<?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"><?xmltex \makeatother\@nolinetrue\makeatletter?>
  <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-12-3173-2019</article-id><title-group><article-title>Two-wavelength thermal–optical determination of light-absorbing carbon in atmospheric aerosols</article-title><alt-title>Two-wavelength thermal–optical determination</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Two-wavelength thermal--optical determination}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{D. Massab\`{o} et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Massabò</surname><given-names>Dario</given-names></name>
          <email>massabo@ge.infn.it</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7445-0328</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Altomari</surname><given-names>Alessandro</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Vernocchi</surname><given-names>Virginia</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5015-5009</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Prati</surname><given-names>Paolo</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8097-9460</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Dept. of Physics, University of Genoa &amp; INFN, Via Dodecaneso 33, 16146, Genoa, Italy</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Dept. of Physics, University of Genoa, Via Dodecaneso 33, 16146, Genoa, Italy</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Dario Massabò (massabo@ge.infn.it)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>13</day><month>June</month><year>2019</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>12</volume>
      <issue>6</issue>
      <fpage>3173</fpage><lpage>3182</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>3</day><month>January</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>20</day><month>February</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>20</day><month>May</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>21</day><month>May</month><year>2019</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2019 Dario Massabò 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/12/3173/2019/amt-12-3173-2019.html">This article is available from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/3173/2019/amt-12-3173-2019.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/3173/2019/amt-12-3173-2019.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/3173/2019/amt-12-3173-2019.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e113">Thermal–optical analysis is widely adopted for the quantitative
determination of total (TC), organic (OC), and elemental (EC) carbon in
atmospheric aerosol sampled by suitable filters. Nevertheless, the
methodology suffers from several uncertainties and artifacts such as the well-known
issue of charring affecting the OC–EC separation. In the standard approach,
the effect of the possible presence of brown carbon, BrC, in the sample is
neglected. BrC is a fraction of OC, usually produced by biomass burning with
a thermic behavior intermediate between OC and EC. BrC is optically active:
it shows an increasing absorbance when the wavelength moves to the blue–UV
region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Definitively, the thermal–optical
characterization of carbonaceous aerosol should be reconsidered to address
the possible BrC content in the sample under analysis.</p>
    <p id="d1e116">We introduce here a modified Sunset Lab Inc. EC–OC analyzer. Starting from a
standard commercial instrument, the unit has been modified at the physics
department of the University of Genoa (Italy), making possible the
alternative use of the standard laser diode at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm and of
a new laser diode at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm. In this way, the optical
transmittance through the sample can be monitored at both wavelengths. Since
at shorter wavelengths the BrC absorbance is higher, a better sensitivity to
this species is gained. The modified instrument also gives the possibility
to quantify the BrC concentration in the sample at both wavelengths. The new
unit has been thoroughly tested, with both artificial and real-world aerosol
samples: the first experiment, in conjunction with the multi-wavelength
absorbance analyzer (MWAA; Massabò et al., 2013, 2015), resulted in
the first direct determination of the BrC mass absorption coefficient (MAC)
at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm: MAC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">23</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e200">Light-absorbing carbon (LAC) is the fraction of carbonaceous aerosol that
can absorb electromagnetic radiation in the visible or near-visible range
(Pöschl, 2003; Bond and Bergstrom, 2006; Moosmüller et al., 2009;
Ferrero et al., 2018). A wide literature investigates and characterizes the
optical properties of the inorganic-refractory LAC fraction, usually
referred as black carbon, BC (e.g., Bond et al., 2013, and references
therein), which is strongly absorbing from UV to infrared (IR) ranges, with a weak dependence
on wavelength (Bond and Bergstrom, 2006; Moosmüller et al., 2009). Much
less studied and understood is the organic LAC, often labeled as brown
carbon (BrC), which appears to be optically active at wavelengths shorter
than 650 nm and with an increasing absorbance moving to the blue and
ultraviolet (UV) range (Pöschl, 2003; Andreae and Gelencsér, 2006;
Moosmüller et al., 2011; Laskin et al., 2015; Olson et al., 2015). BrC
can therefore be considered to be the “optically active” part of the OC
dispersed in the atmosphere. When considered from a thermochemical point of
view, BrC also shows a refractory behavior since, in an inert atmosphere,
it volatizes at temperatures greater than 400 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C only (Chow et
al., 2015). A discussion on the primary and secondary sources of atmospheric
LAC is outside the scope of the present work; we simply remind the reader that primary
BrC is produced mainly by biomass burning even if, in some cases,
incomplete combustion of fossil fuels used in transport activities (i.e.,
terrestrial vehicles, ships and aircrafts) can also generate this kind of
compound (Corbin et al., 2018). It is also worth underlining that
carbonaceous aerosols impact human health (Pope and Dockery, 2006; Chow
et al., 2006; Mauderly and Chow, 2008), as well as climate and
environment (Bond and<?pagebreak page3174?> Sun, 2005; Highwood and Kinnersley, 2006; Chow et
al., 2010).</p>
      <p id="d1e212">In the wider landscape of atmospheric carbonaceous aerosol, despite a
worldwide diffused effort, the situation is not satisfactory and a
standardized and conclusive approach is still missing. The quantitative
determination of total, organic, and elemental carbon (TC, OC, and EC) is
often performed by a thermal–optical analysis (Birch and Cary, 1996; Watson
et al., 2005; Hitzenberger et al., 2006) of aerosol samples collected on
quartz-fiber filters. However, thermal–optical analyses are affected by
several issues and artifacts (Yang and Yu, 2002; Chow et al., 2004) and
different laboratories/agencies adopt protocols which systematically result
in discrepancies, particularly large in the EC quantification (Birch and
Cary, 1996; Chow et al., 2007; Cavalli et al., 2010). A further issue arises
when the effects of the possible presence of BrC in the sample are taken
into account. So far, the monitoring of the sample transmittance during the
thermal cycle has been introduced to correct for the well-known charring
effect and the formation of pyrolytic carbon (Birch and Cary, 1996). This
implies that BC is the sole absorbing compound at the wavelength implemented
in the thermal–optical analyzer (for instance at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, the
wavelength of the laser diode mounted in the extremely diffused Sunset Lab.
Inc. EC–OC analyzer). Basically, with a sizeable concentration of BrC in the
sample, one of the key assumptions of the thermal–optical methods fails and
the EC–OC separation is even more unstable (not to say that, by design, the
BrC quantification is not possible). This issue was preliminarily addressed
by Chen et al. (2015) by a multi-wavelength thermal–optical
reflectance and thermal–optical transmittance (TOR–TOT) instrument (thermal
spectral analysis – TSA) and further investigated in Massabò et al. (2016). In the latter work, a method to correct the results of a standard
Sunset analyzer and to retrieve the BrC concentration in the sample was
introduced. The achievement was possible thanks to a synergy with the
information provided by the multi-wavelength absorbance analyzer, MWAA
(Massabò et al., 2015) developed in the same laboratory. A further step
towards BrC quantification through the utilization of TSA was discussed in
Chow et al. (2018), where it was proven that the use of seven wavelengths in
thermal–optical carbon analysis allows contributions from biomass burning
and secondary organic aerosols to be estimated. It is worth noting that
the biomass burning contribution to PM concentration can also be estimated
by other methods such as aerosol mass spectrometry, AMS (Daellenbach et al.,
2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e227">The MWAA approach allows the determination of the spectral dependence of the
aerosol absorption coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), which can be generally described
by the power-law relationship <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">AAE</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where AAE is the Ångström absorption
exponent. Several works reported AAE values which depend on the aerosol
chemical composition (Kirchstetter et al., 2004; Utry et al., 2013) as well
as its size and morphology (Lewis et al., 2008; Lack et al., 2012; Lack and
Langridge, 2013; Filep et al., 2013; Utry et al., 2014). Furthermore, the
spectral dependence of the aerosol has been exploited to identify different
sources of carbonaceous aerosol (e.g., Sandradewi et al., 2008; Favez et
al., 2010; Lack and Langridge, 2013; Massabò et al., 2013, 2015). In
general, AAE values close to 1.0 have been found to be related to urban PM
where fossil fuel combustion is dominant, while higher AAE values, up to
2.5, have been linked to carbonaceous aerosols produced by wood burning
(Harrison et al., 2013, and references therein) and therefore to the
presence of BrC.</p>
      <p id="d1e280">In previous work by Massabò et al. (2016) the effect of the BrC
possibly contained in the sample on the thermal–optical analysis was
quantified and exploited to retrieve the BrC concentration from the raw data
provided by a standard Sunset Lab analyzer. This first step, suggested
modifying/upgrading a Sunset unit by adding the possibility to use a second laser
diode in the blue range. This improves the sensitivity to the BrC and allows us
to check whether the BrC quantification depends on the adopted wavelength.
We finally followed this route and we here introduce our modified Sunset
analyzer unit, the validation tests, and the results of the first campaign in
which the new unit was deployed.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Materials and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>The 2-lambda Sunset analyzer</title>
      <p id="d1e298">We have modified a commercial thermal–optical transmittance (TOT) instrument
(Sunset Lab Inc.). This equipment had been originally designed (Birch and
Cary, 1996) with a red laser diode (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm) to have the
possibility to monitor and correct the well-known problem of the formation of
pyrolytic carbon by charring (Birch and Cary, 1996; Bond and Bergstrom,
2006; Chow et al., 2007; Cavalli et al., 2010). The assumption that OC is
optically inactive at wavelengths greater than 600 nm is at the basis of the
technique; therefore the laser beam attenuation is only due to the EC
originally present or formed by charring in the sample under analysis.
Actually, even at this wavelength, BrC can affect the reliability of the
OC/EC separation and the standard methodology can be modified to quantify
the BrC concentration (Massabò et al., 2016). Nevertheless, at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm the BrC mass absorption coefficient, MAC(BrC), remains much
smaller than the corresponding MAC(BC) and the modified procedure
could/should be implemented at shorter wavelengths to gain in sensitivity.</p>
      <p id="d1e325">We have modified our Sunset unit by making possible the alternative use of the
standard laser diode at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm or of a World Star
Technologies, 100 mW, laser diode at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm. This second
laser diode can be mounted on the top of the Sunset furnace by a homemade
adapter (see Fig. 1) and easily exchanged with the native red diode. With
the new laser diode, the light detector placed at the bottom of the<?pagebreak page3175?> Sunset
furnace has to be changed too and we selected a photodiode (PD) Thorlabs
FDS1010 coupled with a bandpass filter Thorlabs FBH405-10. The responsivity
of the PD FDS1010 around <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">400</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm is quite low (about 50 mA W<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" 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>) but the high power delivered by the laser diode results in signals
with an amplitude comparable to the values measured with the original Sunset
setup (i.e., laser diode and PD). Furthermore, the FBH405-10 filter cuts
all the light background produced by the high temperature of the Sunset
furnace, thus preserving the signal-to-noise ratio. Both laser and PD can be
exchanged in about 10 min and no particular attention is requested other than the
proper alignment to maximize the PD output signal (i.e., the <italic>transmittance</italic> value
displayed by the Sunset control software). We have to note that the original
configuration of the Sunset instrument adopts a lock-in amplifier to improve
the signal-to-noise ratio of the PD: we did not have the possibility to
manipulate the parameters of the lock-in amplifier and to tune it to the new
configuration.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e381">The new <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm laser diode mounted by a steel
adapter on the Sunset furnace <bold>(a)</bold> and comparison with the standard
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm laser diode implemented by the manufacturer <bold>(b)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/3173/2019/amt-12-3173-2019-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Test of the new configuration</title>
      <p id="d1e430">The new blue-light setup of the Sunset analyzer was tested using both
synthetic and real-world aerosol samples, collected on quartz-fiber filters.
Synthetic samples were prepared starting with a 5 % (volume) solution of
Aquadag, then nebulized by a Blaustein atomizer (BLAM), and collected on
quartz-fiber filters. Aquadag is the trade name of a water-based colloidal
graphite coating (particle diameters between 50 and 100 nm): these samples
can therefore be considered to be composed of EC–BC only. The samples were
first sent to an optical characterization by the MWAA instrument
(Massabò et al., 2015), which demonstrated that the optical absorption of
Aquadag is independent of the wavelength. Actually, Aquadag particles tend
to form conglomerates on the filter surface, with dimensions about double
the longer wavelength implemented in the MWAA (i.e., 850 nm of the
infrared laser diode; Massabò et al., 2015). So, the comparison between
the new blue-light and original Sunset setups was made with samples having
the same absorption properties. EC and TC quantifications obtained at
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm were in excellent agreement
for both the NIOSH5040 and EUSAAR_2 protocols (Cavalli et al.,
2010), as shown in Fig. 2 for the whole set of synthetic samples.</p>
      <p id="d1e457">A second set of synthetic samples was prepared to mimic the behavior of
real-world aerosol samples: a 3 % (weight) solution of ammonium sulfate
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Aquadag was prepared and nebulized with the
BLAM. This way, a scattering compound is mixed to the absorbing Aquadag
spherules. The optical absorption measured with MWAA was independent of
wavelength with this second set of samples too. The results of the Sunset
analysis with both the red and blue laser setups are shown in Fig. 3. This
second set of samples was analyzed through the EUSAAR_ 2
protocol only: we used two punches for each laser in each sample to have a
reproducibility check. A strong correlation between the TC and EC values
measured in red and blue light was obtained again with a slope close to
unity.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e485">Quantification of TC and EC at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (red) and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm (blue) for the set of synthetic Aquadag samples. <bold>(a)</bold> NIOSH5040 protocol; <bold>(b)</bold> EUSAAR_2 protocol.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/3173/2019/amt-12-3173-2019-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e525">A third and final test was performed using a set of daily PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> samples
collected by a low-volume sampler (TCR – Tecora, Italy) on quartz-fiber
filters (Pall-2500 QAO-UP, 47 mm diameter) in spring 2016 in the urban area
of the city of Genoa (Italy). A previous and long set of similar campaigns
addressing PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> characterization (e.g., Bove et al., 2014, and references
therein) in the same urban area could not identify a sizeable contribution
from biomass burning to PM composition, in particular during spring and
summer. Such a situation was confirmed by the determination of the
Ångström exponent in the present samples by the MWAA. Actually, in
the set of 20 PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> samples, the values of the Ångström exponent
ranged between 0.9 and 1.2, confirming that black carbon is the sole or
totally dominant light-absorbing component in the local PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Sandradewi et
al., 2008; Harrison et al., 2013). Half of the samples were then sent to
Sunset analysis by the NIOSH5040 protocol while the<?pagebreak page3176?> EUSAAR_2
protocol was adopted for the remaining subset of samples. The results are shown in
Fig. 4. The EC concentration values measured with the standard and
modified Sunset analyzers are fully compatible when the NIOSH5040 protocol is
adopted (basically, the split point position in the Sunset thermogram does
not change with the two laser diodes). Instead, EC values determined by the
EUSAAR_2 protocol resulted in about 30 % lower values when
the blue laser diode was mounted. This corresponds to a shift of the split
point position, which moves rightward and thus increases the amount of
carbonaceous aerosol counted in the OC fraction. This effect is linked to
the well-known issue of the formation of pyrolytic carbon during the thermal
cycle in the inert atmosphere (i.e., in He). Several literature studies
(e.g., Cavalli et al., 2010; Panteliadis et al., 2015) indicated that the
charring is smaller at the higher temperatures reached during the NIOSH
thermal protocol. In the other protocol, standard thermal–optical analyses of
urban PM samples often give higher EC values (up to 50 %) when performed
following the EUSAAR_2 instead of higher-temperature
protocols (Subramanian et al., 2006; Zhi et al., 2008; Piazzalunga et al.,
2011; Karanasiou et al., 2015; Panteliadis et al., 2015). Furthermore, as
a by-product of previous PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> studies in the urban area of Genoa by a standard
Sunset unit, we could observe a systematic and very reproducible 40 %
discrepancy between EC values determined in the same samples by
EUSAAR_2 and NIOSH5040 protocols (with EC: EUSAAR
&gt; EC: NIOSH). Therefore, the thermal–optical analysis in blue
light seems to be more sensitive to the charring formation during the
EUSAAR_2 protocol.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e575">Quantification of TC and EC at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (red) and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm (blue) for the set of synthetic Aquadag <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> ammonium
sulfate samples by the EUSAAR_2 protocol.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/3173/2019/amt-12-3173-2019-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>First field campaign and results</title>
      <p id="d1e624">The modified Sunset instrument was used for the first time, in conjunction
with the MWAA instrument and apportionment methodology (Massabò et al.,
2015), to retrieve the MAC (mass absorption coefficient) of brown carbon at
the two wavelengths of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, in a
set of samples collected during wintertime at a mountain site.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Sample collection</title>
      <?pagebreak page3177?><p id="d1e658">Aerosol samples were collected in a small village (Propata, 44<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>33<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>52.93<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>′</mml:mo><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 9<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>11<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>05.57<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>′</mml:mo><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 970 m a.s.l.) situated in the
Ligurian Apennines, Italy. Three different sets of PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> aerosol samples were
collected by a low-volume sampler (38.3 L min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" 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> by TCR Tecora): the
first and the third sets had a filter change set every 24h while the second
set was sampled on a 48 h basis. In total, 41 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> samples
were collected on quartz-fiber filters (Pall, 2500QAO-UP, 47 mm diameter),
between 2 February  and 19 April 2018. Before the sampling,
the filters were baked at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">700</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C for 2 h to remove
possible internal contamination. Field blank filters were used to monitor
possible contaminations during the sampling phase. Wood burning is one of
the PM sources around the sampling site, especially during the cold season,
as it is used for both domestic heating and cooking purposes.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Laboratory analyses</title>
      <p id="d1e798">All filters were weighed before and after sampling in an air-conditioned
room (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C; R.H. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %),
after 48 h conditioning. The gravimetric determination of the PM mass was
performed using an analytical microbalance (precision: 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g), which was
operated inside the conditioned room; electrostatic effects were avoided by
the use of a deionizing gun.</p>
      <p id="d1e851">After weighing, samples were first optically analyzed by MWAA to retrieve
the absorption coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of PM at five different wavelengths.
The EC and OC determination was performed adopting the EUSAAR_2 protocol (Cavalli et al., 2010) with both laser diodes at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm (two different punches were extracted
from each filter sample).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e891">EC concentration measured in two subsets of PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> samples
collected in consecutive days in the urban area of Genoa in late spring
2016. Values determined with the Sunset analyzer equipped with blue and red
laser diodes are compared.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/3173/2019/amt-12-3173-2019-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e910">Finally, the remaining portion of the same quartz-fiber filters underwent a
chemical determination of the levoglucosan (1,6-Anhydro-beta-glucopyranose)
concentration by high-performance anion exchange chromatographer coupled with
pulsed amperometric detection (Piazzalunga et al., 2010). As is well-known in
literature, this sugar is one of the typical markers of biomass burning
(Vassura et al., 2014).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Optical apportionment</title>
      <p id="d1e921">The MWAA provided the raw data to measure the spectral dependence
of the aerosol absorption coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), which can be generally
described by the power-law relationship <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">AAE</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where AAE is the Ångström
absorption exponent.</p>
      <p id="d1e974">The time series of the resulting AAE values is shown in Fig. 5: they range
between 1.05 and 1.96 with a mean value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.55</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This figure
indicates a substantial presence of wood burning in the sampling area. In
Massabò et al. (2015) and Bernardoni et al. (2017), an optical
apportionment model (the “MWAA model”) based on the measurement of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at five wavelengths had been introduced to directly obtain the BrC
AAE (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the BrC absorption coefficient
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) at each measured wavelength. It is worth noting that,
at the basis of the MWAA model, there is the assumption that BrC is produced
by wood combustion only (see Sect. 4 in Massabò et al., 2015;
Zheng et al., 2013). In Fig. 5, we report the optical apportionment at
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, i.e., at the wavelength
of the two laser diodes used in our modified Sunset instrument. At <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, light absorption resulted mainly due to BC from both fossil
fuel (FF) and wood burning (WB), and the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> average value is
15 % of total <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, with the notable exception of some days on which
it reached values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %, in correspondence with AAE
&gt; 1.9. Instead, at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, the BrC contribution to
light absorption increases up to 33 % (average percentage of total <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>),
with a maximum value of 51 %, again when AAE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">exp</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> &gt; 1.9. The
time series of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values at both wavelengths turned out to be
well correlated (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.71</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) with the levoglucosan (levo, in the
following) concentration values, as reported in Fig. 6. The slope of the
correlation curve increases by a factor of 5.8 when moving from the red to the
blue light.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1158">Primary axis: optical apportionment of the aerosol absorption
coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(a)</bold> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm <bold>(b)</bold>. Secondary axis: experimental AAE (AAE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">exp</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) values
obtained by fitting the measured <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values with a power-law
relationship <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">AAE</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. FF
and WB stand for fossil fuel and wood burning, respectively.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/3173/2019/amt-12-3173-2019-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1264">The average <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value turned out to be <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, in very good agreement with a previous value (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) obtained in the same site and with the same
approach (Massabò et al., 2016). The result is also in agreement with
other literature (Yang et al., 2009; Massabò et al., 2015; Chen et
al., 2015).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>Brown carbon MAC</title>
      <p id="d1e1325">The methodology to extract the MAC value for BrC by the coupled use of MWAA
and thermal–optical analysis has been introduced in a previous work
(Massabò et al., 2016). In that case, a standard (i.e., with a red laser
diode only) Sunset unit was used. The entire procedure is described in
detail in Massabò et al. (2016); here we briefly summarize the main
steps.
<list list-type="custom"><list-item><label>a.</label>
      <p id="d1e1330">The fraction of light attenuation due to the BrC is first calculated in each
sample with the MWAA raw data.</p></list-item><list-item><label>b.</label>
      <p id="d1e1334">The empirical relationship between the light attenuation through the sample,
observed in the MWAA and in the Sunset analyzer and at both wavelengths, is then
determined. We remind the reader that in the Sunset measurement, the light attenuation
is continuously recorded during the analysis; the value characteristic of
each blank filter can be retrieved when all the light-absorbing PM<?pagebreak page3178?> has been
volatized (i.e., at the end of the thermal protocol).</p></list-item><list-item><label>c.</label>
      <p id="d1e1338">The fraction of light attenuation due to the BrC in the sample is therefore
calculated for the Sunset analysis and the initial transmittance value is
corrected to estimate the attenuation value that would have been found if
BrC were not present in the filter sample.</p></list-item><list-item><label>d.</label>
      <p id="d1e1342">A new split-point position is then determined taking into account the
corrected value of the initial transmittance.</p></list-item><list-item><label>e.</label>
      <p id="d1e1346">The OC and EC values determined with the standard and corrected split-point
positions are then compared and the difference (OC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cor</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> – OC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">std</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
EC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">std</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> – EC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cor</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) is operatively assumed to be equal to the BrC in
the sample. The corresponding BrC atmospheric concentration is finally
calculated.</p></list-item><list-item><label>f.</label>
      <p id="d1e1389">The correlation between the values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, provided by the
MWAA analysis (see Sect. 3.3) and BrC concentration, is studied to
determine the MAC value.</p></list-item></list></p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1407">Aerosol absorption coefficient apportioned to brown carbon
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(a)</bold> and at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm <bold>(b)</bold> vs. levoglucosan concentration.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/3173/2019/amt-12-3173-2019-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e1461">Comparison between the aerosol absorption coefficient apportioned
to brown carbon vs. the resulting operative BrC concentration values at
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(a)</bold> and at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm <bold>(b)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/3173/2019/amt-12-3173-2019-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1501">In the present experiment, the procedure was adopted to analyze the
thermograms produced with both the red and the blue laser diodes mounted in
the Sunset unit: the results are summarized in Fig. 7. Despite a rather
high noise in the data, the MAC(BrC) value at the two wavelengths can be
determined and it turns out to be MAC(BrC) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">23</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" 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>, respectively, at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 405 nm. This result deserves some comments.
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1566">The MAC value at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm differs for about 3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from the
result reported in Massabò et al. (2016) and obtained for the same site
and in a similar season (i.e., November 2015 to January 2016; MAC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g<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>). Since differences in the type of wood burned
in the past and present campaign cannot be excluded, the two values can be
considered to be in fair agreement.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1624">No comparison with previous or other literature values is possible for the
MAC value at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, given the substantial differences in
adopted definitions and methodologies (Yang et al., 2009; Feng et al.,<?pagebreak page3179?> 2013;
Chen and Bond, 2010). However, the increase by a factor of 2.3 with respect to
the MAC at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm follows the expected behavior.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1652">Under the assumption that the sole source of BrC is biomass burning, the MAC
values can be attributed to the total concentration of organic carbon (i.e.,
including the part not optically active) produced by biomass burning.
Adopting with the present data set the optical OC apportionment methodology
reported in Massabò et al. (2015), the BrC values determined at
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm turn out to be about 4 % of the OC produced by wood
combustion, OC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">WB</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and consequently MAC(OC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">WB</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.39</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.06</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" 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>. When the analysis
is performed at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, BrC is about 10 % of
OC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">WB</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and MAC(OC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">WB</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" 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>. Previous literature (Feng et al., 2013; Laskin et
al., 2015, and references therein) reports MAC values of BrC and/or related
OC ranging in quite a large interval.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1808">The ratio between BrC and levo concentration values results in BrC : levo
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.19</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.02</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.42</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.06</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively, when considering
the BrC concentration determined by MWAA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Sunset at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and 405 nm. In other words, the operative procedure, introduced in
Massabò et al. (2016), results in different BrC concentration values
according to the considered/used wavelength. This fact can be interpreted in
different ways: while the analytical sensitivity is higher at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm and the corresponding BrC values could be considered to be more firm,
the category of compounds collected under the label “brown carbon” could
be itself “wavelength dependent”. The latter would imply that the BrC
concentration cannot be defined separately from the wavelength and that its
meaning is even more “operative” than in the case for the more widespread
OC and EC fractions. As a matter of fact, while the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values
discussed in Sect. 3.3 increase by a factor of 5.8 moving from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, the corresponding variation in the
MAC(BrC) values is by a factor of 2.3 only. This is because the BrC
concentration determined at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm is twice the value
measured at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm. The purposes and the limits of the
present study prevent any firm conclusion on the alternative explanation:
BrC definition is wavelength dependent or the analysis in red light is not
sensitive enough.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1931">When considering the OC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">WB</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> : levo concentration ratio, the MWAA analysis
at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm gives very compatible
results, with a mean value of OC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">WB</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> : levo <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></list-item></list></p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>4</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e1999">We introduced a modified version of a commercial Sunset Lab Inc. OC/EC
analyzer. We upgraded the standard instrument unit making possible the
alternative use of a red (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm) or blue (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm) laser diode to monitor the light transmittance through the sample during
the thermal cycle. The analytical performance of the new setup has been
tested with both artificial and real-world aerosol samples.</p>
      <p id="d1e2026">The new Sunset setup was used to analyze a set of samples collected during
mostly wintertime at a mountain site of the Italian Apennines. We retrieved
brown carbon concentration values directly from the Sunset thermograms
following Massabò et al. (2016). Exploiting the synergic information
provided by the multi-wavelength absorbance analyzer, MWAA (Massabò et
al., 2015), we could obtain the MAC(BrC) at the two wavelengths. The result
at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm (MAC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" 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>) is in
fair agreement with a previous study performed for the same site in winter
2015–2016. To our knowledge, the result at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, MAC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">23</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" 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>, is the sole direct observation at this
wavelength.</p>
      <p id="d1e2124">In our findings, the ratio between BrC and levo concentration values depends
on the wavelength of the transmittance<?pagebreak page3180?> signal adopted during the
thermal–optical analysis. This behavior could be due to (1) a better
accuracy of the results in blue light, more sensitivity to BrC, or (2) the
definition of BrC itself, which has to be considered wavelength dependent.
The present results do not allow any conclusive statement on this issue:
actually, the label “brown carbon”, as well as the widely used “organic
and elemental carbon”, comes from an operative definition, which is not
without ambiguity.</p>
</sec>

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

      <p id="d1e2132">We provide all the original research data at the following permanent URL, available through the website of our laboratory (<uri>https://labfisa2.ge.infn.it/index.php/data-repository</uri>, last access: 6 June 2019).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e2141">DM and PP designed and took care of the modification of the Sunset unit. DM, PP, VV, and AA prepared and carried on the sampling campaign. VV, AA, and DM performed the two-wavelength measurements. DM and PP prepared the article with contributions from the other authors.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e2147">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e2153">This research has been supported by the Instituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (grant no. CSN5-TRACCIA).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e2159">This paper was edited by Willy Maenhaut and reviewed by three anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Andreae, M. O. and Gelencsér, A.: Black carbon or brown carbon? The nature of light-absorbing carbonaceous aerosols, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 3131–3148, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-3131-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-3131-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Bernardoni, V., Pileci, R. E., Caponi, L., and Massabò, D.: The
Multi-Wavelength Absorption Analyzer (MWAA) model as a tool for source and
component apportionment based on aerosol absorption properties: application
to samples collected in different environments, Atmosphere, 8, 218
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos8110218" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/atmos8110218</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Birch, M. E. and Cary, R. A.: Elemental carbon-based method for occupational
monitoring of particulate diesel exhaust: methodology and exposure issues,
Analyst, 121, 1183–1190, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bond, T. C. and Bergstrom, R. W.: Light absorption by carbonaceous
particles: an investigative review, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 40, 27–67, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Bond, T. C. and Sun, H. L.: Can reducing black carbon emissions counteract
global warming?, Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 5921–5926, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Bond, T. C., Doherty, S. J., Fahey, D. W., Forster, P. M., Berntsen, T., De
Angelo, B. J., Flanner, M. G., Ghan, S., Kärcher, B., Koch, D., Kinne,
S., Kondo, Y., Quinn, P. K., Sarofim, M. C., Schultz, M. G., Schulz, M.,
Venkataraman, C., Zhang, H., Zhang, S., Bellouin, N., Guttikunda, S. K.,
Hopke, P. K., Jacobson, M. Z., Kaiser, J. W., Klimont, Z., Lohmann, U.,
Schwarz, J. P., Shindell, D., Storelvmo, T., Warren, S. G., and Zender, C.
S.: Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: a scientific
assessment, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 5380–5552, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Bove, M. C., Brotto, P., Cassola, F., Cuccia, E., Massabò, D., Mazzino,
A., Piazzalunga, A., and Prati, P.: An integrated PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> source apportionment
study: positive matrix factorisation vs. the chemical transport model CAMx,
Atmos. Environ., 94, 274–286, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Cavalli, F., Viana, M., Yttri, K. E., Genberg, J., and Putaud, J.-P.: Toward a standardised thermal-optical protocol for measuring atmospheric organic and elemental carbon: the EUSAAR protocol, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 3, 79–89, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-79-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-3-79-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Chen, L.-W. A., Chow, J. C., Wang, X. L., Robles, J. A., Sumlin, B. J., Lowenthal, D. H., Zimmermann, R., and Watson, J. G.: Multi-wavelength optical measurement to enhance thermal/optical analysis for carbonaceous aerosol, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 451–461, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-451-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-8-451-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Chen, Y. and Bond, T. C.: Light absorption by organic carbon from wood combustion, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 1773–1787, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-1773-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-1773-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Chow, J. C., Watson, J. G., Chen, L. W. A., Arnott, W. P., Moosmüller,
H., and Fung, K. K.: Equivalence of elemental carbon by thermal-optical
reflectance and transmittance with different temperature protocols, Environ.
Sci. Technol., 38, 4414–4422, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Chow, J. C., Watson, J. G., Mauderly, J. L., Costa, D. L., Wyzga, R. E.,
Vedal, S., Hidy, G. M., Altshuler, S. L., Marrack, D., Heuss, J. M., Wolff,
G. T., Pope III, C. A., and Dockery, D. W.: Health effects of fine
particulate air pollution: lines that connect, J. Air Waste Manage.,
56, 1368–1380, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Chow, J. C., Watson, J. G., Chen, L. W. A., Chang, M. C. O., Robinson, N.
F., Trimble, D. L., and Kohl, S. D.: The IMPROVE_A
temperature protocol for thermal-optical carbon analysis: maintaining
consistency with a long-term database, J. Air Waste Manage., 57,
1014–1023, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Chow, J. C., Watson, J. G., Lowenthal, D. H., Chen, L. W. A., and Motallebi,
N.: Black and organic carbon emission inventories: review and application to
California, J. Air Waste Manage., 60, 497–507, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Chow, J. C., Wang, X., Sumlin, B. J., Gronstal, S. B., Chen, L. W. A.,
Trimble, D. L., Kohl, S. D., Mayorga, S. R., Riggio, G., Hurbain, P. R.,
Johnson, M., Zimmermann, R., and Watson, J. G.: Optical calibration and
equivalence of a multiwavelength thermal-optical carbon analyzer, Aerosol
Air Qual. Res., 15, 1145–1159, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Chow, J.C, Watson, J. G., Green, M. C., Wang, X., Chen, L. W. A., Trimble,
D. L., Cropper, P. M., Kohl S. D., and Gronstal, S. B.: Separation of brown
carbon from black carbon for IMPROVE and Chemical Speciation Network PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
samples, J. Air Waste Manage., 68, 494–510, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Corbin J. C., Pieber, S. M., Czech, H., Zanatta, M., Jakobi, G., Massabò, D.,
Orasche, J., El Haddad, I., Mensah, A. A., Stengel, B., Drinovec, L., Mocnik, G.,
Zimmermann, R., Prévôt A. S. H., and Gysel, M.: Brown and Black Carbon
emitted by a marine engine operated on heavy fuel oil and distillate fuels:
optical<?pagebreak page3181?> properties, size distributions, and emission factors, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 123, 6175–6195, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Daellenbach, K. R., Bozzetti, C., Křepelová, 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.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Favez, O., El Haddad, I., Piot, C., Boréave, A., Abidi, E., Marchand, N., Jaffrezo, J.-L., Besombes, J.-L., Personnaz, M.-B., Sciare, J., Wortham, H., George, C., and D'Anna, B.: Inter-comparison of source apportionment models for the estimation of wood burning aerosols during wintertime in an Alpine city (Grenoble, France), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5295–5314, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5295-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-5295-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Feng, Y., Ramanathan, V., and Kotamarthi, V. R.: Brown carbon: a significant atmospheric absorber of solar radiation?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 8607–8621, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-8607-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-8607-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Ferrero, L., Močnik, G., Cogliati, S., Gregorič, A., Colombo, R.,
and Bolzacchini, E.: Heating rate of light absorbing aerosols: time-resolved
measurements, the role of clouds, and source identification, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 52, 3546–3555, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Filep, Á., Ajtai, T., Utry, N., Pintér, M. D., Nyilas, T.,
Takács, S., Máté, Z., Gelencsér, A., Hoffer, A., Schnaiter,
M., Bozóki, Z., and Szabó, G.: Absorption spectrum of ambient
aerosol and its correlation with size distribution in specific atmospheric
conditions after a red mud accident, Aerosol Air Qual. Res., 13, 49–59,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Harrison, R. M., Beddows, D. C. S., Jones A. M., Calvo A., Alves C., and Pio
C.: An evaluation of some issues regarding the use of aethalometers to
measure woodsmoke concentrations, Atmos. Environ., 80, 540–548, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Highwood, E. J. and Kinnersley, R. P.: When smoke gets in our eyes: the
multiple impacts of atmospheric black carbon on climate, air quality and
health, Environ. Int., 32, 560–566, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Hitzenberger, R., Petzold, A., Bauer, H., Ctyroky, P., Pouresmaeil, P.,
Laskus, L., and Puxbaum, H.: Intercomparison of thermal and optical
measurement methods for elemental carbon and black carbon at an urban
location, Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 6377–6383, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Karanasiou, A., Minguillón, M. C., Viana, M., Alastuey, A., Putaud, J.-P., Maenhaut, W., Panteliadis, P., Močnik, G., Favez, O., and Kuhlbusch, T. A. J.: Thermal-optical analysis for the measurement of elemental carbon (EC) and organic carbon (OC) in ambient air a literature review, Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss., 8, 9649–9712, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amtd-8-9649-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amtd-8-9649-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Kirchstetter, T. W., Novakok, T., and Hobbs, P. V.: Evidence that the
spectral dependence of light absorption by aerosols is affected by organic
carbon, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D21208, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004999" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD004999</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Lack, D. A. and Langridge, J. M.: On the attribution of black and brown carbon light absorption using the Ångström exponent, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 10535–10543, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10535-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-10535-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Lack, D. A., Langridge, J. M., Bahreini, R., Cappa, C. D., Middlebrook, A.
M., and Schwarz, J. P.: Brown carbon and internal mixing in biomass burning
particles, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 109, 14802–14807, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Laskin, A., Laskin, J., and Nizkorodov S. A.: Chemistry of atmospheric brown
carbon, Chem. Rev., 115, 4335–4382, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Lewis, K., Arnott, W. P., Moosmüller, H., and Wold, C. E.: Strong
spectral variation of biomass smoke light absorption and single scattering
albedo observed with a novel dual-wavelength photoacoustic instrument, J.
Geophys. Res., 113, D16203, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009699" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JD009699</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Massabò, D., Bernardoni, V., Bove, M. C., Brunengo, A., Cuccia, E.,
Piazzalunga, A., Prati, P., Valli, G., and Vecchi, R.: A multi-wavelength
optical set-up for the characterization of carbonaceous particulate matter,
J. Aerosol Sci., 60, 34–46, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Massabò, D., Caponi, L., Bernardoni, V., Bove, M. C., Brotto, P.,
Calzolai, G., Cassola, F., Chiari, M., Fedi, M. E., Fermo, P., Giannoni, M.,
Lucarelli, F., Nava, S., Piazzalunga, A., Valli, G., Vecchi, R., and Prati,
P.: Multi-wavelength optical determination of black and brown carbon in
atmospheric aerosols, Atmos. Environ., 108, 1–12, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Massabò, D., Caponi, L., Bove, M. C., and Prati, P.: Brown carbon and
thermal-optical analysis: a correction based on optical multi-wavelength
apportionment of atmospheric aerosols, Atmos. Environ., 125, 119–125, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Mauderly, J. L. and Chow, J. C.: Health effects of organic aerosols, Inhal.
Toxicol., 20, 257–288, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Moosmüller, H., Chakrabarty, R. K., and Arnott, W. P.: Aerosol light
absorption and its measurement: a review, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Ra., 110,
844–878, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Moosmüller, H., Chakrabarty, R. K., Ehlers, K. M., and Arnott, W. P.: Absorption Ångström coefficient, brown carbon, and aerosols: basic concepts, bulk matter, and spherical particles, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 1217–1225, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1217-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-1217-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Olson, M. R., Garcia, M. V., Robinson, M. A., Van Rooy, P., Dietenberger, M.
A., Bergin, M., and Schauer, J. J.: Investigation of black and brown carbon
multiple-wavelength-dependent light absorption from biomass and fossil fuel
combustion source emissions, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022970" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014JD022970</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Panteliadis, P., Hafkenscheid, T., Cary, B., Diapouli, E., Fischer, A., Favez, O., Quincey, P., Viana, M., Hitzenberger, R., Vecchi, R., Saraga, D., Sciare, J., Jaffrezo, J. L., John, A., Schwarz, J., Giannoni, M., Novak, J., Karanasiou, A., Fermo, P., and Maenhaut, W.: ECOC comparison exercise with identical thermal protocols after temperature offset correction – instrument diagnostics by in-depth evaluation of operational parameters, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 779–792, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-779-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-8-779-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Piazzalunga, A., Fermo, P., Bernardoni, V., Vecchi, R., Valli, G., and De
Gregorio M. A.: A simplified method for levoglucosan quantification in
wintertime atmospheric particulate matter by high performance anion-exchange
chromatography coupled with pulsed amperometric detection, Int. J. Environ.
An. Ch., 90, 934–947, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Piazzalunga, A., Bernardoni, V., Fermo, P., Valli, G., and Vecchi, R.: Technical Note: On the effect of water-soluble compounds removal on EC quantification by TOT analysis in urban aerosol samples, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 10193–10203, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10193-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-10193-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page3182?><ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Pope III, C. A. and Dockery, D. W.: Health effects of fine particulate air
pollution: lines that connect, J. Air Waste Manage., 56, 709–742,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Pöschl, U.: Aerosol particle analysis: challenges and progress, Anal.
Bioanal. Chem., 375, 3032,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-002-1611-5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00216-002-1611-5</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Sandradewi, J., Prevot, A. H., Szidat, S., Perron, N., Rami Alfarra, M.,
Lanz, V., Weingartner, E., and Baltensperger, U.: Using aerosol light
absorption measurements for the quantitative determination of wood burning
and traffic emission contributions to particulate matter, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 42, 3316–3323, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es702253m" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es702253m</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Subramanian, R., Khlystov, A. Y., and Robinson, A. L.: Effect of peak
inert-mode temperature on elemental carbon measured using thermal-optical
analysis, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 40, 763–780, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Utry, N., Ajtai, T., Filep, Á., Dániel P. M., Hoffer, A., Bozoki,
Z., and Szabó, G.: Mass specific optical absorption coefficient of HULIS
aerosol measured by a four-wavelength photoacoustic spectrometer at NIR, VIS
and UV wavelengths, Atmos. Environ., 69, 321–324, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Utry, N., Ajtai, T., Filep, Á., Pintér, M., Török, Zs.,
Bozóki, Z., and Szabó, G.: Correlations between absorption
Angström exponent (AAE) of wintertime ambient urban aerosol and its
physical and chemical properties, Atmos. Environ., 91, 52–59, 2014.
 </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Vassura, I., Venturini, E., Marchetti, S., Piazzalunga, A., Bernardi, E.,
Fermo, P., and Passarini, F.: Markers and influence of open biomass burning
on atmospheric particulate size and composition during a major bonfire
event, Atmos. Environ., 82,  218–225, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Watson, J. G., Chow, J. C., and Chen, L. W. A.: Summary of organic and
elemental carbon/black carbon analysis methods and intercomparisons, Aerosol
Air Qual. Res., 5, 65–102, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Yang, H. and Yu, J. Z.: Uncertainties in charring correction in the analysis
of elemental and organic carbon in atmospheric particles by thermal-optical
methods, Environ. Sci. Technol., 36, 5199–5204, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Yang, M., Howell, S. G., Zhuang, J., and Huebert, B. J.: Attribution of aerosol light absorption to black carbon, brown carbon, and dust in China – interpretations of atmospheric measurements during EAST-AIRE, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 2035–2050, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-2035-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-9-2035-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Zheng, G., He, K., Duan, F., Cheng, Y., and Ma, Y.: Measurement of
humic-like substances in aerosols: A review, Environ. Pollut., 181, 301–314,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Zhi, G., Chen, Y., Sheng, G., and Fu, J.: Effects of temperature parameters
on thermal-optical analysis of organic and elemental carbon in aerosol,
Environ. Monit. Assess., 154, 253–261, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Two-wavelength thermal–optical determination of light-absorbing carbon in atmospheric aerosols</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Thermal–optical analysis is widely adopted for the quantitative
determination of total (TC), organic (OC), and elemental (EC) carbon in
atmospheric aerosol sampled by suitable filters. Nevertheless, the
methodology suffers from several uncertainties and artifacts such as the well-known
issue of charring affecting the OC–EC separation. In the standard approach,
the effect of the possible presence of brown carbon, BrC, in the sample is
neglected. BrC is a fraction of OC, usually produced by biomass burning with
a thermic behavior intermediate between OC and EC. BrC is optically active:
it shows an increasing absorbance when the wavelength moves to the blue–UV
region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Definitively, the thermal–optical
characterization of carbonaceous aerosol should be reconsidered to address
the possible BrC content in the sample under analysis.</p><p>We introduce here a modified Sunset Lab Inc. EC–OC analyzer. Starting from a
standard commercial instrument, the unit has been modified at the physics
department of the University of Genoa (Italy), making possible the
alternative use of the standard laser diode at <i>λ</i> = 635&thinsp;nm and of
a new laser diode at <i>λ</i> = 405&thinsp;nm. In this way, the optical
transmittance through the sample can be monitored at both wavelengths. Since
at shorter wavelengths the BrC absorbance is higher, a better sensitivity to
this species is gained. The modified instrument also gives the possibility
to quantify the BrC concentration in the sample at both wavelengths. The new
unit has been thoroughly tested, with both artificial and real-world aerosol
samples: the first experiment, in conjunction with the multi-wavelength
absorbance analyzer (MWAA; Massabò et al., 2013, 2015), resulted in
the first direct determination of the BrC mass absorption coefficient (MAC)
at <i>λ</i> = 405&thinsp;nm: MAC  = 23±1&thinsp;m<sup>2</sup>&thinsp;g<sup>−1</sup>.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Andreae, M. O. and Gelencsér, A.: Black carbon or brown carbon? The nature of light-absorbing carbonaceous aerosols, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 3131–3148, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-3131-2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-3131-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Bernardoni, V., Pileci, R. E., Caponi, L., and Massabò, D.: The
Multi-Wavelength Absorption Analyzer (MWAA) model as a tool for source and
component apportionment based on aerosol absorption properties: application
to samples collected in different environments, Atmosphere, 8, 218
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos8110218" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos8110218</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Birch, M. E. and Cary, R. A.: Elemental carbon-based method for occupational
monitoring of particulate diesel exhaust: methodology and exposure issues,
Analyst, 121, 1183–1190, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bond, T. C. and Bergstrom, R. W.: Light absorption by carbonaceous
particles: an investigative review, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 40, 27–67, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Bond, T. C. and Sun, H. L.: Can reducing black carbon emissions counteract
global warming?, Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 5921–5926, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Bond, T. C., Doherty, S. J., Fahey, D. W., Forster, P. M., Berntsen, T., De
Angelo, B. J., Flanner, M. G., Ghan, S., Kärcher, B., Koch, D., Kinne,
S., Kondo, Y., Quinn, P. K., Sarofim, M. C., Schultz, M. G., Schulz, M.,
Venkataraman, C., Zhang, H., Zhang, S., Bellouin, N., Guttikunda, S. K.,
Hopke, P. K., Jacobson, M. Z., Kaiser, J. W., Klimont, Z., Lohmann, U.,
Schwarz, J. P., Shindell, D., Storelvmo, T., Warren, S. G., and Zender, C.
S.: Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: a scientific
assessment, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 5380–5552, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Bove, M. C., Brotto, P., Cassola, F., Cuccia, E., Massabò, D., Mazzino,
A., Piazzalunga, A., and Prati, P.: An integrated PM<sub>2.5</sub> source apportionment
study: positive matrix factorisation vs. the chemical transport model CAMx,
Atmos. Environ., 94, 274–286, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Cavalli, F., Viana, M., Yttri, K. E., Genberg, J., and Putaud, J.-P.: Toward a standardised thermal-optical protocol for measuring atmospheric organic and elemental carbon: the EUSAAR protocol, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 3, 79–89, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-79-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-79-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, L.-W. A., Chow, J. C., Wang, X. L., Robles, J. A., Sumlin, B. J., Lowenthal, D. H., Zimmermann, R., and Watson, J. G.: Multi-wavelength optical measurement to enhance thermal/optical analysis for carbonaceous aerosol, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 451–461, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-451-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-451-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, Y. and Bond, T. C.: Light absorption by organic carbon from wood combustion, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 1773–1787, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-1773-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-1773-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Chow, J. C., Watson, J. G., Chen, L. W. A., Arnott, W. P., Moosmüller,
H., and Fung, K. K.: Equivalence of elemental carbon by thermal-optical
reflectance and transmittance with different temperature protocols, Environ.
Sci. Technol., 38, 4414–4422, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Chow, J. C., Watson, J. G., Mauderly, J. L., Costa, D. L., Wyzga, R. E.,
Vedal, S., Hidy, G. M., Altshuler, S. L., Marrack, D., Heuss, J. M., Wolff,
G. T., Pope III, C. A., and Dockery, D. W.: Health effects of fine
particulate air pollution: lines that connect, J. Air Waste Manage.,
56, 1368–1380, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Chow, J. C., Watson, J. G., Chen, L. W. A., Chang, M. C. O., Robinson, N.
F., Trimble, D. L., and Kohl, S. D.: The IMPROVE_A
temperature protocol for thermal-optical carbon analysis: maintaining
consistency with a long-term database, J. Air Waste Manage., 57,
1014–1023, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Chow, J. C., Watson, J. G., Lowenthal, D. H., Chen, L. W. A., and Motallebi,
N.: Black and organic carbon emission inventories: review and application to
California, J. Air Waste Manage., 60, 497–507, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Chow, J. C., Wang, X., Sumlin, B. J., Gronstal, S. B., Chen, L. W. A.,
Trimble, D. L., Kohl, S. D., Mayorga, S. R., Riggio, G., Hurbain, P. R.,
Johnson, M., Zimmermann, R., and Watson, J. G.: Optical calibration and
equivalence of a multiwavelength thermal-optical carbon analyzer, Aerosol
Air Qual. Res., 15, 1145–1159, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Chow, J.C, Watson, J. G., Green, M. C., Wang, X., Chen, L. W. A., Trimble,
D. L., Cropper, P. M., Kohl S. D., and Gronstal, S. B.: Separation of brown
carbon from black carbon for IMPROVE and Chemical Speciation Network PM<sub>2.5</sub>
samples, J. Air Waste Manage., 68, 494–510, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Corbin J. C., Pieber, S. M., Czech, H., Zanatta, M., Jakobi, G., Massabò, D.,
Orasche, J., El Haddad, I., Mensah, A. A., Stengel, B., Drinovec, L., Mocnik, G.,
Zimmermann, R., Prévôt A. S. H., and Gysel, M.: Brown and Black Carbon
emitted by a marine engine operated on heavy fuel oil and distillate fuels:
optical properties, size distributions, and emission factors, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 123, 6175–6195, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Daellenbach, K. R., Bozzetti, C., Křepelová, 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.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Favez, O., El Haddad, I., Piot, C., Boréave, A., Abidi, E., Marchand, N., Jaffrezo, J.-L., Besombes, J.-L., Personnaz, M.-B., Sciare, J., Wortham, H., George, C., and D'Anna, B.: Inter-comparison of source apportionment models for the estimation of wood burning aerosols during wintertime in an Alpine city (Grenoble, France), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5295–5314, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5295-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5295-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Feng, Y., Ramanathan, V., and Kotamarthi, V. R.: Brown carbon: a significant atmospheric absorber of solar radiation?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 8607–8621, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-8607-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-8607-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Ferrero, L., Močnik, G., Cogliati, S., Gregorič, A., Colombo, R.,
and Bolzacchini, E.: Heating rate of light absorbing aerosols: time-resolved
measurements, the role of clouds, and source identification, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 52, 3546–3555, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Filep, Á., Ajtai, T., Utry, N., Pintér, M. D., Nyilas, T.,
Takács, S., Máté, Z., Gelencsér, A., Hoffer, A., Schnaiter,
M., Bozóki, Z., and Szabó, G.: Absorption spectrum of ambient
aerosol and its correlation with size distribution in specific atmospheric
conditions after a red mud accident, Aerosol Air Qual. Res., 13, 49–59,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Harrison, R. M., Beddows, D. C. S., Jones A. M., Calvo A., Alves C., and Pio
C.: An evaluation of some issues regarding the use of aethalometers to
measure woodsmoke concentrations, Atmos. Environ., 80, 540–548, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Highwood, E. J. and Kinnersley, R. P.: When smoke gets in our eyes: the
multiple impacts of atmospheric black carbon on climate, air quality and
health, Environ. Int., 32, 560–566, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Hitzenberger, R., Petzold, A., Bauer, H., Ctyroky, P., Pouresmaeil, P.,
Laskus, L., and Puxbaum, H.: Intercomparison of thermal and optical
measurement methods for elemental carbon and black carbon at an urban
location, Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 6377–6383, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Karanasiou, A., Minguillón, M. C., Viana, M., Alastuey, A., Putaud, J.-P., Maenhaut, W., Panteliadis, P., Močnik, G., Favez, O., and Kuhlbusch, T. A. J.: Thermal-optical analysis for the measurement of elemental carbon (EC) and organic carbon (OC) in ambient air a literature review, Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss., 8, 9649–9712, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amtd-8-9649-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amtd-8-9649-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Kirchstetter, T. W., Novakok, T., and Hobbs, P. V.: Evidence that the
spectral dependence of light absorption by aerosols is affected by organic
carbon, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D21208, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004999" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004999</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Lack, D. A. and Langridge, J. M.: On the attribution of black and brown carbon light absorption using the Ångström exponent, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 10535–10543, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10535-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10535-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Lack, D. A., Langridge, J. M., Bahreini, R., Cappa, C. D., Middlebrook, A.
M., and Schwarz, J. P.: Brown carbon and internal mixing in biomass burning
particles, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 109, 14802–14807, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Laskin, A., Laskin, J., and Nizkorodov S. A.: Chemistry of atmospheric brown
carbon, Chem. Rev., 115, 4335–4382, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Lewis, K., Arnott, W. P., Moosmüller, H., and Wold, C. E.: Strong
spectral variation of biomass smoke light absorption and single scattering
albedo observed with a novel dual-wavelength photoacoustic instrument, J.
Geophys. Res., 113, D16203, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009699" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009699</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Massabò, D., Bernardoni, V., Bove, M. C., Brunengo, A., Cuccia, E.,
Piazzalunga, A., Prati, P., Valli, G., and Vecchi, R.: A multi-wavelength
optical set-up for the characterization of carbonaceous particulate matter,
J. Aerosol Sci., 60, 34–46, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Massabò, D., Caponi, L., Bernardoni, V., Bove, M. C., Brotto, P.,
Calzolai, G., Cassola, F., Chiari, M., Fedi, M. E., Fermo, P., Giannoni, M.,
Lucarelli, F., Nava, S., Piazzalunga, A., Valli, G., Vecchi, R., and Prati,
P.: Multi-wavelength optical determination of black and brown carbon in
atmospheric aerosols, Atmos. Environ., 108, 1–12, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Massabò, D., Caponi, L., Bove, M. C., and Prati, P.: Brown carbon and
thermal-optical analysis: a correction based on optical multi-wavelength
apportionment of atmospheric aerosols, Atmos. Environ., 125, 119–125, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Mauderly, J. L. and Chow, J. C.: Health effects of organic aerosols, Inhal.
Toxicol., 20, 257–288, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Moosmüller, H., Chakrabarty, R. K., and Arnott, W. P.: Aerosol light
absorption and its measurement: a review, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Ra., 110,
844–878, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Moosmüller, H., Chakrabarty, R. K., Ehlers, K. M., and Arnott, W. P.: Absorption Ångström coefficient, brown carbon, and aerosols: basic concepts, bulk matter, and spherical particles, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 1217–1225, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1217-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1217-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Olson, M. R., Garcia, M. V., Robinson, M. A., Van Rooy, P., Dietenberger, M.
A., Bergin, M., and Schauer, J. J.: Investigation of black and brown carbon
multiple-wavelength-dependent light absorption from biomass and fossil fuel
combustion source emissions, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022970" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022970</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Panteliadis, P., Hafkenscheid, T., Cary, B., Diapouli, E., Fischer, A., Favez, O., Quincey, P., Viana, M., Hitzenberger, R., Vecchi, R., Saraga, D., Sciare, J., Jaffrezo, J. L., John, A., Schwarz, J., Giannoni, M., Novak, J., Karanasiou, A., Fermo, P., and Maenhaut, W.: ECOC comparison exercise with identical thermal protocols after temperature offset correction – instrument diagnostics by in-depth evaluation of operational parameters, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 779–792, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-779-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-779-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Piazzalunga, A., Fermo, P., Bernardoni, V., Vecchi, R., Valli, G., and De
Gregorio M. A.: A simplified method for levoglucosan quantification in
wintertime atmospheric particulate matter by high performance anion-exchange
chromatography coupled with pulsed amperometric detection, Int. J. Environ.
An. Ch., 90, 934–947, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Piazzalunga, A., Bernardoni, V., Fermo, P., Valli, G., and Vecchi, R.: Technical Note: On the effect of water-soluble compounds removal on EC quantification by TOT analysis in urban aerosol samples, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 10193–10203, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10193-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10193-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Pope III, C. A. and Dockery, D. W.: Health effects of fine particulate air
pollution: lines that connect, J. Air Waste Manage., 56, 709–742,
2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Pöschl, U.: Aerosol particle analysis: challenges and progress, Anal.
Bioanal. Chem., 375, 3032,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-002-1611-5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-002-1611-5</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Sandradewi, J., Prevot, A. H., Szidat, S., Perron, N., Rami Alfarra, M.,
Lanz, V., Weingartner, E., and Baltensperger, U.: Using aerosol light
absorption measurements for the quantitative determination of wood burning
and traffic emission contributions to particulate matter, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 42, 3316–3323, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es702253m" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es702253m</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Subramanian, R., Khlystov, A. Y., and Robinson, A. L.: Effect of peak
inert-mode temperature on elemental carbon measured using thermal-optical
analysis, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 40, 763–780, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Utry, N., Ajtai, T., Filep, Á., Dániel P. M., Hoffer, A., Bozoki,
Z., and Szabó, G.: Mass specific optical absorption coefficient of HULIS
aerosol measured by a four-wavelength photoacoustic spectrometer at NIR, VIS
and UV wavelengths, Atmos. Environ., 69, 321–324, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Utry, N., Ajtai, T., Filep, Á., Pintér, M., Török, Zs.,
Bozóki, Z., and Szabó, G.: Correlations between absorption
Angström exponent (AAE) of wintertime ambient urban aerosol and its
physical and chemical properties, Atmos. Environ., 91, 52–59, 2014.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Vassura, I., Venturini, E., Marchetti, S., Piazzalunga, A., Bernardi, E.,
Fermo, P., and Passarini, F.: Markers and influence of open biomass burning
on atmospheric particulate size and composition during a major bonfire
event, Atmos. Environ., 82,  218–225, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Watson, J. G., Chow, J. C., and Chen, L. W. A.: Summary of organic and
elemental carbon/black carbon analysis methods and intercomparisons, Aerosol
Air Qual. Res., 5, 65–102, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Yang, H. and Yu, J. Z.: Uncertainties in charring correction in the analysis
of elemental and organic carbon in atmospheric particles by thermal-optical
methods, Environ. Sci. Technol., 36, 5199–5204, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Yang, M., Howell, S. G., Zhuang, J., and Huebert, B. J.: Attribution of aerosol light absorption to black carbon, brown carbon, and dust in China – interpretations of atmospheric measurements during EAST-AIRE, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 2035–2050, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-2035-2009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-2035-2009</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Zheng, G., He, K., Duan, F., Cheng, Y., and Ma, Y.: Measurement of
humic-like substances in aerosols: A review, Environ. Pollut., 181, 301–314,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Zhi, G., Chen, Y., Sheng, G., and Fu, J.: Effects of temperature parameters
on thermal-optical analysis of organic and elemental carbon in aerosol,
Environ. Monit. Assess., 154, 253–261, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
