<?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-12-1659-2019</article-id><title-group><article-title>Ultrasonic nebulization for the elemental analysis of microgram-level samples with offline aerosol mass spectrometry</article-title><alt-title>Small-volume nebulizer</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Small-volume nebulizer}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{R.~E.~O'Brien et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>O'Brien</surname><given-names>Rachel E.</given-names></name>
          <email>reobrien@wm.edu</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Ridley</surname><given-names>Kelsey J.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Canagaratna</surname><given-names>Manjula R.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Jayne</surname><given-names>John T.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Croteau</surname><given-names>Philip L.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Worsnop</surname><given-names>Douglas R.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4 aff7">
          <name><surname>Budisulistiorini</surname><given-names>Sri Hapsari</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5715-9157</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Surratt</surname><given-names>Jason D.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6833-1450</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5 aff6">
          <name><surname>Follett</surname><given-names>Christopher L.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7164-1660</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Repeta</surname><given-names>Daniel J.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Kroll</surname><given-names>Jesse H.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6275-521X</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Chemistry, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, <?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Massachusetts 02139, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Center for Aerosol and Cloud Chemistry, Aerodyne Research Inc., Billerica, Massachusetts 01821, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Gillings School of Global Public Health,  <?xmltex \hack{\break}?>University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, <?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Massachusetts 02540, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff7"><label>a</label><institution>now at: Earth Observatory of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, 638789, Singapore</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Rachel E. O'Brien (reobrien@wm.edu)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>14</day><month>March</month><year>2019</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>12</volume>
      <issue>3</issue>
      <fpage>1659</fpage><lpage>1671</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>25</day><month>September</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>23</day><month>October</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>25</day><month>January</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>11</day><month>February</month><year>2019</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2019 Rachel E. O'Brien et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2019</copyright-year>
      <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/12/1659/2019/amt-12-1659-2019.html">This article is available from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/1659/2019/amt-12-1659-2019.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/1659/2019/amt-12-1659-2019.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/1659/2019/amt-12-1659-2019.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e219">The elemental composition of organic material in
environmental samples – including atmospheric organic aerosol, dissolved
organic matter, and other complex mixtures – provides insights into their
sources and environmental processing. However, standard analytical
techniques for measuring elemental ratios typically require large sample
sizes (milligrams of material or more). Here we characterize a method for
measuring elemental ratios in environmental samples, requiring only
micrograms of material, using a small-volume nebulizer (SVN). The technique
uses ultrasonic nebulization of samples to generate aerosol particles
(100–300 nm diameter), which are then analyzed using an aerosol mass
spectrometer (AMS). We demonstrate that the technique generates aerosol from
complex organic mixtures with minimal changes to the elemental composition
of the organic material and that quantification is possible using internal
standards (e.g., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Sample volumes of 2–4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
with total solution concentrations of at least 0.2 g L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" 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> form sufficient
particle mass for elemental ratio measurement by the AMS, despite only a
small fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 %) of the sample forming fine
particles after nebulization (with the remainder ending up as larger
droplets). The method was applied to aerosol filter extracts from the field
and laboratory, as well as to the polysaccharide fraction of dissolved
organic matter (DOM) from the North Pacific Ocean. In the case of aerosol
particles, the mass spectra and elemental ratios from the SVN–AMS agree with
those from online AMS sampling. Similarly, for DOM, the elemental ratios
determined from the SVN–AMS agree with those determined using combustion
analysis. The SVN–AMS provides a platform for the rapid quantitative
analysis of the elemental composition of complex organic mixtures and
non-refractory inorganic salts from microgram samples with applications that
include analysis of aerosol extracts and terrestrial, aquatic, and
atmospheric dissolved organic matter.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e276">A large number of environmental systems, including the atmosphere, natural
waters, and terrestrial systems, contain complex organic mixtures composed
of hundreds to thousands of molecular species. Our ability to understand and
model such complex chemical systems is often greatly<?pagebreak page1660?> improved when we
characterize them in terms of simple chemical frameworks. On the simplest
level, the analysis of average elemental ratios can provide important
information on potential sources of organic matter samples, as well as the
chemical and/or biological transformation processes that modify their
composition. For example, the elemental ratios of atmospheric organic
aerosol – e.g., oxygen <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> carbon ratio (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), hydrogen <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> carbon ratio (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and
nitrogen <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> carbon ratio (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) – provide information on aerosol sources and
aging (Aiken et al., 2008; Canagaratna et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2015; Daumit et al.,
2013; Heald et al., 2010; Jimenez et al., 2009; Kroll et al., 2011).
Similarly, in water and soil samples, the elemental ratios of carbon,
nitrogen, and phosphorous reveal insights into sources and processing of
dissolved and particulate organic matter
(Becker et al., 2014; Hansman et al., 2015; Koch et al., 2005; Lu et al., 2015).</p>
      <p id="d1e337">The most widespread technique for elemental analysis is high-temperature
combustion followed by elemental (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulfur –
CHNS) analysis, which is highly accurate but can require milligrams of
material (Skoog et al., 1998). For many trace environmental
samples, like atmospheric aerosol, this can require extremely long
collection times, which lead to low time resolution. This limits the amount of
information provided for systems that exhibit high temporal variability,
such as air masses in major urban regions. An alternative approach for
measuring the elemental ratios of aerosol is online (real-time) techniques.
The most widely used instrument for such measurements is the Aerodyne
high-resolution time-of-flight aerosol mass spectrometer (HR-ToF-AMS)
(Decarlo et al., 2006), which can
measure elemental ratios of ambient aerosol using just nanograms of
material. Over the last decade, in situ analysis of aerosol particles with
the AMS has enabled rapid, sensitive characterization of aerosol
concentrations, sources, and atmospheric aging, improving our ability to
model atmospheric aerosol and consequently its climate and health effects
(Kroll et al., 2015; Ng et al., 2011b; Jimenez et al., 2009; Canagaratna et al., 2007).</p>
      <p id="d1e340">Recently, a number of researchers have used the AMS in an “offline mode”,
in which atmospheric samples are collected on filters, extracted, and then
atomized into the AMS. Examples include the analysis of sources and aging of
atmospheric organic material from aerosol filter extracts
(Bozzetti et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2011; Xu et al., 2015; Ye et
al., 2017), cloud and/or fog, water samples (Kaul et
al., 2014; Lee et al., 2012), and organic material in glaciers
(Xu et al., 2013). Offline AMS has proven especially useful for the analysis of aerosol
particles larger than 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Bozzetti et al., 2016; Daellenbach et al., 2016; Ge et al., 2017). Offline AMS has
also proven useful in investigating fractionation and solubility of
atmospheric organic material in water and organic solvents
(Daellenbach et al., 2016; Mihara and Mochida, 2011; Xu et al., 2016). These studies used
both custom-made and commercial atomizers with solvent volumes of at least
5–15 mL. To generate aerosol particles in the size range needed for the AMS,
this requires sample masses on the order of 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
While this represents a substantial improvement over the sample mass
requirements of conventional CHNS analysis, it is still sufficiently large
to limit the applicability of the approach since it can require relatively
large organic samples collected with high-volume samplers, often over 24 h or more.</p>
      <p id="d1e363">In this work, we characterize a new technique for the elemental analysis of
very small sample masses, using ultrasonic nebulization. Aerosol generation
with a small-volume nebulizer (SVN) expands the range of environmental
samples that can be measured, where either sample size is limited or solvent
contamination is a concern. The SVN generates aerosol suitable for analysis
with aerosol instrumentation, including not only the AMS and scanning
mobility particle sizer (SMPS), but also single-particle mass spectrometers (e.g.,
particle analysis by laser mass spectrometry, PALMS;
Murphy et al., 1998), soft ionization sources (e.g.,
extractive electrospray ionization, EESI;
Gallimore and Kalberer, 2013), and thermal
desorption chemical ionization mass spectrometers (e.g., Filter Inlet for
Gases and AEROsols, FIGAERO CIMS; Lopez-Hilfiker et al., 2014). Here, we
present results characterizing the SVN using an HR-ToF-AMS and an SMPS and
demonstrate production and elemental analysis of aerosol using 2–4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
of liquid samples, with masses of organic material as low as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
In some cases, depending on the sample, pre-concentration is
required to generate suitable solutions for analysis. The concentration
ranges needed (described below) are comparable to the concentrations used
for other offline characterizations including soft ionization with
electrospray ionization into mass spectrometers. Thus, this technique
provides a platform for direct comparison between offline-AMS samples and
other analytical techniques. Quantification of total organic concentrations
is demonstrated using internal standards. We examine the effects of aerosol
collection, extraction, and nebulization on the mass spectra and elemental
ratios observed for offline and online AMS. The aim of this work is to
demonstrate that offline analysis of organic mixtures with the SVN–AMS can
provide quantitative characteristic elemental ratios for trace environmental
and biological samples using just micrograms of sample.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Experiments</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Small-volume nebulizer</title>
      <p id="d1e407">The SVN, illustrated in Fig. 1, creates an aerosol by ultrasonically
nebulizing a small droplet placed on a thin film stretched across a water
reservoir. The aerosol is then carried by a gentle flow of either house air
(zero air, Aadco Instruments) or argon (Airgas, 99.999 % purity) into the
AMS. The three main components of the SVN, described in detail below, are
(1) a bottom cylinder with an ultrasonic transducer<?pagebreak page1661?> and water bath, (2) a
thin film that is press-fit onto the top of the water bath by an upper
cylinder with a slightly larger ID, and (3) a vertical glass tube that
connects to the AMS. The connections between all components are airtight,
but the apparatus is easily disassembled to inject samples onto the film, as
well as to clean the thin film and change the water bath.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e412">Schematic diagram of the small-volume ultrasonic nebulizer (SVN).
Samples (2–4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>L) are loaded on the Kapton (or Teflon) film through
either the hole in which the glass tube is seated (for discrete injections)
or through the pinhole (for continuous injections). After the transducer is
turned on, the aerosol is carried up through the glass tube and into the
instrument by a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 160 sccm (standard cubic centimeters per minute) flow of zero air or argon carrier
gas. The water bath between the transducer and the Kapton film carries
ultrasonic waves up to the film and serves to cool the ultrasonic
transducer.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/1659/2019/amt-12-1659-2019-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e436">In the bottom section of the SVN, the 2.4 MHz ultrasonic transducer (Sonaer,
Inc., model 241VM) is located just under the liquid reservoir, with a thin
film stretched across the top of the reservoir to provide a clean
nebulization surface for the sample. We use a 0.001 in. thick Kapton film or
Teflon film, as these two were found to have the lowest background signal
and the best performance in terms of the amount of aerosol generated
compared to other materials tested. Press-fit onto the bottom piece is
another PVC cylinder that has two side ports with carrier gas inlets and a
larger hole in the top into which a 15 cm glass tube is seated. The distance
from the thin film to the bottom of the glass tube is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm.
During experiments, the nebulized aerosol is carried up through the
vertical glass tube and into the stainless steel tubing that leads to the AMS.
Additional components such as Nafion<sup>™</sup>
(Perma Pure LLC) dryers can be placed in line if desired, but such modifications were not investigated in
the present work.</p>
      <p id="d1e452">Samples can be introduced into the SVN using two different approaches:
discrete injections of individual samples (for individual “one-shot”
measurements) or continuous addition of a sample flow (for continual
analysis, enabling signal averaging). For most studies, Milli-Q water was
used as the solvent; in some cases we used HPLC-grade methanol, though the
organic background signal is higher. This was likely due to a
combination of increased organic background in organic solvents and
incomplete evaporation of methanol prior to measurement. For most of the
work described here, we used discrete injections of 2–5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>L of aqueous
solutions manually deposited directly onto the center of the Kapton film.
For continuous injections, solutions made with Milli-Q or organic solvents
were introduced via a syringe pump (Harvard Apparatus model 22), which sends
liquid flow (20–40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>L min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" 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>) through a borosilicate capillary entering
the SVN via a small downward-facing hole in the upper PVC piece (Fig. 1).
In the future, such a port could also be used to provide automated discrete
sample introduction using an autosampler.</p>
      <p id="d1e484">For aqueous samples containing salts and small organic molecules, only
1 %–2 % of the original sample mass was observed to remain on the thin film
after a discrete injection (Fig. S2). To ensure a clean surface between
different samples, the surface was cleaned by nebulizing 2–8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
Milli-Q water off the surface 5–10 times over approximately 1 min. The
cleanliness of the surface was then verified by nebulizing a salt solution
(at least 0.5 g L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" 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>) between each sample. The salt solution is necessary to
ensure that any contaminants can be seen since pure water risks generating
aerosol particles that are too small to be measured in the AMS. For samples
in which carryover was observed (for example, the dissolved organic matter
solutions discussed in Sect. 3.1), additional cleaning of the film was
undertaken with sonication in a deionized water bath followed by rinsing
with HPLC-grade methanol for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s. Careful maintenance of
the surface ensures uncontaminated mass spectra and accurate quantification
of the solution components.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>AMS data collection and analysis</title>
      <?pagebreak page1662?><p id="d1e525">While a number of different aerosol instruments could be used with the SVN,
here we focus primarily on elemental analysis by the HR-ToF-AMS. The AMS has
previously been described in detail
(Canagaratna et al., 2007; Decarlo et al., 2006) and provides quantitative measurements
of non-refractory material (organics, ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate,
etc.) for aerosol particles between approximately 40 and 1000 nm. The mass
spectrometer used in the AMS is a HR-ToF-AMS (Tofwerk AG), run under “V mode” for a mass
resolution of 2000–3000 m/<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m.
This mass-resolving power enables
peak fitting and identification of all organic fragment ions observed here
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">130</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), which enables the calculation of quantitative elemental
ratios for the organic mixture, after correcting for fragmentation bias
during electron ionization (Aiken et al., 2007, 2008; Canagaratna et al., 2015). For AMS data collected using
indoor or outdoor air, the intensities of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are
complicated by gas-phase interferences (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and gas-phase
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). For samples compared to chamber or ambient online-AMS data
sets, zero air was the carrier gas, standard empirical estimates were used,
and the improved ambient method for elemental ratios was applied
(Canagaratna et
al., 2015). With the SVN, inert carrier gases such as argon can also be
used, allowing for the direct measurement of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ion intensity.
This is demonstrated below for dissolved organic matter; the majority of the other
samples were run with zero air.</p>
      <p id="d1e619">For discrete sampling, “fast MS” mode
(Kimmel et al., 2010) was used because
the pulse length of a single injection is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–60 s
long. Fast MS mode generates mass spectra every 0.5–2 s and the
instrument cycles between the “closed” state, in which the aerosol beam is
blocked, and the “open” state, in which the aerosol beam can reach the
vaporization and ionization region for detection. For the work shown here, mass
spectra were collected every 0.5 s for a duration of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–18 s
in the open state, followed by 3 s in the closed state. The closed
spectrum provides information on the instrument background, including
contributions from gas-phase species, and is subtracted from the open
spectrum in data processing. For the high-resolution peak fitting and the
analysis of the mass spectrum and the elemental ratios, the average mass
spectrum across all injections is used. For quantification, the total signal
under each injection pulse is used. For continuous injections, the standard
AMS operating mode (“GenAlt” mode) was used. This provides an average mass
spectrum (by subtracting the closed signal from the open signal), as well as
particle time-of-flight (PToF) data (providing aerosol size distributions
for all aerosol components), once per minute. All AMS data were analyzed
using software packages Squirrel (v1.57I) and Pika (v1.16I), available at
<uri>http://cires1.colorado.edu/jimenez-group/ToFAMSResources/ToFSoftware/</uri>
(last access: 25 July 2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e645">The aerodynamic lens on the AMS has a transmission efficiency of nearly
100 % for particles with aerodynamic diameters of 70–500 nm; for somewhat
smaller particles (40–70 nm), this transmission is lower but not negligible
(Jimenez et al., 2003). Thus, high
enough solution concentrations are used such that the dried particles formed
in the nebulizer are larger than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm in aerodynamic
diameter. Collection efficiencies (CEs) in the AMS can vary depending on the
extent to which aerosol particles bounce off the thermal element prior to
vaporization (Docherty et al., 2013). This
can impact the absolute concentrations observed, but for internally mixed
samples, the relative concentrations of different aerosol components are
independent of CE. In this work, most measurements (including elemental
ratios) are reported as relative measurements, and thus no CE correction is
applied. Some biases may arise if the aerosol is not internally mixed, but
for all systems examined so far in PToF, no size dependence in composition
was observed (Fig. S1 in the Supplement).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Sample collection and solution preparation</title>
      <p id="d1e664">As described below, samples were prepared from a number of sources,
including commercially available standards, the extracts of chamber and
ambient aerosol particles collected on filters, and dissolved organic matter
from the Pacific Ocean. For all solutions, either ultrapure water (18.2 M <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> cm, Milli-Q)
or HPLC-grade methanol was used. Prior to use, all
glassware was cleaned with a methanol solvent wash and baked at
450 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C for 6 h.</p>
      <p id="d1e683">Chamber aerosol (enabling offline vs. online comparisons) was generated in
the MIT 7.5 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Teflon environmental chamber, run in continuous-volume
“semi-batch” mode. Details on the facility are given elsewhere
(Hunter et al., 2014). Experiments were
run at 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % relative humidity (RH), in the dark, and under
low-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppb) conditions using ozone as the oxidant.
Ammonium sulfate seeds were added for an initial concentration of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 60 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" 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>. The precursor, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-pinene, had an
initial mixing ratio of 100 ppb; a Pen-Ray lamp (Jelight model 600) was used
to add an initial ozone concentration of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 700 ppb of ozone. The
ozone concentration decreased due to consumption and dilution to 400 ppb by
the end of the experiment. The initial organic loading was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 70 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" 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>
and decayed due to dilution, sampling, and wall loss to a
final value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 18 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" 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>. Filter samples were
collected on Zeflour<sup>®</sup> PTFE membrane filters (0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m pore
size) at flow rates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> L min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" 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 10 h. Laboratory blank
filters were prepared by placing separate filters in the filter holder for
10 min before the start of the experiments. All filters were stored in
baked aluminum foil packets, sealed in plastic bags, and placed in a freezer
at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C until extraction. Filters were extracted with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mL of HPLC-grade methanol. In order to avoid oxidation of
the organic species in the extract, no sonication was used; instead, the
vials were gently agitated by hand intermittently over 3 h. Solutions
were concentrated by evaporating to dryness under a gentle stream of
ultra-high-purity <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Dried samples were stored in the freezer at
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C until reconstitution with Milli-Q water and analysis by the
SVN–AMS. Blank subtraction was carried out with a scaling of the filter
blank to 12 % of the sample signal, as determined from the internal
standard in each sample.</p>
      <p id="d1e926">Field samples from the Southern Oxidant and Aerosol Study (SOAS) in 2013
were collected on pre-baked Tissuquartz<sup>™</sup> filters (Pall Life
Science, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in.) from Look Rock, TN, starting on 16 June 2013 using a
high-volume aerosol filter sampler with a PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> cyclone (Tisch
Environmental, Inc.) as described by Budisulistiorini et al. (2015). For
filter extraction, a 37 mm punch was extracted in a<?pagebreak page1663?> pre-cleaned
scintillation vials with 20 mL high-purity methanol (LC-MS
Chromasolv<sup>®</sup> grade, Sigma-Aldrich) by sonication for 45 min.
Filter extract was filtered through a 0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> syringe filter
(Acrodisc<sup>®</sup> PTFE membrane, Pall Life Sciences) to remove
suspended filter fibers. The filtered extract was then blown down to dryness
under a gentle <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> stream at room temperature. An aerosol chemical
speciation monitor (ACSM)
(Ng et al., 2011a) was deployed at the same field site
(Budisulistiorini et al., 2015); the average mass spectrum for the length of the filter sample
was used for comparison with the present SVN–AMS measurements. For all
analyses presented here (chamber and ambient) sufficient mass was extracted
to enable the analysis of individual filter samples, with no combination of
extracts from different samples required.</p>
      <p id="d1e987">Standard solutions were prepared from commercially available compounds
dissolved in Milli-Q water. Reagents used included ammonium sulfate, ammonium
nitrate, isotopically labeled ammonium nitrate (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>),
citric acid, mannitol, PEG-400, 4-hydroxy-3-methoxy-DL-mandelic acid (HMMA),
and HPLC-grade methanol, all from Sigma-Aldrich, all at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">99</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % purity.</p>
      <p id="d1e1019">The dissolved organic matter (DOM) polysaccharide sample was collected at the Natural Energy Laboratory
Hawaii Authority facility in Kona, Hawaii. Seawater from a depth of 20 m was
pumped though a 0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m filter to remove particles, and the
high-molecular-weight fraction of organic matter in the filtrate was concentrated
by ultrafiltration using a membrane with a 1 nm pore size and a nominal
1000 Da molecular weight cutoff. This fraction was desalted by serial
dilution and concentration with Milli-Q water and then freeze-dried.
Low-molecular-weight humic substances and residual salts were removed by
stirring with anion (hydroxide form) and cation exchange resins (hydrogen
form). The final product was freeze-dried to yield a fluffy white powder.
Conventional CHNS analysis was carried out using a CE-440 elemental analyzer
(Exeter Analytical). This powder was dissolved in Milli-Q water at
approximately 1 g L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" 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> to prepare solutions for analysis.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results and discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Nebulization and aerosol size</title>
      <p id="d1e1054">Figure 2a shows a time series of measured aerosol mass concentrations of a
typical nebulized aerosol pulse from a 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>L solution containing
approximately 0.33 g L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" 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> each of mannitol, ammonium sulfate, and ammonium
nitrate. The nebulizer is turned on at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and shortly afterwards (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s) the aerosol packet is observed in the AMS. The start
of the nebulization is timed so that a closed (background) measurement
occurs during the downslope of the signal (closed measurements shown as gaps, e.g., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–21 s). This background is subtracted from the aerosol particle signal during
data processing. Measurements are collected until the signal returns to the
baseline (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1134">Measurements of the composition and size of nebulized samples from
the SVN. <bold>(a)</bold> Time series of aerosol composition from a single 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>L
nebulization of an aqueous solution (mannitol, ammonium nitrate, and
ammonium sulfate). Data were recorded using fast-mode MS for the AMS-open
scans, with a mass spectrum collected every 0.5 s (filled circles). The gaps
in the trace correspond to closed cycles where the aerosol beam was blocked
to provide a background subtraction (gas phase and instrument background)
that was applied during data processing. Measured concentrations are not
corrected for collection efficiency (CE) in the AMS, which affects the
absolute values but not the relative concentrations. The inset shows the
average mass spectrum acquired across the injection, normalized to total ion
signal. <bold>(b)</bold> Aerosol size distribution from a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 g L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" 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> citric
acid solution measured with an SMPS (black line). The gradient represents
the transmission efficiency for particles into the AMS with nearly 100 %
between 70 and 500 nm and decreased but substantial transmission for spherical
particles 30–70 nm and 500 nm to 2.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m (Jimenez et al., 2003); thus, the
smallest particles in the distribution will not be efficiently detected by
the AMS.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/1659/2019/amt-12-1659-2019-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page1664?><p id="d1e1185">Figure 2b shows the size distribution of the particles generated by
nebulizing an aqueous solution of citric acid with continuous injection via
syringe pump and a total concentration of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> g L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" 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> into an SMPS
(TSI, Inc.). The particles have size distributions centered at 150–200 nm
(electrical mobility diameter). These particles were sampled into the SMPS
without passing through a dryer. The SVN was approximately 3 m
further away from the inlet of the SMPS so the particles are likely to be
somewhat smaller than those entering the AMS, due to water evaporation in
the dry carrier gas. We find injections of solutions with total
concentrations above 0.2 g L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" 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> provide sufficient aerosol mass for analysis
(Fig. S1). These measurements compare well with calculations based on the
size of droplets reported by the manufacturer (Sonaer, Inc.) of approximately
1.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> using water solutions. Assuming that the density of the dried
particle is 1.3 g cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" 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> (Nakao et al., 2013),
the minimum sample concentration that will form a 100 nm dried particle is
approximately 0.3 g L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" 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>. More dilute solutions do not generate signal in the
AMS because the majority of the aerosol particles that are formed are too
small for transmission through the aerodynamic lens of the AMS (Fig. 2b).
To generate large enough aerosol particles from more dilute solutions,
larger initial droplets could be formed by changing the transducer to one
that vibrates at a lower frequency. However, for these larger droplets,
drying will require the loss of a greater amount of solvent, so that any
impurities in the solvent will make up a larger (and possibly even dominant)
fraction of the resulting fine particles. Thus the use of ultrasonic
nebulization at lower frequencies was not investigated here.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Quantification</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS1">
  <title>Nebulization efficiency</title>
      <p id="d1e1268">A key quantity describing the potential sensitivity of the SVN–AMS is the
SVN nebulization efficiency, the ratio of the mass measured in the AMS
compared to the mass of analyte placed on the thin film. This was determined
by loading 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>L of a known solution onto the film and measuring the
mass of each component in the AMS integrated over the injection pulse,
determined by
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M87" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">AMS</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:munderover><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">AMS</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">AMS</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the mass measured by the AMS in micrograms, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
instantaneous mass concentration measured in the AMS (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" 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>), and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">AMS</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the gas flow rate into the AMS in cubic meters per second. For each
injection, the background-subtracted AMS signal is calculated (Fig. 2a).
The gaps due to closed cycles are bridged by interpolation, and the area
under the injection curve is calculated via trapezoidal integration from
time points before and after the pulse (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively). The
mass measured in the AMS is affected by three factors: the amount of aerosol
formed and transported out of the SVN, the fraction of the gas flow from the
SVN that is sampled by the AMS (typically about 50 % ), and the
fraction of aerosol that bounces off the heater element before vaporizing
(the AMS CE).</p>
      <p id="d1e1405">Figure 3 shows the mass measured in the AMS compared to the mass deposited
on the nebulizer for replicate injections of four different aqueous
solutions of citric acid, ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, and
isotopically labeled ammonium nitrate (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, used later
as an internal standard) with concentrations ranging between approximately
0.1 and 0.2 g L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" 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 each of the components (but with the same total
concentration, 0.75 g L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" 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>). Six replicate injections of 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>L drops of the
solutions from one of the calibration curves (Sect. 3.2.2 below) were
atomized, and the total mass observed in the AMS was calculated using Eq. (1). (Details on the concentrations
of analytes in these calibration
solutions  are provided in the Supplement.) There are
variations in the efficiency from sample to sample and run to run; thus the
trends shown in Fig. 3 are illustrative only. The key trait observed is
that the measured nebulization efficiencies are on the order of
0.02 %–0.06 %, indicating that the aerosol mass detected with the AMS is
approximately 3 orders of magnitude lower than the mass originally
deposited on the thin film.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1460">Mass of each component placed on the thin film vs. the mass
measured by the AMS for four different solutions with varying concentrations of
citric acid, ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, and the internal standard
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), all with a total solution concentration of
0.75 g L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" 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>. Each sample had five replicate injections, with the vertical spread in the
measured masses indicating substantial run-to-run variability (up to a
factor of 3) among injections.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/1659/2019/amt-12-1659-2019-f03.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e1499">The majority of the sample mass loss likely occurs during the nebulization
process itself. For aqueous solutions in the SVN, large droplets are
observed to be ejected off the surface of the film at the same time as the
aerosol is generated. These ejected droplets are then lost to the walls of
the SVN. The ejection of these droplets appears to be a necessary part of
the nebulization mechanism for water samples as smaller volumes (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
of water do not generate such droplets and also do not appear to
form aerosol. This observed mechanism is in agreement with previous studies
of aerosol generation for ultrasonic nebulization, in which cavitation
within the droplet (Lang, 1962) and boiling and/or jetting from a
droplet chain (Simon et al., 2015) have been observed.</p>
      <p id="d1e1523">The size distribution and number of aerosol particles from ultrasonic
nebulization have been shown to be affected by the frequency of the
ultrasonic vibration; the properties of the liquid including surface
tension, density, and viscosity; and the concentration of the solution
(Donnelly et al., 2005; Lang,
1962; Simon et al., 2015). The present application involves a relatively
dilute solution, so the only parameter that is likely to vary is the surface
tension, by use of different solvents. Nebulization of solvents with lower
surface tension, such as methanol, led to the ejection of much<?pagebreak page1665?> smaller
droplets, and consequently substantially higher nebulization efficiencies
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %). However, methanol (and other HPLC-grade organic
solvents) was found to give higher background signals in the AMS than Milli-Q
water, likely due to higher levels of low-volatility contaminants. This
difference was also observed by
Daellenbach et al. (2016); therefore, Milli-Q water appears to be the ideal solvent to use for
most environmental samples. However, with adequate solvent background
characterization, organic solvents may be optimal for environmental samples
with more non-polar components (e.g., petroleum or fresh tail pipe
emissions).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS2">
  <title>Internal standards and calibration curves</title>
      <p id="d1e1542">In Fig. 3, the vertical spread of data points illustrates the variation in
nebulization efficiency from one injection to the next. This is likely the
result of small differences in the droplet shape or position on the film,
leading to differences in how the droplets are ejected from the surface
during aerosol formation. This run-to-run variability in nebulization
efficiency, as well as the lack of a linear correlation between the mass
placed on the film and the mass observed, complicates quantification and
necessitates the use of an internal standard to quantify the concentration
of organic species within the original sample. In some cases, an inorganic
ion that is independently quantified, such as sulfate, can serve as this
internal standard
(Daellenbach et al., 2016). However, in many cases such an independent measurement is not
available; additionally, some environmental samples may not contain
appreciable levels of measurable inorganic species, or else such species may
not be soluble in the solvent of choice (e.g., ionic species in organic
solvents). In these cases, an internal standard needs to be added to the
solution prior to nebulization.</p>
      <p id="d1e1545">For use with the AMS, the internal standard must meet a number of
requirements: it must be non-refractory, soluble, unreactive with the other
sample components, not already present in the solution, and easily
distinguishable from other species in the sample. For nebulization of
samples dissolved in organic solvents, organic internal standards (e.g.,
phthalic acid; Chen
et al., 2016; Han et al., 2016) meet these requirements. In the present
work, which focuses on aqueous samples only, we use an inorganic internal
standard of isotopically labeled ammonium nitrate
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). An example mass spectrum for an internal standard
solution is shown in Fig. 4a. The background signal from other components
(organic material, sulfate, and nitrate) is very low. Another tested option
is ammonium iodide (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Both of these salts work well as internal
standards for both laboratory and ambient samples since neither
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nor iodide is present in appreciable amounts in the
atmosphere and there is usually a very small contribution of organic
fragments at the fragment masses observed for those salts. Typically, the
internal standards are added at the same order of magnitude concentration as
the sample. For all tests of background signals and blanks, the internal
standard is added to the solutions at concentrations of between 0.5 and 1 g L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" 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> in
order to generate aerosols of sufficient size for the AMS. This allows an
analysis of any trace material present in the blank by creating an aerosol
population to transfer the trace material into the AMS and allows for a
background subtraction using the internal standard.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e1608"><bold>(a)</bold> Blank of the Kapton film using 1 g L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" 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> internal standard
solution (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> – ammonium nitrate). <bold>(b)</bold> Calibration curves made using an
internal standard for solutions with three different organic compounds:
citric acid, 4-hydroxy-3-methoxy-DL-mandelic acid (HMMA), and polyethylene
glycol 400 (PEG-400). The error bars are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for five
replicate injections.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/1659/2019/amt-12-1659-2019-f04.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e1658">Figure 4b shows calibration curves with linear responses for three different
organic compounds (citric acid; 4-hydroxy-3-methoxy-DL-mandelic acid, HMMA;
and polyethylene glycol 400, PEG-400) at four concentrations using
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as the internal standard. For the calibration curve,
the ratios of the AMS signals for the analyte over the internal standard are
compared to the ratios for known solution concentrations, thus correcting
any variations in the mass of analyte nebulized. For quantification of
unknowns, known concentrations of the internal standard are added to the
samples at ratios comparable to what is used for the calibration curve. The
ratio of the measured AMS signals can then be used to calculate the unknown
analyte concentration from the calibration curve.</p>
      <p id="d1e1680">For quantification of complex organic mixtures using this technique, the
most accurate organic calibration standards will have chemical structures
similar to the average structure of the mixture. The slope of each line is
related to the relative ionization efficiency (RIE) of the organic compound
in the AMS (Jimenez et al., 2003). The
RIE values in Fig. 4b for<?pagebreak page1666?> HMMA and citric acid (1.01 and 1.95,
respectively) bracket the range of RIE values for different types of
organics measured using standard AMS calibration techniques
(Jimenez et al., 2016). This range likely arises from
differences in how the organic compounds dissociate during volatilization on
the heater. The heater in the AMS is typically set at 600 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, and
so most organic molecules found in organic aerosol thermally decompose prior
to electron impact ionization
(Canagaratna et al., 2015; Jimenez et al., 2016), leading to RIEs in the
range of 1.0–2.0. In contrast, the slope
of 2.62 for PEG-400 is substantially outside of the range of values.
However, with the AMS, complex mixtures are less likely to show large
variations in RIE than different individual compounds, such as those used in
Fig. 4. For extracts of atmospheric aerosol or other smaller organic
mixtures, the RIE of 1.4, which is typically used for AMS measurements
(Canagaratna
et al., 2007; Jimenez et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2018), is likely the best
value to use as an initial calibration slope. For extracts of other types of
organic mixtures, compounds that have a structure similar to the average
organic composition should be used to calibrate the samples.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Mass spectral analysis</title>
      <p id="d1e1699">The primary goal of the SVN–AMS is to measure quantitative chemical
information, specifically elemental ratios, from complex organic mixtures.
We have characterized these for a number of different chemical systems,
described below. Results are summarized in Fig. 5 (comparing SVN–AMS and
online AMS mass spectra) and Table 1 (comparing elemental ratios measured
with SVN–AMS with those measured by either online AMS or CHNS analysis).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1704">Online (or TSI atomizer) (black) vs. SVN nebulizer (orange) mass
spectra for <bold>(a)</bold> an aqueous solution of citric acid at 1 g L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" 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>, <bold>(b)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-pinene <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
chamber SOA, and <bold>(c)</bold> a SOAS campaign sample from Look Rock,
TN, with online data collected on an ACSM. Smaller insets in <bold>(a)</bold>, <bold>(b)</bold>, and <bold>(c)</bold> show
direct comparison of intensities for each mass spectrum on a log scale. <bold>(d)</bold>
AMS mass spectra from North Pacific Ocean dissolved organic matter
(polysaccharide fraction) nebulized with the SVN (since this sample was not
from aerosol particles, no online samples are available).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/1659/2019/amt-12-1659-2019-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1775">Elemental ratios measured by SVN–AMS vs. other techniques for the
various mixtures examined in this work.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <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:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">

         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sample</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Atomizer AMS</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.0</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.4</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Citric acid</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SVN–AMS</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.1</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.3</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">

         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Actual</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.2</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.3</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" colname="col1" morerows="1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-pinene SOA</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Online AMS</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.48</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.6</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.002</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SVN–AMS</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.50</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.6</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.002</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" colname="col1" morerows="1">Look Rock</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Online ACSM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>a</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.13 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.19</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.3 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">43</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.062</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>b</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SVN–AMS<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>a</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.13 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.3 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">43</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.051</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>b</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col1" morerows="1">DOM</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CHNS analyzer</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">ND</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.74</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.080</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SVN–AMS</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.77</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.7</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.081</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e1778"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>a</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Elemental ratios are estimated from parameterizations for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">43</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Aiken et al., 2008; Ng et al., 2011b).
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>b</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>  There is no established method for determining <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from
unit mass resolution (UMR) data.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e2168">One concern with using ultrasonic nebulization to generate aerosol particles
is the possibility that the high temperatures possibly reached by the
solution during nebulization may degrade the organic compounds, affecting
their mass spectra (and hence measured elemental composition). Figure 5a
shows a comparison of a solution containing 1 g L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" 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> of citric acid aerosolized
with a TSI atomizer (TSI 3076, 276 kPa gas) (black) and the SVN (gold), with
the inset showing a direct comparison among the intensities measured for
each ion in the mass spectrum. The degree of agreement can be described by
the dot product of the intensities for matching peaks in the two spectra, as
well as the log of the intensities before taking the dot product (log–dot
product), which gives the lower-intensity peaks greater weight. Very good
overlap between the two mass spectra is observed, with a dot product of 0.99
and a log–dot product of 0.96. This indicates minimal degradation of the
citric acid by ultrasonic nebulization.</p>
      <p id="d1e2183">A high degree of similarity is also observed between offline and online
aerosol measurements for more complex mixtures. Figure 5b shows mass spectra
for a comparison of offline (gold) vs. online (black) secondary organic
aerosol (SOA), generated from the dark ozonolysis of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-pinene. The online mass spectra are the
average real-time AMS mass spectrum averaged over the 10 h of filter
collection. For all filter samples, spectra from the SVN are background
subtracted using spectra collected from blank filter samples. These blanks
provide the background for any trace organic material on the filters before
collection as well as any background organic material introduced during
sample preparation. The overlap in Fig. 5b between the mass spectra is
very good, with a dot product of 0.98 and a log–dot product of 0.98. The
elemental ratios are also very similar between the two samples with an <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
of 1.6 for both and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.48 for the chamber and 0.49 for the SVN samples
(Table 1). The largest difference is observed at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 44 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 43 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) with a larger fraction of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the
offline sample. The intensity of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 28) is also different, but
only because it is set equal to the intensity of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ion, as
is commonly done for ambient sampling with the AMS (given that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
ion generally cannot be distinguished from the much more abundant
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ion). The organic contribution from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is also constrained by the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> signal so any differences in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> intensity will also show up in those ions
(Aiken et al., 2008). The observed difference in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ion intensity is likely a result of
the extraction step prior to nebulization, which may preferentially dissolve
the most water-soluble (oxidized) SOA components. Additionally, the online
measurement is for fine mode aerosol while the offline measurement collects the full
range of particle sizes on the filter. However, based on the agreement in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the online and offline cases, these factors do not appear to
bias elemental ratio measurements substantially.</p>
      <p id="d1e2473">Figure 5c shows a comparison of online and offline measurements of ambient
organic aerosol, specifically ACSM measurements and SVN–AMS measurements of
a filter extract collected simultaneously during the 2013 SOAS field
campaign in Look Rock, TN (20:00 EST, 4 July to 07:00 EST, 5 July 2013). Since the
ACSM is a unit-mass-resolution instrument, the HR-AMS data are degraded to
unit mass resolution, and ions that are determined from the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 44 signal
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 16, 17, 18, and 28) are excluded from the analysis. Additionally,
ions at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 and 31 were removed from comparison because of interferences
from the internal standard (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 31) and nitrate in the sample (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 30).</p>
      <p id="d1e2540">The two mass spectra in Fig. 5c have a high degree of agreement between
the major ions (dot product of 0.98). However, there is substantially more
variation among the two techniques than in the chamber study, especially
in the lower-abundance peaks (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; see inset), as reflected in
the lower log–dot product of only 0.90. Possible reasons for this lower
correlation include fractionation from the extraction step, the different
sizes measured (PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for the filter vs. fine mode aerosol for the ACSM)
(Daellenbach et al., 2016), the uncertainty in ACSM signals at higher masses due to
uncertainty in the relative ion transmission curve
(Ng et al., 2011a), and the losses of relatively volatile compounds during collection,
extraction, and handling. Additional work<?pagebreak page1667?> is necessary to quantify the
importance of these effects, and care should be taken when comparing the full
mass spectra for online compared to offline SVN–AMS analysis. The high
degree of overlap in the intensities of the dominant ions between the online
(AMS and ACSM) measurements and offline (SVN–AMS) results indicates that the
ensemble organic composition for these aerosol samples is generally
well-represented by the SVN–AMS measurements (Table 1). However, the
estimated elemental ratios from a lower-resolution AMS are more uncertain
than from the HR-ToF-AMS. Thus, the ratios for these samples in Table 1 are
provided only as a demonstration of the overall agreement between the two
techniques.</p>
      <p id="d1e2568">For the SVN, the small sample volume requirements can make it attractive for
the analysis of other environmental samples that are soluble in water (or
organic solvents) and<?pagebreak page1668?> that have low enough vapor pressures to remain in the
condensed phase after sample preparation and nebulization. Here we
demonstrate the analysis of the high-molecular-weight fraction of the
polysaccharide fraction of dissolved organic matter (DOM) with the SVN–AMS.
The DOM sample was prepared using a standard protocol for the isolation of
this fraction of the organic material (see Sect. 2.3). This preparation
removes the lower-molecular-weight compounds so chemicals such as methane
sulfonic acid are not expected to be observed. Figure 5d shows an example
AMS mass spectrum from DOM collected from the Pacific Ocean. The mass
spectrum is dominated by oxidized fragments containing one or more oxygen
atoms with smaller amounts of nitrogen-containing fragments. The sample
preparation for the DOM removed all salts; thus the ammonium fragments were
assumed to be from organonitrogen species and were assigned to the organic
fraction. The measured <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values of 0.081 and 1.7, respectively,
match those measured by CHNS analysis (0.080 and 1.74, respectively). This
demonstrates that with the SVN, microgram quantities of dissolved
environmental mixtures can be nebulized and sampled into the AMS, providing a
rapid, quantitative method to determine elemental ratios in these complex
organic mixtures.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e2602">A new ultrasonic nebulizer has been described and characterized for
generation of aerosol from very small sample masses. We demonstrate the
application of this technique to offline-AMS analysis of complex organic
mixtures from aerosol filter extracts and DOM. Data sets that include
quantitative organic mass, characteristic mass spectra, and quantitative
elemental ratios can be generated from only 0.4 to 1.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g of material. For
these samples, pre-concentration was required to prepare a suitable solution
concentration for analysis. This will be required for some types of
environmental samples and care should be taken to minimize artifacts during
solution preparation. A direct comparison between the mass spectra generated
by commercial spray atomizers and particles sampled directly from the
atmosphere showed high degrees of agreement, indicating minimal composition
changes during sample preparation and nebulization. Nebulization of aqueous
samples generated measurable aerosol from 0.1 % of the sample mass. Higher
nebulization efficiencies (and smaller ejected droplets) were observed for
methanol, likely due to its lower surface tension. The SVN, combined with
the offline AMS, provides rapid analysis of non-refractory organic and inorganic
compounds. For other types of characterization, including analysis of
refractory material or organic molecular composition, the SVN can also be
coupled with other aerosol instrumentation such as PALMS or CIMS.</p>
      <p id="d1e2613">Future improvements in the nebulization and collection efficiency of the
SVN–AMS will enable analysis with even lower sample mass requirements. The
use of organic internal standards is one method to potentially improve
collection efficiency in the AMS as the higher organic content may decrease
the bounce of particles off the vaporizer. Additionally, the use of solvents
with a lower surface tension than water shows promise for improved
nebulization efficiencies. Finally, in contrast to atomizers (in which the
carrier gas generates the aerosol), ultrasonic nebulizers decouple the
aerosol formation from the carrier gas flow rate, enabling potential
concentration of the aerosol prior to sampling. A useful future direction
for this technique will be to characterize the background signal in
different organic solvents and optimize the continuous-flow configuration to
minimize the return of large ejected droplets back onto the film. Continuous
flow with organic solutions will also enable the analysis of more
hydrophobic organic samples such as fresh vehicle emissions, cooking oils,
and petrochemical samples. In the future, the SVN can be used to generate
aerosol for quantitative and qualitative analysis of other environmental
samples to investigate sources or processing and aging of these organic
mixtures. The SVN, combined with aerosol measurement techniques such as the
AMS, provides a rapid, quantitative method to characterize the chemical and
elemental properties of complex organic mixtures, producing rich data sets
for the exploration of exceptionally trace environmental samples.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e2621">All data sets including mass spectra and SMPS data are available on request
from Rachel E. O'Brien, reobrien@wm.edu.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e2624">The
document contains additional information on particle sizes and memory
effects between runs. The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-1659-2019-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-1659-2019-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e2633">MRC, JTJ, PLC, DRW, JHK, and KJR designed and built the SVN. SHB, JDS,
CLF, and
DJR provided ambient aerosol samples and DOM. REO and JHK designed
experiments and REO carried them out. REO and JHK prepared the paper with
contributions from all authors.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e2639">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e2645">This work was supported by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
grant nos. NA13OAR4310072 and NA140AR4310132. Kelsey J. Ridley
acknowledges support from the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program. Sri Hapsari Budisulistiorini and
Jason D. Surratt acknowledges support from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency award no. 835404,<?pagebreak page1669?> Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grant
no. NA13OAR4310064. Special thanks are due to David Karl and Eric Grabowski,
University of Hawaii, for the CHNS elemental analysis of DOM. Daniel J. Repeta
acknowledges support from the Gordan and Betty Moore Foundation award 6000
and the Simons Foundation SCOPE award 329108.</p></ack><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e2650">This paper was edited by Keding Lu and reviewed by four anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Aiken, A. C., DeCarlo, P. F., and Jimenez, J. L.: Elemental analysis of
organic species with electron ionization high-resolution mass spectrometry,
Anal. Chem., 79, 8350–8358, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ac071150w" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/ac071150w</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Aiken, A. C., Decarlo, P. F., Kroll, J. H., Worsnop, D. R., Huffman, J. A.,
Docherty, K. S., Ulbrich, I. M., Mohr, C., Kimmel, J. R., Sueper, D., Sun,
Y., Zhang, Q., Trimborn, A., Northway, M., Ziemann, P. J., Canagaratna, M.
R., Onasch, T. B., Alfarra, M. R., Prevot, A. S. H., Dommen, J., Duplissy,
J., Metzger, A., Balensperger, U., and Jimenez, J. L.: O/C and OM/OC Ratios
of Primary, Secondary, and Ambient Organic Aerosols with High-Resolution
Time-of-Flight Aerosol Mass Spectrometry, Environ. Sci. Technol., 42,
4478–4485, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es703009q" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es703009q</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Becker, J. W., Berube, P. M., Follett, C. L., Waterbury, J. B., Chisholm, S.
W., Delong, E. F., Repeta, D. J., and Metz, T.: Closely related phytoplankton
species produce similar suites of dissolved organic matter, Front.
Microbiol., 5, 1–14, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00111" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/fmicb.2014.00111</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Bozzetti, C., Daellenbach, K. R., Hueglin, C., Fermo, P., Sciare, J.,
Kasper-Giebl, A., Mazar, Y., Abbaszade, L., El Kazzi, M., Gonzalez, R.,
Shuster-Meiseles, T., Flasch, M., Wolf, R., Kr, A., Francesco Canonaco, E.,
Schnelle-Kreis, R., Slowik, J. G., Zimmermann, R., Rudich, Y.,
Baltensperger, U., El Haddad, I., and Preo, A. H.: Size-Resolved
Identification, Characterization, and Quantification of Primary Biological
Organic Aerosol at a European Rural Site, Environ. Sci. Technol., 50,
3425–3434, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05960" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.5b05960</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Bozzetti, C., Sosedova, Y., Xiao, M., Daellenbach, K. R., Ulevicius, V.,
Dudoitis, V., Mordas, G., Bycenkiene, S., Plauškaite, K., Vlachou, A., Golly,
B., Chazeau, B., Besombes, J.-L., Baltensperger, U., Jaffrezo, J.-L., Slowik,
J. G., El Haddad, I., and Prévôt, A. S. H.: Argon offline-AMS source
apportionment of organic aerosol over yearly cycles for an urban, rural, and
marine site in northern Europe, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 117–141,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-117-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-117-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Budisulistiorini, S. H., Li, X., Bairai, S. T., Renfro, J., Liu, Y., Liu, Y.
J., McKinney, K. A., Martin, S. T., McNeill, V. F., Pye, H. O. T., Nenes, A.,
Neff, M. E., Stone, E. A., Mueller, S., Knote, C., Shaw, S. L., Zhang, Z.,
Gold, A., and Surratt, J. D.: Examining the effects of anthropogenic
emissions on isoprene-derived secondary organic aerosol formation during the
2013 Southern Oxidant and Aerosol Study (SOAS) at the Look Rock, Tennessee
ground site, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 8871–8888,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-8871-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-8871-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Canagaratna, M. R., Jayne, J. T., Jimenez, J. L., Allan, J. D., Alfarra, M.
R., Zhang, Q., Onasch, T. B., Drewnick, F., Coe, H., Middlebrook, A., Delia,
A., Williams, L. R., Trimborn, A. M., Northway, M. J., Decarlo, P. F., Kolb,
C. E., Davidovits, P., and Worsnop, D. R.: Chemical and Microphysical
Characterization of Ambient Aerosols with the Aerodyne Aerosol Mass
Spectrometer, Mass Spec. Rev., 26, 185–222, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/mas.20115" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/mas.20115</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Canagaratna, M. R., Jimenez, J. L., Kroll, J. H., Chen, Q., Kessler, S. H.,
Massoli, P., Hildebrandt Ruiz, L., Fortner, E., Williams, L. R., Wilson, K. R.,
Surratt, J. D., Donahue, N. M., Jayne, J. T., and Worsnop, D. R.: Elemental ratio
measurements of organic compounds using aerosol mass spectrometry: characterization,
improved calibration, and implications, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 253–272, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-253-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-253-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Chen, Q., Heald, C. L., Jimenez, J. L., Canagaratna, M. R., Zhang, Q., He,
L.-Y., Huang, X.-F., Campuzano-Jost, P., Palm, B. B., Poulain, L., Kuwata,
M., Martin, S. T., Abbatt, J. P. D., Lee, A. K. Y., and Liggio, J.: Elemental
composition of organic aerosol: The gap between ambient and laboratory
measurements, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 4182–4189,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063693" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015GL063693</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Chen, Q., Ikemori, F., and Mochida, M.: Light Absorption and
Excitation-Emission Fluorescence of Urban Organic Aerosol Components and
Their Relationship to Chemical Structure, Environ. Sci. Technol., 50,
10859–10868, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02541" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.6b02541</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Daellenbach, K. R., Bozzetti, C., Krepelová, A., Canonaco, F., Wolf, R.,
Zotter, P., Fermo, P., Crippa, M., Slowik, J. G., Sosedova, Y., Zhang, Y.,
Huang, R.-J., Poulain, L., Szidat, S., Baltensperger, U., El Haddad, I., and
Prévôt, A. S. H.: Characterization and source apportionment of organic
aerosol using offline aerosol mass spectrometry, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9,
23–39, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-23-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-9-23-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Daumit, K. E., Kessler, S. H., and Kroll, J. H.: Average chemical properties
and potential formation pathways of highly oxidized organic aerosol, Farady
Discuss., 165, 181–201, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1039/c3fd00045a" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1039/c3fd00045a</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Decarlo, P. F., Kimmel, J. R., Trimborn, A., Northway, M. J., Jayne, J. T.,
Aiken, A. C., Gonin, M., Fuhrer, K., Horvath, T., Docherty, K. S., Worsnop,
D. R., and Jimenez, J. L.: Field-Depolyable, High-Resolution, Time-of-Flight
Aerosol Mass Spectrometer, Anal. Chem., 78, 8281–8289,
doi:8410.1029/2001JD001213.Analytical, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Docherty, K. S., Jaoui, M., Corse, E., Jimenez, J. L., Offenberg, J. H.,
Lewandowski, M., and Kleindienst, T. E.: Collection Efficiency of the Aerosol
Mass Spectrometer for Chamber-Generated Secondary Organic Aerosols, Aerosol
Sci. Technol., 47, 294–309, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2012.752572" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786826.2012.752572</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Donnelly, T. D., Hogan, J., Mugler, A., Schubmehl, M., Schommer, N.,
Bernoff, A. J., Dasnurkar, S., and Ditmire, T.: Using ultrasonic atomization
to produce an aerosol of micron-scale particles, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 76,
1–10, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2130336" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1063/1.2130336</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Gallimore, P. J. and Kalberer, M.: Characterizing an Extractive Electrospray
Ionization (EESI) Source for the Online Mass Spectrometry Analysis of
Organic Aerosols, Environ. Sci. Technol., 47, 734–7331,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es305199h" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es305199h</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page1670?><ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Ge, X., Li, L., Chen, Y., Chen, H., Wu, D., Wang, J., Xie, X., Ge, S., Ye,
Z., Xu, J., and Chen, M.: Aerosol characteristics and sources in Yangzhou,
China resolved by offline aerosol mass spectrometry and other techniques,
Environ. Pollut., 225, 74–85, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.03.044" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.envpol.2017.03.044</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Han, Y., Kawamura, K., Chen, Q., and Mochida, M.: Formation of
high-molecular-weight compounds via the heterogeneous reactions of gaseous
C8–C10 n-aldehydes in the presence of atmospheric aerosol components,
Atmos. Environ., 126, 290–297, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.11.050" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.11.050</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Hansman, R. L., Dittmar, T., and Herndl, G. J.: Conservation of dissolved
organic matter molecular composition during mixing of the deep water masses
of the northeast Atlantic Ocean, Mar. Chem., 177, 288–297,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marchem.2015.06.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.marchem.2015.06.001</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Heald, C. L., Kroll, J. H., Jimenez, J. L., Docherty, K. S., Decarlo, P. F.,
Aiken, A. C., Chen, Q., Martin, S. T., Farmer, D. K., and Artaxo, P.: A
simplified description of the evolution of organic aerosol composition in
the atmosphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L08803,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL042737" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010GL042737</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Huang, R.-J., Zhang, Y., Bozzetti, C., Ho, K.-F., Cao, J.-J., Han, Y.,
Daellenbach, K. R., Slowik, J. G., Platt, S. M., Canonaco, F., Zotter, P.,
Wolf, R., Pieber, S. M., Bruns, E. A., Crippa, M., Ciarelli, G.,
Piazzalunga, A., Schwikowski, M., Abbaszade, G., Schnelle-Kreis, J.,
Zimmermann, R., An, Z., Szidat, S., Baltensperger, U., El Haddad, I., and
Prévôt, A. S. H.: High secondary aerosol contribution to particulate
pollution during haze events in China, Nature, 514,
218–222, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13774" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature13774</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Hunter, J. F., Carrasquillo, A. J., Daumit, K. E., and Kroll, J. H.:
Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation from Acyclic, Monocyclic, and Polycyclic
Alkanes, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 10227–10234, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es502674s" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es502674s</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Jimenez, J. L., Jayne, J. T., Shi, Q., Kolb, C. E., Worsnop, D. R.,
Yourshaw, I., Seinfeld, J. H., Flagan, R. C., Zhang, X., Smith, K. A.,
Morris, J. W., and Davidovits, P.: Ambient aerosol sampling using the
Aerodyne Aerosol Mass Spectrometer, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 8425,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD001213" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001JD001213</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Jimenez, J. L., Canagaratna, M. R., Donahue, N. M., Prevot, A. S. H., Zhang,
Q., Kroll, J. H., Decarlo, P. F., Allan, J. D., Coe, H., Ng, N. L., Aiken,
A. C., Docherty, K. S., Ulbrich, I. M., Grieshop, A. P., Robinson, A. L.,
Duplissy, J., Smith, J. D., Wilson, K. R., Lanz, V. A., Hueglin, C., Sun, Y.
L., Tian, J., Laaksonen, A., Raatikainen, T., Rautiainen, J., Vaattovaara,
P., Ehn, M., Kulmala, M., Tomlinson, J. M., Collins, D. R., Cubison, M. J.,
Dunlea, E. J., Huffman, J. A., Onasch, T. B., Alfarra, M. R., Williams, P.
I., Bower, K., Kondo, Y., Schneider, J., Drewnick, F., Borrmann, S., Weimer,
S., Demerjian, K., Salcedo, D., Cottrell, L., Griffin, R., Takami, A.,
Miyoshi, T., Hatakeyama, S., Shimono, A., Sun, J. Y., Zhang, Y. M., Dzepina,
K., Kimmel, J. R., Sueper, D., Jayne, J. T., Herndon, S. C., Trimborn, A.
M., Williams, L. R., Wood, E. C., Middlebrook, A. M., Kolb, C. E.,
Baltensperger, U., and Worsnop, D. R.: Evolution of Organic Aerosols in the
Atmosphere, Science, 80, 1525–1529, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1179518" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1179518</ext-link>,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Jimenez, J. L., Canagaratna, M. R., Drewnick, F., Allan, J. D., Alfarra, M.
R., Middlebrook, A. M., Slowik, J. G., Zhang, Q., Coe, H., Jayne, J. T., and
Worsnop, D. R.: Comment on “The effects of molecular weight and thermal
decomposition on the sensitivity of a thermal desorption aerosol mass
spectrometer,” Aerosol Sci. Technol., 50,
i–xv, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2016.1205728" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786826.2016.1205728</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Kaul, D. S., Gupta, T., and Tripathi, S. N.: Source Apportionment for Water
Soluble Organic Matter of Submicron Aerosol: A Comparison between Foggy and
Nonfoggy Episodes, Aerosol Air Qual. Res., 14, 1527–1533,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2013.10.0319" ext-link-type="DOI">10.4209/aaqr.2013.10.0319</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Kimmel, J. R., Farmer, D. K., Cubison, M. J., Sueper, D., Tanner, C.,
Nemitz, E., Worsnop, D. R., Gonin, M., and Jimenez, J. L.: Real-time aerosol
mass spectrometry with millisecond resolution, Int. J. Mass Spectrom., 303,
15–26, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2010.12.004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ijms.2010.12.004</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Koch, B. P., Witt, M., Engbrodt, R., Dittmar, T., and Kattner, G.: Molecular
formulae of marine and terrigenous dissolved organic matter detected by
electrospray ionization Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass
spectrometry, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 69, 3299–3308,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2005.02.027" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.gca.2005.02.027</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Kroll, J. H., Donahue, N. M., Jimenez, J. L., Kessler, S. H., Canagaratna,
M. R., Wilson, K. R., Altieri, K. E., Mazzoleni, L. R., Wozniak, A. S.,
Bluhm, H., Mysak, E. R., Smith, J. D., and Kolb, C. E.: Carbon oxidation
state as a metric for describing the chemistry of atmospheric organic
aerosol, Nat. Chem., 3, 133–139, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/NCHEM.948" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/NCHEM.948</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Kroll, J. H., Lim, C. Y., Kessler, S. H., and Wilson, K. R.: Heterogeneous
Oxidation of Atmospheric Organic Aerosol: Kinetics of Changes to the Amount
and Oxidation State of Particle-Phase Organic Carbon, J. Phys. Chem. A, 119,
10767–10783, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.5b06946" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.jpca.5b06946</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Lang, R. J.: Ultrasonic Atomization of Liquids, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 34,
6–8, 1962.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Lee, A. K. Y., Hayden, K. L., Herckes, P., Leaitch, W. R., Liggio, J.,
Macdonald, A. M., and Abbatt, J. P. D.: Characterization of aerosol and cloud
water at a mountain site during WACS 2010: secondary organic aerosol
formation through oxidative cloud processing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12,
7103–7116, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-7103-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-7103-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Lopez-Hilfiker, F. D., Mohr, C., Ehn, M., Rubach, F., Kleist, E., Wildt, J.,
Mentel, Th. F., Lutz, A., Hallquist, M., Worsnop, D., and Thornton, J. A.: A
novel method for online analysis of gas and particle composition: description
and evaluation of a Filter Inlet for Gases and AEROsols (FIGAERO), Atmos.
Meas. Tech., 7, 983–1001, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-983-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-7-983-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Lu, Y., Li, X., Mesfioui, R., Bauer, J. E., Chambers, R. M., Canuel, E. A.,
and Hatcher, P. G.: Use of ESI-FTICR-MS to Characterize Dissolved Organic
Matter in Headwater Streams Draining Forest-Dominated and Pasture-Dominated
Watersheds, PLoS One, 10, 1–21, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145639" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1371/journal.pone.0145639</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Mihara, T. and Mochida, M.: Characterization of Solvent-Extractable Organics
in Urban Aerosols Based on Mass Spectrum Analysis and Hygroscopic Growth
Measurement, Environ. Sci. Technol., 45, 9168–9174, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es201271w" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es201271w</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Murphy, D. M., Thomson, D. S., and Mahoney, M. J.: In Situ Measurements of
Organics, Meteoritic Material, Mercury, and Other Elements in Aerosols at 5
to 19 Kilometers, Science, 80, 1664–1669, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page1671?><ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Nakao, S., Tang, P., Tang, X., Clark, C. H., Qi, L., Seo, E., Asa-Awuku, A.,
and Iii, D. C.: Density and elemental ratios of secondary organic aerosol:
Application of a density prediction method, Atmos. Environ., 68, 273–277,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.11.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.11.006</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Ng, N. L., Herndon, S. C., Trimborn, A., Canagaratna, M. R., Croteau, P. L.,
Onasch, T. B., Sueper, D., Worsnop, D. R., Zhang, Q., Sun, Y. L., and Jayne,
J. T.: An Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor (ACSM) for Routine Monitoring
of the Composition and Mass Concentrations of Ambient Aerosol, Aerosol Sci.
Technol., 45, 780–794, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2011.560211" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786826.2011.560211</ext-link>, 2011a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Ng, N. L., Canagaratna, M. R., Jimenez, J. L., Chhabra, P. S., Seinfeld, J.
H., and Worsnop, D. R.: Changes in organic aerosol composition with aging
inferred from aerosol mass spectra, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 6465–6474,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-6465-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-6465-2011</ext-link>, 2011b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Simon, J. C., Sapozhnikov, O. A., Khokhlova, V. A., Crum, L. A., and Bailey,
M. R.: Ultrasonic atomization of liquids in drop-chain acoustic fountains, J
Fluid Mech., 766, 129–146, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2015.11.Ultrasonic" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1017/jfm.2015.11.Ultrasonic</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Skoog, D. F., Holler, F. J., and Nieman, T. A.: Principles of Instrumental
Analysis, Saunders College Pub, Philadelphia, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Sun, Y., Zhang, Q., Zheng, M., Ding, X., Edgerton, E. S., and Wang, X.:
Characterization and Source Apportionment of Water-Soluble Organic Matter in
Atmospheric Fine Particles (PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) with High-Resolution Aerosol Mass
Spectrometry and GC-MS, Environ. Sci. Technol., 45, 4854–4861,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es200162h" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es200162h</ext-link>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Xu, J., Zhang, Q., Li, X., Ge, X., Xiao, C., Ren, J., and Qin, D.: Dissolved
Organic Matter and Inorganic Ions in a Central Himalayan Glacier-Insights
into Chemical Composition and Atmospheric Sources, Environ. Sci. Technol.,
47, 6181–6188, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es4009882" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es4009882</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Xu, J. Z., Zhang, Q., Wang, Z. B., Yu, G. M., Ge, X. L., and Qin, X.:
Chemical composition and size distribution of summertime PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> at a high
altitude remote location in the northeast of the Qinghai-Xizang (Tibet)
Plateau: insights into aerosol sources and processing in free troposphere,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 5069–5081, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5069-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-5069-2015</ext-link>,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Xu, L., Guo, H., Weber, R. J., and Ng, N. L.: Chemical Characterization of
Water-Soluble Organic Aerosol in Contrasting Rural and Urban Environments in
the Southeastern United States, Environ. Sci. Technol., 51, 78–88,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.6b05002</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Xu, W., Lambe, A., Silva, P., Hu, W., Onasch, T., Williams, L., Croteau, P.,
Zhang, X., Renbaum-Wolff, L., Fortner, E., Jimenez, J. L., Jayne, J.,
Worsnop, D., and Canagaratna, M.: Laboratory evaluation of species-dependent
relative ionization efficiencies in the Aerodyne Aerosol Mass Spectrometer
Laboratory evaluation of species-dependent relative ionization efficiencies
in the Aerodyne Laboratory eva, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 52, 626–641,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2018.1439570" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786826.2018.1439570</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Ye, Z., Liu, J., Gu, A., Feng, F., Liu, Y., Bi, C., Xu, J., Li, L., Chen, H.,
Chen, Y., Dai, L., Zhou, Q., and Ge, X.: Chemical characterization of fine
particulate matter in Changzhou, China, and source apportionment with offline
aerosol mass spectrometry, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 2573–2592,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-2573-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-2573-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Ultrasonic nebulization for the elemental analysis of microgram-level samples with offline aerosol mass spectrometry</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>The elemental composition of organic material in
environmental samples – including atmospheric organic aerosol, dissolved
organic matter, and other complex mixtures – provides insights into their
sources and environmental processing. However, standard analytical
techniques for measuring elemental ratios typically require large sample
sizes (milligrams of material or more). Here we characterize a method for
measuring elemental ratios in environmental samples, requiring only
micrograms of material, using a small-volume nebulizer (SVN). The technique
uses ultrasonic nebulization of samples to generate aerosol particles
(100–300&thinsp;nm diameter), which are then analyzed using an aerosol mass
spectrometer (AMS). We demonstrate that the technique generates aerosol from
complex organic mixtures with minimal changes to the elemental composition
of the organic material and that quantification is possible using internal
standards (e.g., NH<sub>4</sub><sup>15</sup>NO<sub>3</sub>). Sample volumes of 2–4&thinsp;µL
with total solution concentrations of at least 0.2&thinsp;g&thinsp;L<sup>−1</sup> form sufficient
particle mass for elemental ratio measurement by the AMS, despite only a
small fraction ( ∼ &thinsp;0.1&thinsp;%) of the sample forming fine
particles after nebulization (with the remainder ending up as larger
droplets). The method was applied to aerosol filter extracts from the field
and laboratory, as well as to the polysaccharide fraction of dissolved
organic matter (DOM) from the North Pacific Ocean. In the case of aerosol
particles, the mass spectra and elemental ratios from the SVN–AMS agree with
those from online AMS sampling. Similarly, for DOM, the elemental ratios
determined from the SVN–AMS agree with those determined using combustion
analysis. The SVN–AMS provides a platform for the rapid quantitative
analysis of the elemental composition of complex organic mixtures and
non-refractory inorganic salts from microgram samples with applications that
include analysis of aerosol extracts and terrestrial, aquatic, and
atmospheric dissolved organic matter.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Aiken, A. C., DeCarlo, P. F., and Jimenez, J. L.: Elemental analysis of
organic species with electron ionization high-resolution mass spectrometry,
Anal. Chem., 79, 8350–8358, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ac071150w" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/ac071150w</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Aiken, A. C., Decarlo, P. F., Kroll, J. H., Worsnop, D. R., Huffman, J. A.,
Docherty, K. S., Ulbrich, I. M., Mohr, C., Kimmel, J. R., Sueper, D., Sun,
Y., Zhang, Q., Trimborn, A., Northway, M., Ziemann, P. J., Canagaratna, M.
R., Onasch, T. B., Alfarra, M. R., Prevot, A. S. H., Dommen, J., Duplissy,
J., Metzger, A., Balensperger, U., and Jimenez, J. L.: O/C and OM/OC Ratios
of Primary, Secondary, and Ambient Organic Aerosols with High-Resolution
Time-of-Flight Aerosol Mass Spectrometry, Environ. Sci. Technol., 42,
4478–4485, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es703009q" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es703009q</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Becker, J. W., Berube, P. M., Follett, C. L., Waterbury, J. B., Chisholm, S.
W., Delong, E. F., Repeta, D. J., and Metz, T.: Closely related phytoplankton
species produce similar suites of dissolved organic matter, Front.
Microbiol., 5, 1–14, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00111" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00111</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bozzetti, C., Daellenbach, K. R., Hueglin, C., Fermo, P., Sciare, J.,
Kasper-Giebl, A., Mazar, Y., Abbaszade, L., El Kazzi, M., Gonzalez, R.,
Shuster-Meiseles, T., Flasch, M., Wolf, R., Kr, A., Francesco Canonaco, E.,
Schnelle-Kreis, R., Slowik, J. G., Zimmermann, R., Rudich, Y.,
Baltensperger, U., El Haddad, I., and Preo, A. H.: Size-Resolved
Identification, Characterization, and Quantification of Primary Biological
Organic Aerosol at a European Rural Site, Environ. Sci. Technol., 50,
3425–3434, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05960" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05960</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Bozzetti, C., Sosedova, Y., Xiao, M., Daellenbach, K. R., Ulevicius, V.,
Dudoitis, V., Mordas, G., Bycenkiene, S., Plauškaite, K., Vlachou, A., Golly,
B., Chazeau, B., Besombes, J.-L., Baltensperger, U., Jaffrezo, J.-L., Slowik,
J. G., El Haddad, I., and Prévôt, A. S. H.: Argon offline-AMS source
apportionment of organic aerosol over yearly cycles for an urban, rural, and
marine site in northern Europe, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 117–141,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-117-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-117-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Budisulistiorini, S. H., Li, X., Bairai, S. T., Renfro, J., Liu, Y., Liu, Y.
J., McKinney, K. A., Martin, S. T., McNeill, V. F., Pye, H. O. T., Nenes, A.,
Neff, M. E., Stone, E. A., Mueller, S., Knote, C., Shaw, S. L., Zhang, Z.,
Gold, A., and Surratt, J. D.: Examining the effects of anthropogenic
emissions on isoprene-derived secondary organic aerosol formation during the
2013 Southern Oxidant and Aerosol Study (SOAS) at the Look Rock, Tennessee
ground site, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 8871–8888,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-8871-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-8871-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Canagaratna, M. R., Jayne, J. T., Jimenez, J. L., Allan, J. D., Alfarra, M.
R., Zhang, Q., Onasch, T. B., Drewnick, F., Coe, H., Middlebrook, A., Delia,
A., Williams, L. R., Trimborn, A. M., Northway, M. J., Decarlo, P. F., Kolb,
C. E., Davidovits, P., and Worsnop, D. R.: Chemical and Microphysical
Characterization of Ambient Aerosols with the Aerodyne Aerosol Mass
Spectrometer, Mass Spec. Rev., 26, 185–222, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/mas.20115" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/mas.20115</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Canagaratna, M. R., Jimenez, J. L., Kroll, J. H., Chen, Q., Kessler, S. H.,
Massoli, P., Hildebrandt Ruiz, L., Fortner, E., Williams, L. R., Wilson, K. R.,
Surratt, J. D., Donahue, N. M., Jayne, J. T., and Worsnop, D. R.: Elemental ratio
measurements of organic compounds using aerosol mass spectrometry: characterization,
improved calibration, and implications, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 253–272, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-253-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-253-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, Q., Heald, C. L., Jimenez, J. L., Canagaratna, M. R., Zhang, Q., He,
L.-Y., Huang, X.-F., Campuzano-Jost, P., Palm, B. B., Poulain, L., Kuwata,
M., Martin, S. T., Abbatt, J. P. D., Lee, A. K. Y., and Liggio, J.: Elemental
composition of organic aerosol: The gap between ambient and laboratory
measurements, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 4182–4189,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063693" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063693</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, Q., Ikemori, F., and Mochida, M.: Light Absorption and
Excitation-Emission Fluorescence of Urban Organic Aerosol Components and
Their Relationship to Chemical Structure, Environ. Sci. Technol., 50,
10859–10868, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02541" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02541</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Daellenbach, K. R., Bozzetti, C., Krepelová, A., Canonaco, F., Wolf, R.,
Zotter, P., Fermo, P., Crippa, M., Slowik, J. G., Sosedova, Y., Zhang, Y.,
Huang, R.-J., Poulain, L., Szidat, S., Baltensperger, U., El Haddad, I., and
Prévôt, A. S. H.: Characterization and source apportionment of organic
aerosol using offline aerosol mass spectrometry, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9,
23–39, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-23-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-23-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Daumit, K. E., Kessler, S. H., and Kroll, J. H.: Average chemical properties
and potential formation pathways of highly oxidized organic aerosol, Farady
Discuss., 165, 181–201, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1039/c3fd00045a" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1039/c3fd00045a</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Decarlo, P. F., Kimmel, J. R., Trimborn, A., Northway, M. J., Jayne, J. T.,
Aiken, A. C., Gonin, M., Fuhrer, K., Horvath, T., Docherty, K. S., Worsnop,
D. R., and Jimenez, J. L.: Field-Depolyable, High-Resolution, Time-of-Flight
Aerosol Mass Spectrometer, Anal. Chem., 78, 8281–8289,
doi:8410.1029/2001JD001213.Analytical, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Docherty, K. S., Jaoui, M., Corse, E., Jimenez, J. L., Offenberg, J. H.,
Lewandowski, M., and Kleindienst, T. E.: Collection Efficiency of the Aerosol
Mass Spectrometer for Chamber-Generated Secondary Organic Aerosols, Aerosol
Sci. Technol., 47, 294–309, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2012.752572" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2012.752572</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Donnelly, T. D., Hogan, J., Mugler, A., Schubmehl, M., Schommer, N.,
Bernoff, A. J., Dasnurkar, S., and Ditmire, T.: Using ultrasonic atomization
to produce an aerosol of micron-scale particles, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 76,
1–10, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2130336" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2130336</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Gallimore, P. J. and Kalberer, M.: Characterizing an Extractive Electrospray
Ionization (EESI) Source for the Online Mass Spectrometry Analysis of
Organic Aerosols, Environ. Sci. Technol., 47, 734–7331,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es305199h" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es305199h</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Ge, X., Li, L., Chen, Y., Chen, H., Wu, D., Wang, J., Xie, X., Ge, S., Ye,
Z., Xu, J., and Chen, M.: Aerosol characteristics and sources in Yangzhou,
China resolved by offline aerosol mass spectrometry and other techniques,
Environ. Pollut., 225, 74–85, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.03.044" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.03.044</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Han, Y., Kawamura, K., Chen, Q., and Mochida, M.: Formation of
high-molecular-weight compounds via the heterogeneous reactions of gaseous
C8–C10 n-aldehydes in the presence of atmospheric aerosol components,
Atmos. Environ., 126, 290–297, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.11.050" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.11.050</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Hansman, R. L., Dittmar, T., and Herndl, G. J.: Conservation of dissolved
organic matter molecular composition during mixing of the deep water masses
of the northeast Atlantic Ocean, Mar. Chem., 177, 288–297,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marchem.2015.06.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marchem.2015.06.001</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Heald, C. L., Kroll, J. H., Jimenez, J. L., Docherty, K. S., Decarlo, P. F.,
Aiken, A. C., Chen, Q., Martin, S. T., Farmer, D. K., and Artaxo, P.: A
simplified description of the evolution of organic aerosol composition in
the atmosphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L08803,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL042737" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL042737</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, R.-J., Zhang, Y., Bozzetti, C., Ho, K.-F., Cao, J.-J., Han, Y.,
Daellenbach, K. R., Slowik, J. G., Platt, S. M., Canonaco, F., Zotter, P.,
Wolf, R., Pieber, S. M., Bruns, E. A., Crippa, M., Ciarelli, G.,
Piazzalunga, A., Schwikowski, M., Abbaszade, G., Schnelle-Kreis, J.,
Zimmermann, R., An, Z., Szidat, S., Baltensperger, U., El Haddad, I., and
Prévôt, A. S. H.: High secondary aerosol contribution to particulate
pollution during haze events in China, Nature, 514,
218–222, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13774" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13774</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Hunter, J. F., Carrasquillo, A. J., Daumit, K. E., and Kroll, J. H.:
Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation from Acyclic, Monocyclic, and Polycyclic
Alkanes, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 10227–10234, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es502674s" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es502674s</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Jimenez, J. L., Jayne, J. T., Shi, Q., Kolb, C. E., Worsnop, D. R.,
Yourshaw, I., Seinfeld, J. H., Flagan, R. C., Zhang, X., Smith, K. A.,
Morris, J. W., and Davidovits, P.: Ambient aerosol sampling using the
Aerodyne Aerosol Mass Spectrometer, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 8425,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD001213" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD001213</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Jimenez, J. L., Canagaratna, M. R., Donahue, N. M., Prevot, A. S. H., Zhang,
Q., Kroll, J. H., Decarlo, P. F., Allan, J. D., Coe, H., Ng, N. L., Aiken,
A. C., Docherty, K. S., Ulbrich, I. M., Grieshop, A. P., Robinson, A. L.,
Duplissy, J., Smith, J. D., Wilson, K. R., Lanz, V. A., Hueglin, C., Sun, Y.
L., Tian, J., Laaksonen, A., Raatikainen, T., Rautiainen, J., Vaattovaara,
P., Ehn, M., Kulmala, M., Tomlinson, J. M., Collins, D. R., Cubison, M. J.,
Dunlea, E. J., Huffman, J. A., Onasch, T. B., Alfarra, M. R., Williams, P.
I., Bower, K., Kondo, Y., Schneider, J., Drewnick, F., Borrmann, S., Weimer,
S., Demerjian, K., Salcedo, D., Cottrell, L., Griffin, R., Takami, A.,
Miyoshi, T., Hatakeyama, S., Shimono, A., Sun, J. Y., Zhang, Y. M., Dzepina,
K., Kimmel, J. R., Sueper, D., Jayne, J. T., Herndon, S. C., Trimborn, A.
M., Williams, L. R., Wood, E. C., Middlebrook, A. M., Kolb, C. E.,
Baltensperger, U., and Worsnop, D. R.: Evolution of Organic Aerosols in the
Atmosphere, Science, 80, 1525–1529, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1179518" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1179518</a>,
2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Jimenez, J. L., Canagaratna, M. R., Drewnick, F., Allan, J. D., Alfarra, M.
R., Middlebrook, A. M., Slowik, J. G., Zhang, Q., Coe, H., Jayne, J. T., and
Worsnop, D. R.: Comment on “The effects of molecular weight and thermal
decomposition on the sensitivity of a thermal desorption aerosol mass
spectrometer,” Aerosol Sci. Technol., 50,
i–xv, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2016.1205728" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2016.1205728</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Kaul, D. S., Gupta, T., and Tripathi, S. N.: Source Apportionment for Water
Soluble Organic Matter of Submicron Aerosol: A Comparison between Foggy and
Nonfoggy Episodes, Aerosol Air Qual. Res., 14, 1527–1533,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2013.10.0319" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2013.10.0319</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Kimmel, J. R., Farmer, D. K., Cubison, M. J., Sueper, D., Tanner, C.,
Nemitz, E., Worsnop, D. R., Gonin, M., and Jimenez, J. L.: Real-time aerosol
mass spectrometry with millisecond resolution, Int. J. Mass Spectrom., 303,
15–26, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2010.12.004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2010.12.004</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Koch, B. P., Witt, M., Engbrodt, R., Dittmar, T., and Kattner, G.: Molecular
formulae of marine and terrigenous dissolved organic matter detected by
electrospray ionization Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass
spectrometry, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 69, 3299–3308,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2005.02.027" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2005.02.027</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Kroll, J. H., Donahue, N. M., Jimenez, J. L., Kessler, S. H., Canagaratna,
M. R., Wilson, K. R., Altieri, K. E., Mazzoleni, L. R., Wozniak, A. S.,
Bluhm, H., Mysak, E. R., Smith, J. D., and Kolb, C. E.: Carbon oxidation
state as a metric for describing the chemistry of atmospheric organic
aerosol, Nat. Chem., 3, 133–139, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/NCHEM.948" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/NCHEM.948</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Kroll, J. H., Lim, C. Y., Kessler, S. H., and Wilson, K. R.: Heterogeneous
Oxidation of Atmospheric Organic Aerosol: Kinetics of Changes to the Amount
and Oxidation State of Particle-Phase Organic Carbon, J. Phys. Chem. A, 119,
10767–10783, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.5b06946" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.5b06946</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Lang, R. J.: Ultrasonic Atomization of Liquids, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 34,
6–8, 1962.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, A. K. Y., Hayden, K. L., Herckes, P., Leaitch, W. R., Liggio, J.,
Macdonald, A. M., and Abbatt, J. P. D.: Characterization of aerosol and cloud
water at a mountain site during WACS 2010: secondary organic aerosol
formation through oxidative cloud processing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12,
7103–7116, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-7103-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-7103-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Lopez-Hilfiker, F. D., Mohr, C., Ehn, M., Rubach, F., Kleist, E., Wildt, J.,
Mentel, Th. F., Lutz, A., Hallquist, M., Worsnop, D., and Thornton, J. A.: A
novel method for online analysis of gas and particle composition: description
and evaluation of a Filter Inlet for Gases and AEROsols (FIGAERO), Atmos.
Meas. Tech., 7, 983–1001, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-983-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-983-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Lu, Y., Li, X., Mesfioui, R., Bauer, J. E., Chambers, R. M., Canuel, E. A.,
and Hatcher, P. G.: Use of ESI-FTICR-MS to Characterize Dissolved Organic
Matter in Headwater Streams Draining Forest-Dominated and Pasture-Dominated
Watersheds, PLoS One, 10, 1–21, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145639" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145639</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Mihara, T. and Mochida, M.: Characterization of Solvent-Extractable Organics
in Urban Aerosols Based on Mass Spectrum Analysis and Hygroscopic Growth
Measurement, Environ. Sci. Technol., 45, 9168–9174, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es201271w" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es201271w</a>,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Murphy, D. M., Thomson, D. S., and Mahoney, M. J.: In Situ Measurements of
Organics, Meteoritic Material, Mercury, and Other Elements in Aerosols at 5
to 19 Kilometers, Science, 80, 1664–1669, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Nakao, S., Tang, P., Tang, X., Clark, C. H., Qi, L., Seo, E., Asa-Awuku, A.,
and Iii, D. C.: Density and elemental ratios of secondary organic aerosol:
Application of a density prediction method, Atmos. Environ., 68, 273–277,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.11.006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.11.006</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Ng, N. L., Herndon, S. C., Trimborn, A., Canagaratna, M. R., Croteau, P. L.,
Onasch, T. B., Sueper, D., Worsnop, D. R., Zhang, Q., Sun, Y. L., and Jayne,
J. T.: An Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor (ACSM) for Routine Monitoring
of the Composition and Mass Concentrations of Ambient Aerosol, Aerosol Sci.
Technol., 45, 780–794, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2011.560211" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2011.560211</a>, 2011a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Ng, N. L., Canagaratna, M. R., Jimenez, J. L., Chhabra, P. S., Seinfeld, J.
H., and Worsnop, D. R.: Changes in organic aerosol composition with aging
inferred from aerosol mass spectra, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 6465–6474,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-6465-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-6465-2011</a>, 2011b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Simon, J. C., Sapozhnikov, O. A., Khokhlova, V. A., Crum, L. A., and Bailey,
M. R.: Ultrasonic atomization of liquids in drop-chain acoustic fountains, J
Fluid Mech., 766, 129–146, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2015.11.Ultrasonic" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2015.11.Ultrasonic</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Skoog, D. F., Holler, F. J., and Nieman, T. A.: Principles of Instrumental
Analysis, Saunders College Pub, Philadelphia, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Sun, Y., Zhang, Q., Zheng, M., Ding, X., Edgerton, E. S., and Wang, X.:
Characterization and Source Apportionment of Water-Soluble Organic Matter in
Atmospheric Fine Particles (PM<sub>2.5</sub>) with High-Resolution Aerosol Mass
Spectrometry and GC-MS, Environ. Sci. Technol., 45, 4854–4861,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es200162h" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es200162h</a>, 2011.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Xu, J., Zhang, Q., Li, X., Ge, X., Xiao, C., Ren, J., and Qin, D.: Dissolved
Organic Matter and Inorganic Ions in a Central Himalayan Glacier-Insights
into Chemical Composition and Atmospheric Sources, Environ. Sci. Technol.,
47, 6181–6188, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es4009882" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es4009882</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Xu, J. Z., Zhang, Q., Wang, Z. B., Yu, G. M., Ge, X. L., and Qin, X.:
Chemical composition and size distribution of summertime PM<sub>2.5</sub> at a high
altitude remote location in the northeast of the Qinghai-Xizang (Tibet)
Plateau: insights into aerosol sources and processing in free troposphere,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 5069–5081, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5069-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5069-2015</a>,
2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Xu, L., Guo, H., Weber, R. J., and Ng, N. L.: Chemical Characterization of
Water-Soluble Organic Aerosol in Contrasting Rural and Urban Environments in
the Southeastern United States, Environ. Sci. Technol., 51, 78–88,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05002</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Xu, W., Lambe, A., Silva, P., Hu, W., Onasch, T., Williams, L., Croteau, P.,
Zhang, X., Renbaum-Wolff, L., Fortner, E., Jimenez, J. L., Jayne, J.,
Worsnop, D., and Canagaratna, M.: Laboratory evaluation of species-dependent
relative ionization efficiencies in the Aerodyne Aerosol Mass Spectrometer
Laboratory evaluation of species-dependent relative ionization efficiencies
in the Aerodyne Laboratory eva, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 52, 626–641,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2018.1439570" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2018.1439570</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Ye, Z., Liu, J., Gu, A., Feng, F., Liu, Y., Bi, C., Xu, J., Li, L., Chen, H.,
Chen, Y., Dai, L., Zhou, Q., and Ge, X.: Chemical characterization of fine
particulate matter in Changzhou, China, and source apportionment with offline
aerosol mass spectrometry, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 2573–2592,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-2573-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-2573-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
