<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">AMT</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Atmospheric Measurement Techniques</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">AMT</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Meas. Tech.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1867-8548</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/amt-11-3491-2018</article-id><title-group><article-title>Fast time response measurements of particle size distributions <?xmltex \hack{\break}?>in the 3–60 nm
size range with the nucleation mode <?xmltex \hack{\break}?>aerosol size spectrometer</article-title><alt-title>Fast time response measurements of particle size distributions</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Fast time response measurements of particle size distributions}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{C. Williamson et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Williamson</surname><given-names>Christina</given-names></name>
          <email>christina.williamson@noaa.gov</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5188-9378</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Kupc</surname><given-names>Agnieszka</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7996-2506</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Wilson</surname><given-names>James</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Gesler</surname><given-names>David W.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Reeves</surname><given-names>J. Michael</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Erdesz</surname><given-names>Frank</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>McLaughlin</surname><given-names>Richard</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Brock</surname><given-names>Charles A.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4033-4668</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Chemical Sciences Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, CO 80305-3337,
USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, University of
Denver, Denver, CO 80208-177, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>St. Mary's Academy, Englewood, CO 80113, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Earth Observing Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder, CO 80301, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Christina Williamson (christina.williamson@noaa.gov)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>19</day><month>June</month><year>2018</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>11</volume>
      <issue>6</issue>
      <fpage>3491</fpage><lpage>3509</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>24</day><month>January</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>26</day><month>February</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>4</day><month>May</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>7</day><month>May</month><year>2018</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        
        
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract>
    <p id="d1e175">Earth's radiation budget is affected by new particle
formation (NPF) and the growth of these nanometre-scale particles to larger
sizes where they can directly scatter light or act as cloud condensation
nuclei (CCN). Large uncertainties remain in the magnitude and spatiotemporal
distribution of nucleation (less than 10 nm diameter) and Aitken (10–60 nm
diameter) mode particles. Acquiring size-distribution measurements of these
particles over large regions of the free troposphere is most easily
accomplished with research aircraft.</p>
    <p id="d1e178">We report on the design and performance of an airborne instrument, the
nucleation mode aerosol size spectrometer (NMASS), which provides
size-selected aerosol concentration measurements that can be differenced to
identify aerosol properties and processes or inverted to obtain a full size
distribution between 3 and 60 nm. By maintaining constant downstream
pressure the instrument operates reliably over a large range of ambient
pressures and during rapid changes in altitude, making it ideal for aircraft
measurements from the boundary layer to the stratosphere.</p>
    <p id="d1e181">We describe the modifications, operating principles, extensive calibrations,
and laboratory and in-flight performance of two NMASS instruments operated
in parallel as a 10-channel battery of condensation particle counters (CPCs)
in the NASA Atmospheric Tomography Mission (ATom) to investigate NPF and
growth to cloud-active sizes in the remote free troposphere. An inversion
technique to obtain size distributions from the discrete concentrations of
each NMASS channel is described and evaluated.</p>
    <p id="d1e184">Concentrations measured by the two NMASS instruments flying in parallel are
self-consistent and also consistent with measurements made with an optical
particle counter. Extensive laboratory calibrations with a range of particle
sizes and compositions show repeatability of the response function of the
instrument to within 5–8 % and no sensitivity in sizing performance to
particle composition. Particle number, surface area, and volume
concentrations from the data inversion are determined to better than 20 %
for typical particle size distributions. The excellent performance of the
NMASS systems provides a strong analytical foundation to explore NPF around
the globe in the ATom dataset.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Background</title>
      <p id="d1e194">Particles play important roles in chemical and physical processes in the
atmosphere: they provide sites for heterogeneous reactions (Ravishankara,
1997), they serve as nuclei for the formation of clouds, and they directly
and indirectly affect the Earth's radiation budget (Solomon and IPCC Working
Group Science, 2007). Many primary<?pagebreak page3492?> particles, those directly emitted into
the atmosphere in the solid or liquid phase, affect the radiation budget by
acting as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) or directly scattering or
absorbing sunlight. However, secondary particles, those formed by nucleation
from the gas phase in the atmosphere, often dominate both aerosol–cloud and
aerosol–radiation interactions (Kulmala et al., 2004). By number, the
majority of the particles present in the troposphere in most environments
have diameters <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 nm, and substantial fractions of the total
particle surface area and volume sometimes lie within this size range
(Clarke and Kapustin, 2002).</p>
      <p id="d1e204">Once secondary particles have grown to diameters greater than about 50 nm,
they often serve as CCN under conditions of water supersaturation common in
the lower troposphere (Seinfeld and Pandis, 2006). However, the uncertainty
in the contribution of secondary particles to global CCN abundance is very
high, with recent estimates ranging from 5 % (Wang and Penner, 2009) to
60 % (Yu and Luo, 2009). This uncertainty stems, at least in part, from
poorly constrained new particle formation (NPF) mechanisms in the free
troposphere. These mechanisms determine not only the nucleation rate (which
may only be of minor importance, Westervelt et al., 2014), but more
importantly the spatiotemporal distribution of freshly nucleated particles,
which directly affects the number and distribution of secondary CCN (e.g.
Merikanto et al., 2009). Measurements of the spatio-temporal distribution
of nucleation mode aerosol in the atmosphere can be used to infer the
contribution of different NPF mechanisms and condensable vapours to formation
and growth of these particles (Yu et al., 2010; Kazil et al., 2010) .
Understanding how much gas-phase species from anthropogenic origins
contribute to these processes in comparison to species that have natural
origins and may have been present in the pre-industrial era will enable us
to better constrain aerosol–cloud interactions in the pre-industrial
atmosphere (Carslaw et al., 2017). Measuring newly formed particles and
their growth in pristine areas of today's atmosphere can help us understand
the contribution of these processes to the Earth's pre-industrial radiation
budget, and therefore improve our estimates of aerosol radiative forcing.</p>
      <p id="d1e207">Since new particles form at initial diameters around 1 nm (Kulmala et al.,
2000) they must undergo significant growth to become CCN, increasing their
diameter by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 times and their mass by 5 orders of
magnitude. The likelihood that a particle will be lost by coagulation with
larger particles on this journey is high, especially given the high
diffusivity of such small particles. Pre-existing larger particles both
compete with NPF for condensable vapours, and remove newly formed particles
via coagulation. Therefore, the location where nucleation takes place,
relative to other sources of particulate matter, and the removal and growth
processes they are subjected to, play a large role in the overall importance
of secondary aerosols to CCN abundance and the Earth's radiation budget. It
is thus important to measure the distributions of nucleation
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 nm diameter) and Aitken (10–60 nm diameter) mode particles to identify
regions of NPF and track the process of growth to CCN sizes that they must
undergo in order to affect the Earth's radiation budget. A primary
measurement is the distribution of particle number concentration as a
function of diameter – the particle size distribution. From this
measurement, the aerosol surface area and volume concentrations can be
calculated, and cloud-nucleating activity can be estimated.</p>
      <p id="d1e224">We are measuring the global distributions of aerosols on the Atmospheric
Tomography (ATom) mission (<uri>https://espo.nasa.gov/missions/atom/</uri>). ATom is designed to survey the
composition of the troposphere over the remote Pacific and Atlantic oceans
from the Arctic to the Antarctic. This is accomplished by flying the NASA
DC-8 research aircraft equipped with a comprehensive suite of gas-phase and
aerosol instruments while making nearly continuous profiles of the
troposphere from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.15 to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 12 km in altitude.
ATom is composed of four sets of flights flown in July–August 2016,
January–February 2017, September–October 2017, and April–May 2018. Each set
of flights ranges from California to Alaska to New Zealand, across the
Southern Ocean to southern Chile, northward through the central Atlantic to
Greenland, and across the Arctic to Alaska and then California.</p>
      <p id="d1e245">One of the goals of ATom is to map the spatial distribution of newly formed
particles, as well as those large enough to act as CCN. These measurements
are being used to constrain NPF mechanisms used in global chemistry-climate
models, and to evaluate loss and growth mechanisms that influence the
abundance and spatial distribution of cloud-active particles. These tasks
require accurate and precise measurements of the aerosol size distribution
spanning 3–1000 nm in diameter, which in turn require a coordinated and
inter-calibrated set of in situ instruments onboard the aircraft. In this
paper, we describe the operating principles, calibration, and laboratory and
in-flight performance of the NMASS instruments used to measure the size
distributions of the nucleation and Aitken modes during ATom. The optical
particle counters used to measure the accumulation-mode aerosol size
distribution are described in detail by Kupc et al. (2018). The inlet,
sampling system, altitude-dependent corrections for diffusional losses, and
methodology to combine the different instruments are described by Brock et
al. (2018), along with comparisons between
different instruments for measuring aerosol size distribution and abundance
during ATom.</p>
      <?pagebreak page3493?><p id="d1e248">Plumes and layers of nucleation and Aitken mode aerosol of vertical
thickness around 100 m have frequently been observed in the free troposphere
(Kupiszewski et al., 2013; Schröder et al., 2000; Petzold et al., 1999),
and yet questions remain about the ultimate fate of the associated particles
in the atmosphere, especially whether they grow and are transported to sizes
and locations, respectively, to have significant effects on the radiation
budget. Since modern, large research aircraft generally operate at airspeeds
above 100 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and descend at rates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
fast-response particle sizing and concentration measurements are needed to
optimize the study of these phenomena and variability in the background
atmosphere. Our instrument for measuring the nucleation and Aitken modes,
the nucleation mode aerosol size spectrometer, or NMASS, uses five condensation
particle counters (CPCs) operating at a fixed, reduced internal pressure to
provide fast response (1 Hz) size distribution measurements between 3 and 60 nm
over a range of ambient conditions. As far as we are aware, no other
extant instruments can continuously measure the size distribution of
particles over this size range at 1 Hz in a configuration suitable for
airborne use in highly inhomogeneous regions of the atmosphere. A
“DMA-train” composed of 6 differential mobility analyzers measures only
the aerosol fraction that is charged in an ionizer (Stolzenburg et al.,
2017), and is neither compact nor optimized for operation at reduced
pressures. The fast integrating mobility spectrometer (Wang et al., 2017)
measures on aircraft from 8 to 600 nm with 1s resolution, but also detects
only the charged fraction of the aerosol, limiting its sensitivity. Weber et
al. (2001) made airborne measurements using an optical particle counter as
the sensor for an ultra-fine CPC to determine the size of the grown droplets
and infer the size distribution of 3–10 nm particles that nucleated them.
Multistage electrical mobility instruments using electrometers as detectors
typically require very high concentrations of charged particles (on the
order of a few thousand particles per cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to achieve fast-response
detectability, limiting their application in atmospheric measurements.
Nano-scanning mobility particle spectrometers (SMPSs) typically take at least
30 s to measure a size distribution over this size range, over which time an
aircraft such as the NASA DC-8 will have travelled 3 km laterally and
possibly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.25 km vertically. It has been shown that an SMPS
performs well with scan times as low as 3 s (Trostl et al., 2015); however,
operation with these fast scans is challenging and uncommon, and the low
charging efficiencies for nucleation and Aitken mode particles limits the
sensitivity. Further, at reduced pressure, the sizing range of an SMPS may
be limited because particles have higher electrical mobility at a given
voltage setting. The NMASS instrument provides good sensitivity at fast time
response over a wide pressure range with the tradeoff of poorer size
resolution than an SMPS.</p>
      <p id="d1e301">While the NMASS instrument has been used on research aircraft since 1999, in
the stratosphere (Borrmann et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2003), and troposphere
(Brock et al., 2000; Schröder et al., 2000; Petzold et al., 1999), a
comprehensive description of the instrument and its uncertainties has not
been published. In the following sections, we describe the principle of
operation of the NMASS, laboratory studies describing its sensitivity to
particle number concentration, size, composition, and the numerical
inversion to produce a size distribution from the discrete CPC measurements.
Finally, we describe the operation of two NMASS instruments sampling in
parallel during the ATom mission, which together provide 10 channels of 1 Hz
size discrimination between 3 and 60 nm.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><caption><p id="d1e306">Schematic of the NMASS layout and flow system.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3491/2018/amt-11-3491-2018-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Instrument description</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>General concept</title>
      <p id="d1e326">The NMASS is comprised of five parallel CPCs operating at an internal pressure
of 120 hPa (Fig. 1). Each CPC detects particles
above a different minimum size, determined by the maximum vapour
supersaturation encountered by the particles. Operated in parallel, the CPCs
provide continuous concentrations of particles in five different cumulative
size classes between 3 and 60 nm. Knowing the response function of each CPC,
numerical inversion techniques can then be applied to recover a size
distribution from the continuous concentrations while taking into account
the non-ideal response function of each channel.</p>
      <p id="d1e329">Sample air enters the NMASS instrument through a pressure-reducing orifice
(Sect. 3.4). Sample pressure is maintained at using a pressure controller
upstream of a pump. Total flow through all five CPC modules is maintained at
a constant value by adjusting a bypass flow using a solenoid control valve.
With pressure and flow kept constant, the supersaturation in each CPC is
determined by the absolute temperature of the saturator and by the
difference in temperature between the saturator and the condenser. The five
CPCs are set to different minimum detection sizes by varying this
temperature difference while the saturator temperature of each unit is held
constant. The sizing limits are constrained by diffusion losses within the
instrument and practical limits to the degree of thermal control required
for nucleating large particles at relatively low supersaturations.</p>
      <p id="d1e332">The design of this instrument owes much to previous efforts to study and
improve the performance of CPCs. In<?pagebreak page3494?> particular Saros et al. (1996),
Wiedensohler et al. (1994), and Mcdermott et al. (1991) have demonstrated
that the supersaturation within a CPC can be effectively manipulated to
control its detection efficiency as a function of particle diameter (see
McMurry, 2000, for a history of CPC development). The differences in
detection efficiencies among different, individual CPCs have been used to
determine the concentrations of particles over one or two size ranges,
particularly to identify the presence of an ultrafine (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 nm) mode
(e.g. Clarke and Kapustin, 2002, Schröder et al., 2002, Heintzenberg
et al., 1999). These studies have not attempted to recover continuous size
distributions from the discrete CPC measurements. Gallar et al. (2006)
demonstrated that a size distribution could be recovered by inverting CPC
concentrations measured by stepping the supersaturation of a single CPC over
a large number of settings. CPC batteries have been examined by Kulmala et
al. (2007) from the standpoint of using the composition-dependent sizing of
different working fluids to understand the chemical composition of
atmospheric aerosols, but not as a tool for measuring aerosol size
distributions.</p>
      <p id="d1e342">The NMASS instrument operates the five embedded CPCs using a single integrated
data acquisition and control system, flow and temperature regulation systems
and power supplies, and an external pump and pressure controller. The
physical layout of the instrument is constrained by space and weight
limitations for the operation on stratospheric aircraft (it was designed for
use on the NASA ER-2 high-altitude research aircraft), the dissipation of
heat, the need to limit particle losses due to diffusion, minimization of
electronic noise, and accessibility to components for maintenance and
repair. Because the instrument was originally designed for autonomous
operation in wing-mounted aircraft pods, there is no integral display or
user interface. The instrument has a mass of 35 kg in flight-ready
configuration and requires an external 8 kg pump. Dimensions are
approximately 720 mm long by 360 mm wide by 390 mm high. The instrument
consumes <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 400 W of power, including pumps, and operates from 28 VDC
power (18–36 VDC range), which is usually abundant on research aircraft. The
two NMASS units used on ATom and described in this paper show no substantive
differences but will be referred to throughout the paper as NMASS 1 and
NMASS 2 (NM1 and NM2 in figures), to differentiate between them.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Design of CPC modules</title>
      <p id="d1e358">The Wilson et al. (1983) CPC designed for the NASA ER-2 and WB-57
high-altitude research aircraft provided the concept for confining the
aerosol to the centre streamline in the condenser and established a condenser
geometry that functioned at pressures from 400 to 40 hPa. These features
were incorporated in the NMASS CPCs which have been operated at pressures
from 60 to 120 hPa depending on the altitude range of the particular
aircraft.<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?></p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><caption><p id="d1e364">Schematic of a CPC unit of the NMASS. The sample flow is split
between aerosol flow and sheath flow. Aerosol flow is selected from the
centre of the sample flow stream and passed through a capillary to reduce
losses. Sheath flow is passed through a filter to remove particles, over a
warm Fluorinert bath to pick up the vapour and then into the condenser. In
the condenser, Fluorinert vapour in the sheath flow diffuses into the aerosol
flow and condenses onto particles, growing them to optically detectable
sizes. The grown particles then pass through the optics block, consisting of
a laser aligned with a lens, beam-block, and detector. The measured flow
across the capillary and the counts in the optical detector are used to
calculate the concentration of the particles. Dimensions are given in the
Supplement, Table S1.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3491/2018/amt-11-3491-2018-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e375">Kelvin diameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, or critical diameter, as a function of
difference in temperature between saturator and condenser, for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-butanol
(used in many commercial CPCs such as the TSI-3776, Hermann et al., 2007),
diethylene glycol (used in commercial and custom-built two-stage CPCs such as
the Airmodus Particle Size Magnifier, Vanhanen et al., 2011; Iida et al.,
2009) and Fluorinert FC-43 (used in the NMASS CPCs). The saturator
temperature is 34.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. For a given <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the slope of the curve
for FC-43 is less than for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-butanol or diethylene glycol. The measured
diameter of 50 % detection efficiency, d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, for an NMASS CPC is also
shown as a function of temperature, as discussed in Sect. 3.2. The NMASS CPC
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>s are larger than the theoretical Kelvin diameter for Fluorinert
because heat and mass transfer within the condenser limits the
supersaturation achieved to values less than the theoretical maximum. The
range of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>s shown here, around 40–60 nm, are on the steep part of
the diameter curve. This limits the largest <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that can be achieved
with the NMASS because, in this region, a small variation in temperature
difference causes a large variation in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, making the detection
efficiency unstable.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3491/2018/amt-11-3491-2018-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e484">In the NMASS, air enters a single inlet through a pressure-reducing orifice
and is then carried to each of the CPCs (Fig. 1). The flow entering each CPC
is split into two branches (Fig. 2). The first branch passes through a
filter (Model DIF-BK40, Headline Filters Ltd., Aylesford, UK) to remove
particles, and then through a saturator controlled at 39 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C where
vapour from a perfluorinated organic compound (perfluorotributylamine,
Fluorinert FC-43, 3M Specialty Chemicals, St. Paul, MN, USA) diffuses into
the airstream to reach the saturation vapour pressure. The ratio of
saturator to sample flow is constant in flight because total CPC flow and
pressure are held constant. The vapour-laden saturator flow is carried to a
vertical, cylindrical extension of the saturator, where the aerosol flow is
introduced from a capillary coaxially into the centre streamline. After a
short vertical section in which the Fluorinert vapour diffuses radially into
the central aerosol flow, the combined flows pass into a cylindrical
condenser maintained at a temperature below the saturator temperature. The
rapid temperature drop causes the vapour to become supersaturated and
nucleate into droplets onto the particles in the aerosol flow. The<?pagebreak page3495?> droplets
grow by condensation and are sensed by an optical detector. The count rate
of droplets can be converted into a particle concentration by dividing
through
the volumetric flow rate of the aerosol, which is determined from the
measured pressure drop in the capillary. Key dimensions of the NMASS are
given in the Supplement, Sect. S1.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Working fluid choice</title>
      <p id="d1e502">The most commonly used working fluid for CPCs is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-butanol. In the NMASS,
Fluorinert FC-43 is used instead of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-butanol for three primary reasons:
(1) it offers good thermodynamic characteristics, including a vapour pressure of
4.5 hPa at 39 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and low mass diffusivity; (2) it is not flammable,
toxic or odorous (although it has a high global warming potential, GWP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5000);
and (3) it is an extremely inert compound that is not
likely to interact chemically with atmospheric particles, minimizing sizing
biases that can occur with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-butanol (e.g. Weber et al., 1993; Hanson et
al., 2002). One positive aspect of Fluorinert's thermodynamic performance
is that it requires less precise thermal control than do other commonly used
CPC working fluids. Since the NMASS relies on differencing concentrations
from the CPCs to get a size distribution, a stable diameter response of each
CPC is important and requires precise thermal control. In
Fig. 3, we compare the temperature dependence of the
Kelvin diameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, or critical diameter, that refers to the
smallest particle size onto which a given working fluid will condense at a
given supersaturation (determined, for steady flow and pressure, by the
temperature difference between the saturator and condenser), for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-butanol,
diethylene glycol, and Fluorinert. For a given <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and temperature <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the slope
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext><mml:msup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is smaller for Fluorinert than for the common CPC working
fluids <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-butanol or diethylene glycol. The choice of Fluorinert thus reduces
sizing variations caused by uncontrolled fluctuations in temperature.
Details of these calculations are given in the Supplement,
Sect. S2.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <title>Thermodynamic control</title>
      <p id="d1e611">The supersaturation reached in the condenser of each CPC of the NMASS is a
function of the heat and mass transfer within the condenser, which depends
on pressure and flow rate as well as temperature. The dependence of the
maximum supersaturation on pressure is complex and difficult to model
(Stolzenburg and McMurry, 1991), especially since not all<?pagebreak page3496?> needed
thermodynamic properties of Fluorinert such as mass diffusivity in air are
known. Since the response of each CPC varies with ambient pressure, allowing
the instrument pressure to vary with altitude on aircraft campaigns would
require a large number of calibrations for the different pressure
conditions, and parameterizations to characterize how the instrument
response varies with pressure. To simplify calibration and avoid the related
uncertainties with this parameterization, the CPCs within the NMASS are
maintained at a constant internal pressure.</p>
      <p id="d1e614">As the internal pressure of the NMASS must be below ambient pressure at
all times, the choice of this pressure depends on the minimum anticipated
ambient pressure. Diffusional and inertial particle losses are enhanced at
low pressure, so it is desirable to use the highest practical instrument
pressure. The NMASS was originally designed for operation on stratospheric
research aircraft such as NASA's ER-2 and WB-57F; when operated in the
stratosphere an internal pressure of 60 hPa is used. For lower altitude
measurements, aboard tropospheric aircraft such as the NASA-DC8 and NOAA's
WP-3D, an internal pressure of 100 or 120 hPa has been used. Internal
pressure is maintained by sampling through a thin-plate orifice at the inlet
to the instrument and controlling the downstream pressure using a pressure
controller and external pump. The response of each CPC unit depends on the
flow rate as well as the pressure, so the volumetric flow rate through the
CPCs must be kept constant. As mass flow through the orifice changes
with ambient pressure, this requires an active flow control system. As the
aircraft ascends, flow through the orifice becomes insufficient for the CPCs,
so a larger orifice must be switched into its place. The NMASS is thus operated
with two different sized orifices, 500 and 750 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m, in the
troposphere and with yet a third orifice of 1200 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m in the
stratosphere. The desired orifice is selected using a Swagelok SS-44F6 ball
valve machined with a second channel perpendicular to the original channel.
An orifice is brazed into the exit of each of the channels. This is
illustrated in Fig. S1 in the Supplement. Rather than operating as an on/off
valve, after this modification when the valve is turned a different orifice
is selected. During ATom, the orifice switch occurs at 450 hPa on ascent and
400 hPa on descent (providing some hysteresis to prevent rapid switching in
the event the aircraft is flying level near the switching pressure). A valve
actuator (M-series, Hanbay Inc., Pointe-Claire, Québec, Canada) is used to
drive the orifice valve. We minimize particle losses through the pressure
reducing inlet with a design based on that of Lee et al. (1993). A Nafion
drier upstream of the NMASS instrument maintains RH to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 %,
eliminating the possibility of condensation in the pressure reducer.</p>
      <p id="d1e638">Total flow through the NMASS instrument is controlled automatically by
adjusting a proportional control valve (Model 248A, MKS Instruments Inc.,
Andover, Massachusetts, USA) that regulates flow through a bypass line, as
shown in Fig. 1. This flow circuit maintains a nearly constant volumetric
flow through the CPCs even as changes in upstream pressure alter the
volumetric flow downstream of the orifice. The flow through each CPC is
determined by the pressure drop across the filter in the saturator (see
Fig. 1) and the proportional control valve. The pressure drop across each
capillary is continuously measured during operation, as shown in Fig. 1.
Calibrations were done to relate these pressure drops to a volumetric flow,
and it is these flows that are then used to determine the concentration in
each channel from the number of particles counted.</p>
      <p id="d1e641">Determining a size distribution by differencing parallel instruments requires
precise control of the instrument response. At relatively low values of
supersaturation, small changes in temperature difference between the
saturator and condenser can produce large excursions in supersaturation, and
thus <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (see Fig. 3). The absolute temperature of each saturator is
monitored by two high-precision thermistors per channel and maintained by
resistive heaters. The power to the heaters is controlled by a custom
proportional feedback control circuit. The temperatures of the condensers are
maintained by thermoelectric (Peltier-type) coolers and governed by circuits
that control the difference in temperature between the saturator and the
condenser.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e658">Diagram of the calibration set up used to characterize the NMASS
counting efficiency as a function of particle diameter. The calibration
includes different aerosol types such as limonene, ammonium sulfate, and
dioctyl sebacate particles to test the instrument sensitivity to particle
composition.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3491/2018/amt-11-3491-2018-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e667">The counting efficiency of each NMASS channel as a function of diameter can
be varied by changing the temperature difference between the saturator and
condenser, but also varies with internal pressure. We chose to operate the
NMASS at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 120 hPa for the ATom mission. Condenser temperature
settings were chosen to space the five channels of each NMASS approximately
evenly within logarithmic space between 3 and 60 nm. The channels of the two
instruments were offset from each other, to provide 10 distinct diameter
cut-points, but also allow for nearly complete coverage of the nucleation
and Aitken modes should one instrument experience problems in flight.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <title>Optical detection and processing</title>
      <p id="d1e684">The Fluorinert droplets nucleated and grown in the condensers are detected
with 5 simple optical particle counters which use near-IR laser diodes as the
light source and a forward scattering geometry. The optics blocks and laser
diode electronics are modified versions of the Model 3760/3010 detector (TSI
Inc., St. Paul, MN, USA). The scattered light is detected with a photodiode.
Custom electronics correct for shifting of the baseline voltage from the
photodiode circuit as concentration increases. Analog pulses are converted to
TTL-level signals within a shielded enclosure, then routed to 32 bit
counter and timer circuits. Total counts in each channel are accumulated over a
time period determined by software (typically 1 s). The fraction of time in
each second in which particles are occupying the laser beam and the system
cannot process another particle (the dead time) is measured using five
additional 32 bit counters and timers. Corrections are made for dead time by
dividing the number of counts<?pagebreak page3497?> by the fraction of measurement time for which
the detector electronics are not busy processing. This correction allows
ambient concentrations up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of air per channel
to be accurately measured. Data acquisition and storage are controlled by a
PC/104-bus computer.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Calibration and laboratory performance</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Calibration methodology</title>
      <p id="d1e726">Laboratory studies were used to determine the counting efficiencies of each
NMASS channel as a function of particle diameter. Aerosols were produced with
three different methods: (1) limonene ozonolysis, (2) atomization of ammonium
sulfate, and (3) atomization of di-2-ethylhexyl (dioctyl) sebacate. These
methods produce particles of widely differing composition that can help
identify any composition-dependent sizing effects. The dependence of the
counting efficiency with size was studied by placing a Boltzmann steady-state
charge distribution on the generated particles with a Po-210 neutralizer and
passing them through a nano-DMA to select particles of a single electrical
mobility (Fig. 4). The fraction of doubly charged particles is small for
particles with diameters <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 nm. No neutralizer was included after the
nano-DMA, so the particles being detected by the NMASS and CPC were
negatively charged. The applicability of this calibration to atmospheric
particles, which are mostly neutral, may be affected by the use of charged
particles for the calibration. Stolzenburg and McMurry (1991) showed that
positively and negatively charged particles have very similar activation
diameters in a butanol CPC, while Winkler et al. (2008) and Kuang et
al. (2012) found butanol, diethylene-glycol, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-propanol CPCs to have
higher sensitivity to charged particles than neutral particles only at small
sizes (diameters less than 4 nm). Therefore, we assume that the effective
difference between the performance of the NMASS CPC for charged and neutral
particles will be small, and mostly limited to the smallest particle
diameters (Iida et al., 2009). The effect of composition on counting
efficiency is evaluated by comparing response curves from a single channel
for the three different particle compositions.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e745">Counting efficiency of the two NMASSs in the settings used for the
ATom mission (downstream pressure at 120 hPa, saturator temperatures of both
instruments are set to 39 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, condenser temperatures of NMASS 1 are
2.6, 16.2, 21.4, 26.2, and 29.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and condenser temperatures of
NMASS 2 are 12.2, 13.6, 20.4, 27.2, and 30.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C). The calibration
(symbols) is done using particles generated by ozonolysis of limonene, and
NMASS concentrations are compared to a TSI 3025 or 3776 CPC, with the CPC
concentration corrected for its own counting efficiency at each diameter.
Lines represent fitted logistic functions to guide the eye.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3491/2018/amt-11-3491-2018-f05.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e781">We used a nano-DMA column (Model 3085, TSI Inc., St. Paul, MN, USA) in a
custom-built DMA system with non-recirculating sheath flow. By varying the
sheath flow between 3 and 16 L min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and adding dilution flow between
0 and 3.2 L min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, we were able to size select particles from 2 to
80 nm whilst keeping the ratio of aerosol flow to sheath flow in the column
at 1 : 10. To select particles with diameters <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 nm, a longer
custom-built DMA column was used in a DMA system with recirculating sheath
flow. Dilution flow was again used to keep the ratio of aerosol to sheath
flow at 1 : 10. We calculated the uncertainty on the diameter of particles
selected by the DMA by propagating uncertainties in voltage, pressure, flow
and DMA dimensions (see Sect. S4) using a root-mean-squared method. The
overall diameter uncertainty was dominated by the width of the distribution
selected by the DMA and so the full-width-half-maximum of this is reported as
the total uncertainty on the particle diameter. We did not account for
diffusional broadening of the DMA transfer function.</p>
      <p id="d1e815">Two <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-butanol-based nano-CPCs (a Model 3776 and Model 3025A, TSI Inc., St.
Paul, MN, USA) were used as reference CPCs. Each of these instruments has a
size-dependent response function, which was taken into account in the
analysis. For the 3025A CPC, we used the Stolzenburg<?pagebreak page3498?> and McMurry (1991)
calibration, taking the Kangasluoma et al. (2014) calibration with limonene
ozonolysis products into account in the uncertainties. For the 3776 CPC, we
used the Hermann et al. (2007) calibration with silver particles, taking into
account calibrations with sodium chloride from the same paper and
calibrations with sucrose and silver from Mordas et al. (2008) in the
uncertainties. These calibrations and uncertainties were applied to all
diameters <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 nm for 3025A and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7 nm for the 3776. At larger sizes
the reference CPCs count particles with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 % efficiency. To
avoid the influence of differential diffusion losses between the reference
TSI 3025A CPC and the NMASSs, the lengths of the sampling lines going to the
CPC and the NMASS were made proportional to the flow rate passing through
them.</p>
      <p id="d1e847">The efficiency of each NMASS CPC is taken as the ratio of the standard
temperature and pressure (STP, taken as 273.16 K and 1013 hPa)
concentration measured in the NMASS to that measured in the reference CPC.
The concentration of the NMASS and reference CPCs is calculated as the number
of pulses counted by the instrument per unit of time divided by the flow
rate, corrected for dead time. This concentration is corrected for pressure
and temperature to get the STP concentration. The uncertainty in the NMASS
downstream pressure at 120 hPa is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.5 hPa, and the CPC internal
pressure uncertainty is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 hPa. The flow calibrations of the NMASS CPCs
have an uncertainty of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 %, while the reference CPC flow
uncertainties are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 %. The uncertainty on the count rate is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>√</mml:mo><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the number of counts in the averaged interval (1 s time
intervals are used for this calibration), for both NMASSs and CPCs. The
temperature correction is small enough for uncertainties on it to be
neglected. The total uncertainty on the NMASS efficiency is then the sum of
the flow, pressure and counting uncertainties in quadrature.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e899">Condenser temperatures, 50 % cut-off diameters
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), as well as 50, 10, and 90 % counting efficiencies from
the limonene ozonolysis calibration of the NMASS for a saturator temperature
of 39.0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Instrument</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Channel</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">condenser</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">90</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (nm)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.19 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.43 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.46 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.22</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">16.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6.90 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.35</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">5.64 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.28</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">8.89 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.45</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">21.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">13.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">16.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">26.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">26.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">23.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">32.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3.3</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">29.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">59.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">42.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">85.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 9.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">12.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4.83 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.31</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4.44 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.23</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5.56 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.44</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">13.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.88 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">5.23 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.52</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">7.12 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.67</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">20.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">9.26 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.83</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">11.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">27.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">20.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">18.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">23.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.3</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">30.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">37.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">33.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">40.9 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5.3</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1457">Counting efficiency of NMASS 1 against particle diameter for
diameters between 65 and 650 nm using atomized ammonium sulfate particles.
The decay of counting efficiency with particle diameter at diameters above
150 nm is mainly caused by particle impaction on the orifice at the
instrument inlet. At particle diameters above 70 nm, all 5 channels (shown
by the different colours and symbols in the legend) have the same counting
efficiency. Particle counting efficiency is 100 % at 109 nm and drops to
50 % at 546 nm. At diameters <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 70 nm, the roll-off in detection
efficiency of CPC5 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">59.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6.5 nm) is already evident.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3491/2018/amt-11-3491-2018-f06.pdf"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Sensitivity to particle size</title>
      <p id="d1e1505">The counting efficiency for each channel as a function of diameter for
particles produced from limonene ozonolysis for the settings used during ATom
are shown in Fig. 5. Fits to the response curves are included to guide the
eye. Condenser temperatures and diameters at which each channel detects 10,
50, and 90 % of the particles are given in Table 1. For particles
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 150 nm, the counting efficiency begins to drop off with increasing
particle size due to impaction losses in the pressure reducer. We
characterized these losses using size selected ammonium sulfate particles
(Fig. 6). Ammonium sulfate was used for this calibration since it was not
possible to generate enough limonene ozonolysis particles of large<?pagebreak page3499?> enough
diameter, and, as discussed in Sect. 3.3 the NMASS seems to be insensitive to
particle composition. The loss of these particles is likely to be dependent
upon pressure upstream of the orifice (Lee et al., 1993). As the NMASS
instrument is always paired with an optical particle counter to explicitly
measure the accumulation mode, these impaction losses have no practical
effect on the final size distribution produced by combining the instruments
(Brock et al., 2018).</p>
      <p id="d1e1515">The repeatability of each CPC's response function is limited by temperature,
pressure and flow control. The variation in 50 % detection efficiency
diameter with respect to temperature difference between saturator and
condenser is shown in Fig. 3. The saturator temperature was held constant at
34.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, while the condenser temperature was varied between 26.0 and
27.9  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C.</p>
      <p id="d1e1536">The gradient of the Kelvin curve is a determining factor in the NMASS
detection efficiency stability. If the curve is too<?pagebreak page3500?> steep, any small thermal
instability will cause a large variation in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. It can be seen in
Fig.3 that the theoretical Kelvin curve for Fluorinert FC-43 becomes very
steep at around 60 nm; therefore, we avoid setting any <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> above 60 nm in
the interest of stability. The flow, pressure and temperature stability
achieved in the NMASS are discussed in Sects. 3.4 and 3.5. Sizing is less
accurate and precise the lower the supersaturation achieved in the CPC
(corresponding to larger particles), as is seen in Fig. 5.</p>
      <p id="d1e1561">For a given temperature difference between saturator and condenser, the
measured <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Fig. 3 is larger than the theoretical Kelvin diameter
(Baron and Willeke, 2001). The Kelvin diameter is the minimum diameter at
which it is possible for particles to nucleate, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
diameter at which 50 % of particles are actually detected in the
instrument. The discrepancy between the theoretical Kelvin diameter and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Fig. 3 is likely because the NMASS saturator does not reach the
maximum theoretical supersaturation. Because we lack information on the mass
and thermal diffusivities of FC-43, we cannot simulate the coupled heat and
mass transfer within the condenser to explore this difference. However, as
long as the degree of saturation is constant (which it is expected to be
as pressure, flow and temperature are constant), the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of each
NMASS channel should also be constant.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Sensitivity to composition</title>
      <p id="d1e1614">Sensitivity of the NMASS to the composition of the aerosol sample was tested
by calibrating with ammonium sulfate and dioctyl sebacate particles
generated using an atomizer, and comparing this to the calibration with
limonene ozonolysis particles. These three compositions were chosen because
they can be produced using a flow tube reactor or an atomizer, and represent
a range of different particle compositions similar to those found in the
atmosphere. Limonene ozonolysis products represent particles nucleated and
grown with low volatility organic compounds, dioctyl sebacate particles are
liquid organic droplets, and ammonium sulfate is representative of aged
atmospheric sulfate particles fully neutralized by ammonia. Calibrations
with these different compositions show no statistically significant variation
between counting efficiency curves (Fig. 7). Note that sensitivity to
composition was only done for particles <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 nm in diameter, as it was
not possible to produce smaller atomized particles of ammonium sulfate and
dioctyl sebacate.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <title>Stability with respect to thermal drift</title>
      <p id="d1e1630">At the highest diameter settings (lowest condenser to saturator temperature
difference), the supersaturation is at its lowest and thus more
sensitive to any fluctuations in flow and temperature. In each of the NMASS
instruments the highest diameter channel exhibits small fluctuations in
cut-off diameter, most likely due to non-uniformities in supersaturation
through the condenser block and being on the steepest part of the Kelvin
curve here (see Fig. 3). NMASS 2 channel 5 shows the largest drift in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, as illustrated in Fig. 8, which shows calibrations from three
different days for this channel. The value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> varies from 36 to
39 nm, a shift of 8 %. Other channels exhibit stability within 5 %.
The effect of these fluctuations in sizing performance on the accuracy of the
size distributions recovered from the NMASS measurements is evaluated using
Monte Carlo simulations as discussed in Sect. 4.2.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1657">Counting efficiency of NMASS 1 as a function of particle diameter
for particles of different chemical composition: limonene ozonolysis products
(diamonds), atomized ammonium sulfate (stars), and dioctyl sebacate
(circles). Only three channels are shown here because it was not possible to
produce atomized particles small enough for the two channels with the
smallest cut-off sizes by atomizing ammonium sulfate or dioctyl sebacate.
Counting efficiencies fall with decreasing particle diameter as particles
become smaller than the Kelvin activation diameter of each channel. There is
no statistically significant sensitivity of counting efficiency to particle
composition.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3491/2018/amt-11-3491-2018-f07.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1668">Calibrations of NMASS 2 channel 5 in detail. Calibrations on three
separate days are shown with fitted logistic functions to guide the eye. This
shows instabilities in the supersaturation of the condenser of this channel,
with the 50 % diameter varying between 36.5 and 39.1 nm. The black
dotted line shows the fit to all data, which is used for inverting the NMASS
data.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3491/2018/amt-11-3491-2018-f08.pdf"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Numerical inversion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <title>Methodology</title>
      <p id="d1e1689">Each of the NMASS channels, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, records a single concentration value
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M115" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∞</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>p</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>p</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>p</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>p</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the particle size distribution function, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>p</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the response function of channel <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to a particle of
size <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>p</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The inverse problem is to solve for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>p</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> given
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>p</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> known within experimentally determined uncertainty, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measured with known uncertainty. We use channels from both NMASSs in
a single inversion and the calibrations ensure no large systematic
differences between the two instruments. We use a version of the smoothed
Twomey algorithm (Markowski, 1987) to generate a 20-bin per decade finite
difference representation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>p</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Because the equation set is
ill-posed, an infinity of possible <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>p</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> will produce a given set
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (e.g. Wolfenbarger and Seinfeld, 1990). The algorithm uses a
nonlinear technique to choose one smooth, non-negative solution that
minimizes the discrepancy between the predicted and actual instrument
response. Two adjustable parameters, a convergence criterion and a smoothing
parameter, are required for this inversion procedure. The values of these
parameters are determined using laboratory experiments with known aerosol
size distributions and then fixed for most applications. We use binomial
smoothing with two smoothing passes and a convergence criterion of 0.1 %
(Marchand and Marmet, 1983). For the ATom project, the inversion was
calculated over a size range from 2.7 to 300 nm, constrained by the
concentration of particles with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>p</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">63</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm measured by an
ultra-high sensitivity aerosol size spectrometer (UHSAS), and combined with
the UHSAS and other instruments as described in Brock et al. (2018). The
concentration data from all three instruments (NMASS 1, NMASS 2, and the
UHSAS) are combined prior to inversion. Systematic uncertainties in
concentrations between channels of each instrument are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5 %, are
dominated by flow measurement uncertainties and counting statistics, and are
evaluated in Sect. 4.2. The pressure variation in the impaction losses in the
NMASS<?pagebreak page3501?> (Fig. 6) is not considered in the inversion because the UHSAS data
constrain the large end of the inversion, and because the final size
distribution is produced by combining the inverted NMASS data with the
explicitly measured UHSAS size distribution at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>p</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">67</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1955">Three-mode lognormal descriptions of representative aerosol
size distribution cases giving model number concentration
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, geometric mean diameter
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and geometric standard
deviation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Mean relative
bias <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eq. 3) and standard
deviation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eq. 2) from
size distributions recovered by 1000 Monte Carlo simulations of 10-channel
NMASS performance for parameters number (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> n), surface area (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s) and volume
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> v).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="16">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="11" colname="col11" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="12" colname="col12" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="13" colname="col13" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="14" colname="col14" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="15" colname="col15" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="16" colname="col16" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col4" align="center" colsep="1">Mode 1 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col5" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1">Mode 2 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col8" nameend="col10" align="center" colsep="1">Mode 3 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col11" nameend="col12" align="center" colsep="1">Number </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col13" nameend="col14" align="center" colsep="1">Surface area </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col15" nameend="col16" align="center">Volume </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">No.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mtext>n</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>n</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mtext>s</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>s</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mtext>v</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>v</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1700</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">800</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.055</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">NA<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">NA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.08</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.054</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.056</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.010</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.062</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4000</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.009</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.05</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">NA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">NA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.052</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.047</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.069</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">0.049</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.092</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1800</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.011</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2400</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.04</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">400</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.09</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">1.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.043</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.068</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.076</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.004</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.35</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.015</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">NA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">NA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.004</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.40</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">0.39</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.91</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">45</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">NA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">NA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.18</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.056</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.17</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">0.040</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.18</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1600</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.055</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">NA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">NA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">NA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">NA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.045</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.003</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.059</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.007</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.061</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1600</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.032</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">70</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">100</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">2.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.040</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">0.019</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.095</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">0.012</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.12</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15 000</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.0025</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">80</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.08</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">NA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">NA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">0.13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">0.072</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col15">0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col16">0.097</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e2040"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> NA: Not applicable</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <title>Error propagation</title>
      <?pagebreak page3502?><p id="d1e2766">Because of the nonlinear inversion, it is not possible to directly calculate
how uncertainties propagate from concentration and sizing errors through to
the final size distribution. Instead, we use a Monte Carlo technique to
calculate the range in variation of the number, surface area, and volume
concentrations for several representative size distributions characteristic
of the ATom project. To perform this analysis, eight size distributions that
represent a range of those encountered during the ATom flights were simulated
using a three-mode lognormal distribution (Table 2). These model
distributions were then used to calculate the expected instrument response;
that is, the concentrations that would have been measured by each channel of
the NMASS were calculated from the known response functions. These
concentrations were then each independently and randomly adjusted by a value
falling within the concentration uncertainty as represented by one standard
deviation of a Gaussian distribution. Further, the response functions of each
channel were similarly independently and randomly adjusted in diameter space
using the observed variation in each channel's response during calibration
(Table 1). The “perturbed” concentration measurements and response
functions were then inverted to recover <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>p</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> using the
Twomey–Markowski algorithm. The steps of random perturbation and inversion
were repeated 1000 times for each representative size distribution. The
inverted size distribution was compared to the “true” model size
distribution for each iteration (Supplement, Fig. S2). The relative standard
deviation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for integrated number, surface, and volume, and for
the peak diameter of the size distribution, was calculated as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M161" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mtext>mean</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mtext>true</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the Monte Carlo iteration up to a maximum of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is
the parameter of interest, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mtext>mean</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from all of the
inverted size distributions, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mtext>true</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the true value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from
the model input size distribution. Similarly, the mean relative bias <inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
was calculated as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M170" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mtext>mean</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mtext>true</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mtext>true</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2981">Set-up for checking the NMASS inversion against an SMPS. Atomized
ammonium sulfate is dried and passed to a DMA, which selects a narrow range
of particle sizes. A <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in. tube is used after the DMA to ensure the sample
flow is well mixed (the Reynolds number of the flow, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">Re</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
before splitting it between an SMPS (composed of a nano-DMA coupled with a
CPC) and the two NMASSs. The length of tubing to the SMPS and NMASS systems
are proportional to the flow through them to ensure the sample experiences
the same diffusion losses before being measured. An external pump is used
behind the CPC to handle the low upstream pressure caused by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in. tubing
after the first DMA.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3491/2018/amt-11-3491-2018-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3026">Values of these statistics for the eight test size distributions are given in
Table 2. The mean magnitudes of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the integrated number, surface
area, and volume were <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 % for seven of the eight size distributions. The
seventh size distribution (Case no. 4), which featured a very low number
concentration (23 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with a modal diameter of 4 nm, near the bottom
of the NMASS detection range, had a bias of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>39 % for volume. The
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values, representing variability in the number, surface, and
volume from the replicates of the inverted size distributions, were
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 18 % except for the same size distribution, which had <inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
values of 24, 40, and 91 % for number, surface area, and volume,
respectively. Note that the<?pagebreak page3503?> biases and variability of the solution for Case
no. 8, which features a very small nucleation number mode (2.5 nm) but a
very high number concentration (15 000 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, representing a more
typical case of very recent new particle formation) does not exhibit the
variability and biases of Case no. 4. Thus, for most size distributions
encountered in ATom, the uncertainties in integrated number, surface area,
and volume generally can be considered to be <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>20 %. However,
uncertainties may be larger in cases where concentrations are low and modal
diameters are at the extremes of the NMASS response.</p>
      <p id="d1e3118">Note that, for particles with diameters lying between the response curves of
the first channels of each NMASS instrument (i.e. between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.5 and
6 nm; Fig. 5), the inversion is essentially unconstrained. A concentration
difference between these two channels could be attributed to large
concentrations of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.5 nm particles detected with low efficiency, or
a smaller concentration of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5 nm particles detected with high
efficiency. The number of particles assigned to this size range by the
inversion is largely determined by the smoothing parameter, which averages
adjacent inverted size bins to produce a smoothly varying size distribution.
This ambiguity is evident in the consistently overpredicted concentrations
for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>p</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm seen in the inverted size distributions (Fig. S2).
Thus, the NMASS is not well suited for investigating the detailed dynamics of
new particle formation and growth. An instrument with much greater size
resolution, such as a nano-scanning mobility particle sizer (nano-SMPS),
making repeated measurements of the time-varying evolution of the particle
size distribution is needed for such studies. Such measurements of course are
not possible on the rapidly moving ATom DC-8 airborne platform, which instead
seeks to map the variation of particle characteristics in geophysical and
thermodynamic space and use this information to evaluate the plausibility of
various new particle formation mechanisms.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e3160">Comparison of SMPS and NMASS inversions for size distributions
produced by atomized ammonium sulfate particles size selected by a DMA:
panel <bold>(a)</bold> shows a narrow 20 nm particle size distribution;
panel <bold>(b)</bold> shows a narrow 32 nm particle size distribution. Four different
NMASS inversions are shown, using different known calibrations of NMASS 2 channel 5
(all other channel calibrations constant), to understand the effect of this
instability (discussed in Sect. 3.5) on the 32 nm inversion.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3491/2018/amt-11-3491-2018-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <title>Comparison to SMPS</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <title>Method</title>
      <p id="d1e3188">The system of two NMASSs was compared with an SMPS, the standard technique
for ground-based measurements of nucleation-mode particle size distributions.
Aerosols were generated by atomizing ammonium sulfate and dried with a
silica gel diffusion drier before entering a custom-built DMA with
recirculating sheath flow. The DMA was used to select a narrow size range of
particles, and then the sample flow was split between the two NMASSs and an
SMPS as shown in Fig. 9. The SMPS is made up of a TSI 3085 nano-DMA column
and a TSI 3022A CPC. A short section of tube with an inner diameter of
1.59 mm is used after the first DMA to generate turbulence and ensure the
sample flow is well mixed before it is split between the instruments. As
the internal pump of the CPC is unable to keep stable flow at
0.3 L min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, given the pressure drop in this mixing tube, an additional
external pump is used, with a valve to set the CPC flow to
0.3 L min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <?pagebreak page3504?><p id="d1e3215">The first DMA was used to select particles of a given size, which were then
sent to the NMASS and SMPS. The SMPS scanned for 10 min between 4 and
200 nm, and the average NMASS concentrations were calculated over this time.
Concentrations from the SMPS and NMASS were inverted using the
Twomey–Markowski method described in Sect. 4.1. DMA performance and the
suitability of this method for inverting the SMPS data are discussed in the
Supplement.<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?></p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e3221">Flows, temperatures, and pressures measured by both NMASSs over the
total course of an ATom flight. Ambient pressure is shown in grey, coloured
lines in panel <bold>(b)</bold> are the temperature difference between condenser and
saturator in each of the CPCs. Panel <bold>(a)</bold> shows the total NMASS flow
(green) and instrument pressure (dark grey). Solid lines are used for NMASS 2, dashed lines for NMASS 1. Ambient pressures at which the orifice is
changed are shown by the black horizontal lines. This occurs at 400 hPa on
ascent (solid line) and 450 hPa on descent (dashed line). The spikes in
instrument pressure and total flow are a response to the orifice change. At
inlet pressures <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 960 hPa, NMASS-1 total flows could not be maintained
with acceptable limits in ATom-1 and ATom-2; this has been fixed for
subsequent deployments.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3491/2018/amt-11-3491-2018-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <title>Results and discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e3249">Comparisons of inverted size distributions from the SMPS and NMASS
instruments are shown in Fig. 10, with a 20 nm peak selected by the DMA in
the upper panel, and 32 nm in the lower panel. For the 20 nm peak, the SMPS
peak appears at 19.9 nm and the NMASS peak at 21.2 nm, indicating a 6 %
discrepancy. The largest uncertainties on the SMPS sizing come from the
voltage and the time lag correction, which at 20 nm gives a total sizing
uncertainty of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.4 nm. The peak of the SMPS and NMASS therefore agree
within this uncertainty. The NMASS peak is broader than that of the SMPS
because of the intrinsic resolution of only 10 size bins between 3 and 60 nm
for the NMASS compared to the high resolution of the SMPS. Smoothing within
the NMASS inversion algorithm further broadens the measured size
distributions. Such smoothing is appropriate for atmospheric sampling, where
geometric standard deviations <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.4 are typical. The integrated total
number concentration is 1364 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> from the NMASS and 1213 from the
SMPS, a discrepancy of 11 %. For the 32 nm peak, the larger
uncertainties in NMASS 2 channel 5 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">40</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm), become apparent. The
standard NMASS calibration places the peak of the distribution at 33.7 nm
and the SMPS places it at 32.9 nm. SMPS uncertainties in diameter at 32 are
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.4 nm, so this agrees within calculated uncertainty.</p>
      <p id="d1e3300">The effect of variation in sizing of NMASS 2 channel 5 is examined by
recalculating the inversion with the range of calibrations from multiple
days (Fig. 11). The resulting differences in the inverted size distribution
move the peak between 33.7 and 37.8 nm. We expect this additional diameter
uncertainty of about 12 % to show up between 27 and 60 nm, where the
measurement from NMASS 2 channel 5 plays a determining role in the particle
sizing.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page3505?><sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <title>Performance during flight</title>
      <p id="d1e3310">Two NMASS instruments have recently been flown on a NASA DC-8 in the boundary
layer and free troposphere on the ATom (Prather et al., 2017), repeatedly
profiling between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 200 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1000 hPa, while travelling between
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S in a wide range of
conditions. The NMASS instruments were operated at 120 hPa internal
pressure, in a flight rack in the pressurized fuselage of the plane. The
1 Hz time resolution, and the use of the orifice and flow control system to
maintain constant instrument pressure and flow, made it possible to sample
during the constant altitude changes and to measure small-scale features in
the aerosol spatial distribution while doing so.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1">
  <title>Instrument stability</title>
      <p id="d1e3365">The stability of the temperatures, flows, and pressures within the NMASSs is
critical to maintaining constant instrument response during flight. In
Fig. 11, we show key parameters for instrument stability: the CPC temperature
difference, total CPC flow and instrument pressure. The greatest temperature
instability is in NMASS 2 channel 5, where the temperature difference
fluctuates by 0.46 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. NMASS 2 channel 2 fluctuates by
0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C; all other channels fluctuate by less than 0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. When the
orifices changes at 400 hPa on ascent and 450 hPa on descent, both
instrument pressure and CPC flow are perturbed. This perturbation lasts for a
maximum of 20 s, and data taken during the perturbation are removed prior to
analysis.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e3397">Example data taken on the NASA DC-8 aircraft during ATom in February
2017. The top of panel <bold>(a)</bold> shows the STP number concentrations measured by
each channel of both NMASSs, as well as the total concentration of particles
from 63 to 1000 nm measured by the UHSAS, which is used to constrain the
inversion. The bottom of panel <bold>(a)</bold> shows the inverted size distribution.
Panels <bold>(b)</bold>, <bold>(c)</bold>, and <bold>(d)</bold> show an average of 1 min of data
(shown by the dashed vertical lines of the corresponding colours
in panel <bold>a</bold>) at the 3 times to show different example size distributions.
Recent new particle formation produced high concentrations of small particles
at 01:41, as indicated by the large difference in particle number
concentration between the NM1 CPC 1 and 2 in panel <bold>(a)</bold>, corresponding to a
mode diameter in the size distribution below 3 nm. At 01:50, most particles
are larger, as shown by the broad spacing of the middle diameter CPC
concentrations in the top panel, and the mode diameter around 8 nm in the
lower two panels. At 01:56 <bold>(d)</bold> all of the lower diameter channels
measure the same concentration, as seen in panel <bold>(a)</bold>, and the mode
diameter increases to around 40 nm in the size distribution. Gaps in the
data are where the aircraft flew through cloud, which can cause artefacts,
and so NMASS and UHSAS data are removed here.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3491/2018/amt-11-3491-2018-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3434">The pressure control system with two orifices, described in Sect. 2.4,
maintains a total volume flow rate of 122–144 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for
NMASS 2 and generally between 123 and 131 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for NMASS 1
over the ambient pressure range of 225–1100 hPa experienced in ATom
flights. On this deployment, the bypass valve in NMASS 1 was too small, so at
ambient pressures above 960 hPa, too much flow passed through the CPCs. Data
from these times are either discarded, or the uncertainties on the inverted
size distributions increased to reflect the additional uncertainty in
counting efficiency introduced by excess flow. The downstream pressures
occasionally experience fluctuations between 116 and 122 hPa with fast
changes in ambient pressure, but discounting these episodes, remains between
119.5 and 120.5 hPa.</p>
      <p id="d1e3479">For operation on ATom, the sample flow is passed through a large diameter
Nafion<sup>™</sup> dryer before entering the NMASSs.
This reduced the relative humidity to below 20 %. This ensures that
particles measured in the NMASS are classified consistently by dry diameter,
and avoids potential problems of particle losses associated with water vapour
condensation during flow expansion in the orifice or effects of water vapour
on the performance of the CPC working fluid.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page3506?><sec id="Ch1.S6.SS2">
  <title>Example data from the ATom mission</title>
      <p id="d1e3491">Example data from the NMASS measuring during ATom in February 2017 are shown
in Fig. 12. Concentrations of the 10 NMASS channels, along with the total
concentration of particles with diameter between 63 and 1000 nm measured by
an ultra-high sensitivity aerosol spectrometer (Kupc et al., 2018) and the
inverted size distribution are shown in Fig. 12a. From about 01:41 to 01:46
the large difference between the concentrations in channels 1 and 2 indicates
recent or active new particle formation, since particles between 3 and 7 nm
have a relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere and so must have been
formed recently. Channels 1 and 2 vary independently of channels 3, 4, and 5
between 01:41 and 01:45, indicating two distinct modes of particles present. As
concentrations in channels 1 and 2 become very similar after 01:48 and
concentrations in channels 1–4 become very similar after 01:58, this
indicates that most particles are now larger than 7 nm, and then larger than
28 nm.</p>
      <p id="d1e3494">Average size distributions for 1 min of data each are shown in Fig. 12b–d.
These illustrate recent new particle formation (panel b), more aged recently
formed particles (panel c) and older Aitken mode particles (panel d).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e3504">The stable, reproducible characteristics of the NMASS, demonstrated in this
paper, allow measurements of fast<?pagebreak page3507?> time-response, size-selected aerosol
concentrations in flight over rapidly changing ambient pressure from the
boundary layer to the stratosphere. For the ATom mission, two NMASS
instruments were modified and extensively calibrated and tested in the
laboratory with a range of particle sizes. The response function of each of
10 CPC channels was determined, and the repeatability of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
each channel was determined to be better than 5 % for all but one channel,
which had a repeatability of 8 %. An evaluation of the propagation of all
uncertainties for a range of size distributions shows that particle number,
surface area, and volume concentrations within the nucleation and Aitken
size range can be determined to better than 20 % for typical particle size
distributions. Performance may be worse for very low concentrations of
particles with modes at the extreme edges of the NMASS detection range. No
sensitivity in sizing performance to particle composition was found for
three diverse particle compositions.</p>
      <p id="d1e3518">Performance in flight shows that temperatures, pressures, and flows remain
within acceptable bounds except for pressures <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 960 hPa (an issue that
has been fixed prior to the third ATom deployment). Concentrations measured
by the two NMASS instruments flying in parallel are self-consistent and also
consistent with measurements made with a UHSAS instrument.</p>
      <p id="d1e3528">The two NMASS instruments flying on the ATom mission are providing a
high-quality, contiguous tropospheric dataset of nucleation- and Aitken-mode
size distributions with global coverage of the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean
basins and seasonal variation. These data will be used to evaluate the
dominant mechanisms of atmospheric new particle formation and the
contribution of nucleated particles to the global distribution of
cloud-active particles and, through model sensitivity studies, their
subsequent influence on radiative forcing.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability">

      <p id="d1e3535">Calibration, laboratory testing, and in-flight data are publicly available
at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center (Williamson et al.,
2018). Processed and quality-controlled data for the ATom mission are publicly available at the
ATom data archive:
<uri>https://doi.org/10.5067/Aircraft/ATom/TraceGas_Aerosol_Global_Distribution</uri> (ATom Science Team, 2017).</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e3541">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-3491-2018-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-3491-2018-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution">

      <p id="d1e3550">All authors contributed substantially to the work presented in this
paper. CB, JW, DG, and JMR designed, built, programmed, and tested the NMASS
instruments, which were then modified by CW and CB. CW and AK calibrated the
NMASSs and collected data during ATom-1 and ATom-2 missions. FE and RM made the
orifice changer system and other instrument parts. CW prepared the manuscript
with contributions from all authors.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p id="d1e3556">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer">

      <p id="d1e3562">This publication's contents do not necessarily represent the
official views of the respective granting agencies. The use or mention of
commercial products or services does not represent an endorsement by the
authors or by any agency.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e3569">The authors acknowledge support by NASA's Earth System Science Pathfinder
Program under award NNH15AB12I and by NOAA's Health of the Atmosphere and
Atmospheric Chemistry, Carbon Cycle, and Climate Programs. Agnieszka Kupc is
supported by the Austrian Science Fund FWF's Erwin Schrodinger Fellowship
J-3613. We would like to thank Bernadett Weinzierl, Maximilian Dollner,
T. Paul Bui, and Glenn S. Diskin for access to their preliminary data.
Jose Jimenez and Pedro Campuzano-Jost kindly loaned us a TSI 3776 CPC and
Paul Ziemann an electrometer. Finally, we would like to thank David Fahey,
Karl Froyd, Daniel Murphy, Steven Ciciora, and Daniel Law for insightful
discussions.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Edited by: Eric C.
Apel<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Reviewed by: three anonymous
referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>ATom Science Team: Moffett Field, CA, NASA Ames Earth Science Project Office
(ESPO),
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/Aircraft/ATom/TraceGas_Aerosol_Global_Distribution">https://doi.org/10.5067/Aircraft/ATom/TraceGas_Aerosol_
Global_Distribution</ext-link>,
2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Baron, P. A., and Willeke, K.: Aerosol measurement : principles, techniques,
and applications, 2nd edn., Wiley, New York, xxiii, 1131 pp., 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Borrmann, S., Kunkel, D., Weigel, R., Minikin, A., Deshler, T., Wilson, J.
C., Curtius, J., Volk, C. M., Homan, C. D., Ulanovsky, A., Ravegnani, F.,
Viciani, S., Shur, G. N., Belyaev, G. V., Law, K. S., and Cairo, F.: Aerosols
in the tropical and subtropical UT/LS: in-situ measurements of submicron
particle abundance and volatility, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5573–5592,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5573-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-5573-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Brock, C. A., Schröder, F., Karcher, B., Petzold, A., Busen, R., and
Fiebig, M.: Ultrafine particle size distributions measured in aircraft
exhaust plumes, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 105, 26555–26567,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jd900360" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000jd900360</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Brock, C. A., Williamson, C., Kupc, A., Froyd, K., Erdesz, F., Wagner, N.,
Richardson, M., Schwarz, J. P., Gao, R.-S., Katich, J., Compuzano-Jost, P.,
Nault, B., Schroder, J., Jimenez, J. L., Weinzierl, B., Dollner, M., Bui, T.,
and Murphy, D. M.: Aerosol size distribution measurements during the
Atmospheric Tomography (ATom) mission: Methods, uncertainties, and data
products, Atmos. Meas. Tech., in preparation, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Carslaw, K., Gordon, H., Hamilton, D., Johnson, J. S., Regayre, L. A.,
Yoshioka, M., and Pringle, K.: Aerosols in the Pre-industrial Atmosphere,
Curr. Clim. Change Rep., 2017, 1–15, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Clarke, A. D. and Kapustin, V. N.: A pacific aerosol survey. Part I: A decade
of data on particle production,<?pagebreak page3508?> transport, evolution, and mixing in the
troposphere, J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 363–382,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;0363:Apaspi&gt;2.0.Co;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;0363:Apaspi&gt;2.0.Co;2</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Gallar, C., Brock, C. A., Jimenez, J. L., and Simons, C.: A variable
supersaturation condensation particle sizer, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 40,
431–436, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820600643339" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786820600643339</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Hanson, D. R., Eisele, F. L., Ball, S. M., and McMurry, P. M.: Sizing small
sulfuric acid particles with an ultrafine particle condensation nucleus
counter, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 36, 554–559, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820252883793" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786820252883793</ext-link>,
2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Heintzenberg, J., Wiedensohler, A., and Kutz, S.: Modification of a
commercial condensation particle counter for boundary layer balloon-borne
aerosol studies, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 16, 597–601, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Hermann, M., Wehner, B., Bischof, O., Han, H. S., Krinke, T., Liu, W.,
Zerrath, A., and Wiedensohler, A.: Particle counting efficiencies of new TSI
condensation particle counters, J. Aerosol Sci, 38, 674–682, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Iida, K., Stolzenburg, M. R., and McMurry, P. H.: Effect of Working Fluid on
Sub-2 nm Particle Detection with a Laminar Flow Ultrafine Condensation
Particle Counter, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 43, 81–96,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820802488194" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786820802488194</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Kangasluoma, J., Kuang, C., Wimmer, D., Rissanen, M. P., Lehtipalo, K., Ehn,
M., Worsnop, D. R., Wang, J., Kulmala, M., and Petäjä, T.: Sub-3 nm
particle size and composition dependent response of a nano-CPC battery,
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 689–700, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-689-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-7-689-2014</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Kazil, J., Stier, P., Zhang, K., Quaas, J., Kinne, S., O'Donnell, D., Rast,
S., Esch, M., Ferrachat, S., Lohmann, U., and Feichter, J.: Aerosol
nucleation and its role for clouds and Earth's radiative forcing in the
aerosol-climate model ECHAM5-HAM, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10733–10752,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10733-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-10733-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Kuang, C. A., Chen, M. D., McMurry, P. H., and Wang, J.: Modification of
Laminar Flow Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counters for the Enhanced
Detection of 1 nm Condensation Nuclei, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 46, 309–315,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2011.626815" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786826.2011.626815</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Kulmala, M., Pirjola, L., and Makela, J. M.: Stable sulphate clusters as a
source of new atmospheric particles, Nature, 404, 66–69,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/35003550" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/35003550</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Kulmala, M., Vehkamaki, H., Petaja, T., Dal Maso, M., Lauri, A., Kerminen, V.
M., Birmili, W., and McMurry, P. H.: Formation and growth rates of ultrafine
atmospheric particles: a review of observations, J. Aerosol Sci., 35,
143–176, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2003.10.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jaerosci.2003.10.003</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Kulmala, M., Mordas, G., Petaja, T., Gronholm, T., Aalto, P. P., Vehkamaki,
H., Hienola, A. I., Herrmann, E., Sipila, M., Riipinen, I., Manninen, H. E.,
Hameri, K., Stratmann, F., Bilde, M., Winkler, P. M., Birmili, W., and
Wagner, P. E.: The condensation particle counter battery (CPCB): A new tool
to investigate the activation properties of nanoparticles, J. Aerosol Sci,
38, 289–304, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2006.11.008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jaerosci.2006.11.008</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Kupc, A., Williamson, C., Wagner, N. L., Richardson, M., and Brock, C. A.:
Modification, calibration, and performance of the Ultra-High Sensitivity
Aerosol Spectrometer for particle size distribution and volatility
measurements during the Atmospheric Tomography Mission (ATom) airborne
campaign, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 369–383,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-369-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-11-369-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Kupiszewski, P., Leck, C., Tjernström, M., Sjogren, S., Sedlar, J.,
Graus, M., Müller, M., Brooks, B., Swietlicki, E., Norris, S., and
Hansel, A.: Vertical profiling of aerosol particles and trace gases over the
central Arctic Ocean during summer, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 12405–12431,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-12405-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-12405-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Lee, J. K., Rubow, K. L., Pui, D. Y. H., and Liu, B. Y. H.: Design and
Performance Evaluation of a Pressure-Reducing Device for Aerosol Sampling
from High-Purity Gases, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 19, 215–226,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829308959631" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786829308959631</ext-link>, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, S. H., Reeves, J. M., Wilson, J. C., Hunton, D. E., Viggiano, A. A.,
Miller, T. M., Ballenthin, J. O., and Lait, L. R.: Particle formation by ion
nucleation in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, Science, 301,
1886–1889, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Marchand, P. and Marmet, L.: Binomial Smoothing Filter – a Way to Avoid Some
Pitfalls of Least-Squares Polynomial Smoothing, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 54,
1034–1041, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1137498" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1063/1.1137498</ext-link>, 1983.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Markowski, G. R.: Improving Twomey Algorithm for Inversion of Aerosol
Measurement Data, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 7, 127–141,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786828708959153" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786828708959153</ext-link>, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Mcdermott, W. T., Ockovic, R. C., and Stolzenburg, M. R.: Counting Efficiency
of an Improved 30-a Condensation Nucleus Counter, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 14,
278–287, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829108959490" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786829108959490</ext-link>, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>McMurry, P. H.: A review of atmospheric aerosol measurements, Atmos.
Environ., 34, 1959–1999, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00455-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00455-0</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Merikanto, J., Spracklen, D. V., Mann, G. W., Pickering, S. J., and Carslaw,
K. S.: Impact of nucleation on global CCN, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 8601–8616,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-8601-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-9-8601-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Mordas, G., Manninen, H. E., Petaja, T., Aalto, P. P., Hameri, K., and
Kulmala, M.: On operation of the ultra-fine water-based CPC TSI3786 and
comparison with other TSI models (TSI3776, TSI3772, TSI3025, TSI3010,
TSI3007), Aerosol Sci. Technol., 42, 152–158, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820701846252" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786820701846252</ext-link>,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Petzold, A., Dopelheuer, A., Brock, C. A., and Schröder, F.: In situ
observations and model calculations of black carbon emission by aircraft at
cruise altitude, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 104, 22171–22181,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999jd900460" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/1999jd900460</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Prather, M. J., Zhu, X., Flynn, C. M., Strode, S. A., Rodriguez, J. M.,
Steenrod, S. D., Liu, J., Lamarque, J.-F., Fiore, A. M., Horowitz, L. W.,
Mao, J., Murray, L. T., Shindell, D. T., and Wofsy, S. C.: Global atmospheric
chemistry – which air matters, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 9081–9102,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-9081-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-9081-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Ravishankara, A. R.: Heterogeneous and multiphase chemistry in the
troposphere, Science, 276, 1058–1065, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.276.5315.1058" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.276.5315.1058</ext-link>,
1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Saros, M. T., Weber, R. J., Marti, J. J., and McMurry, P. H.: Ultrafine
aerosol measurement using a condensation nucleus counter with pulse height
analysis, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 25, 200–213, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829608965391" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786829608965391</ext-link>,
1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page3509?><ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Schröder, F., Brock, C. A., Baumann, R., Petzold, A., Busen, R., Schulte,
P., and Fiebig, M.: In situ studies on volatile jet exhaust particle
emissions: Impact of fuel sulfur content and environmental conditions on
nuclei mode aerosols, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 105, 19941–19954,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jd900112" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000jd900112</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Schröder, F., Karcher, B., Fiebig, M., and Petzold, A.: Aerosol states in
the free troposphere at northern midlatitudes, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 107,
8126, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jd000194" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000jd000194</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Seinfeld, J. H. and Pandis, S. N.: Atmospheric chemistry and physics from air
pollution to climate change, 2nd edn., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 1203 pp., 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Solomon, S. and IPCC Working Group Science: Climate Change 2007 the physical
science basis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Online-Ressource,
available at:
<uri>https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm</uri>,
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Stolzenburg, D., Steiner, G., and Winkler, P. M.: A DMA-train for precision
measurement of sub-10 nm aerosol dynamics, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10,
1639–1651, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-1639-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-10-1639-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Stolzenburg, M. R. and McMurry, P. H.: An Ultrafine Aerosol Condensation
Nucleus Counter, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 14, 48–65,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829108959470" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786829108959470</ext-link>, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Trostl, J., Tritscher, T., Bischof, O. F., Horn, H. G., Krinke, T.,
Baltensperger, U., and Gysel, M.: Fast and precise measurement in the
sub-20 nm size range using a Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer, J. Aerosol
Sci, 87, 75–87, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2015.04.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jaerosci.2015.04.001</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Vanhanen, J., Mikkila, J., Lehtipalo, K., Sipila, M., Manninen, H. E.,
Siivola, E., Petaja, T., and Kulmala, M.: Particle Size Magnifier for Nano-CN
Detection, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 45, 533–542,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2010.547889" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786826.2010.547889</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Wang, J., Pikridas, M., Spielman, S. R., and Pinterish, T.: A fast integrated
mobility spectrometer for rapid measurement of sub-micrometer aerosol size
distribution, Part I: Design and model evaluation, J. Aerosol Sci., 108,
44–55, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.02.012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.02.012</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Wang, M. and Penner, J. E.: Aerosol indirect forcing in a global model with
particle nucleation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 239–260,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-239-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-9-239-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Weber, A., Willeke, K., Marchioni, R., Myojo, T., Mckay, R., Donnelly, J.,
and Liebhaber, F.: Aerosol Penetration and Leakage Characteristics of Masks
Used in the Health-Care Industry, Am. J. Infect Control, 21, 167–173,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-6553(93)90027-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0196-6553(93)90027-2</ext-link>, 1993. </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Weber, R. J., Chen, G., Davis, D. D., Mauldin, R. L., Tanner, D. J., Eisele,
F. L., Clarke, A. D., Thornton, D. C., and Bandy, A. R.: Measurements of
enhanced H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and 3-4 nm particles near a frontal cloud during the
First Aerosol Characterization Experiment (ACE 1), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
106, 24107–24117, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jd000109" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000jd000109</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Westervelt, D. M., Pierce, J. R., and Adams, P. J.: Analysis of feedbacks
between nucleation rate, survival probability and cloud condensation nuclei
formation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 5577–5597,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-5577-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-5577-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Wiedensohler, A., Aalto, P., Covert, D., Heintzenberg, J., and McMurry, P.
H.: Intercomparison of 4 Methods to Determine Size Distributions of
Low-Concentration (Similar-to-100 Cm-3), Ultrafine Aerosols
(3-Less-Than-D(P)Less-Than-10 Nm) with Illustrative Data from the Arctic,
Aerosol Sci. Technol., 21, 95–109, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829408959700" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786829408959700</ext-link>, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Williamson, C., Kupc, A., Wilson, J., Gesler, D. W., Reeves, J. M., Erdesz, F., McLaughlin, R., and Brock, C.:
ATom: Performance and Calibration of the Nucleation Mode Aerosol Size Spectrometer, ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, USA, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1607" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1607</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Wilson, J. C., Hyun, J. H., and Blackshear, E. D.: The Function and Response
of an Improved Stratospheric Condensation Nucleus Counter, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oc. Atm., 88, 6781–6785, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JC088iC11p06781" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/JC088iC11p06781</ext-link>, 1983.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Winkler, P. M., Steiner, G., Vrtala, A., Vehkamaki, H., Noppel, M., Lehtinen,
K. E. J., Reischl, G. P., Wagner, P. E., and Kulmala, M.: Heterogeneous
nucleation experiments bridging the scale from molecular ion clusters to
nanoparticles, Science, 319, 1374–1377, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1149034" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1149034</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Wolfenbarger, J. K. and Seinfeld, J.: Inversion of aerosol size distribution
data, J. Aerosol Sci, 21, 227–247, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Yu, F. and Luo, G.: Simulation of particle size distribution with a global
aerosol model: contribution of nucleation to aerosol and CCN number
concentrations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 7691–7710,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-7691-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-9-7691-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Yu, F. Q., Luo, G., Bates, T. S., Anderson, B., Clarke, A., Kapustin, V.,
Yantosca, R. M., Wang, Y. X., and Wu, S. L.: Spatial distributions of
particle number concentrations in the global troposphere: Simulations,
observations, and implications for nucleation mechanisms, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 115, D17205, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009jd013473" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009jd013473</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Fast time response measurements of particle size distributions in the 3–60&thinsp;nm size range with the nucleation mode aerosol size spectrometer</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Earth's radiation budget is affected by new particle
formation (NPF) and the growth of these nanometre-scale particles to larger
sizes where they can directly scatter light or act as cloud condensation
nuclei (CCN). Large uncertainties remain in the magnitude and spatiotemporal
distribution of nucleation (less than 10&thinsp;nm diameter) and Aitken (10–60&thinsp;nm
diameter) mode particles. Acquiring size-distribution measurements of these
particles over large regions of the free troposphere is most easily
accomplished with research aircraft.</p><p>We report on the design and performance of an airborne instrument, the
nucleation mode aerosol size spectrometer (NMASS), which provides
size-selected aerosol concentration measurements that can be differenced to
identify aerosol properties and processes or inverted to obtain a full size
distribution between 3 and 60&thinsp;nm. By maintaining constant downstream
pressure the instrument operates reliably over a large range of ambient
pressures and during rapid changes in altitude, making it ideal for aircraft
measurements from the boundary layer to the stratosphere.</p><p>We describe the modifications, operating principles, extensive calibrations,
and laboratory and in-flight performance of two NMASS instruments operated
in parallel as a 10-channel battery of condensation particle counters (CPCs)
in the NASA Atmospheric Tomography Mission (ATom) to investigate NPF and
growth to cloud-active sizes in the remote free troposphere. An inversion
technique to obtain size distributions from the discrete concentrations of
each NMASS channel is described and evaluated.</p><p>Concentrations measured by the two NMASS instruments flying in parallel are
self-consistent and also consistent with measurements made with an optical
particle counter. Extensive laboratory calibrations with a range of particle
sizes and compositions show repeatability of the response function of the
instrument to within 5–8&thinsp;% and no sensitivity in sizing performance to
particle composition. Particle number, surface area, and volume
concentrations from the data inversion are determined to better than 20&thinsp;%
for typical particle size distributions. The excellent performance of the
NMASS systems provides a strong analytical foundation to explore NPF around
the globe in the ATom dataset.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
ATom Science Team: Moffett Field, CA, NASA Ames Earth Science Project Office
(ESPO),
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5067/Aircraft/ATom/TraceGas_Aerosol_Global_Distribution" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5067/Aircraft/ATom/TraceGas_Aerosol_
Global_Distribution</a>,
2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Baron, P. A., and Willeke, K.: Aerosol measurement : principles, techniques,
and applications, 2nd edn., Wiley, New York, xxiii, 1131 pp., 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Borrmann, S., Kunkel, D., Weigel, R., Minikin, A., Deshler, T., Wilson, J.
C., Curtius, J., Volk, C. M., Homan, C. D., Ulanovsky, A., Ravegnani, F.,
Viciani, S., Shur, G. N., Belyaev, G. V., Law, K. S., and Cairo, F.: Aerosols
in the tropical and subtropical UT/LS: in-situ measurements of submicron
particle abundance and volatility, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5573–5592,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5573-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5573-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Brock, C. A., Schröder, F., Karcher, B., Petzold, A., Busen, R., and
Fiebig, M.: Ultrafine particle size distributions measured in aircraft
exhaust plumes, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 105, 26555–26567,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jd900360" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jd900360</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Brock, C. A., Williamson, C., Kupc, A., Froyd, K., Erdesz, F., Wagner, N.,
Richardson, M., Schwarz, J. P., Gao, R.-S., Katich, J., Compuzano-Jost, P.,
Nault, B., Schroder, J., Jimenez, J. L., Weinzierl, B., Dollner, M., Bui, T.,
and Murphy, D. M.: Aerosol size distribution measurements during the
Atmospheric Tomography (ATom) mission: Methods, uncertainties, and data
products, Atmos. Meas. Tech., in preparation, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Carslaw, K., Gordon, H., Hamilton, D., Johnson, J. S., Regayre, L. A.,
Yoshioka, M., and Pringle, K.: Aerosols in the Pre-industrial Atmosphere,
Curr. Clim. Change Rep., 2017, 1–15, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Clarke, A. D. and Kapustin, V. N.: A pacific aerosol survey. Part I: A decade
of data on particle production, transport, evolution, and mixing in the
troposphere, J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 363–382,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;0363:Apaspi&gt;2.0.Co;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;0363:Apaspi&gt;2.0.Co;2</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Gallar, C., Brock, C. A., Jimenez, J. L., and Simons, C.: A variable
supersaturation condensation particle sizer, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 40,
431–436, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820600643339" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820600643339</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Hanson, D. R., Eisele, F. L., Ball, S. M., and McMurry, P. M.: Sizing small
sulfuric acid particles with an ultrafine particle condensation nucleus
counter, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 36, 554–559, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820252883793" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820252883793</a>,
2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Heintzenberg, J., Wiedensohler, A., and Kutz, S.: Modification of a
commercial condensation particle counter for boundary layer balloon-borne
aerosol studies, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 16, 597–601, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Hermann, M., Wehner, B., Bischof, O., Han, H. S., Krinke, T., Liu, W.,
Zerrath, A., and Wiedensohler, A.: Particle counting efficiencies of new TSI
condensation particle counters, J. Aerosol Sci, 38, 674–682, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Iida, K., Stolzenburg, M. R., and McMurry, P. H.: Effect of Working Fluid on
Sub-2&thinsp;nm Particle Detection with a Laminar Flow Ultrafine Condensation
Particle Counter, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 43, 81–96,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820802488194" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820802488194</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Kangasluoma, J., Kuang, C., Wimmer, D., Rissanen, M. P., Lehtipalo, K., Ehn,
M., Worsnop, D. R., Wang, J., Kulmala, M., and Petäjä, T.: Sub-3 nm
particle size and composition dependent response of a nano-CPC battery,
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 689–700, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-689-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-689-2014</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Kazil, J., Stier, P., Zhang, K., Quaas, J., Kinne, S., O'Donnell, D., Rast,
S., Esch, M., Ferrachat, S., Lohmann, U., and Feichter, J.: Aerosol
nucleation and its role for clouds and Earth's radiative forcing in the
aerosol-climate model ECHAM5-HAM, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10733–10752,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10733-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10733-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Kuang, C. A., Chen, M. D., McMurry, P. H., and Wang, J.: Modification of
Laminar Flow Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counters for the Enhanced
Detection of 1&thinsp;nm Condensation Nuclei, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 46, 309–315,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2011.626815" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2011.626815</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Kulmala, M., Pirjola, L., and Makela, J. M.: Stable sulphate clusters as a
source of new atmospheric particles, Nature, 404, 66–69,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/35003550" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/35003550</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Kulmala, M., Vehkamaki, H., Petaja, T., Dal Maso, M., Lauri, A., Kerminen, V.
M., Birmili, W., and McMurry, P. H.: Formation and growth rates of ultrafine
atmospheric particles: a review of observations, J. Aerosol Sci., 35,
143–176, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2003.10.003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2003.10.003</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Kulmala, M., Mordas, G., Petaja, T., Gronholm, T., Aalto, P. P., Vehkamaki,
H., Hienola, A. I., Herrmann, E., Sipila, M., Riipinen, I., Manninen, H. E.,
Hameri, K., Stratmann, F., Bilde, M., Winkler, P. M., Birmili, W., and
Wagner, P. E.: The condensation particle counter battery (CPCB): A new tool
to investigate the activation properties of nanoparticles, J. Aerosol Sci,
38, 289–304, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2006.11.008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2006.11.008</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Kupc, A., Williamson, C., Wagner, N. L., Richardson, M., and Brock, C. A.:
Modification, calibration, and performance of the Ultra-High Sensitivity
Aerosol Spectrometer for particle size distribution and volatility
measurements during the Atmospheric Tomography Mission (ATom) airborne
campaign, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 369–383,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-369-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-369-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Kupiszewski, P., Leck, C., Tjernström, M., Sjogren, S., Sedlar, J.,
Graus, M., Müller, M., Brooks, B., Swietlicki, E., Norris, S., and
Hansel, A.: Vertical profiling of aerosol particles and trace gases over the
central Arctic Ocean during summer, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 12405–12431,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-12405-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-12405-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, J. K., Rubow, K. L., Pui, D. Y. H., and Liu, B. Y. H.: Design and
Performance Evaluation of a Pressure-Reducing Device for Aerosol Sampling
from High-Purity Gases, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 19, 215–226,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829308959631" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829308959631</a>, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, S. H., Reeves, J. M., Wilson, J. C., Hunton, D. E., Viggiano, A. A.,
Miller, T. M., Ballenthin, J. O., and Lait, L. R.: Particle formation by ion
nucleation in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, Science, 301,
1886–1889, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Marchand, P. and Marmet, L.: Binomial Smoothing Filter – a Way to Avoid Some
Pitfalls of Least-Squares Polynomial Smoothing, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 54,
1034–1041, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1137498" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1137498</a>, 1983.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Markowski, G. R.: Improving Twomey Algorithm for Inversion of Aerosol
Measurement Data, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 7, 127–141,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786828708959153" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786828708959153</a>, 1987.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Mcdermott, W. T., Ockovic, R. C., and Stolzenburg, M. R.: Counting Efficiency
of an Improved 30-a Condensation Nucleus Counter, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 14,
278–287, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829108959490" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829108959490</a>, 1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
McMurry, P. H.: A review of atmospheric aerosol measurements, Atmos.
Environ., 34, 1959–1999, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00455-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00455-0</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Merikanto, J., Spracklen, D. V., Mann, G. W., Pickering, S. J., and Carslaw,
K. S.: Impact of nucleation on global CCN, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 8601–8616,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-8601-2009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-8601-2009</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Mordas, G., Manninen, H. E., Petaja, T., Aalto, P. P., Hameri, K., and
Kulmala, M.: On operation of the ultra-fine water-based CPC TSI3786 and
comparison with other TSI models (TSI3776, TSI3772, TSI3025, TSI3010,
TSI3007), Aerosol Sci. Technol., 42, 152–158, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820701846252" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820701846252</a>,
2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Petzold, A., Dopelheuer, A., Brock, C. A., and Schröder, F.: In situ
observations and model calculations of black carbon emission by aircraft at
cruise altitude, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 104, 22171–22181,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999jd900460" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/1999jd900460</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Prather, M. J., Zhu, X., Flynn, C. M., Strode, S. A., Rodriguez, J. M.,
Steenrod, S. D., Liu, J., Lamarque, J.-F., Fiore, A. M., Horowitz, L. W.,
Mao, J., Murray, L. T., Shindell, D. T., and Wofsy, S. C.: Global atmospheric
chemistry – which air matters, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 9081–9102,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-9081-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-9081-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Ravishankara, A. R.: Heterogeneous and multiphase chemistry in the
troposphere, Science, 276, 1058–1065, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.276.5315.1058" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.276.5315.1058</a>,
1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Saros, M. T., Weber, R. J., Marti, J. J., and McMurry, P. H.: Ultrafine
aerosol measurement using a condensation nucleus counter with pulse height
analysis, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 25, 200–213, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829608965391" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829608965391</a>,
1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Schröder, F., Brock, C. A., Baumann, R., Petzold, A., Busen, R., Schulte,
P., and Fiebig, M.: In situ studies on volatile jet exhaust particle
emissions: Impact of fuel sulfur content and environmental conditions on
nuclei mode aerosols, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 105, 19941–19954,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jd900112" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jd900112</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Schröder, F., Karcher, B., Fiebig, M., and Petzold, A.: Aerosol states in
the free troposphere at northern midlatitudes, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 107,
8126, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jd000194" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jd000194</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Seinfeld, J. H. and Pandis, S. N.: Atmospheric chemistry and physics from air
pollution to climate change, 2nd edn., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 1203 pp., 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Solomon, S. and IPCC Working Group Science: Climate Change 2007 the physical
science basis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Online-Ressource,
available at:
<a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm</a>,
2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Stolzenburg, D., Steiner, G., and Winkler, P. M.: A DMA-train for precision
measurement of sub-10&thinsp;nm aerosol dynamics, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10,
1639–1651, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-1639-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-1639-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Stolzenburg, M. R. and McMurry, P. H.: An Ultrafine Aerosol Condensation
Nucleus Counter, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 14, 48–65,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829108959470" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829108959470</a>, 1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Trostl, J., Tritscher, T., Bischof, O. F., Horn, H. G., Krinke, T.,
Baltensperger, U., and Gysel, M.: Fast and precise measurement in the
sub-20&thinsp;nm size range using a Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer, J. Aerosol
Sci, 87, 75–87, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2015.04.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2015.04.001</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Vanhanen, J., Mikkila, J., Lehtipalo, K., Sipila, M., Manninen, H. E.,
Siivola, E., Petaja, T., and Kulmala, M.: Particle Size Magnifier for Nano-CN
Detection, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 45, 533–542,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2010.547889" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2010.547889</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, J., Pikridas, M., Spielman, S. R., and Pinterish, T.: A fast integrated
mobility spectrometer for rapid measurement of sub-micrometer aerosol size
distribution, Part I: Design and model evaluation, J. Aerosol Sci., 108,
44–55, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.02.012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.02.012</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, M. and Penner, J. E.: Aerosol indirect forcing in a global model with
particle nucleation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 239–260,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-239-2009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-239-2009</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Weber, A., Willeke, K., Marchioni, R., Myojo, T., Mckay, R., Donnelly, J.,
and Liebhaber, F.: Aerosol Penetration and Leakage Characteristics of Masks
Used in the Health-Care Industry, Am. J. Infect Control, 21, 167–173,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-6553(93)90027-2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-6553(93)90027-2</a>, 1993. 
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Weber, R. J., Chen, G., Davis, D. D., Mauldin, R. L., Tanner, D. J., Eisele,
F. L., Clarke, A. D., Thornton, D. C., and Bandy, A. R.: Measurements of
enhanced H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub> and 3-4&thinsp;nm particles near a frontal cloud during the
First Aerosol Characterization Experiment (ACE 1), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
106, 24107–24117, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jd000109" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jd000109</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Westervelt, D. M., Pierce, J. R., and Adams, P. J.: Analysis of feedbacks
between nucleation rate, survival probability and cloud condensation nuclei
formation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 5577–5597,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-5577-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-5577-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Wiedensohler, A., Aalto, P., Covert, D., Heintzenberg, J., and McMurry, P.
H.: Intercomparison of 4 Methods to Determine Size Distributions of
Low-Concentration (Similar-to-100&thinsp;Cm-3), Ultrafine Aerosols
(3-Less-Than-D(P)Less-Than-10&thinsp;Nm) with Illustrative Data from the Arctic,
Aerosol Sci. Technol., 21, 95–109, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829408959700" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829408959700</a>, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Williamson, C., Kupc, A., Wilson, J., Gesler, D. W., Reeves, J. M., Erdesz, F., McLaughlin, R., and Brock, C.:
ATom: Performance and Calibration of the Nucleation Mode Aerosol Size Spectrometer, ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, USA, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1607" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1607</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Wilson, J. C., Hyun, J. H., and Blackshear, E. D.: The Function and Response
of an Improved Stratospheric Condensation Nucleus Counter, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oc. Atm., 88, 6781–6785, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JC088iC11p06781" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/JC088iC11p06781</a>, 1983.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Winkler, P. M., Steiner, G., Vrtala, A., Vehkamaki, H., Noppel, M., Lehtinen,
K. E. J., Reischl, G. P., Wagner, P. E., and Kulmala, M.: Heterogeneous
nucleation experiments bridging the scale from molecular ion clusters to
nanoparticles, Science, 319, 1374–1377, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1149034" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1149034</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Wolfenbarger, J. K. and Seinfeld, J.: Inversion of aerosol size distribution
data, J. Aerosol Sci, 21, 227–247, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Yu, F. and Luo, G.: Simulation of particle size distribution with a global
aerosol model: contribution of nucleation to aerosol and CCN number
concentrations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 7691–7710,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-7691-2009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-7691-2009</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Yu, F. Q., Luo, G., Bates, T. S., Anderson, B., Clarke, A., Kapustin, V.,
Yantosca, R. M., Wang, Y. X., and Wu, S. L.: Spatial distributions of
particle number concentrations in the global troposphere: Simulations,
observations, and implications for nucleation mechanisms, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 115, D17205, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009jd013473" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009jd013473</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
