The Cabauw Intercomparison campaign for Nitrogen Dioxide measuring Instruments (CINDI) - design, execution, and early results

Oct 28, 2026

From June to July 2009, more than thirty in-situ and remote sensing instruments participated in the Cabauw Intercomparison campaign for Nitrogen Dioxide measuring Instruments (CINDI) at the KNMI Cabauw Experimental Site in the Netherlands. The campaign assessed the accuracy of state-of-the-art ground-based techniques for detecting atmospheric NO2 and examined their usability for satellite data validation. Expected outcomes included recommendations for operation, calibration, retrieval settings, and observation strategies for ground-based air quality networks and validation. Twenty-four optical spectrometers and multiple in-situ samplers produced a comprehensive multi-condition dataset. Initial comparisons indicate MAX-DOAS slant column agreement within 5–15% for NO2, O4, and HCHO, and 25% consistency for NO2 vertical profiles from independent instruments.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages71

Reading Time2 h 59 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss. , 4, 5935–6005, 2011 [www.atmos-meas-tech-discuss.net/4/5935/2011/](www.atmos-meas-tech-discuss.net/4/5935/2011/)[ ](www.atmos-meas-tech-discuss.net/4/5935/2011/)[doi:10.5194/amtd-4-5935-2011](doi:10.5194/amtd-4-5935-2011) © Author(s) 2011 . CC Attribution 3 .0 License. | | Atmospheric Measurement Techniques Discussions | | --- | --- | This discussion paper is/has been under review for the journal Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT) . Please refer to the corresponding ﬁnal paper in AMT if available. The Cabauw Intercomparison campaign for Nitrogen Dioxide measuring Instruments (CINDI): design, execution, and early results A. J. M. Piters 1 K. F. Boersma 1;2 M. Kroon 1 J. C. Hains3 M. Van Roozendael4 F. Wittrock5 N. Abuhassan6;7 C. Adams8 M. Akrami8 M. A. F. Allaart 1 A. Apituley 10; 1 J. B. Bergwer􀀓10 A. J. C. Berkhout 10 D. Brunner 11 A. Cede 12;7 J. Chong 13 K. Clmer4 C. Fayt4 U. Frieß 14 L. F. L. Gast 10 M. Gil-Ojeda9 F. Goutail 15 R. Graves 16 A. Griesfeller 15 K. Großmann 14 G. Hemerijckx4 F. Hendrick4 B. Henzing 17 J. Herman 12;7 C. Hermans4 M. Hoexum 10 G. R. van der Ho􀀓 10 H. Irie 18 P. V. Johnston 19 Y. Kanaya 18 Y. J. Kim 13 H. Klein Baltink 1 K. Kreher 19 [G. de](G. de) Leeuw17;20;27 R. Leigh16 A. Merlaud4 M. M. Moerman17 P. S. Monks16 G. H. Mount21 M. Navarro-Comas9 H. Oetjen22 A. Pazmino 15 M. Perez-Camacho9 E. Peters5 A. du Piesanie 1 G. Pinardi4 O. Puentadura9 A. Richter5 H. K. Roscoe23 A. Schnhardt5 B. Schwarzenbach 11 R. Shaiganfar24 W. Sluis 1 E. Spinei21 A. P. Stolk 10 K. Strong8 D. P. J. Swart 10 H. Takashima 18 T. Vlemmix 1 M. Vrekoussis5;26 T. Wagner24 C. Whyte8 K. M. Wilson 10; 1 M. Yela9 S. Yilmaz 14 P. Zieger25 and Y. Zhou 11 5935 1 Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, The Netherlands 2Technical University Eindhoven (TUE), Eindhoven, The Netherlands 3 Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), Baltimore MD, USA 4 Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy (BIRA-IASB), Brussels, Belgium 5 Institute of Environmental Physics (IUP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany 6 Morgan State University, (MSU), Baltimore, MD, USA 7 NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, MD, USA 8 Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 9 National Institute for Aerospace technology (INTA), Madrid, Spain 10 National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands 11 Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (EMPA), Dbendor􀀓, Switzerland 12 University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC), Catonsville, MD, USA 13 Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology, Gwangiu, Republic of Korea 14 Institute of Environmental Physics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany 15 Laboratoire Atmosphres, Milieux, Observations Spatiales (LATMOS), Guyancourt, France 16 Department of Chemistry, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK 17 Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientiﬁc Research (TNO), Utrecht, The Netherlands 18 Research Institute for Global Change, JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Japan 19 National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Lauder, New Zealand 20 Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI), Helsinki, Finland 21 Laboratory for Atmospheric Research, Washington State University (WSU), Pullman WA, USA 22 School of Chemistry, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK 23 British Antarctic Survey (BAS), Cambridge, UK 24 Max Planck Institute for Chemistry (MPIC), Mainz, Germany 25 Laboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI), Villigen, Switzerland 26 Research Center for Atmospheric Physics and Climatology, Academy of Athens, Greece 27 Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Finland 5936 Received: 19 August 2011 – Accepted: 3 September 2011 – Published: 16 September 2011 Correspondence to: A. J. M. Piters ([piters@knmi.nl](piters@knmi.nl)) Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geoscien

FAQs

What was the CINDI campaign’s main purpose?

To determine the accuracy of ground-based measurement techniques for atmospheric nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and to evaluate their usability for satellite data validation.

Where and when did the campaign take place?

From June to July 2009 at KNMI’s Cabauw Experimental Site for Atmospheric Research in the Netherlands.

What did early comparisons show about measurement agreement?

Slant column measurements of NO2, O4, and HCHO with MAX-DOAS agree within 5–15%, and NO2 vertical profiles derived from independent instruments agree within 25%.

Oct 28, 2026

Upload by CatatanPagi