<?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-13-6789-2020</article-id><title-group><article-title>TROPOMI aerosol products: evaluation and observations of synoptic-scale carbonaceous aerosol plumes during 2018–2020</article-title><alt-title>TROPOMI aerosol products</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{TROPOMI aerosol products}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{O. Torres et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Torres</surname><given-names>Omar</given-names></name>
          <email>omar.o.torres@nasa.gov</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Jethva</surname><given-names>Hiren</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Ahn</surname><given-names>Changwoo</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Jaross</surname><given-names>Glen</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Loyola</surname><given-names>Diego G.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8547-9350</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Universities Space Research Association USRA/GESTAR, Columbia, MD,
USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Science Systems and Applications Inc., Lanham, MD, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>German Aerospace Center (DLR), Remote Sensing Technology Institute,
Oberpfaffenhofen, 82234 Weßling, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Omar Torres (omar.o.torres@nasa.gov)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>15</day><month>December</month><year>2020</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>13</volume>
      <issue>12</issue>
      <fpage>6789</fpage><lpage>6806</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>10</day><month>April</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>13</day><month>May</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>10</day><month>October</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>10</day><month>October</month><year>2020</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2020 Omar Torres et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2020</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/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020.html">This article is available from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e137">TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) near-ultraviolet (near-UV) radiances are used as input to an inversion
algorithm that simultaneously retrieves aerosol optical depth (AOD),
single-scattering albedo (SSA), and the qualitative UV aerosol index
(UVAI). We first present the TROPOMI aerosol algorithm (TropOMAER), an
adaptation of the currently operational OMI near-UV (OMAERUV and OMACA)
inversion schemes that takes advantage of TROPOMI's unprecedented fine
spatial resolution at UV wavelengths and the availability of ancillary
aerosol-related information to derive aerosol loading in cloud-free and
above-cloud aerosols scenes. TROPOMI-retrieved AOD and SSA products are
evaluated by direct comparison to sun-photometer measurements. A parallel
evaluation analysis of OMAERUV and TropOMAER aerosol products is carried out
to separately identify the effect of improved instrument capabilities and
algorithm upgrades. Results show TropOMAER improved levels of agreement with
respect to those obtained with the heritage coarser-resolution sensor. OMI
and TROPOMI aerosol products are also intercompared at regional daily and
monthly temporal scales, as well as globally at monthly and seasonal scales.
We then use TropOMAER aerosol retrieval results to discuss the US Northwest
and British Columbia 2018 wildfire season, the 2019 biomass burning season
in the Amazon Basin, and the unprecedented January 2020 fire season in
Australia that injected huge amounts of carbonaceous aerosols in the
stratosphere.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e149">The TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) on the Sentinel-5 Precursor
(S5P) satellite launched on 13 October 2017 is the first atmospheric
monitoring mission within the European Union Copernicus program. The
objective of the mission is the operational monitoring of trace gas
concentrations for atmospheric chemistry and climate applications. TROPOMI
is the follow-on mission to the successful Aura Ozone Monitoring Instrument
(OMI; Levelt et al., 2006) that has been operating since October 2004, the
Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment-2 (GOME-2; Munro et al., 2016) sensors on
the Metop (Meteorological Operational Satellite Program of Europe)
satellites operating since 2006, and previous missions such as SCanning
Imaging Absorption SpectroMeter for Atmospheric
CHartographY (SCIAMACHY; Bovensmann et al., 1999). The S5P mission
precedes the upcoming Sentinel-5 (S5), a TROPOMI-like sensor, and the
geostationary Sentinel-4 (S4) missions (Ingmann et al., 2012).</p>
      <p id="d1e152">TROPOMI is a high-spectral-resolution spectrometer covering eight spectral
windows from the ultraviolet (UV) to the shortwave infrared (SWIR) regions
of the electromagnetic spectrum. The instrument operates in a push-broom
configuration, with a swath width of about 2600 km on the Earth's surface.
The typical pixel size (near nadir) is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for all spectral
bands, with the exception of the UV1 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">28</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and SWIR (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) bands. On behalf of the European Space Agency (ESA), the German
Aerospace Center (DLR, Deutsches Zentrum für Luft-<?pagebreak page6790?> und Raumfahrt)
generates level 1b calibrated radiance data and level 2 derived products
including trace gas (O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, CO, CH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
CH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O), aerosols (UV aerosol index, UVAI), O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> A-band aerosol layer
height (ALH), and cloud properties. Currently, no ESA-produced standard
quantitative aerosol products are available from TROPOMI. Per an established
NASA–ESA (NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration) interagency
collaboration agreement, TROPOMI level 1b calibrated radiance data and
level 2 retrieved products are available at the Goddard Earth Sciences Data
and Information Services Center (GES DISC; <uri>https://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/datasets/</uri>, last access: 2 December 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e277">In this paper, we report the first results of a NASA research aerosol
algorithm using TROPOMI observations at near-UV wavelengths. TROPOMI aerosol
observations will further extend the multi-decadal near-UV aerosol
record started with the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) series of
sensors (1978–1992, 1996–2001; Torres et al., 1998) and continued into the
new millennium by the currently operational OMI  (Torres et al.,
2007). A similar multi-year AOD–SSA record is also available from EPIC
(Earth Panchromatic Imaging Camera) on the DSCOVR (Deep Space Climate
Observatory) parked at Lagrange point 1 (Marshak et al., 2018; Ahn et al.,
2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e280">A description of the algorithm is presented in Sect. 2, followed by a
detailed evaluation of retrieval results in Sect. 3. In Sect. 4, we use
TROPOMI-derived information to discuss synoptic-scale aerosol events in
different regions of the world since the launch of TROPOMI in 2017.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>NASA TROPOMI aerosol products</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Heritage algorithm</title>
      <p id="d1e298">The NASA OMI aerosol retrieval algorithms for cloud-free conditions
(OMAERUV; Torres et al., 2007, 2013, 2018), and for above-cloud aerosols
(OMACA; Torres et al., 2012; Jethva et al., 2018) have been combined into a
single algorithm (TropOMAER) and applied to TROPOMI observations. TropOMAER
uses observations at two near-UV wavelengths to calculate the UVAI and to
retrieve total column aerosol optical depth (AOD) and single-scattering
albedo (SSA). Although detailed documentation on the heritage algorithm is
available in the published literature, a brief description is presented here
for completeness.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1.SSS1">
  <label>2.1.1</label><title>UV aerosol index</title>
      <p id="d1e308">TropOMAER ingests measured TROPOMI radiances at 354 and 388 nm to
calculate the UVAI, a parameter that allows distinguishing UV-absorbing
particles (carbonaceous and desert dust aerosols, volcanic ash) from
non-absorbing particles (Herman et al., 1997; Torres et al., 1998). It is
defined as
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M13" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>UVAI</mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">354</mml:mn><mml:mtext>obs</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">354</mml:mn><mml:mtext>cal</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the observed and calculated radiances at 354 nm. Measurements
at 388 nm are used to obtain a wavelength-independent cloud fraction that is
required for the calculation of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">354</mml:mn><mml:mtext>cal</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> term (Torres et al.,
2018). UVAI yields positive values in the presence of absorbing particles,
near-zero for clouds, and small negative values for non-absorbing aerosols.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e372">Modeled relationship between UVAI and AOD as a function of ALH
for carbonaceous aerosols with an assumed 340–388 nm aerosol absorption exponent
of 4.8 (see text for details).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020-f01.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e381">The magnitude of the aerosol UVAI signal depends mainly on AOD, ALH, and
the aerosol absorption exponent (AAE). For instance, as shown in Fig. 1, for the
OMI carbonaceous aerosol model (Torres et al., 2013) and an AAE of 4.8
(i.e., imaginary component of refractive index at 340 nm about 70 % higher
than at 388 nm), the UVAI increases rapidly with AOD and ALH up to AOD of
about 4, at which point the sensitivity to AOD goes down rapidly. For AODs
larger than 6, the UVAI saturates as aerosol absorption of Rayleigh-scattered photon peaks, and further UVAI enhancements are only possible for
increased values of ALH and/or an enhanced aerosol absorption exponent (AAE).
Thus, for AOD values larger than about 6, the UVAI effectively becomes a
measure of ALH. Although most tropospheric aerosol events fall in the lower
left section of Fig. 1 (AOD as large as 4.0 and UVAI as large as 8),
observed cases of extraordinarily large UVAI values are generally associated
with the injection of huge quantities of UV-absorbing aerosol particles in the
upper troposphere–lower stratosphere (UTLS), such as ash layers in the
aftermath of volcanic eruptions (Krotkov et al., 1999) or
wildfire-triggered pyro-cumulonimbus (pyroCb) episodes (Torres et al.,
2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e385">The UVAI also contains non-aerosol-related information such as ocean color
and wavelength-dependent land surface reflectance. It is calculated over the
oceans and the<?pagebreak page6791?> continents for all cloud conditions and over ice- and/or snow-covered
surfaces. TropOMAER UVAI explicitly accounts for the angular scattering
effects of water clouds. By doing so the UVAI across-track angular
dependence is reduced, and spurious nonzero values produced by the
previously used representation of clouds as opaque Lambert equivalent
reflectors (LERs; Torres et al., 2018) are largely eliminated.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1.SSS2">
  <label>2.1.2</label><title>Aerosol algorithm for cloud-free conditions</title>
      <p id="d1e396">TROPOMI-measured radiances at 354 and 388 nm are input into a two-channel
inversion algorithm that simultaneously retrieves AOD and SSA for cloud-free
conditions (Torres et al., 2007, 2013). Precalculated lookup tables (LUTs)
of top-of-atmosphere reflectances for predefined aerosol types, with nodal
points on AOD, SSA, ALH, surface reflectance, and viewing geometry, are
used in the inversion process. Ancillary information on surface albedo, ALH,
and surface type (Torres et al., 2013) is required.</p>
      <p id="d1e399">In the inversion algorithm, it is assumed that for each pixel, the aerosol
load can be uniquely represented by one of three types: carbonaceous, desert
dust, or sulfate particles. Each aerosol type is associated with assumed
bimodal particle size distributions and the real component of the refractive index
(Torres et al., 2007; Jethva and Torres, 2011). Carbonaceous and sulfate
particles are assumed to be spherical, whereas desert dust aerosols are
modeled as nonspherical particles (Torres et al., 2018). UV-absorbing
aerosol types are easily differentiated from the non-absorbing kind based on
UVAI interpretation. As in the heritage algorithm, observations of carbon
monoxide (CO) by AIRS (Atmospheric Infrared Sounder) on the Aqua satellite
are used as a tracer of carbonaceous aerosols to separate them from desert
dust particles (Torres et al., 2013).</p>
      <p id="d1e402">Because of the known sensitivity of satellite-measured UV radiances
emanating from UV-absorbing aerosols to ALH (Torres et al., 1998), aerosol
layer altitude is prescribed using a combination of a monthly ALH climatology based on CALIOP (Cloud–Aerosol
Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization) and
transport model calculations (Torres et al., 2013).</p>
      <p id="d1e405">For each cloud-free, fully characterized pixel in terms of satellite viewing
geometry, surface albedo and type, ALH, and aerosol type, a set of AOD and
SSA (388 nm) values is extracted from the LUTs by direct matching to the
measured radiances. The aerosol absorption optical depth (AAOD), given by
the product of AOD and the single-scattering co-albedo (1-SSA), is also
reported. In addition to the nominal 388 nm wavelength, parameters are also
reported at 354 and 500 nm using the assumed extinction and absorption
spectral dependence of the predefined aerosol models.</p>
      <p id="d1e409">Future algorithm enhancements will explore the utilization of TROPOMI-retrieved information on ALH and CO, as well as the additionally available
spectral measurements for aerosol typing.</p>
      <p id="d1e412">Retrievals are carried out over all ice- and snow-free land surface types. Over
the oceans, retrievals are made only for pixels characterized by UVAI larger
than about 1.0, indicating the clear presence of absorbing aerosols in the
atmospheric column. No attempt is made to retrieve properties of weakly
absorbing or non-absorbing aerosols over the ocean because of the difficulty
in separating the atmospheric aerosol signal from that of ocean color.
TropOMAER uses an ESA-produced cloud mask based on sub-kilometer-resolution
radiance measurements at 1.385 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m by the NOAA (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration) Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite
(VIIRS) on the S-NPP (Suomi-National Polar-orbiting Partnership) platform,
re-gridded to the TROPOMI spatial resolution (Siddans, 2016a, b). On 7 March 2020 (TROPOMI orbit 12432), the initial NOAA VIIRS cloud mask used with
TROPOMI was replaced with the NOAA Enterprise Cloud Mask (ECM) product. The
availability of this product, which facilitates the identification of TROPOMI
pixels suitable for aerosol AOD–SSA retrieval, is the only algorithmic
improvement of TropOMAER in relation to OMAERUV. The heritage algorithm uses
thresholds in measured reflectance, UVAI, and aerosol type (Torres et al.,
2013) to identify minimally cloud-contaminated pixels for aerosol retrieval.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1.SSS3">
  <label>2.1.3</label><title>Retrieval of above-cloud aerosol optical depth</title>
      <p id="d1e431">When absorbing aerosol are present above clouds in overcast conditions,
TROPOMI observations at 354 and 388 nm are used to simultaneously retrieve
the above-cloud aerosol optical depth (ACAOD) of carbonaceous or desert
aerosols and the optical depth of the underlying cloud (COD)
corrected for aerosol absorption effects (Torres et al., 2014).</p>
      <p id="d1e434">The algorithmic approach is similar to that of the cloud-free case, except
that the two retrieved parameters are ACAOD and COD. Information on single-scattering albedo is currently prescribed using an OMI-based long-term SSA
climatology (Jethva et al., 2018). The steps involved in aerosol type
selection and ALH determination are the same as in the cloud-free retrieval
algorithm. A detailed description of the algorithm physical basis and
derived products is given in Torres et al. (2014) and Jethva et al. (2018).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Calibration</title>
      <p id="d1e446">In this work, we use the UV–Vis (UV–visible) band 3 of the TROPOMI level 1b
product (Kleipool et al., 2018). TROPOMI version 1 reflectances for band 3
are within 5 %–10 % compared with OMI and OMPS (Rozemeijer and Kleipool,
2019a, b). It is expected that the upcoming version 2 of the TROPOMI level 1b
product will solve inconsistencies of the radiometric calibration detected
in the UV and UV–Vis spectrometers using in-flight measurements, and it will
include degradation correction for the affected bands (Ludewig et al.,
2020).</p>
      <?pagebreak page6792?><p id="d1e449">For this application, we use TROPOMI correction coefficients at 354 and 388 nm derived using an ice-reflectance-based vicarious approach that has been
used to evaluate the calibration of UV–Vis sensors (Jaross and Warner,
2008).</p>
      <p id="d1e452">TROPOMI-measured reflectances over Antarctica on 28 and 29 November 2017
were compared to radiative transfer model results. We calculate the ratio of
each observed across-track ground pixel's reflectance at a specified
wavelength to that of the modeled value for the same viewing conditions to
obtain an error for that measurement. The model used is exactly the same as
was used in the generation of OMI Collection 3 level 1b data (Dobber et al.,
2008). The static corrections applied to TROPOMI reflectances elsewhere on
the globe were derived by first averaging over all measurement errors at a
given across-track position, then further smoothing with a five-pixel boxcar in
the across-track direction. Corrections range from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % in the
across-track direction for the two wavelengths. We plan to repeat the
calibration adjustments and to reprocess when an improved version 2 of the
level 1b product is released by the ESA.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Evaluation TropOMAER performance</title>
      <p id="d1e481">Improved performance of the TropOMAER algorithm in relation to the OMI
heritage algorithm is expected as a consequence of both instrumental and
algorithmic enhancements. The TROPOMI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> spatial resolution
represents a factor of 16 improvement in relation to OMI's <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">24</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km. In
addition to its finer nadir resolution, TROPOMI's extreme off-nadir
resolution does not increase as much as OMI's. As discussed in Sect. 2.1,
the TROPOMI-dedicated VIIRS cloud mask is the only algorithmic improvement
in the current version of TropOMAER.</p>
      <p id="d1e517">In this section, we evaluate the TropOMAER UVAI product in relation to its
OMAERUV predecessor and also compare it to the operational ESA/KNMI
(Koninklijk Nerderlands Meteorogisch Instituut) TROPOMI UVAI product (Stein Zweers,
2018a, b). We also evaluate the accuracy of TROPOMI quantitative AOD and SSA
aerosol products by comparison to ground-based independent observations.
TROPOMI-derived aerosol parameters are also compared to OMI results during
the same time and in similar regions.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e522">Observed UVAI on 18 August 2018 over North America from <bold>(a)</bold> OMI
observations, <bold>(b)</bold> TROPOMI observations using the NASA algorithm, and <bold>(c)</bold> the TROPOMI operational ESA/KNMI product.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020-f02.png"/>

      </fig>

<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>UV aerosol index evaluation</title>
      <p id="d1e548">Two consecutive orbit views by OMI and TROPOMI of the smoke plume from the
Pacific Northwest fires on 18 August 2018 are shown in Fig. 2. OMI's
depiction of this event appears in Fig. 2a, whereas Fig. 2b illustrates the
same aerosol feature as reported by the TropOMAER algorithm. Both products
cover a similar range of UVAI values from a slightly negative background to
values as high as 10. OMI's coarse spatial resolution, however, is in stark
contrast to TROPOMI's fine resolution that allows for the mapping of the smoke
plume UVAI signal with an unprecedented level of detail. Missing data in OMI's
depiction in Fig. 2a is associated with the row anomaly that has reduced
the sensor's observing capability by nearly 50 % since about 2008 (Torres
et al., 2018; Schenkeveld et al., 2017). Figure 2c shows the
operational TROPOMI ESA/KNMI UVAI product for the same event. The main
difference between the NASA (Fig. 2b) and ESA/KNMI (Fig. 2c) UVAI products
is the background values that, while near zero for the NASA product, reach
values a low as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the KNMI product. The large background difference
between the two products is likely the combined effect of calibration
uncertainties in the operational ESA/KNMI product and algorithmic
differences in the treatment of clouds in the calculated component of the
UVAI definition. In the KNMI UVAI calculation, clouds are modeled as opaque
reflectors at the ground (Herman et al., 1997), whereas in the NASA UVAI,
clouds are explicitly modeled as polydispersions of liquid water droplets
using Mie theory (Torres et al., 2018). A comparative analysis of OMAERUV
and TropOMAER UVAI is presented in Sect. 3.3.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Evaluation of retrieved aerosol optical depth and single-scattering albedo</title>
      <p id="d1e569">We separately evaluate the effect of instrumental and algorithmic
improvements in the TropOMAER retrieval algorithm by direct comparison of the
satellite product to ground-based globally distributed (over land) level 2
version 3 measurements of AOD (Giles et al., 2019) by the Aerosol Robotic
Network (AERONET; Holben et al., 1998).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e575">AERONET sites used for the AOD validation analysis presented in
this study.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="2">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Site (country)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Lat., long.</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hohenpeissenberg (Germany)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">47.8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 11.0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GSFC (USA)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">39.0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 76.8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Lille (France)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">50.6<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 3.1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Beijing-CAMS (China)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">39.9<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 116.3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Thessaloniki (Greece)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">40.6<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 23.0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fukuoka (Japan)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">33.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 130.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Banizoumbou (Niger)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">13.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 2.7<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mongu (Zambia)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15.3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 23.3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Leipzig (Germany)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">51.4<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 12.4<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Lumbini (Nepal)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">27.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 83.3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Yonsei University (South Korea)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">37.6<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 126.9<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">New Delhi (India)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">28.6<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 77.2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e928">Measurements of AOD at 380 nm are available at most AERONET sites, allowing
for a direct comparison to OMI and TROPOMI 388 nm retrievals. No attempt was
made to account for the small AERONET–TROPOMI wavelength difference. AERONET
AOD measurements at the 12 sites listed in Table 1 over a 2-year
period (May 2018 through<?pagebreak page6793?> May 2020) were used in the analysis. These locations
were chosen based on the availability of 380 nm AOD measurements and on the
representativity of environments where most common aerosol types
(carbonaceous, desert dust, and sulfate-based) are observed.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>3.2.1</label><title>Impact of TROPOMI's fine resolution on AOD retrieval</title>
      <p id="d1e939">We first analyze the impact of the enhanced spatial resolution by
independently comparing OMI retrievals by the OMAERUV algorithm and
TropOMAER AOD inversions to AERONET measurements over the selected set of
AERONET sites. In this validation exercise, the VIIRS cloud mask is ignored,
and the heritage algorithm cloud mask (Torres et al., 2013) is applied to
both OMI and TROPOMI observations. Resulting relevant statistics for the two
validations were compared. These statistics, based on an admittedly small
sample of observations, are only intended to illustrate the relative
improvement in the accuracy of retrieved parameters associated with TROPOMI-enhanced instrumental and algorithmic capabilities with respect to OMI. This
is by no means an exhaustive validation exercise of the TROPOMI record for
which a lot more AERONET observations are needed.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e945">Summary of statistics of comparisons between AERONET-measured and
satellite-retrieved AOD at 12 locations (column 1) by the OMAERUV algorithm
(column 2), TropOMAER heritage algorithm (column 3), and TropOMAER algorithm
with VIIRS cloud mask (column 4).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">TropOMAER</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">TropOMAER</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">OMAERUV</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(heritage</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(VIIRS cloud</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">cloud mask)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">mask)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Number of</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">410</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">741</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">845</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">matchups</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Correlation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.62</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.82</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.89</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">coefficient</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Root mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.31</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.16</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">square error</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1092">AERONET–satellite comparisons of OMI-retrieved 388 nm AOD <bold>(a)</bold>,
TROPOMI using heritage cloud screening <bold>(b)</bold>, and TROPOMI using VIIRS cloud
mask <bold>(c)</bold>. The dotted line indicates the one-to-one line, and dashed lines
represent expected retrieval uncertainty (largest of 0.1 % or 30 %). See
text and Table 2 for details.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020-f03.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e1111">Ground-based AOD values averaged within <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 min of the satellite
overpass are compared to spatially averaged retrievals by OMAERUV within a
40 km radius and by TropOMAER within 20 km (because of the smaller pixel
size) of the AERONET site. Figure 3 shows scatter plots of the
AERONET–satellite comparisons at the combined 12 sites for OMAERUV (Fig. 3a)
and TropOMAER (Fig. 3b). The dotted envelope lines indicate the calculated
expected uncertainty of retrieved AOD (larger of 0.1 % or 30 %) associated
with uncertainties in assumed ALH and cloud contamination (Torres et al.,
1998, 2007). The calculated relevant statistics are listed in columns 2 and
3 of Table 2. The TROPOMI–AERONET comparison yields 741 matchups compared to
OMI's 410, representing an 80 % increase. The larger number of
coincidences is the result of the combined effect of TROPOMI's finer spatial
resolution and the OMI row anomaly. In spite of a
large number of outliers in the lower AOD range (up to about 0.7) coming
from a few sites (see Sect. 3.2.2), the TROPOMI–AERONET comparison in Fig. 3b yields an improved correlation coefficient (0.82) with respect to the one
(0.60) associated with the OMI observations. The lowest OMAERUV-reported
correlation coefficients are associated with outlying large AOD estimates
resulting from mixtures of UV-absorbing aerosols and clouds, which are
difficult to identify at OMAERUV's coarse spatial resolution. Resulting root
mean square error (RMSE) values are 0.31 and 0.19 for OMI and TROPOMI,
respectively. The reported statistics suggest a clear performance
improvement of the TROPOMI algorithm directly linked to the sensor's smaller
pixel size.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page6794?><sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>3.2.2</label><title>Effect of VIIRS cloud masking on AOD retrieval</title>
      <p id="d1e1129">The effect of using the VIIRS cloud mask re-gridded to the S5P resolution
(Siddans, 2016a, b) to identify cloud-free pixels was evaluated by means
of a third validation exercise. This time, the TROPOMI–AERONET comparison
was carried out for an enhanced TropOMAER algorithm that makes use of the
VIIRS dedicated cloud mask. The scatter plot illustrating the outcome of the
later comparison is shown in Fig. 3c. The corresponding correlation
coefficient and root mean square errors are listed in column 4 of Table 2.
An inspection of columns 3 and 4 shows that using the VIIRS cloud mask
translates into an increase in the number of matchups of over 100 (to 845), a
higher correlation coefficient (0.89), and a slightly improved RMSE
(0.16) value than that reported for the TropOMAER algorithm with the heritage
cloud mask. A slightly reduced number of TROPOMI AOD outliers in the 0 to
0.5 range are still observed in Fig. 3c. A close examination of the source
of those points indicates that most of them come from likely cloud-contaminated observations at the Banizoumbou, Beijing, and Mongu sites (shown
in the scatter plots for each of the 12 sites in the analysis shown in
Appendix A) where carbonaceous aerosols and sub-pixel-sized clouds coexist,
making cloud screening a particularly difficult task.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS3">
  <label>3.2.3</label><title>SSA evaluation</title>
      <p id="d1e1140">An analysis similar to that carried out for AOD evaluation is performed for
SSA using the AERONET version 3 level 2 inversion product (Sinyuk et al.,
2020). The AERONET inversion algorithm that infers aerosol particle size
distribution and complex refractive index (from which SSA is calculated)
does not include measured sky radiances or retrieved AOD at wavelengths
shorter than 440 nm. Therefore, the evaluation of OMI- and TROPOMI-retrieved
388 nm SSA requires a wavelength transformation of the satellite products to
440 nm based on the assumed spectral dependence of absorption for each
aerosol type in the algorithm (Jethva et al., 2014). Unlike in the AOD
validation, in which the AERONET observation is considered a ground-truth
measurement, the AERONET SSA product is the result of a remote sensing
inversion and, just like the satellite retrievals, subject to nonunique
solutions. Thus, the AERONET–satellite SSA analyses discussed here cannot be
regarded as a validation of the satellite product, but merely a comparison
of the outcome of two independent inversion methods.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e1145">As in Fig. 3 for single-scattering albedo of dust aerosols
(blue), smoke aerosols (red), urban–industrial aerosols (green), and aerosol
mixtures (black). The dashed line indicates agreement <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.03, and the
solid line indicates agreement <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.05.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020-f04.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e1168">Since AERONET-retrieved SSA is accurate within 0.03 for 440 nm AOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.4 (Dubovik et al., 2002; Sinyuk et al., 2020), observations at many sites
are required to get meaningful statistics. Thus, OMI and TROPOMI SSA
retrievals were averaged in a grid box of size 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> centered
at the AERONET station at 164 sites. Because AERONET SSA derived from
almucantar scans is considered unreliable near noon (Dubovik et al.,
2002) when a satellite overpass occurs, the AERONET level 2 SSA data were
averaged within a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 h window from the TROPOMI overpass time under
the implicit (and admittedly untested) assumption that SSA does not vary
significantly throughout the day. The chosen 6 h temporal window allows for
early morning and late afternoon inversions that are expected to have better
accuracy due to larger solar zenith angle and longer atmospheric path
length. Although the version 3 AERONET product has recently introduced
hybrid scans aimed at sampling larger air masses covering a wider range of
scattering angles during the middle of the day, only a fraction of currently
deployed sensors are capable of such measurements (Sinyuk et al., 2020).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Table 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1214">Number of coincidences, root mean square difference, and percent of SSA
retrievals within 0.03 and 0.05 of AERONET values (column 1) for OMAERUV
(column 2), TropOMAER with heritage cloud mask, and TropOMAER with VIIRS
cloud mask (column 3).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.86}[.86]?><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">OMAERUV</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">TropOMAER</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">TropOMAER</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(heritage</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(VIIRS cloud</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">cloud mask)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">mask)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Number of matchups</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">303</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">323</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">415</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Root mean square diff.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.046</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.040</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.044</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Percent within 0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">52</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">51</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">48</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Percent within 0.05</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">78</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">70</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1337">Similarly to the previously described AOD validation<?pagebreak page6795?> exercise,
satellite-AERONET SSA comparisons were made by independently applying the
heritage cloud screening to OMAERUV retrievals and both heritage and
VIIRS-based cloud masking approaches to TropOMAER. Figure 4 displays the
results of the comparison for different aerosol types. The AERONET–OMI
analysis is shown in Fig. 4a, and the result of the AERONET–TROPOMI
comparison using heritage cloud screening is displayed in Fig. 4b, whereas
the outcome when using the VIIRS cloud mask in the TROPOMI inversion appears
in Fig. 4c. A numerical summary of the results is presented in Table 3. In a
similar fashion as observed in the AOD retrieval evaluation, the number of
coincidences increases from 303 for OMI to 323 for TROPOMI with heritage
cloud screening and to 415 for the TROPOMI–VIIRS cloud mask combination.
The reported root mean square difference (RMSD) between the two measurements
varies little among the three comparisons. The percent of
retrievals within the stated uncertainty levels is marginally better for OMI
than TROPOMI with heritage cloud screening and significantly better for OMI
than TROPOMI with the VIIRS cloud mask. A visual inspection of Fig. 4 shows that
the satellite-retrieved SSA for dust is overestimated for AERONET SSA values
lower than about 0.9 in the three comparisons. The observed apparent
overestimation of the satellite SSA values for desert dust aerosols (blue
symbols) in the OMI comparisons (Fig. 4a) has been previously observed and
discussed in the literature (Jethva et al., 2014). The apparent
overestimation shown in the TROPOMI results (Fig. 4b and c) is
discernibly larger than seen in the OMI data (Fig. 4a). Figure 4b and c also
show a clear overestimate in the retrieved SSA of smoke aerosols (red
symbols) not seen in the OMI retrievals in Fig. 4a. In general, for all
three aerosol types, TROPOMI SSA retrievals are seemingly biased high by
0.01–0.02 compared to those from OMI, suggesting a possible connection with
remaining TROPOMI L1 calibration issues.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>OMI–TROPOMI long-term continuity</title>
      <p id="d1e1349">The continuity of the OMI and TROPOMI records of aerosol properties is
analyzed in this section. Monthly average values of AOD and AAOD for the May 2018 to May 2020 2-year period are calculated for three regions: the eastern United States (EUS) between 25–45<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and 60–90<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, southern Africa (SAF)
bounded by 5–25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S and 15–35<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, and the Saharan desert (SAH) zone between
15–30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and 30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E–10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W. The EUS region is representative of areas
predominantly associated with non-absorbing aerosols and clouds. The SAF
region is known as an important source area of carbonaceous aerosol–cloud
mixtures, whereas the SAH region is the source area of the desert dust part,
the most abundant aerosol type.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1418">The 2-year time series of monthly average OMI (in red) and TROPOMI
(in blue) 388 nm AOD values for the eastern United States <bold>(a)</bold>, southern Africa <bold>(b)</bold>, and Saharan desert <bold>(c)</bold>. Vertical lines indicate the standard
deviation of the mean associated with both temporal and spatial variability.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1438">As in Fig. 5 for 388 nm AAOD.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e1450">NH summer season (June–July–August 2018) global map of 388 nm
aerosol absorption optical depth from TROPOMI <bold>(a)</bold> and OMI <bold>(b)</bold>
observations.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1465">Figure 5 shows the 2-year AOD record produced by the OMAERUV (blue) and
TropOMAER (red) algorithms for the three regions. TropOMAER-generated AOD
values are consistently higher by about 0.2 than the OMAERUV record for the
SAF and SAH regions where the absorbing aerosol load is typically large most
of the year. The EUS region shows significantly smaller OMI–TROPOMI
differences in monthly mean values. The comparison was also done using a
TropOMAER version of the algorithm that uses the heritage cloud screening
approach, yielding similar results.</p>
      <p id="d1e1468">Figure 6 depicts the 2-year record in terms of AAOD. Differences as large
as 0.03 in the SAH region during the 2018 spring–summer months are
significantly lower in the 2019 record. Overall, the AAOD time series over
the three regions show closer agreement between the two sensors, suggesting
a partial cancellation of retrieval errors in SSA and AOD when combined in
the AAOD parameter.</p>
      <p id="d1e1471">Figure 7 shows global 3-month (June, July, August 2018) average maps of
AAOD from TROPOMI (top) and OMI (bottom) observations. Seasonally occurring
features, such as the Saharan desert dust signal over northern Africa and the
smoke plumes associated with biomass burning over Namibia, Angola, and Congo,
are clearly picked by both<?pagebreak page6796?> sensors with comparable AAOD values. Other
continental aerosol features, such as a dust and smoke signal over the western
US and smoke plumes from wildfires in the Northwest Pacific moving
eastward across Canada, are detected at similar AAOD values by the two
sensors, albeit with a higher level of detail in the TROPOMI product.
Similar aerosol signals are also picked up by the two sensors over Saudi
Arabia, northwest India, Pakistan, and western China. Perhaps the most
striking continental difference in the seasonal map in Fig. 7 is the much
larger OMI background AAOD in South America, possibly linked to the
difficulty of removing sub-pixel cloud effects at OMI's resolution.</p>
      <p id="d1e1474">Surprisingly, OMI only shows a very scattered signal of the North Atlantic
Saharan dust plume between northern Africa and the plume's leading edge
north of Venezuela over the Caribbean, whereas the TROPOMI product shows an
almost continuous North Atlantic plume. In spite of the geographically
sparse nature of the OMI AAOD data, there is high consistency in the
retrieved values by the two sensors. A similar but less severe difference is
also observed over the South Atlantic, where the OMI-retrieved carbonaceous
aerosol plume is more disperse than what is shown in the TROPOMI map. The
combined effect of prevailing sub-pixel cloud contamination and OMI's row
anomaly explains the spatially scattered OMI retrievals over the oceans.</p>
      <p id="d1e1477">Clearly, the full TROPOMI coverage at much higher spatial resolution than
OMI and the high-resolution VIIRS cloud mask contribute to significantly
improving the near-UV aerosol product.</p>
      <p id="d1e1481">The OMI and TROPOMI gridded 2018 monthly data used to produce the seasonal
average maps discussed above are also displayed in Fig. 8 as density AAOD
(left) and UVAI (right) plots. Although small offsets in UVAI
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2) and AAOD (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.02) between the sensors
are apparent, a high degree of correlation between the observations by the
two instruments is clearly observed.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e1500">Density plots of OMI (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis) and TROPOMI (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis) gridded monthly
mean (June, July, August 2018) values of 388 nm AAOD <bold>(a)</bold> and UVAI <bold>(b)</bold>. The dotted line indicates the one-to-one line of agreement.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e1531">Spatial distribution of 388 nm AOD <bold>(a, c)</bold> and SSA <bold>(b, d)</bold> on
18 August 2018 derived from TROPOMI <bold>(a, b)</bold> and OMI <bold>(c, d)</bold> observations.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=230.467323pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>TROPOMI view of important aerosol events</title>
      <p id="d1e1561">In this section, we briefly discuss three major continental-scale aerosol
events that took place during the 2-year period following the operational
implementation of the S5P mission. The discussed cases include the
occurrence of wildfire plumes in both hemispheres, while the third one is
likely associated with agricultural practices involving biomass burning in
the Amazon region.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>2018 fire season in the northwestern USA and Canadian British Columbia</title>
      <p id="d1e1571">The 2018 fire season in the western USA and Canadian British Columbia
territory was one of the most active of the last few years. It is estimated
that over 8500 fires were responsible for the burning of over 0.8 million ha, which is<?pagebreak page6797?> the largest burned area ever recorded according to the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (<uri>http://fire.ca.gov</uri>, last access: 2 December 2020) and the
National Interagency Fire Center (<uri>http://nfic.gov</uri>, last access: 2 December 2020). From mid-July to August,
intense fires in northern California, including the destructive Carr and
Mendocino Complex fires, produced elevated smoke layers that drifted to the
east and northeast. In 2018, the British Columbia (BC) province of Canada
encountered its worst fire season on record, surpassing the 2017 record
with more than 2000 wildfires and 1.55 million ha burned and accounting
for about 60 % of the total burned area in Canada in 2018 (<uri>https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/wildfire-status</uri>, last access: 2 December 2020). Figure 9 shows
the spatial extent of the smoke plume generated by wildfires in Canadian
BC and the northwestern USA on 18 August in terms of the 388 nm AOD and SSA
products from both TROPOMI (top) and OMI (bottom) observations (the
corresponding UVAI depiction is shown in Fig. 2). Observed gaps in the core
of the plume are due to out-of-bounds retrieval conditions. The carbonaceous
aerosol layers produced by the fires spread over a huge area, covering large
regions of the US Midwest and central Canada. The height of the aerosol layer
varies between 3 and 5 km according to CALIOP observations (not shown).
Although OMI's coarse resolution and row-anomaly-related reduced spatial
coverage are clearly observable, the retrieved AOD and SSA fields by the two
sensors look remarkably similar. TROPOMI and OMI AOD retrievals reach values
as high as 5.0 near the sources, generally consistent with AERONET
ground-based observations that, on this day, reported AOD values as large as
1.5 (412 nm) at the Lake Erie site (41.8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N,
83.2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) and values in excess of 3.0 at the Toronto station
(43.8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 79.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W). SSA values in the range
0.85–0.92 are retrieved by both sensors over the extended area. Minimum OMI-retrieved SSA (0.85) in the vicinity of a source area, however, is lower by
about 0.02 than the corresponding TROPOMI measurement, consistent with the
relative OMI–TROPOMI SSA differences reported in Fig. 4.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Amazon Basin 2019 fires</title>
      <?pagebreak page6798?><p id="d1e1628">Figure 10 shows the spatial distribution of the September 2019 average
TROPOMI UVAI, AOD, and AAOD over the region between the Equator and
40<inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S and between 35<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W and
85<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W. Monthly average AOD values of around 2.0 prevailed
over the source areas. The smoke plumes were mobilized downwind towards
southern Brazil, reaching highly populated areas where TROPOMI-measured
monthly average AOD in the range 0.9 to 1.0 are reported.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e1660">September 2019 monthly average values of TROPOMI UVAI <bold>(a)</bold>, 388 nm AOD <bold>(b)</bold>, and AAOD <bold>(c)</bold> over South America.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e1680">Time series of 388 nm AOD over the Amazon Basin from OMI (blue
line) and TROPOMI (red line) observations.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1690">Figure 11 shows the time series of monthly average OMI 388 nm AOD over the
region for the last 15 years, along with the overlapping TROPOMI AOD
observations over the last 2 years, illustrating the importance of the
continuity of the long-term record. Although, as discussed earlier, there are
small differences in the time series between the two sensors, these
differences are not large enough to question the ability to differentiate years
with large seasonal events from years with comparably reduced biomass
burning activity. The seasonal carbonaceous aerosol concentration over the
Amazon Basin, associated with intense agriculture-related biomass burning, has
significantly decreased over the last 12 years since 2008. The OMI
record shows a remarkable decrease since 2008 when near-record-high values
were observed (Torres et al., 2010). After consecutive AOD September peaks
larger than 2.0, in the 3-year 2005–2007 period, the monthly average AOD
over the Amazon Basin was reduced to values of about 0.5. An isolated abrupt
increase to larger than 2.0 was again observed in 2010. Since then, the
September peak AOD value has remained much lower than 1, except for 2017 and
2019 when September average AOD larger than unity was observed. The 2019
peak AOD value (1.25) was also retrieved by TROPOMI observations. Although
the overall regional average was slightly larger than in the previous year,
it was about a third of the 2010 peak value. As a result of the prevailing
regional atmospheric dynamics in 2019, carbonaceous aerosols generated by
seasonal biomass burning over regions up north were transported towards the
southeast, reaching large urban centers such as São Paulo and Curitiba,
generating a lot of media attention (Hughes, 2019).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e1695">UVAI–AOD relationship at ALH 12 km for the 2019–2020 Australian
fires (black line) on 31 December 2019. Red symbols represent aerosol
retrievals at 12 km and higher. Blue symbols indicate retrievals at heights
lower than 12 km.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<?pagebreak page6799?><sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>Australia 2019–2020 fires</title>
      <p id="d1e1712">The 2019–2020 fire season in Australia resulted in 18.6 million burned
hectares, most of them in the New South Wales and Victoria southeastern
states (SBS News, 2020). It is estimated that tens of people died along with
billions of animals that were exterminated, including species that were near
extinction before the fire (Readfearn, 2020). The intense fire activity
likely triggered a number of pyroCb clouds over a few days between 30 December 2019 and early January 2020, injecting large quantities of carbonaceous
aerosols into the Southern Hemisphere UTLS (Ohneiser et al., 2020). In this
section, we describe TROPOMI observations of these events in terms of UVAI
and AOD retrievals. As observed in visible satellite imagery (not shown)
most of the UTLS-injected carbonaceous aerosol material was initially above
clouds. TROPOMI near-UV observations were used in conjunction with aerosol
layer height from CALIOP observations as input to a modified version of the
TROPOMI aerosol algorithm that handles stratospheric aerosol layers
(TropOMAER-UTLS). The retrieved SSA over clear scenes was then used as input
in the retrieval of AOD over cloudy pixels by the above-cloud aerosol module
described in Sect. 2.1.3.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{13}?><label>Figure 13</label><caption><p id="d1e1717">TROPOMI UVAI <bold>(a)</bold>, total column 388 nm AOD <bold>(b)</bold>, and above
12 km AOD <bold>(c)</bold> fields of Australian smoke plume on 2 January 2020.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020-f13.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F14" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{14}?><label>Figure 14</label><caption><p id="d1e1737">Calculated daily aerosol mass (kilotons) in the stratosphere from
TROPOMI observations from 31 December 2019 to 7 January 2020. Results are
reported for aerosols in cloud-free conditions (blue bars), aerosol above
cloudy scenes (green bars), and their sum (orange bars).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020-f14.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1747">TROPOMI-retrieved AOD was used to produce an estimate of resulting
stratospheric aerosol mass (SAM). The SAM calculation procedure involves the
separation of the stratospheric AOD component from the total AOD column
measurement and the use of an extinction-to-mass conversion approximation
described in Appendix B. This approach was previously applied to EPIC near-UV AOD retrievals to calculate the SAM associated with the 2017 British
Columbia pyroCb events (Torres et al., 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e1750">The identification of stratospheric aerosols is carried out by establishing a
theoretical relationship between AOD and UVAI for a hypothetical aerosol
layer at the tropopause<?pagebreak page6800?> for assumed values of ALH and AAE (see the discussion in Sect. 2.1). CALIOP-provided ALH information and an assumed AAE value of 4.8,
similar to that in Torres et al. (2020), were used as input to TropOMAER-UTLS.
AOD retrievals associated with UVAI values larger than those indicated by
the AOD–UVAI relationship at the tropopause height are assumed to correspond
to stratospheric aerosols. Figure 12 shows TROPOMI-observed UVAI (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis)
and retrieved AOD (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis) for CALIOP-reported ALH on 31 December 2019.
Data points in red indicate retrievals above the estimated tropopause
height (12 km), while the blue points show retrievals at heights below that
level. The altitudes of the retrievals in relation to the
tropopause are determined based on a unique viewing-geometry-dependent
UVAI–AOD relation for each pixel, which is difficult to visualize on a single plot.
Therefore, a quadratic fit (black line) to all data, i.e., above and below
the tropopause, was derived to illustrate, for visualization purposes, the
separation of tropospheric and stratospheric aerosols.</p>
      <p id="d1e1767">Unlike during the 2017 British Columbia fire episodes, when a large fraction
of the pyroCb-generated aerosol plume initially remained in the troposphere
and some of it diabatically ascended to the stratosphere over the next few
days (Torres et al., 2020), during the Australian 2020 pyro-convective fires
most of the produced carbonaceous aerosols appear to have gone directly into
the stratosphere. Figure 13 shows TROPOMI-retrieved UVAI and AOD fields
(total column and stratospheric component) on 2 January 2020. Only small
differences in the total column and above-tropopause AOD fields are
observed, as most of the aerosol material was directly deposited in the
stratosphere.</p>
      <p id="d1e1770">Stratospheric AOD values were converted to mass estimates using the
procedure described in Torres et al. (2020) and also included as Appendix B
of this paper. For mass estimation purposes, TropOMAER 388 nm AOD data were
gridded to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.25</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.25</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> lat.–long.
resolution. Figure 14 shows calculated daily SAM values (in kilotons) from
31 December 2019 through 7 January 2020 resulting from aerosols above 12 km, the
altitude used as a proxy for the tropopause<?pagebreak page6801?> height. Separate aerosol mass
retrievals were carried out for cloud-free (blue bars) and cloudy scenes
(green bars), with the daily total SAM given as the sum of these two
components (orange bars). The observed daily monotonic increase from 119 kt
on 31 December 2019 to 380 kt on 2 January 2020 is likely the result of
distinct pyroCb events that seemingly injected most of the aerosol mass
directly in the stratosphere. Following the 2 January maximum, SAM decreases
over the following 3 d to a minimum of 87 kt on 5 January, likely due
to the combined effect of dilution processes that spread the aerosol layer
horizontally and thin it out to extremely low AOD values beyond the
sensor's sensitivity to the total AOD column measurement and aerosol
deposition bringing it down to lower than 12 km and therefore no longer
included in the SAM calculation.</p>
      <p id="d1e1793">The sudden increase to 166 kt on 6 January is likely associated with another
pyroCb event observed on 4 January that injected an additional 166 kt. Thus,
the TROPOMI-based total SAM estimate is the sum of the two peaks on 2 and 6 January, yielding a total of 546 kt, which about twice as much as the
268 kt estimated SAM for the 2017 British Columbia pyroCb (Torres et al.,
2020) using the same mass estimation technique. The uncertainty of the
estimated SAM is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 %, which represents the combined effect of
uncertainties on assumed AAE (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.5) in the AOD retrieval and the
uncertainty associated with the assumed aerosol density range of 0.79 to
1.53 g cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Reid et al., 2005).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Summary and future work</title>
      <p id="d1e1832">The NASA TropOMAER aerosol algorithm applied to TROPOMI observations is an
adapted version of the OMAERUV algorithm developed for OMI. Currently, the
only algorithm upgrade of TropOMAER is the use of a dedicated VIIRS-based
cloud mask. Initial retrieval results for the first 2 years of operation
of the TROPOMI sensor were reported.</p>
      <p id="d1e1835">Since radiometric calibration uncertainties in the range 5 %–10 % relative
to OMI and S-NPP OMPS measurements are reportedly present the TROPOMI
version 1 level 1b UV–Vis (UV–visible) band 3 (Rozemeijer and Kleipool, 2019a, b),
we applied vicariously derived correction factors to TROPOMI-measured
radiances at 354 and 388 nm. The approach, based on measured ice
reflectances and radiative transfer calculations, yields corrections in the
range from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % in the across-track direction for both
wavelengths.</p>
      <p id="d1e1855">The AERONET version 3 level 2 380 nm AOD data record was used to evaluate
the performance of the TropOMAER algorithm. An AERONET AOD data aggregate
consisting of 2 years (May 2018–May 2020) of observations at 12 sites
representative of the most common aerosol types (i.e., carbonaceous, desert
dust, and urban–industrial aerosols) was used in the analysis. To separately
evaluate the effects of instrumental and algorithmic improvements on
retrieved products, we carried out a three-way comparison of satellite-retrieved AOD to AERONET observations: (1) OMI retrievals by the OMAERUV
algorithm, (2) TropOMAER retrievals using the heritage (OMAERUV) cloud
screening method, and (3) TropOMAER retrievals using a VIIRS-based cloud mask
were independently compared to AERONET observations. A comparative analysis
of evaluations 1 and 2 shows the impact of enhanced instrumental
capabilities, whereas the analysis of evaluations 2 and 3 highlights the
effect of using the VIIRS cloud mask.</p>
      <p id="d1e1858">Results from comparisons 1 and 2 indicate that a large increase in the
number of matched observations (from 410 to 741) and a higher correlation
coefficient (from 0.60 to 0.82) are the main benefit of TROPOMI's enhanced
resolution. Resulting RMSE values are similar for both comparisons. The
comparison of evaluations 2 and 3, intended to evaluate benefits associated
with the availability of the VIIRS cloud mask, shows an additional increase in the
number of matched pairs (from 741 to 845) and a higher correlation coefficient
(from 0.82 to 0.89). The multi-site AERONET–TROPOMI analysis shows the
presence of overestimated AOD values in the 0 to 0.5 range. The presence of
these outliers is not a common feature at all sites but is primarily associated
with the presence of carbonaceous aerosols and cloud mixtures that the
current cloud masking scheme apparently fails to identify. Future work to
improve the current cloud masking approach is planned. A similar analysis
using observations at 164 sites was carried out to evaluate TROPOMI's SSA
product, yielding a similar main conclusion of an increased number of
retrieval opportunities for the higher-spatial-resolution sensor.</p>
      <p id="d1e1862">The observed improvement associated with TROPOMI's higher spatial resolution
and therefore increased number of retrieval opportunities compared to OMI
may be overestimated in view of the row anomaly affecting the OMI sensor
that has reduced its viewing capability by nearly 50 %.</p>
      <p id="d1e1865">The TropOMAER aerosol products were also evaluated by direct comparison to
OMI at daily, monthly, and seasonal temporal scales. A comparative analysis
of OMI and TROPOMI 2-year time series of 388 nm AOD monthly values shows that
TROPOMI AOD values are higher than OMI by about 0.2. This AOD offset is of
about the same magnitude as identified in the validation analysis using
AERONET observations.</p>
      <p id="d1e1868">Although TROPOMI products show improved spatial coverage, especially over the
oceans where clouds are a significant obstacle at OMI's coarse resolution,
the reported comparisons show an overall consistent picture that allows for
the long-term continuity of the near-UV aerosol record.</p>
      <p id="d1e1871">Three continental-scale carbonaceous aerosol events over the last 2 years
captured the attention of climate scientists and news media alike. These
events, observed by TROPOMI, were briefly described here in terms of
TropOMAER products.</p>
      <?pagebreak page6802?><p id="d1e1874">The atmospheric aerosol load generated by the hundreds of fires in the
western USA and southern Canada in the summer of 2018 was measured by both
ground-based and spaceborne sensors. The fire-triggered aerosol layers
extended over a huge area, covering large regions of the US Midwest and
central Canada. Except for the difference in spatial resolution, OMI and
TROPOMI observations yield a consistent view of this event, with produced UVAI values
as large as 10 and retrieved AOD values as high as 5.0, consistent
with AERONET ground-based observations at several sites.</p>
      <p id="d1e1877">After 8 years of noticeable reduced biomass burning in southern Brazil
during August and September, high levels of carbonaceous aerosols were
detected in 2019 by both OMI and TROPOMI. As a result of prevailing regional
atmospheric dynamics in 2019, carbonaceous aerosols generated by seasonal
biomass burning were transported towards the southeast, reaching large urban
centers. OMI- and TROPOMI-reported September 2019 monthly and regional
average AOD was slightly larger than in the previous year and about a third
of the OMI-reported 2010 peak (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.5) value.</p>
      <p id="d1e1888"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>A number of pyroCbs likely triggered by intense bushfires in the New South
Wales province of Australia between 30 December 2019 and early January 2020
injected large amounts of carbonaceous aerosols into the Southern Hemisphere
UTLS. Very large values of TROPOMI UVAI observations pointed to an elevated
aerosol layer, which was confirmed by CALIOP reports of a distinct
high-altitude aerosol layer near 12 km above tropospheric clouds.
TROPOMI-retrieved AOD over both cloud-free and cloudy scenes was used to
produce an estimate of the injected aerosol mass above 12 km, yielding a
total of 546 kt, which is at least twice as much as the estimated
carbonaceous aerosol mass injected into the stratosphere by the 2017
Canadian fires.</p>
      <p id="d1e1892">Future TropOMAER algorithm enhancement will explore the utilization of
TROPOMI-retrieved information on aerosol layer height (Nanda et al., 2020),
CO (Martínez-Alonso et al., 2020), clouds (Loyola et al., 2018),
geometry-dependent effective LER (Loyola et al., 2020), and additional available spectral measurements for aerosol typing.
Work is currently underway on the development of higher-spatial-resolution
surface albedo data and on the optimization of the instrument
characterization.</p><?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>

<?pagebreak page6803?><app id="App1.Ch1.S1">
  <?xmltex \currentcnt{A}?><label>Appendix A</label><title>AERONET–TROPOMI comparisons at individual sites</title>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F15"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A1}?><label>Figure A1</label><caption><p id="d1e1909">Scatter plots of AERONET-measured 380 nm AOD (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis) and
TROPOMI-retrieved 388 nm AOD (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis) at each of the sites used in the
analysis. Dotted line indicates the one-to-one line, and dashed lines
represent expected retrieval uncertainty (largest of 0.1 % or 30 %).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6789/2020/amt-13-6789-2020-f15.png"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</app>

<?pagebreak page6804?><app id="App1.Ch1.S2">
  <?xmltex \currentcnt{B}?><label>Appendix B</label><title>Extinction-to-mass conversion</title>
      <p id="d1e1944">The total aerosol mass injected in the stratosphere, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, can be estimated by
converting stratospheric AOD (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>str</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; see below) into an
equivalent aerosol mass per unit area using the equation (Krotkov et al.,
1999)
          <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S2.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>B1</label><mml:math id="M86" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</mml:mi><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eff</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>str</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eff</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        which yields the summation of the aerosol mass over the total area covered by
the aerosol plume. In Eq. (B1), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the aerosol particle mass
density in grams per cubic centimeter (g cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eff</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the effective radius (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m)
associated with the particle size distribution (van de Hulst, 1957), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
effective geographical area in square kilometers (km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) associated with the
retrieved stratospheric AOD averaged over each <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.25</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.25</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> lat.–long. grid (see text for details), and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eff</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is a dimensionless extinction-to-mass conversion factor,
averaging over particle size distribution, defined as
          <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S2.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>B2</label><mml:math id="M94" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∞</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo mathsize="1.5em">/</mml:mo><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∞</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ext</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the assumed number particle size distribution and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ext</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the extinction efficiency factor calculated using Mie theory.
Calculations were carried out for particle mass density values of 0.79 and
1.53 g cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which cover the range of values reported in the literature
(Reid et al., 2005).</p><?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</app>
  </app-group><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e2238">The data discussed in this paper is available from the first author upon request. Data will be publicly accessible in the future upon application of final instrument calibration and further refinement of the current research algorithm.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e2244">The leading author conceptualized the study and wrote the paper. Co-authors
HJ, CA, and DL contributed to the data analysis in the paper. Co-author
GJ contributed the vicarious instrumental calibration work used in the
interpretation of the satellite observations.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e2250">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="sistatement"><title>Special issue statement</title>

      <p id="d1e2256">This article is part of the special issue “TROPOMI on Sentinel-5 Precursor: first year in operation (AMT/ACP inter-journal SI)”. It is not associated with a conference.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e2262">Thanks are due to the anonymous reviewers whose constructive feedback led to
significant improvement of the article.</p></ack><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e2267">This paper was edited by Daniel Perez-Ramirez and reviewed by three anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ahn, C., Torres, O., and Jethva, H.: Assessment of OMI near-UV aerosol optical
depth over land, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 2457–2473, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020188" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JD020188</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Ahn, C., Torres, O., Jethva, H., and Tiruchirapalli, R., and Huang, L.-K.: Diurnal Variability of Aerosol Properties observed by the
DSCOVR/EPIC Instrument from the Earth-Sun Lagrange 1 Orbit,  J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., in
review, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bovensmann, H., Burrows, J. P., Buchwitz, M., Frerick, J., Noël, S.,
Rozanov, V. V., Chance, K. V., and Goede, A. P. H.: SCIAMACHY: Mission
Objectives and Measurement Modes, J. Atmos. Sci., 56,
127–150,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056&lt;0127:SMOAMM&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056&lt;0127:SMOAMM&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>,
1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dobber, M., Kleipool, Q., Dirksen, R., Levelt, P., Jaross, G.,Taylor, S.,
Kelly, T., Flynn, L., Leppelmeier, G., and Roze-Meijer, N.: Validation of
Ozone Monitoring Instrument level1b data products, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
113, D15S06, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008665" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JD008665</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gassó, S. and Torres, O.: The role of cloud contamination, aerosol layer height and aerosol model in the assessment of the OMI near-UV retrievals over the ocean, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 3031–3052, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-3031-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-9-3031-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Genkova, I., Robaidek, J., Roebling, R., Sneep, M., and Veefkind, P.: Temporal co-registration for TROPOMI cloud clearing, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 5, 595–602, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-595-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-5-595-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Giles, D. M., Sinyuk, A., Sorokin, M. G., Schafer, J. S., Smirnov, A., Slutsker, I., Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N., Lewis, J. R., Campbell, J. R., Welton, E. J., Korkin, S. V., and Lyapustin, A. I.: Advancements in the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) Version 3 database – automated near-real-time quality control algorithm with improved cloud screening for Sun photometer aerosol optical depth (AOD) measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 169–209, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-169-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-12-169-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hashimoto, M., Nakajima, T., Dubovik, O., Campanelli, M., Che, H., Khatri, P., Takamura, T., and Pandithurai, G.: Development of a new data-processing method for SKYNET sky radiometer observations, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 5, 2723–2737, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-2723-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-5-2723-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hughes, R.: Amazon Fires: What is the latest in Brazil?, BBC News, available at: <uri>https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49971563</uri> (last access: 2 December 2020), 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ingmann, P., Veihelmann, B., Langen, J., Lamarre, D., Stark, H., and
Courrèges-Lacoste, G. B.: Requirements for the GMES Atmosphere Service
and ESA's implementation concept: Sentinels-4/-5 and -5p, Remote Sens.
Environ., 120, 58–69,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.01.023" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2012.01.023</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jaross, G. and Warner, J.: Use of Antarctica for validating reflected
solar radiation measured by satellite sensors, J. Geophys. Res., 113,
D16S34, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008835" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JD008835</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jethva, H., Torres, O., and Ahn, C.: Global assessment of OMI aerosol
single-scattering albedo using ground-based AERONET inversion, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 119, 9020–9040, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021672" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014JD021672</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jethva, H., Torres, O., and Ahn, C.: A 12-year long global record of optical depth of absorbing aerosols above the clouds derived from the OMI/OMACA algorithm, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 5837–5864, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-5837-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-11-5837-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kleipool, Q., Ludewig, A., Babić, L., Bartstra, R., Braak, R., Dierssen, W., Dewitte, P.-J., Kenter, P., Landzaat, R., Leloux, J., Loots, E., Meijering, P., van der Plas, E., Rozemeijer, N., Schepers, D., Schiavini, D., Smeets, J., Vacanti, G., Vonk, F., and Veefkind, P.: Pre-launch calibration results of the TROPOMI payload on-board the Sentinel-5 Precursor satellite, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 6439–6479, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-6439-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-11-6439-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Krotkov, N. A., Torres, O., Seftor, C., Krueger, A. J., Konstinski, A., Rose, W. I.,
Bluth, G. J. S., Schneider, D., and Schaefer, S. J.: Comparison of TOMS and AVHRR
Volcanic Ash Retrievals from the August 1992 Eruption of Mt Spurr, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26,
455–458, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Levelt, P. F., van den Oord, G. H., Dobber, M. R., Malkki, A., Visser, H.,
de Vries, J., Stammes, P., Lundell, J. O., and Saari, H.: The ozone
monitoring instrument, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote,
44, 1093–1101, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2006.872333" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/TGRS.2006.872333</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Loyola, D. G., Gimeno García, S., Lutz, R., Argyrouli, A., Romahn, F., Spurr, R. J. D., Pedergnana, M., Doicu, A., Molina García, V., and Schüssler, O.: The operational cloud retrieval algorithms from TROPOMI on board Sentinel-5 Precursor, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 409–427, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-409-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-11-409-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page6806?><ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Loyola, D. G., Xu, J., Heue, K.-P., and Zimmer, W.: Applying FP_ILM to the retrieval of geometry-dependent effective Lambertian equivalent reflectivity (GE_LER) daily maps from UVN satellite measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 985–999, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-985-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-13-985-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ludewig, A., Kleipool, Q., Bartstra, R., Landzaat, R., Leloux, J., Loots, E., Meijering, P., van der Plas, E., Rozemeijer, N., Vonk, F., and Veefkind, P.: In-flight calibration results of the TROPOMI payload on board the Sentinel-5 Precursor satellite, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 3561–3580, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-3561-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-13-3561-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Marshak, A., Herman, J., Adam, S., Karin, B., Carn, S., Cede, A., Geogdzhayev, I., Huang, D., Huang, L., Knyazikhin, Y., Kowalewski, M., Krotkov, N., Lyapustin, A., McPeters, R., Meyer, K. G., Torres, O., and Yang, Y.: Earth
Observations from DSCOVR EPIC Instrument, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 99, 1829–1850, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0223.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0223.1</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Martínez-Alonso, S., Deeter, M., Worden, H., Borsdorff, T., Aben, I., Commane, R., Daube, B., Francis, G., George, M., Landgraf, J., Mao, D., McKain, K., and Wofsy, S.: 1.5 years of TROPOMI CO measurements: comparisons to MOPITT and ATom, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 4841–4864, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-4841-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-13-4841-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Munro, R., Lang, R., Klaes, D., Poli, G., Retscher, C., Lindstrot, R., Huckle, R., Lacan, A., Grzegorski, M., Holdak, A., Kokhanovsky, A., Livschitz, J., and Eisinger, M.: The GOME-2 instrument on the Metop series of satellites: instrument design, calibration, and level 1 data processing – an overview, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 1279–1301, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-1279-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-9-1279-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Nakajima, T., Tonna, G., Rao, R., Boi, P., Kaufman, Y., and Holben, B.: Use
of sky brightness measurements from ground for remote sensing of particulate
polydispersions, Appl. Optics, 35, 2672–2686, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Nanda, S., de Graaf, M., Veefkind, J. P., Sneep, M., ter Linden, M., Sun, J., and Levelt, P. F.: A first comparison of TROPOMI aerosol layer height (ALH) to CALIOP data, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 3043–3059, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-3043-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-13-3043-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ohneiser, K., Ansmann, A., Baars, H., Seifert, P., Barja, B., Jimenez, C., Radenz, M., Teisseire, A., Floutsi, A., Haarig, M., Foth, A., Chudnovsky, A., Engelmann, R., Zamorano, F., Bühl, J., and Wandinger, U.: Smoke of extreme Australian bushfires observed in the stratosphere over Punta Arenas, Chile, in January 2020: optical thickness, lidar ratios, and depolarization ratios at 355 and 532 nm, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 8003–8015, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-8003-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-20-8003-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Readfearn, G.: Silent death: Australia's bushfires
push countless species to extinction, Guardian Australia, available at: <ext-link xlink:href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/04/ecologists-warn-silent-death-australia-bushfires-endangered-species-extinction">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/04/</ext-link><?xmltex \hack{\break}?>
<ext-link xlink:href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/04/ecologists-warn-silent-death-australia-bushfires-endangered-species-extinction">ecologists-warn-silent-death-australia-bushfires-endangered-species-extinction</ext-link>,
last access: 2 December 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Reid, J. S., Koppmann, R., Eck, T. F., and Eleuterio, D. P.: A review of biomass burning emissions part II: intensive physical properties of biomass burning particles, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 799–825, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-799-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-799-2005</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Rozemeijer, N. C. and Kleipool, Q.: S5P Level 1b Product Readme File, S5P-MPC-KNMI-PRF-L1B, available
at: <uri>http://www.tropomi.eu/documents/level-0-1b</uri> (last access: 2 December 2020), 2019a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Rozemeijer, N. C. and Kleipool, Q.: S5P Level 1b Product Readme File, S5P-MPC-KNMI-PRF-L1B, available
at:
<ext-link xlink:href="https://sentinel.esa.int/web/sentinel/technical-guides/sentinel-5p/products-algorithms">https://sentinel.esa.int/web/sentinel/technical-guides/sentinel-</ext-link><?xmltex \hack{\break}?>
<ext-link xlink:href="https://sentinel.esa.int/web/sentinel/technical-guides/sentinel-5p/products-algorithms">5p/products-algorithms</ext-link> (last access: 2 December 2020), 2019b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>SBS News: The numbers behind Australia's catastropic bushfire season,
available at: <ext-link xlink:href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-numbers-behind-australia-s-catastrophic-bushfire-season">https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-</ext-link><?xmltex \hack{\break}?>
<ext-link xlink:href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-numbers-behind-australia-s-catastrophic-bushfire-season">numbers-behind-australia-s-catastrophic-bushfire-season</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schenkeveld, V. M. E., Jaross, G., Marchenko, S., Haffner, D., Kleipool, Q. L., Rozemeijer, N. C., Veefkind, J. P., and Levelt, P. F.: In-flight performance of the Ozone Monitoring Instrument, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 1957–1986, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-1957-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-10-1957-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Siddans, R.: S5P-NPP Cloud Processor ATBD, S5P-NPPCRALATBD-0001, available at:
<uri>https://sentinel.esa.int/web/sentinel/technical-guides/sentinel-5p/products-algorithms</uri> (last access: 2 December 2020), 2016a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Siddans, R.: S5P-NPP Cloud Processor ATBD, S5P-NPPCRALATBD-000 <uri>http://www.tropomi.eu/documents/atbd</uri> (last access: 2 December 2020), 2016b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sinyuk, A., Holben, B. N., Eck, T. F., Giles, D. M., Slutsker, I., Korkin, S., Schafer, J. S., Smirnov, A., Sorokin, M., and Lyapustin, A.: The AERONET Version 3 aerosol retrieval algorithm, associated uncertainties and comparisons to Version 2, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 3375–3411, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-3375-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-13-3375-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stein Zweers, D. C.: TROPOMI ATBD of the UV aerosol index, S5P-KNMI-L2-0008-RP, available at:
<uri>https://sentinel.esa.int/web/sentinel/technical-guides/sentinel-5p/products-algorithms</uri> (last access: 2 December 2020), 2018a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stein Zweers, D. C.: TROPOMI ATBD of the UV aerosol index, S5P-KNMI-L2-0008-RP, available at:
<uri>http://www.tropomi.eu/documents/atbd</uri> (last access: 2 December 2020), 2018b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Torres, O., Tanskanen, A., Veihelman, B., Ahn, C., Braak, R.,
Bhartia, P. K., Veefkind, P., and Levelt, P.: Aerosols and Surface UV
Products from OMI Observations: An Overview, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S47,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008809" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JD008809</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Torres, O., Jethva, H., and Bhartia, P. K.: Retrieval of Aerosol Optical Depth
above Clouds from OMI Observations: Sensitivity Analysis and Case Studies,
J. Atmos. Sci., 69, 1037–1053, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-11-0130.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-11-0130.1</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Torres, O., Ahn, C., and Chen, Z.: Improvements to the OMI near-UV aerosol algorithm using A-train CALIOP and AIRS observations, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 3257–3270, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-3257-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-6-3257-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Torres, O., Bhartia, P. K., Jethva, H., and Ahn, C.: Impact of the ozone monitoring instrument row anomaly on the long-term record of aerosol products, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 2701–2715, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-2701-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-11-2701-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Torres, O., Bhartia, P. K., Taha, G., Jethva, H., Das, S., Colarco, P., Krotkov, N., Omar, A., and Ahn, C.: Stratospheric Injection of Massive Smoke Plume from Canadian
Boreal Fires in 2017 as seen by DSCOVR-EPIC, CALIOP and OMPS-LP
Observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2020JD032579. <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD032579" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020JD032579</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
van de Hulst, H. C.: Light Scattering by Small Particles, chap. 6, New
York, Dover Publications, Inc., 1957.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>TROPOMI aerosol products: evaluation and observations of synoptic-scale carbonaceous aerosol plumes during 2018–2020</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) near-ultraviolet (near-UV) radiances are used as input to an inversion
algorithm that simultaneously retrieves aerosol optical depth (AOD),
single-scattering albedo (SSA), and the qualitative UV aerosol index
(UVAI). We first present the TROPOMI aerosol algorithm (TropOMAER), an
adaptation of the currently operational OMI near-UV (OMAERUV and OMACA)
inversion schemes that takes advantage of TROPOMI's unprecedented fine
spatial resolution at UV wavelengths and the availability of ancillary
aerosol-related information to derive aerosol loading in cloud-free and
above-cloud aerosols scenes. TROPOMI-retrieved AOD and SSA products are
evaluated by direct comparison to sun-photometer measurements. A parallel
evaluation analysis of OMAERUV and TropOMAER aerosol products is carried out
to separately identify the effect of improved instrument capabilities and
algorithm upgrades. Results show TropOMAER improved levels of agreement with
respect to those obtained with the heritage coarser-resolution sensor. OMI
and TROPOMI aerosol products are also intercompared at regional daily and
monthly temporal scales, as well as globally at monthly and seasonal scales.
We then use TropOMAER aerosol retrieval results to discuss the US Northwest
and British Columbia 2018 wildfire season, the 2019 biomass burning season
in the Amazon Basin, and the unprecedented January 2020 fire season in
Australia that injected huge amounts of carbonaceous aerosols in the
stratosphere.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Ahn, C., Torres, O., and Jethva, H.: Assessment of OMI near-UV aerosol optical
depth over land, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 2457–2473, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020188" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020188</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Ahn, C., Torres, O., Jethva, H., and Tiruchirapalli, R., and Huang, L.-K.: Diurnal Variability of Aerosol Properties observed by the
DSCOVR/EPIC Instrument from the Earth-Sun Lagrange 1 Orbit,  J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., in
review, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Bovensmann, H., Burrows, J. P., Buchwitz, M., Frerick, J., Noël, S.,
Rozanov, V. V., Chance, K. V., and Goede, A. P. H.: SCIAMACHY: Mission
Objectives and Measurement Modes, J. Atmos. Sci., 56,
127–150,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056&lt;0127:SMOAMM&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056&lt;0127:SMOAMM&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>,
1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Dobber, M., Kleipool, Q., Dirksen, R., Levelt, P., Jaross, G.,Taylor, S.,
Kelly, T., Flynn, L., Leppelmeier, G., and Roze-Meijer, N.: Validation of
Ozone Monitoring Instrument level1b data products, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
113, D15S06, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008665" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008665</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Gassó, S. and Torres, O.: The role of cloud contamination, aerosol layer height and aerosol model in the assessment of the OMI near-UV retrievals over the ocean, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 3031–3052, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-3031-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-3031-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Genkova, I., Robaidek, J., Roebling, R., Sneep, M., and Veefkind, P.: Temporal co-registration for TROPOMI cloud clearing, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 5, 595–602, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-595-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-595-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Giles, D. M., Sinyuk, A., Sorokin, M. G., Schafer, J. S., Smirnov, A., Slutsker, I., Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N., Lewis, J. R., Campbell, J. R., Welton, E. J., Korkin, S. V., and Lyapustin, A. I.: Advancements in the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) Version 3 database – automated near-real-time quality control algorithm with improved cloud screening for Sun photometer aerosol optical depth (AOD) measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 169–209, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-169-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-169-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Hashimoto, M., Nakajima, T., Dubovik, O., Campanelli, M., Che, H., Khatri, P., Takamura, T., and Pandithurai, G.: Development of a new data-processing method for SKYNET sky radiometer observations, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 5, 2723–2737, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-2723-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-2723-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Hughes, R.: Amazon Fires: What is the latest in Brazil?, BBC News, available at: <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49971563" target="_blank"/> (last access: 2 December 2020), 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Ingmann, P., Veihelmann, B., Langen, J., Lamarre, D., Stark, H., and
Courrèges-Lacoste, G. B.: Requirements for the GMES Atmosphere Service
and ESA's implementation concept: Sentinels-4/-5 and -5p, Remote Sens.
Environ., 120, 58–69,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.01.023" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.01.023</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Jaross, G. and Warner, J.: Use of Antarctica for validating reflected
solar radiation measured by satellite sensors, J. Geophys. Res., 113,
D16S34, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008835" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008835</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Jethva, H., Torres, O., and Ahn, C.: Global assessment of OMI aerosol
single-scattering albedo using ground-based AERONET inversion, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 119, 9020–9040, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021672" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021672</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Jethva, H., Torres, O., and Ahn, C.: A 12-year long global record of optical depth of absorbing aerosols above the clouds derived from the OMI/OMACA algorithm, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 5837–5864, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-5837-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-5837-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Kleipool, Q., Ludewig, A., Babić, L., Bartstra, R., Braak, R., Dierssen, W., Dewitte, P.-J., Kenter, P., Landzaat, R., Leloux, J., Loots, E., Meijering, P., van der Plas, E., Rozemeijer, N., Schepers, D., Schiavini, D., Smeets, J., Vacanti, G., Vonk, F., and Veefkind, P.: Pre-launch calibration results of the TROPOMI payload on-board the Sentinel-5 Precursor satellite, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 6439–6479, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-6439-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-6439-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Krotkov, N. A., Torres, O., Seftor, C., Krueger, A. J., Konstinski, A., Rose, W. I.,
Bluth, G. J. S., Schneider, D., and Schaefer, S. J.: Comparison of TOMS and AVHRR
Volcanic Ash Retrievals from the August 1992 Eruption of Mt Spurr, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26,
455–458, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Levelt, P. F., van den Oord, G. H., Dobber, M. R., Malkki, A., Visser, H.,
de Vries, J., Stammes, P., Lundell, J. O., and Saari, H.: The ozone
monitoring instrument, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote,
44, 1093–1101, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2006.872333" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2006.872333</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Loyola, D. G., Gimeno García, S., Lutz, R., Argyrouli, A., Romahn, F., Spurr, R. J. D., Pedergnana, M., Doicu, A., Molina García, V., and Schüssler, O.: The operational cloud retrieval algorithms from TROPOMI on board Sentinel-5 Precursor, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 409–427, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-409-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-409-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Loyola, D. G., Xu, J., Heue, K.-P., and Zimmer, W.: Applying FP_ILM to the retrieval of geometry-dependent effective Lambertian equivalent reflectivity (GE_LER) daily maps from UVN satellite measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 985–999, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-985-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-985-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Ludewig, A., Kleipool, Q., Bartstra, R., Landzaat, R., Leloux, J., Loots, E., Meijering, P., van der Plas, E., Rozemeijer, N., Vonk, F., and Veefkind, P.: In-flight calibration results of the TROPOMI payload on board the Sentinel-5 Precursor satellite, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 3561–3580, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-3561-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-3561-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Marshak, A., Herman, J., Adam, S., Karin, B., Carn, S., Cede, A., Geogdzhayev, I., Huang, D., Huang, L., Knyazikhin, Y., Kowalewski, M., Krotkov, N., Lyapustin, A., McPeters, R., Meyer, K. G., Torres, O., and Yang, Y.: Earth
Observations from DSCOVR EPIC Instrument, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 99, 1829–1850, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0223.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0223.1</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Martínez-Alonso, S., Deeter, M., Worden, H., Borsdorff, T., Aben, I., Commane, R., Daube, B., Francis, G., George, M., Landgraf, J., Mao, D., McKain, K., and Wofsy, S.: 1.5 years of TROPOMI CO measurements: comparisons to MOPITT and ATom, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 4841–4864, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-4841-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-4841-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Munro, R., Lang, R., Klaes, D., Poli, G., Retscher, C., Lindstrot, R., Huckle, R., Lacan, A., Grzegorski, M., Holdak, A., Kokhanovsky, A., Livschitz, J., and Eisinger, M.: The GOME-2 instrument on the Metop series of satellites: instrument design, calibration, and level 1 data processing – an overview, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 1279–1301, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-1279-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-1279-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Nakajima, T., Tonna, G., Rao, R., Boi, P., Kaufman, Y., and Holben, B.: Use
of sky brightness measurements from ground for remote sensing of particulate
polydispersions, Appl. Optics, 35, 2672–2686, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Nanda, S., de Graaf, M., Veefkind, J. P., Sneep, M., ter Linden, M., Sun, J., and Levelt, P. F.: A first comparison of TROPOMI aerosol layer height (ALH) to CALIOP data, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 3043–3059, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-3043-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-3043-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Ohneiser, K., Ansmann, A., Baars, H., Seifert, P., Barja, B., Jimenez, C., Radenz, M., Teisseire, A., Floutsi, A., Haarig, M., Foth, A., Chudnovsky, A., Engelmann, R., Zamorano, F., Bühl, J., and Wandinger, U.: Smoke of extreme Australian bushfires observed in the stratosphere over Punta Arenas, Chile, in January 2020: optical thickness, lidar ratios, and depolarization ratios at 355 and 532&thinsp;nm, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 8003–8015, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-8003-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-8003-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Readfearn, G.: Silent death: Australia's bushfires
push countless species to extinction, Guardian Australia, available at: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/04/ecologists-warn-silent-death-australia-bushfires-endangered-species-extinction" target="_blank">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/04/</a>
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/04/ecologists-warn-silent-death-australia-bushfires-endangered-species-extinction" target="_blank">ecologists-warn-silent-death-australia-bushfires-endangered-species-extinction</a>,
last access: 2 December 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Reid, J. S., Koppmann, R., Eck, T. F., and Eleuterio, D. P.: A review of biomass burning emissions part II: intensive physical properties of biomass burning particles, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 799–825, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-799-2005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-799-2005</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Rozemeijer, N. C. and Kleipool, Q.: S5P Level 1b Product Readme File, S5P-MPC-KNMI-PRF-L1B, available
at: <a href="http://www.tropomi.eu/documents/level-0-1b" target="_blank"/> (last access: 2 December 2020), 2019a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Rozemeijer, N. C. and Kleipool, Q.: S5P Level 1b Product Readme File, S5P-MPC-KNMI-PRF-L1B, available
at:
<a href="https://sentinel.esa.int/web/sentinel/technical-guides/sentinel-5p/products-algorithms" target="_blank">https://sentinel.esa.int/web/sentinel/technical-guides/sentinel-</a>
<a href="https://sentinel.esa.int/web/sentinel/technical-guides/sentinel-5p/products-algorithms" target="_blank">5p/products-algorithms</a> (last access: 2 December 2020), 2019b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
SBS News: The numbers behind Australia's catastropic bushfire season,
available at: <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-numbers-behind-australia-s-catastrophic-bushfire-season" target="_blank">https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-</a>
<a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-numbers-behind-australia-s-catastrophic-bushfire-season" target="_blank">numbers-behind-australia-s-catastrophic-bushfire-season</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Schenkeveld, V. M. E., Jaross, G., Marchenko, S., Haffner, D., Kleipool, Q. L., Rozemeijer, N. C., Veefkind, J. P., and Levelt, P. F.: In-flight performance of the Ozone Monitoring Instrument, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 1957–1986, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-1957-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-1957-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Siddans, R.: S5P-NPP Cloud Processor ATBD, S5P-NPPCRALATBD-0001, available at:
<a href="https://sentinel.esa.int/web/sentinel/technical-guides/sentinel-5p/products-algorithms" target="_blank"/> (last access: 2 December 2020), 2016a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Siddans, R.: S5P-NPP Cloud Processor ATBD, S5P-NPPCRALATBD-000 <a href="http://www.tropomi.eu/documents/atbd" target="_blank"/> (last access: 2 December 2020), 2016b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Sinyuk, A., Holben, B. N., Eck, T. F., Giles, D. M., Slutsker, I., Korkin, S., Schafer, J. S., Smirnov, A., Sorokin, M., and Lyapustin, A.: The AERONET Version 3 aerosol retrieval algorithm, associated uncertainties and comparisons to Version 2, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 3375–3411, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-3375-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-3375-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Stein Zweers, D. C.: TROPOMI ATBD of the UV aerosol index, S5P-KNMI-L2-0008-RP, available at:
<a href="https://sentinel.esa.int/web/sentinel/technical-guides/sentinel-5p/products-algorithms" target="_blank"/> (last access: 2 December 2020), 2018a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Stein Zweers, D. C.: TROPOMI ATBD of the UV aerosol index, S5P-KNMI-L2-0008-RP, available at:
<a href="http://www.tropomi.eu/documents/atbd" target="_blank"/> (last access: 2 December 2020), 2018b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Torres, O., Tanskanen, A., Veihelman, B., Ahn, C., Braak, R.,
Bhartia, P. K., Veefkind, P., and Levelt, P.: Aerosols and Surface UV
Products from OMI Observations: An Overview, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S47,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008809" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008809</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Torres, O., Jethva, H., and Bhartia, P. K.: Retrieval of Aerosol Optical Depth
above Clouds from OMI Observations: Sensitivity Analysis and Case Studies,
J. Atmos. Sci., 69, 1037–1053, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-11-0130.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-11-0130.1</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Torres, O., Ahn, C., and Chen, Z.: Improvements to the OMI near-UV aerosol algorithm using A-train CALIOP and AIRS observations, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 3257–3270, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-3257-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-3257-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Torres, O., Bhartia, P. K., Jethva, H., and Ahn, C.: Impact of the ozone monitoring instrument row anomaly on the long-term record of aerosol products, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 2701–2715, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-2701-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-2701-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Torres, O., Bhartia, P. K., Taha, G., Jethva, H., Das, S., Colarco, P., Krotkov, N., Omar, A., and Ahn, C.: Stratospheric Injection of Massive Smoke Plume from Canadian
Boreal Fires in 2017 as seen by DSCOVR-EPIC, CALIOP and OMPS-LP
Observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2020JD032579. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD032579" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD032579</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
van de Hulst, H. C.: Light Scattering by Small Particles, chap. 6, New
York, Dover Publications, Inc., 1957.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
