1, a statistical error occurred and theMean (SD) of 508 (208) for HCFC-22 should be 508 (283). Accordingly, all values of 508 (208) in text should be changed to 508 (283), including: (1) the fourth sentence in the first paragraph of 3.3 sector should be “The average mixing ratios of HCFC-22, HCFC-141b and HCFC-142bwere 508 (283) pptv, 65 (60) pptv and 87 (57) pptv, respectively, significantly higher than the background values (P < 0.01)”; (2) the second sentence in 4 chapter should be “However, levels of HCFCs and HFCs surpassed the background values to a large extent, especially HCFC-22 (508 (283) pptv for the 46 cities compared to 218.5 pptv for background)”; (3) the “508(208)” for HCFC-22 in Table 2 should be “508 (283)”. These corrections do not however, change the concentration values and the conclusion of the paper. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.