<?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-13-6877-2020</article-id><title-group><article-title>A cavity-enhanced ultraviolet absorption instrument for high-precision, fast-time-response ozone measurements</article-title><alt-title>A cavity-enhanced UV absorption instrument</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{A cavity-enhanced UV absorption instrument}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{R. A. Hannun et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Hannun</surname><given-names>Reem A.</given-names></name>
          <email>reem.a.hannun@nasa.gov</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5195-5307</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff3">
          <name><surname>Swanson</surname><given-names>Andrew K.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8510-660X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Bailey</surname><given-names>Steven A.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Hanisco</surname><given-names>Thomas F.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9434-8507</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Bui</surname><given-names>T. Paul</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5 aff6">
          <name><surname>Bourgeois</surname><given-names>Ilann</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2875-1258</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5 aff6">
          <name><surname>Peischl</surname><given-names>Jeff</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9320-7101</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Ryerson</surname><given-names>Thomas B.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Laboratory, NASA Goddard
Spaceflight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology, University of Maryland
Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Universities Space Research Association, Columbia, MD, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Earth Science Division, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA,
USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Reem A. Hannun (reem.a.hannun@nasa.gov)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>18</day><month>December</month><year>2020</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>13</volume>
      <issue>12</issue>
      <fpage>6877</fpage><lpage>6887</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>20</day><month>May</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>22</day><month>July</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>6</day><month>November</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>7</day><month>November</month><year>2020</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2020 Reem A. Hannun 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/13/6877/2020/amt-13-6877-2020.html">This article is available from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6877/2020/amt-13-6877-2020.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6877/2020/amt-13-6877-2020.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6877/2020/amt-13-6877-2020.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e179">The NASA Rapid Ozone Experiment (ROZE) is a broadband
cavity-enhanced UV (ultraviolet) absorption instrument for the detection of in situ ozone
(O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>). ROZE uses an incoherent LED (light-emitting diode) light source coupled to a
high-finesse optical cavity to achieve an effective pathlength of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 104 m. Due to its high sensitivity and small optical cell
volume, ROZE demonstrates a 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> precision of 80 pptv (parts per trillion by volume) in 0.1 s and 31 pptv in a 1 s integration time, as well as an <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-fold time response of 50 ms. ROZE can be
operated in a range of field environments, including low- and high-altitude
research aircraft, and is particularly suited to O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> vertical-flux
measurements using the eddy covariance technique. ROZE was successfully
integrated aboard the NASA DC-8 aircraft during July–September 2019 and
validated against a well-established chemiluminescence measurement of
O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. A flight within the marine boundary layer also demonstrated flux
measurement capabilities, and we observed a mean 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> deposition velocity
of 0.029 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.005 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to the ocean surface. The performance
characteristics detailed below make ROZE a robust, versatile instrument for
field measurements of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      <?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e279">In the troposphere, ozone (O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) adversely affects air quality and acts
as a greenhouse gas. Dry deposition to Earth's terrestrial and oceanic
surfaces represents a significant loss pathway for tropospheric O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Young et
al., 2018) and thus influences tropospheric composition and O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
pollution. Additionally, O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> uptake through plant stomata leads to
vegetation and crop damage
(Ainsworth et al.,
2012; Mills et al., 2018) and poor ecosystem health
(Lombardozzi et al., 2015), potentially
amplifying the effects of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> on climate
(Sitch et al., 2007) and air quality
(Sadiq et al., 2017). Despite its role in the
tropospheric O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> budget, dry-deposition velocities (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
remain poorly constrained
(Wesely and Hicks, 2000;
Hardacre et al., 2015). The observational records of terrestrial <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>(O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)
are limited in number and do not capture the full variability in O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
deposition rates with land cover
(Clifton et al., 2020a). Furthermore,
studies of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> deposition to the ocean
(e.g.,
Kawa and Pearson, 1989; Faloona et al., 2005; Helmig et al., 2012; Novak et al., 2020) report
deposition velocities of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01–0.05 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which are
1–2 orders of magnitude lower than typical terrestrial values. Observations
from
Helmig
et al. (2012) also suggest that O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> deposition may vary with sea surface
temperature. Global chemistry modeling frameworks that incorporate O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
dry deposition
(e.g.,
Bey et al., 2001; Lamarque et al., 2012) often apply fixed deposition rates to the ocean
and heavily<?pagebreak page6878?> parameterized deposition schemes over land
(Wesely, 1989). However,
process-level representation of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> deposition improves agreement
between modeled and observed surface O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations
(Clifton
et al., 2020b; Pound et al., 2020). The range and variability in O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> deposition
rates thus motivates the need for further <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>(O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) measurements to
refine both atmospheric and land surface model predictions.</p>
      <p id="d1e481">Measurements of vertical O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fluxes are typically accomplished via eddy
covariance (EC) analysis. The EC technique demands fast-time-response,
high-precision sensors to resolve the turbulence-driven variability in
scalar concentrations. O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fluxes are therefore measured using highly
sensitive O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> detection methods such as chemiluminescence
(e.g.,
Bariteau et al., 2010; Muller et al., 2010) and, more recently, chemical ionization mass
spectrometry (CIMS) (Novak et al., 2020). Chemiluminescence
detectors employ either nitric oxide (NO) gas or organic dyes, which
generate photons on reaction with O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. While these instruments exhibit
good sensitivity, they have practical drawbacks involving the use of
cylinders containing toxic compressed gases or dangerous chemical dyes.
Novak et al. (2020) successfully demonstrated the use of oxygen
anion CIMS to measure O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and its vertical fluxes with a detection limit
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.005</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> over the ocean. To the best of our knowledge,
ultraviolet (UV) absorption instruments have not previously been utilized
for O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux measurements due to insufficient sensitivity
(e.g., Gao et al., 2012). However,
advancements in incoherent cavity-enhanced absorption spectroscopy
(Fiedler et al., 2003) facilitate the development
of high-sensitivity sensors that are both robust and compact. Furthermore,
UV absorption has the advantage of providing direct detection of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
without the need for a chemical titration source.</p>
      <p id="d1e570">We report on the development of the NASA Rapid Ozone Experiment (ROZE), a
cavity-enhanced UV absorption instrument for the in situ detection of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
long optical pathlength and small cavity volume enable high-precision
measurements in short averaging times, making ROZE suitable for O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux
measurements with the EC technique. The compact instrument design supports
integration aboard research aircraft for both tropospheric and stratospheric
deployment. We describe the principle of operation along with major
instrument components and performance characteristics below. We also discuss
the field performance of ROZE and demonstrate its EC capabilities using
aircraft observations of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> deposition to the ocean surface.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Principle of operation</title>
      <p id="d1e608">Incoherent broadband cavity-enhanced absorption spectroscopy (IBBCEAS) is an
established tool for the detection of trace gas species
(Fiedler
et al., 2003; Ball et al., 2004; Washenfelder et al., 2008) including O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Darby et al., 2012; Gomez and
Rosen, 2013). IBBCEAS relies on a broadband, incoherent light source coupled
to a high-finesse optical cavity. Typically, a multi-channel detector
resolves structured absorption features in the ultraviolet (UV) or visible
spectral regions. IBBCEAS exploits the long optical pathlength generated in
the cavity to enhance sensitivity, comparable to other cavity-enhanced
methods such as cavity ring-down spectroscopy (CRDS). However, unlike CRDS,
IBBCEAS uses a relatively inexpensive light source as compared to a narrow
linewidth laser. Furthermore, the incoherent light source relaxes the
stringent requirements for cavity alignment that accompany other cavity
enhanced methods such as CRDS, enabling a more robust instrument
configuration for field environments.</p>
      <p id="d1e620">ROZE employs the IBBCEAS technique for high-sensitivity measurements of
O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. As illustrated in Fig. 1, a light-emitting diode (LED) in the UV
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">265</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm) is collimated with an aspheric lens
and coupled into an optical cavity formed by two high-reflectivity mirrors.
Exiting light is passed to a photomultiplier tube (PMT) detector through a
series of collection and filter optics. Figure 2 depicts the normalized
detected LED intensity, which accounts for the LED spectral irradiance, the
optical bandpass filter transmission, and the wavelength-dependent PMT
response. The LED spectrum overlaps with the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> Hartley band, and any
O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> present in the sample cell attenuates the light intensity received
at the detector. The use of optical filters on the PMT precludes the need
for wavelength resolution from a grating spectrometer and simplifies data
reduction. Section 3.1 provides further details on the ROZE optical system.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e669">Incoherent broadband cavity-enhanced detection technique for
O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. An LED at 265 nm is collimated with a lens and coupled into the
detection cell via high-reflectivity mirrors (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">99.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %) that comprise the optical cavity and create a long
effective optical pathlength. The light attenuated by the sample is then
detected using a photomultiplier tube (PMT) operated in analog mode. The
sample enters and exits the cell orthogonal to the beam propagation.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6877/2020/amt-13-6877-2020-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e702">LED spectrum, mirror reflectivity, and O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> absorption cross section: the LED (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">265</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, FWHM <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 nm; full width at half maximum) spectrum was measured using a grating spectrometer (0.1 nm resolution)
with the instrument PMT and associated detector optics. The mirror curve
depicts <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.99</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the reflectivity, over a range of wavelengths. The right
axis shows the absorption cross section for the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> Hartley band.
O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and Rayleigh cross sections were determined as the weighted average
with the normalized intensity of the LED and PMT detector optics.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=207.705118pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6877/2020/amt-13-6877-2020-f02.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e786">Attenuation of light intensity in an IBBCEAS cavity results from trace gas
absorption as well as extinction due to the mirrors and Rayleigh scatter.
Accounting for these additional losses, the Beer–Lambert absorption
coefficient, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, is related to the observed change in intensity
transmitted through the cavity as follows
(Washenfelder et al., 2008):
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M59" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        Here, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is light intensity in the absence of any absorbing species;
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the intensity attenuated due to absorption; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the mirror
reflectivity; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the physical distance separating the cavity mirrors;
and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the extinction due to Rayleigh scatter, a
non-negligible component in the UV. The term <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> gives the theoretical
cavity loss, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cav</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and represents the inverse of the maximum
effective optical pathlength, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In cavity-enhanced techniques,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can be many orders of magnitude larger than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,
resulting in high sensitivity to the absorbing species. Equation (1) can also
be expressed as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is number density
of the absorbing species and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the absorption cross section. In principle, accurate trace gas measurements require calibration
of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cav</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> term yielding <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, knowledge of the
Rayleigh and absorption cross sections in the detected spectral region, and
the measured <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> terms. The data processing and calibration for
ROZE will be discussed in Sects. 3.4 and 4.1, respectively.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page6879?><sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Instrument description</title>
      <p id="d1e1042">ROZE consists of three main subsystems housed in a compact 58 cm long <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 44 cm wide <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 18 cm high chassis, with a total instrument weight of 19 kg
(Fig. 3). The optical plate – a custom aluminum honeycomb panel supported
by friction-dampened spring vibration isolators – provides a stable
platform for the optical components, consisting of the LED, sample cell, and
PMT. The remaining subsystems include the flow handling and the data
acquisition. Each major subsystem is described in greater detail below. ROZE
operates at 24 V<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> with a low-profile AC-DC switching power supply
(Vicor VI-LU3-IU) capable of running off 115 or 230 V<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">AC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
(47–440 Hz),
which can be supplied directly from the aircraft. Power consumption is less
than 200 W and typically <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 W. Table 1 summarizes ROZE
design and performance characteristics.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1086">A top view of the ROZE instrument chassis. Major components
include <bold>(a)</bold> the optical plate, which consists of the LED assembly, associated
optics, the optical cell, and the PMT detector; <bold>(b)</bold> the diaphragm pump which can
pull up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 18 SLM (standard liter per minute) through the flow system; <bold>(c)</bold> the three-way
valve which switches between the sample line and air scrubbed of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
using a Carulite filter; and <bold>(d)</bold> the data acquisition system.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6877/2020/amt-13-6877-2020-f03.png"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1127">Summary of ROZE performance capabilities.</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">Specification</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Value</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Size</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">58</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Weight</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">19 kg</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Power</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">200</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Data rate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">10 Hz</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Precision (1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, 1 Hz)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> molecules cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" 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></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Accuracy</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6.2 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Time response</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">50 ms</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Optical components</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS1">
  <label>3.1.1</label><title>LED assembly</title>
      <p id="d1e1297">A UV LED (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">265</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, FWHM <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 nm) (Thorlabs
M265D2) is mounted to a custom heat sink and temperature-controlled
to 30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C with a thermoelectric cooler (TE Technology CH-21-1.0-1.3 and
Wavelength Electronics PTC2.5K-CH). The LED output power is separately
monitored by a photodiode (Marktech MTPD4400D-1.5) inserted<?pagebreak page6880?> into the edge of
a lens tube that holds the LED. The LED assembly attaches to a custom cage
mount system that also houses the associated optics, including the aspheric
collimation lens (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">79</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm, Thorlabs ASL10142M) and a beam expander
(Thorlabs BE02-UVB) in reverse to shrink the collimated LED output. For
compactness, the LED assembly and cage system are mounted parallel to the
sample cell, and two mirrors (Thorlabs NB1-K04) turn the beam 180<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
into the cell (see Fig. 3).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS2">
  <label>3.1.2</label><title>Sample cell</title>
      <p id="d1e1360">The sample cell is manufactured from an aluminum alloy tube measuring 30 cm
in length with a 1.2 cm inner diameter. The cell mirrors (Layertec 109561)
have a reflectivity of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">99.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % over the detected spectral
range (Fig. 2) and a 500 mm radius of curvature. The mirrors are held
directly at the cell ends on face type o-ring seals using custom,
non-adjustable mounts fastened to tube collars. The mirror positions are
configured to maximize centricity. Two gas ports direct the sample flow into
and out of the cell at right angles. The sample enters through a custom
stainless-steel cylindrical diffuser, a ring with circumferential openings
adjacent to the cell mirrors, that nests within the cell tube orthogonal to
the ports. The diffuser helps minimize noise due to Rayleigh scatter from
turbulence within the cell at high sample flow rates. A 2 µm pleated
mesh filter (Swagelock) affixes to the sample cell inlet port to exclude
dust and other particles from affecting the mirror reflectivity, as the
mirrors are not independently purged. A pressure transducer (Omega
MMA015V10P4K1T4A6) measures the cell pressure from a port near the cell
center. The entire cell is thermally regulated to 35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C using
resistive heaters and a precision heater control (Wavelength Electronic
PTC2.5K-CH).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS3">
  <label>3.1.3</label><title>PMT assembly</title>
      <p id="d1e1392">A PMT (Hamamatsu H10720-113) operating in analog mode collects the light
exiting the cell. Two optical bandpass filters (Thorlabs FGUV5-UV and Semrock
FF01-260/16) transmit the cell output to a collection lens (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">35</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm,
Thorlabs LA4052-UV), which images the beam onto the PMT photocathode. A UV
window (Thorlabs WG40530-UV) glued into a custom PEEK lens tube adapter
seals to the PMT face with a Viton gasket, creating a leak-tight package for
low-pressure (high-altitude) operation. The PMT is thermally stabilized to
35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C in the same manner as the sample cell. The PMT signal is
passed to an amplifier circuit (Analog Devices EVAL-ADA4625-1ARDZ) before
digitization by the data acquisition system described below.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Flow system</title>
      <p id="d1e1425">The ROZE flow system is designed to achieve rapid flushing of the detection
cell as required for fast concentration measurements. However, ROZE samples at ambient pressure to maximize sensitivity, necessitating high throughput
with a minimal pressure differential. ROZE utilizes a linear diaphragm pump
(Thomas 6025SE-150113) that can achieve a flow rate of up to 18 SLM (standard liter per minute) through the system. The pump speed can also be
adjusted by varying the supply current and has three pre-set speeds (e.g.,
2, 5, and 11 SLM) that can be changed by a switch on the chassis front panel. A
flow meter (Honeywell AWM5104) located between the cell exhaust and the pump
monitors the sample flow in real time. ROZE uses fluorinated ethylene
propylene (FEP) tubing both external and internal to the chassis upstream of
the sample cell. External to the chassis, the inlet details depend on the
aircraft platform. ROZE has previously used the inlet detailed in
Cazorla et al. (2015) when
flying on the NASA DC-8 aircraft. The instrument exhaust plumbs directly to
an exhaust port near the rear of the aircraft.</p>
      <p id="d1e1428">ROZE O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements also require knowledge of the reference intensity
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) as detailed in Eq. (1). A three-way solenoid valve (NResearch
TC648T032) switches between the sample line (ambient air from the aircraft
inlet) and the zero port, which attaches to an internal Carulite O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
scrubber (2B Technologies) to produce O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-free air. Periodic zeroing
during operation captures long-term drift in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> due to the LED output,
PMT response, and changing environmental conditions. Typically, the
instrument opens to the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> scrubber for 10 s every 5 min.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Data acquisition</title>
      <p id="d1e1498">ROZE utilizes a CompactRIO (National Instruments cRIO-9030) that
incorporates a real-time operating system and a field-programmable gate
array (FPGA). The FPGA is configured for modulation of the LED and
subsequent digitization of the PMT signal. To improve measurement precision
and remove background due to ambient light scatter, the FPGA modulates the
LED at 1 kHz with a 90 % duty cycle (900 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>s on and 100 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>s off)
via an external LED driver (Wavelength Electronics FL591FL). A 16 bit analog-to-digital converter (ADC) digitizes the amplified PMT signal at a
digitization rate of 100 kHz. This high rate enables us to average each LED
“on” and “off” pulse amplitude. We then take the difference of the on and off
signals to remove background noise,<?pagebreak page6881?> both optical (i.e., stray light) and
electronic. The 1 kHz differences are further averaged to 10 Hz and
recorded. Other diagnostic housekeeping variables (e.g., sample flow,
temperatures, and LED power) are recorded at 1 Hz. Additionally, an analog
output commands the three-way valve to open to the zero line with a user-defined
period and duration.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>Data processing</title>
      <p id="d1e1525">In practice, the absorbance calculation for ROZE factors in the pressure
difference between the sample and zero lines, as derived by
Min et al.
(2016):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M107" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Z</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cav</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ray</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Analogous to Eq. (1), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Z</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the intensity measured when sampling
through the zero line (O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-scrubbed air); <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the intensity when
sampling ambient air; and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ray</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ray</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ray</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ray</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
give the Rayleigh extinction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of the
zero and the sample, respectively. Using the measured <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Z</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the
known Rayleigh scatter and O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> absorption cross sections, the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
number density can then be determined as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
The Rayleigh scattering (Bucholtz, 1995) and O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
absorption (Serdyuchenko et al., 2014) cross sections are calculated as the weighted average over the collected spectral
range (Fig. 2). Using known cross sections and a calibrated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cav</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (inverse effective pathlength), the observed change in intensity
yields a direct measure of the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Performance</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Sensitivity and calibration</title>
      <p id="d1e1829">The effective pathlength of the ROZE optical cavity determines the
instrument sensitivity to O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (i.e., the attenuation in intensity per
unit O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>). The cavity extinction, and thus the effective pathlength, are
dictated by the mirror reflectivity as described above but require
independent calibration. Calibration can be accomplished via standard
addition of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> or Rayleigh attenuation (in the absence of absorbing
species) at varied sample pressures. The former method relies on
commercially available O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> generators or sensors for verification, which
lack the required accuracy and may drift over time. In contrast, the
Rayleigh calibration provides a convenient and straightforward alternative.
Both methods are described below.</p>
      <p id="d1e1868">Figure 4a depicts the ROZE calibration using known concentrations of
O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. A commercial O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> source (2B Technologies 306) generated known
amounts of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, with the zero O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> addition serving as the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Z</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
baseline. Per Eq. (2), the slope of the observed attenuation (d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as a function of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> number density is proportional to the
remaining extinction terms <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cav</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Solving for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cav</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> using the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> cross section and the calculated Rayleigh
extinction, the calibration yields an effective pathlength of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">108</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6 m. The alternate calibration uses the
Rayleigh extinction in zero air over a range of cell pressures (Fig. 4b).
In the absence of absorbing species, an expression for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cav</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can
be derived following the approach in
Washenfelder et al. (2008) as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M140" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cav</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the intensity at vacuum, which can be extrapolated from a
linear fit of counts as a function of cell pressure. The slope of the
observed change in intensity with number density therefore yields a direct
measure of the cavity extinction, resulting in an effective pathlength of
104 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 m. The two methods agree to within the 2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> fit
uncertainties, and we use <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as determined by the Rayleigh
calibration for subsequent calculations.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e2102">ROZE calibration. <bold>(a)</bold> The effective pathlength
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) as determined by attenuation (d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) due to
known additions of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from a commercial ozone generator. The slope
yields the effective pathlength as determined from Eq. (1) in the text
using the known O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> absorption cross section. <bold>(b)</bold> Attenuation due to
Rayleigh scatter over a range of cell pressures. The slope of attenuation as
a function of number density gives the pathlength using the known Rayleigh
scattering cross section for zero air. The pathlength derived from both
calibrations agree to within the 2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> fit uncertainty.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6877/2020/amt-13-6877-2020-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Precision and accuracy</title>
      <p id="d1e2169">The major contributions to instrument noise include PMT electrical noise and
differential scatter or absorption due to non-uniform flow within the sample
cell at high flow rates. The flow diffuser (see Sect. 3.1.2) effectively
reduces the flow noise, while decreasing the gain on the PMT amplifier
circuit minimizes the PMT electrical noise. The ROZE precision can be
determined from the continuous sampling of zero air at a constant pressure.
Figure 5 depicts the Allan–Werle deviation plot (1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for ROZE (in
pptv – parts per trillion by volume – O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> equivalents) as calculated from optical extinction measurements
of zero air acquired over 1.5 h at 944 mbar. For short integration times
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s), a fit of the data gives a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.47</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> decay,
indicating the Allan deviation closely follows the square root of the
averaging time (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) as expected for white noise. At the native
0.1 s sampling rate, the 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> precision for O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is 80 pptv and
reduces to 31 pptv with 1 s averaging. For the given cell pressure and a
temperature of 35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, this translates to a 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> precision
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molecules cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" 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> (1 s average) of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e2310">Allan deviation plot for 1.5 h of sampling zero air at constant
pressure (944 mbar). The 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> precision is expressed in pptv
equivalents of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> as a function of the integration time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. The curve demonstrates a precision of 31 pptv in a 1 s integration time.
The dashed line shows a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.47</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> decay for short
integration times (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s), comparable to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> decay expected for white noise.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=184.942913pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6877/2020/amt-13-6877-2020-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2385">The absolute accuracy of the ROZE measurement depends on uncertainties in
the literature-reported values of the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and Rayleigh cross sections,
the measured cell temperature and pressure, and the calibrated cavity
extinction. The reported O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> absorption cross section has an uncertainty
of 2 % (Gorshelev et al., 2014), and we
estimate a conservative uncertainty of 3 % for the Rayleigh scattering
cross section (Bucholtz, 1995). The cell pressure and
temperature are accurate to within 0.2 % and 0.5 %, respectively, and the
calibrated cavity extinction has an additional 4 % slope uncertainty from
the linear fit. These errors propagate through Eq. (2) to yield a total
measurement uncertainty of 6.2 % in the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> number density.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>Response time</title>
      <p id="d1e2423">The flush time of the sample cell limits the true instrument response time
despite the 10 Hz data acquisition rate. A rapid<?pagebreak page6882?> flush rate is critical for
high-spatial-resolution measurements from a fast-moving platform.
Additionally, fast concentration measurements are required for sampling
turbulent eddies for airborne EC, and the necessary time response scales
with aircraft speed. Response times of 10 Hz are typically considered
sufficient for ground-based EC (Aubinet et al., 2012),
while for airborne EC, a response time of 1–5 Hz is typically sufficient
due to larger eddy scales at altitude
(Wolfe et al., 2018). Figure 6a
shows the instantaneous instrument response to a 10 ms pulse of
O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> injected into a zero-air carrier flow using a fast switching valve
(The Lee Company IEP series). During this experiment, the pump maintained a
sample flow rate of 18 SLM. A series of exponential decay fits for several
O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> pulses yields an <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-folding time constant of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ms (Fig. 6b), which corresponds to a 3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-fold cell flush rate
of 9.5 Hz.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e2479">ROZE time response. <bold>(a)</bold> Ozone was injected into the flow system via
a pulsed valve at 2 s intervals with a sample flow of 18 SLM. An
exponential decay function was fitted to each individual pulse (pulse data
shown in blue; fit shown in red). <bold>(b)</bold> Histogram of time constants for all 350
pulses. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-folding decay time of 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 ms corresponds
to a 3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-fold cell flush rate of 9.5 Hz.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6877/2020/amt-13-6877-2020-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <label>5</label><title>Field demonstration</title>
      <p id="d1e2524">ROZE can be operated on both low- and high-altitude aircraft platforms.
Though ROZE has not yet flown on a high-altitude unpressurized aircraft
(such as the NASA ER-2), laboratory experiments in a thermal-vacuum chamber
have demonstrated no loss of performance down to a pressure and temperature
of 50 mbar and 250 K (results not shown). In summer 2019, ROZE flew aboard
the NASA DC-8 for the Fire Influence on Regional to Global Environments
Experiment, Air Quality (FIREX-AQ) campaign over the central and northwestern
United States. The instrument operated as described above, with the addition
of an inline particle filter (Balston 9922-05-DQ) to protect the cavity
mirrors from fine particulates in the targeted smoke plumes. Although more
aggressive filtering comes at the cost of reduced flow rates and thus lowers
the instrument response time, O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> deposition measurements were not a
primary objective of FIREX-AQ. Below, we detail comparisons of ROZE against
an established O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement. Additionally, level flight legs in the
marine boundary layer during a flight over the ocean provide an initial
demonstration of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> vertical-flux measurements.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <label>5.1</label><title>FIREX-AQ validation against chemiluminescence</title>
      <?pagebreak page6883?><p id="d1e2561">FIREX-AQ flights targeted forest wildfires and agricultural burns. In fresh,
concentrated smoke plumes, UV-active species such as SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, aromatic
hydrocarbons, and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can give rise to
positive artifacts in the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> signal (Long et al., 2020),
as the UV absorption technique lacks selectivity (see Birks,
2015). The potential for overestimating O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> due to interfering absorbers
can also be of concern in highly polluted urban environments
(e.g., Spicer et al., 2010). In
general, these studies demonstrate that UV-absorption-based O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
analyzers are not always ideally suited to such applications. Nonetheless,
modifications such using an O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-selective scrubber material (e.g.,
heated graphite) to preserve VOCs and thus account for interferences in the
background (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Z</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) signal have been shown to reduce positive artifacts
(Turnipseed et al., 2017). As
we did not substitute the ROZE scrubber for the FIREX-AQ deployment, an
onboard, independent measurement of formaldehyde (HCHO) was used as a plume
indicator. ROZE O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> data are therefore quality-filtered to remove points
sampled within dense smoke plumes using HCHO mixing ratios above 5 ppbv.</p>
      <p id="d1e2630">The DC-8 FIREX-AQ payload included the NOAA Nitrogen Oxides and Ozone
(NOyO3) instrument, a well-established O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement using the
chemiluminescence technique
(Ryerson et al., 2000;
Bourgeois et al., 2020). ROZE operated simultaneously with the NOyO3 instrument
during several flights. Figure 7 shows a comparison of ROZE and NOyO3 data
for the 30 July 2019 flight over the northwestern United States. During
this flight, no fresh smoke plumes were sampled, and no filtering of the
ROZE data was necessary. Figure 7a depicts a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 25 min subset
of the full time series to illustrate the ROZE instrument precision. Both
measurements (averaged to 1 s) track the dynamic features in O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> mixing
ratios well. The correlation plot for the full flight (Fig. 7b)
demonstrates strong agreement between the two measurements, with a slope of
0.98 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01 and an intercept of 0.17 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.02 ppbv O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.99</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Note the intercept is less than 1 % of the minimum
observed O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> mixing ratios for this flight. Comparisons for 15 flights
from the campaign indicate a range of 0.96–1.04 in slope and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–1.4 ppbv
O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in intercept (in all cases, this offset is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % of the
minimum measured O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), consistent with the measurement uncertainty.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e2747">ROZE and NOyO3 measurements of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from a FIREX-AQ flight on
30 July 2019 over the northwestern US. <bold>(a)</bold> Time series of ROZE and NOyO3 data
(averaged to 1 s). <bold>(b)</bold> Correlation plot of ROZE and NOyO3 O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
measurements from the full flight. A linear fit to the data yields a slope
of 0.98 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01 and an intercept of 0.17 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.02 ppbv.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6877/2020/amt-13-6877-2020-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <label>5.2</label><title>Ozone flux measurements</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>5.2.1</label><title>Eddy covariance flux</title>
      <p id="d1e2810">The vertical flux of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> can be directly quantified using the eddy
covariance (EC) technique. EC defines the flux (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as the temporally or
spatially averaged covariances in the vertical wind speed (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the
scalar species of interest (in this case the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> mixing ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>):
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>4</label><mml:math id="M211" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>〈</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>〉</mml:mo><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            In the equation above, the primes denote instantaneous deviations from the
mean value, and the brackets indicate an average over a prescribed interval
as discussed below. Since deposition dominates transfer across the
air–surface interface, the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux can instead be expressed as a
transfer rate or deposition velocity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>):
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><label>5</label><mml:math id="M214" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            Here, the overbar indicates the mean O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> mixing ratio over the averaging
period. The deposition velocity, in units of cm s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, yields a
normalized metric of the deposition efficiency and incorporates both
chemical and physical transfer processes.</p>
      <p id="d1e2989">During the FIREX-AQ campaign, the flight on 17 July 2019 contained a level
segment within the turbulent marine boundary layer suitable for EC. The flux
transects were located over the Pacific Ocean, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 200 miles
southwest of the Los Angeles basin. To quantify O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> deposition, the
Meteorological Measurement System (MMS) instrument provided 3-D wind vector
data (Chan et al., 1998), which were used in
conjunction with ROZE O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements. A 1-D coordinate rotation was
applied to the wind vector to force the mean vertical wind to zero, and the
native 20 Hz MMS data were averaged to the ROZE 10 Hz time base. Note that
the additional particle filter reduced the ROZE sample flow to 11.3 SLM, and
we estimate the time constant from the decay in intensity following the
zero-O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> additions as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">90</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ms (5.5 Hz 3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-fold flush
rate). We also use 20 Hz water vapor measurements from the open-path Diode
Laser Hygrometer (DLH) (Diskin et al., 2002) as a benchmark
for the flux performance; 20 Hz DLH data were averaged to the ROZE time base
and used to apply a moist-to-dry air correction for raw O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
observations,<?pagebreak page6884?> negating the need for density corrections to the calculated
flux (Webb et al., 1980). This density
correction reduces the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6 %. For the EC
calculations, we selected two <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 km transects with
consistent aircraft heading, stationary flow, and level altitude
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 170 m). Scalar data were detrended by subtracting a 20 s running mean, which corresponds to spatial scales of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.7 km. The detrending length was chosen to remove non-turbulent variability
(e.g., changing chemical conditions) while still capturing the largest
flux-contributing eddies as identified by examination of the co-spectra from
a range of averaging windows. Scalar data were then synchronized to the
vertical winds using a time lag that optimized covariance.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>5.2.2</label><title>Spectral analysis</title>
      <p id="d1e3104">Spectral analysis aids in decomposing the contributions of eddies at
different scales (frequencies) to the overall signal and provides a quality
assessment of the ROZE flux measurements. Figure 8 displays the
lag covariance, power spectrum, and co-spectrum for O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and vertical-wind fluctuations generated using fast Fourier transforms (FFTs) for a
single transect. The spectra for water vapor are also displayed for
comparison. The lagged cross-cross-covariance functions (Fig. 8a)
demonstrate defined peaks at lags of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s, with the peak
non-normalized covariance yielding a measure of the flux. Dividing out the
background O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> mixing ratio of 29 ppbv, we find a mean deposition
velocity of 0.029 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for the two transects. The power spectra in
Fig. 8b show that vertical winds follow the theoretical <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
decay expected in the inertial subrange
(Kaimal et al., 1972). The slope for the
O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> power spectrum initially follows the same decay but flattens at
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 Hz, indicating that the turbulence-driven variability in
O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> approaches the ROZE precision limit in higher-frequency eddies.
However, the normalized frequency-weighted co-spectral power of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 8c, solid lines) shows that flux-carrying eddies below
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.6 Hz dominate the total signal. The ogive, the cumulative
integral of the co-spectrum (Fig. 8c, dashed lines) further indicates that
99 % of flux-carrying eddies occur at frequencies below <inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 Hz. These results demonstrate the adequate ROZE time response for airborne
EC.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e3236">Example spectra from a 50 km flux leg at 170 m altitude during the
17 July  2019 flight over the Pacific Ocean. <bold>(a)</bold> Vertical-wind-scalar
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively) cross-covariance functions
normalized by the maximum covariance for O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and water vapor. <bold>(b)</bold> Power
spectra normalized to total variance for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O. The dashed line represents the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
theoretical decay for the inertial subrange. <bold>(c)</bold> Solid lines depict
co-spectral power (frequency-multiplied and covariance-normalized) of
O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O with vertical wind. Dashed lines depict the respective
ogives (cumulative integrals).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6877/2020/amt-13-6877-2020-f08.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2.SSS3">
  <label>5.2.3</label><title>Flux measurement uncertainty</title>
      <p id="d1e3348">Detailed methods to quantify flux errors for airborne EC can be found
elsewhere
(Lenschow
et al., 1994; Langford et al., 2015; Wolfe et al., 2018). Here, we aim to quantify the random
and systematic flux errors that reflect the overall instrument performance.
We use the empirical formulation of Finkelstein
and Sims (2001) to estimate the total random error (RE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TOT</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) as the
variance of the scalar-wind covariance. In this approach, the RE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TOT</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is
determined using auto- and cross-correlation functions (as in Fig. 8a)
over lag times that are sufficient to capture the timescale of the
correlation (here <inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 s). Averaging over the flux legs yields
a RE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TOT</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.005 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The RE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TOT</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> encompasses both instrument
noise as well as error from the random sampling of turbulence. To isolate
the RE component due solely to instrument noise (RE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">noise</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), we follow
the approach of Mauder et al. (2013). In this
method, the standard deviation of the instrument noise is derived from the
scalar auto-covariance and then propagated to determine its contribution to
the cross-covariance uncertainty. Note that RE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">noise</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> still
depends on the turbulence regime and therefore varies with atmospheric
conditions. We calculate RE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">noise</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> to be 0.0015 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> averaging
over the two flux transects. These results indicate that instrument noise
constitutes <inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 % of the total random error.</p>
      <p id="d1e3453">Additionally, the instrument time response can lead to systematic flux
errors as a consequence of undersampling contributions from high-frequency
eddies. We determine the systematic error due to the instrument response
time (SE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RT</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) following the Horst (1997) model,
whereby the attenuation in the measured signal can be expressed as a
co-spectral transfer function based on the characteristic instrument
response time. Using the ROZE response time of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">90</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ms, we
determine SE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RT</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> to be <inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %, indicating minimal attenuation in
the measured flux signal.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page6885?><sec id="Ch1.S6" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>6</label><title>Summary and conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e3510">The NASA ROZE instrument provides high-sensitivity, fast-time-response
measurements of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> via broadband cavity-enhanced UV absorption. The
compact, robust instrument package is adaptable to diverse field
environments, including low- and high-altitude aircraft platforms. ROZE
currently achieves a 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> precision of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 pptv s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and an overall accuracy of 6.2 %. ROZE was successfully
integrated aboard the NASA DC-8 aircraft, and the field performance compares
favorably with an independent O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement to within ROZE
uncertainty. The maximum observed time response for laboratory tests was 50 ms, with additional filtering during aircraft operation slowing the time
response to 90 ms. The instrument precision and time response make ROZE
particularly well suited for measurements of vertical O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux using eddy
covariance analysis. ROZE has measured O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> deposition velocities of
0.029 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.005 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to the ocean surface, with minimal
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %) response time attenuation in the flux signal. The
demonstrated performance of ROZE makes the instrument an ideal and versatile
option for field measurements of both O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations and fluxes.</p>
</sec>

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

      <p id="d1e3618">The FIREX-AQ data for O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (ROZE and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) and formaldehyde (In Situ Airborne Formaldehyde; ISAF) are available at <uri>https://doi.org/10.5067/ASDC/FIREXAQ_TraceGas_AircraftInSitu_DC8_Data_1</uri> (NASA/LARC/SD/ASDC, 2020a). The DLH and MMS data are available at <uri>https://doi.org/10.5067/ASDC/FIREXAQ_MetNav_AircraftInSitu_DC8_Data_1</uri> (NASA/LARC/SD/ASDC, 2020b).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e3657">RAH performed the investigation, data processing, and analysis of results. RAH wrote the data analysis software and the paper. AKS did the mechanical design and assembly of the instrument. SAB and RAH wrote the instrument operation and data acquisition software. TFH and SAB conceptualized the instrument, and TFH was responsible for the funding acquisition and supervision of the project. TPB provided the winds data for eddy covariance analysis. IB, JP, and TBR provided the chemiluminescence ozone data and helpful discussions on validating the instrument.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e3663">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e3669">The aircraft flight opportunity was provided
by the NASA–NOAA FIREX-AQ project and the NASA Student Airborne Research
Program (SARP). We would like to acknowledge the DLH instrument team (Glenn
Diskin et al.) for the water vapor measurements used in the eddy covariance
analysis. We would additionally like to thank Jason St. Clair and Glenn Wolfe for helpful comments on the paper and Glenn Wolfe for his help
with the eddy covariance analysis.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e3674">This research has been supported by the NASA Internal Research and Development (IRAD)
program, the NASA Upper Atmosphere Research Program, and the NASA
Tropospheric Chemistry Program.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e3681">This paper was edited by Christof Janssen and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ainsworth, E. A., Yendrek, C. R., Sitch, S., Collins, W. J., and Emberson, L.
D.: The Effects of Tropospheric Ozone on Net Primary Productivity and
Implications for Climate Change, Annu. Rev. Plant Biol., 63, 637–661,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-042110-103829" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1146/annurev-arplant-042110-103829</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Aubinet, M., Vesala, T., and Papale, D.: Eddy Covariance, Springer, Dordrecht,
Netherlands, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ball, S. M., Langridge, J. M., and Jones, R. L.: Broadband cavity enhanced
absorption spectroscopy using light emitting diodes, Chem<?pagebreak page6886?>. Phys. Lett.,
398, 68–74, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2004.08.144" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.cplett.2004.08.144</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bariteau, L., Helmig, D., Fairall, C. W., Hare, J. E., Hueber, J., and Lang, E. K.: Determination of oceanic ozone deposition by ship-borne eddy covariance flux measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 3, 441–455, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-441-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-3-441-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bey, I., Jacob, D. J., Yantosca, R. M., Logan, J. A., Field, B. D., Fiore,
A. M., Li, Q., Liu, H. Y., Mickley, L. J., and Schultz, M. G.: Global
modeling of tropospheric chemistry with assimilated meteorology: Model
description and evaluation, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 106, 23073–23095,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000807" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001JD000807</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Birks, J.: UV-Abosorbing Interferences in Ozone Monitors, available
at: <uri>https://twobtech.com/docs/tech_notes/TN040.pdf</uri> (last access: 1 August 2019), 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bourgeois, I., Peischl, J., Thompson, C. R., Aikin, K. C., Campos, T., Clark, H., Commane, R., Daube, B., Diskin, G. W., Elkins, J. W., Gao, R.-S., Gaudel, A., Hintsa, E. J., Johnson, B. J., Kivi, R., McKain, K., Moore, F. L., Parrish, D. D., Querel, R., Ray, E., Sánchez, R., Sweeney, C., Tarasick, D. W., Thompson, A. M., Thouret, V., Witte, J. C., Wofsy, S. C., and Ryerson, T. B.: Global-scale distribution of ozone in the remote troposphere from the ATom and HIPPO airborne field missions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 10611–10635, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-10611-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-20-10611-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bucholtz, A.: Rayleigh-scattering calculations for the terrestrial
atmosphere, Appl. Opt., 34, 2765, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.34.002765" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/AO.34.002765</ext-link>, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cazorla, M., Wolfe, G. M., Bailey, S. A., Swanson, A. K., Arkinson, H. L., and Hanisco, T. F.: A new airborne laser-induced fluorescence instrument for in situ detection of formaldehyde throughout the troposphere and lower stratosphere, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 541–552, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-541-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-8-541-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chan, K. R., Dean-Day, J., Bowen, S. W., and Bui, T. P.: Turbulence
measurements by the DC-8 Meteorological Measurement System, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 25, 1355–1358, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/97GL03590" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/97GL03590</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Clifton, O. E., Fiore, A. M., Massman, W. J., Baublitz, C. B., Coyle, M.,
Emberson, L., Fares, S., Farmer, D. K., Gentine, P., Gerosa, G., Guenther,
A. B., Helmig, D., Lombardozzi, D. L., Munger, J. W., Patton, E. G., Pusede,
S. E., Schwede, D. B., Silva, S. J., Sörgel, M., Steiner, A. L., and Tai,
A. P. K.: Dry Deposition of Ozone Over Land: Processes, Measurement, and
Modeling, Rev. Geophys., 58, e2019RG000670, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000670" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019RG000670</ext-link>, 2020a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Clifton, O. E., Paulot, F., Fiore, A. M., Horowitz, L. W., Correa, G.,
Baublitz, C. B., Fares, S., Goded, I., Goldstein, A. H., Gruening, C., Hogg,
A. J., Loubet, B., Mammarella, I., Munger, J. W., Neil, L., Stella, P.,
Uddling, J., Vesala, T., and Weng, E.: Influence of Dynamic Ozone Dry
Deposition on Ozone Pollution, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2020JD032398,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020jd032398" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020jd032398</ext-link>, 2020b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Darby, S. B., Smith, P. D., and Venables, D. S.: Cavity-enhanced absorption
using an atomic line source: application to deep-UV measurements, Analyst,
137, 2318, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1039/c2an35149h" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1039/c2an35149h</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Diskin, G. S., Podolske, J. R., Sachse, G. W., and Slate, T. A.: Open-path
airborne tunable diode laser hygrometer, in: Proceedings SPIE, Diode Lasers and
Applications in Atmospheric Sensing, International Symposium on Optical Science and Technology, 2002,
Seattle, WA, United States, 23 September 2002, 196–204, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1117/12.453736" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1117/12.453736</ext-link>,
2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Faloona, I., Lenschow, D. H., Campos, T., Stevens, B., van Zanten, M.,
Blomquist, B., Thornton, D., Bandy, A., and Gerber, H.: Observations of
Entrainment in Eastern Pacific Marine Stratocumulus Using Three Conserved
Scalars, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 3268–3285, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3541.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS3541.1</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fiedler, S. E., Hese, A., and Ruth, A. A.: Incoherent broad-band
cavity-enhanced absorption spectroscopy, Chem. Phys. Lett., 371,
284–294, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2614(03)00263-X" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0009-2614(03)00263-X</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Finkelstein, P. L. and Sims, P. F.: Sampling error in eddy correlation flux
measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 106, 3503–3509,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900731" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000JD900731</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gao, R. S., Ballard, J., Watts, L. A., Thornberry, T. D., Ciciora, S. J., McLaughlin, R. J., and Fahey, D. W.: A compact, fast UV photometer for measurement of ozone from research aircraft, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 5, 2201–2210, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-2201-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-5-2201-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gomez, A. L. and Rosen, E. P.: Fast response cavity enhanced ozone monitor, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 487–494, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-487-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-6-487-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gorshelev, V., Serdyuchenko, A., Weber, M., Chehade, W., and Burrows, J. P.: High spectral resolution ozone absorption cross-sections – Part 1: Measurements, data analysis and comparison with previous measurements around 293 K, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 609–624, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-609-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-7-609-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hardacre, C., Wild, O., and Emberson, L.: An evaluation of ozone dry deposition in global scale chemistry climate models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 6419–6436, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6419-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-6419-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Helmig, D., Lang, E. K., Bariteau, L., Boylan, P., Fairall, C. W.,
Ganzeveld, L., Hare, J. E., Hueber, J., and Pallandt, M.: Atmosphere-ocean
ozone fluxes during the TexAQS 2006, STRATUS 2006, GOMECC 2007, GasEx 2008,
and AMMA 2008 cruises, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117, D04305,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD015955" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD015955</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Horst, T. W.: A simple formula for the attenuation of eddy fluxes measured
with first-order-response scalar sensors, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 82,
219–233, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1000229130034" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1023/A:1000229130034</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kaimal, J. C., Wyngaard, J. C., Izumi, Y., and Coté, O. R.: Spectral
characteristics of surface-layer turbulence, Q. J. Rot. Meteor. Soc.,
98, 563–589, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49709841707" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.49709841707</ext-link>, 1972.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kawa, S. R. and Pearson, R.: Ozone budgets from the dynamics and chemistry
of marine stratocumulus experiment, J. Geophys. Res., 94, 9809,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JD094iD07p09809" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/JD094iD07p09809</ext-link>, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lamarque, J.-F., Emmons, L. K., Hess, P. G., Kinnison, D. E., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Heald, C. L., Holland, E. A., Lauritzen, P. H., Neu, J., Orlando, J. J., Rasch, P. J., and Tyndall, G. K.: CAM-chem: description and evaluation of interactive atmospheric chemistry in the Community Earth System Model, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 369–411, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-369-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-5-369-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page6887?><ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Langford, B., Acton, W., Ammann, C., Valach, A., and Nemitz, E.: Eddy-covariance data with low signal-to-noise ratio: time-lag determination, uncertainties and limit of detection, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 4197–4213, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-4197-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-8-4197-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lenschow, D. H., Mann, J., and Kristensen, L.: How Long Is Long Enough When
Measuring Fluxes and Other Turbulence Statistics?, J. Atmos. Ocean.
Tech., 11, 661–673, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(1994)011&lt;0661:HLILEW&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0426(1994)011&lt;0661:HLILEW&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lombardozzi, D., Levis, S., Bonan, G., Hess, P. G., and Sparks, J. P.: The
influence of chronic ozone exposure on global carbon and water cycles, J.
Climate, 28, 292–305, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00223.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00223.1</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Long, R. W., Whitehill, A., Habel, A., Urbanski, S., Halliday, H., Colón, M., Kaushik, S., and Landis, M. S.: Comparison of Ozone Measurement Methods in Biomass Burning Smoke: An evaluation under field and laboratory conditions, Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2020-383" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-2020-383</ext-link>, in review, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mauder, M., Cuntz, M., Drüe, C., Graf, A., Rebmann, C., Schmid, H. P.,
Schmidt, M., and Steinbrecher, R.: A strategy for quality and uncertainty
assessment of long-term eddy-covariance measurements, Agric. For. Meteorol.,
169, 122–135, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.09.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.09.006</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mills, G., Sharps, K., Simpson, D., Pleijel, H., Broberg, M., Uddling, J.,
Jaramillo, F., Davies, W. J., Dentener, F., Van den Berg, M., Agrawal, M.,
Agrawal, S. B., Ainsworth, E. A., Büker, P., Emberson, L., Feng, Z.,
Harmens, H., Hayes, F., Kobayashi, K., Paoletti, E., and Van Dingenen, R.:
Ozone pollution will compromise efforts to increase global wheat production,
Glob. Change Biol., 24, 3560–3574, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14157" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.14157</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Min, K.-E., Washenfelder, R. A., Dubé, W. P., Langford, A. O., Edwards, P. M., Zarzana, K. J., Stutz, J., Lu, K., Rohrer, F., Zhang, Y., and Brown, S. S.: A broadband cavity enhanced absorption spectrometer for aircraft measurements of glyoxal, methylglyoxal, nitrous acid, nitrogen dioxide, and water vapor, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 423–440, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-423-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-9-423-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Muller, J. B. A., Percival, C. J., Gallagher, M. W., Fowler, D., Coyle, M., and Nemitz, E.: Sources of uncertainty in eddy covariance ozone flux measurements made by dry chemiluminescence fast response analysers, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 3, 163–176, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-163-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-3-163-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>NASA/LARC/SD/ASDC: FIREX-AQ DC-8 In-Situ Trace Gas Data, NASA Langley Atmospheric Science Data Center DAAC, <uri>https://doi.org/10.5067/ASDC/FIREXAQ_TraceGas_AircraftInSitu_DC8_Data_1</uri>,
2020a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>NASA/LARC/SD/ASDC: FIREX-AQ DC8 In-Situ Meteorological and Navigational Data, NASA Langley Atmospheric Science Data Center DAAC, <uri>https://doi.org/10.5067/ASDC/FIREXAQ_MetNav_AircraftInSitu_DC8_Data_1</uri>,
2020b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Novak, G. A., Vermeuel, M. P., and Bertram, T. H.: Simultaneous detection of ozone and nitrogen dioxide by oxygen anion chemical ionization mass spectrometry: a fast-time-response sensor suitable for eddy covariance measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 1887–1907, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-1887-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-13-1887-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pound, R. J., Sherwen, T., Helmig, D., Carpenter, L. J., and Evans, M. J.: Influences of oceanic ozone deposition on tropospheric photochemistry, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 4227–4239, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-4227-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-20-4227-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ryerson, T. B., Williams, E. J., and Fehsenfeld, F. C.: An efficient
photolysis system for fast-response NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 105, 26447–26461, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900389" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000JD900389</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sadiq, M., Tai, A. P. K., Lombardozzi, D., and Val Martin, M.: Effects of ozone–vegetation coupling on surface ozone air quality via biogeochemical and meteorological feedbacks, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 3055–3066, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-3055-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-3055-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Serdyuchenko, A., Gorshelev, V., Weber, M., Chehade, W., and Burrows, J. P.: High spectral resolution ozone absorption cross-sections – Part 2: Temperature dependence, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 625–636, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-625-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-7-625-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sitch, S., Cox, P. M., Collins, W. J., and Huntingford, C.: Indirect
radiative forcing of climate change through ozone effects on the land-carbon
sink, Nature, 448, 791–794, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06059" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature06059</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Spicer, C. W., Joseph, D. W., and Ollison, W. M.: A Re-Examination of Ambient
Air Ozone Monitor Interferences, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 60,
1353–1364, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.60.11.1353" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3155/1047-3289.60.11.1353</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Turnipseed, A. A., Andersen, P. C., Williford, C. J., Ennis, C. A., and Birks, J. W.: Use of a heated graphite scrubber as a means of reducing interferences in UV-absorbance measurements of atmospheric ozone, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 2253–2269, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-2253-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-10-2253-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Washenfelder, R. A., Langford, A. O., Fuchs, H., and Brown, S. S.: Measurement of glyoxal using an incoherent broadband cavity enhanced absorption spectrometer, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 7779–7793, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-7779-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-8-7779-2008</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Webb, E. K., Pearman, G. I., and Leuning, R.: Correction of flux measurements
for density effects due to heat and water vapour transfer, Q. J. Roy.
Meteor. Soc., 106, 85–100, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49710644707" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.49710644707</ext-link>, 1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wesely, M. L.: Parameterization of surface resistances to gaseous dry
deposition in regional-scale numerical models, Atmos. Environ., 23,
1293–1304, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(89)90153-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0004-6981(89)90153-4</ext-link>, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wesely, M. L. and Hicks, B. B.: A review of the current status of knowledge
on dry deposition, Atmos. Environ., 34, 2261–2282,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00467-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00467-7</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wolfe, G. M., Kawa, S. R., Hanisco, T. F., Hannun, R. A., Newman, P. A., Swanson, A., Bailey, S., Barrick, J., Thornhill, K. L., Diskin, G., DiGangi, J., Nowak, J. B., Sorenson, C., Bland, G., Yungel, J. K., and Swenson, C. A.: The NASA Carbon Airborne Flux Experiment (CARAFE): instrumentation and methodology, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 1757–1776, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-1757-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-11-1757-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Young, P. J., Naik, V., Fiore, A. M., Gaudel, A., Guo, J., Lin, M. Y., Neu,
J. L., Parrish, D. D., Rieder, H. E., Schnell, J. L., Tilmes, S., Wild, O.,
Zhang, L., Ziemke, J. R., Brandt, J., Delcloo, A., Doherty, R. M., Geels,
C., Hegglin, M. I., Hu, L., Im, U., Kumar, R., Luhar, A., Murray, L.,
Plummer, D., Rodriguez, J., Saiz-Lopez, A., Schultz, M. G., Woodhouse, M. T.
and Zeng, G.: Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report: Assessment of
global-scale model performance for global and regional ozone distributions,
variability, and trends, Elementa, 6, 10, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.265" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1525/elementa.265</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>A cavity-enhanced ultraviolet absorption instrument for high-precision, fast-time-response ozone measurements</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>The NASA Rapid Ozone Experiment (ROZE) is a broadband
cavity-enhanced UV (ultraviolet) absorption instrument for the detection of in situ ozone
(O<sub>3</sub>). ROZE uses an incoherent LED (light-emitting diode) light source coupled to a
high-finesse optical cavity to achieve an effective pathlength of
 ∼ &thinsp;104&thinsp;m. Due to its high sensitivity and small optical cell
volume, ROZE demonstrates a 1<i>σ</i> precision of 80&thinsp;pptv (parts per trillion by volume) in 0.1&thinsp;s and 31&thinsp;pptv in a 1&thinsp;s integration time, as well as an <i>e</i>-fold time response of 50&thinsp;ms. ROZE can be
operated in a range of field environments, including low- and high-altitude
research aircraft, and is particularly suited to O<sub>3</sub> vertical-flux
measurements using the eddy covariance technique. ROZE was successfully
integrated aboard the NASA DC-8 aircraft during July–September 2019 and
validated against a well-established chemiluminescence measurement of
O<sub>3</sub>. A flight within the marine boundary layer also demonstrated flux
measurement capabilities, and we observed a mean O<sub>3</sub> deposition velocity
of 0.029&thinsp;±&thinsp;0.005&thinsp;cm&thinsp;s<sup>−1</sup> to the ocean surface. The performance
characteristics detailed below make ROZE a robust, versatile instrument for
field measurements of O<sub>3</sub>.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Ainsworth, E. A., Yendrek, C. R., Sitch, S., Collins, W. J., and Emberson, L.
D.: The Effects of Tropospheric Ozone on Net Primary Productivity and
Implications for Climate Change, Annu. Rev. Plant Biol., 63, 637–661,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-042110-103829" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-042110-103829</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Aubinet, M., Vesala, T., and Papale, D.: Eddy Covariance, Springer, Dordrecht,
Netherlands, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Ball, S. M., Langridge, J. M., and Jones, R. L.: Broadband cavity enhanced
absorption spectroscopy using light emitting diodes, Chem. Phys. Lett.,
398, 68–74, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2004.08.144" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2004.08.144</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bariteau, L., Helmig, D., Fairall, C. W., Hare, J. E., Hueber, J., and Lang, E. K.: Determination of oceanic ozone deposition by ship-borne eddy covariance flux measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 3, 441–455, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-441-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-441-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Bey, I., Jacob, D. J., Yantosca, R. M., Logan, J. A., Field, B. D., Fiore,
A. M., Li, Q., Liu, H. Y., Mickley, L. J., and Schultz, M. G.: Global
modeling of tropospheric chemistry with assimilated meteorology: Model
description and evaluation, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 106, 23073–23095,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000807" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000807</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Birks, J.: UV-Abosorbing Interferences in Ozone Monitors, available
at: <a href="https://twobtech.com/docs/tech_notes/TN040.pdf" target="_blank"/> (last access: 1 August 2019), 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Bourgeois, I., Peischl, J., Thompson, C. R., Aikin, K. C., Campos, T., Clark, H., Commane, R., Daube, B., Diskin, G. W., Elkins, J. W., Gao, R.-S., Gaudel, A., Hintsa, E. J., Johnson, B. J., Kivi, R., McKain, K., Moore, F. L., Parrish, D. D., Querel, R., Ray, E., Sánchez, R., Sweeney, C., Tarasick, D. W., Thompson, A. M., Thouret, V., Witte, J. C., Wofsy, S. C., and Ryerson, T. B.: Global-scale distribution of ozone in the remote troposphere from the ATom and HIPPO airborne field missions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 10611–10635, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-10611-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-10611-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Bucholtz, A.: Rayleigh-scattering calculations for the terrestrial
atmosphere, Appl. Opt., 34, 2765, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.34.002765" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.34.002765</a>, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Cazorla, M., Wolfe, G. M., Bailey, S. A., Swanson, A. K., Arkinson, H. L., and Hanisco, T. F.: A new airborne laser-induced fluorescence instrument for in situ detection of formaldehyde throughout the troposphere and lower stratosphere, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 541–552, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-541-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-541-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Chan, K. R., Dean-Day, J., Bowen, S. W., and Bui, T. P.: Turbulence
measurements by the DC-8 Meteorological Measurement System, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 25, 1355–1358, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/97GL03590" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/97GL03590</a>, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Clifton, O. E., Fiore, A. M., Massman, W. J., Baublitz, C. B., Coyle, M.,
Emberson, L., Fares, S., Farmer, D. K., Gentine, P., Gerosa, G., Guenther,
A. B., Helmig, D., Lombardozzi, D. L., Munger, J. W., Patton, E. G., Pusede,
S. E., Schwede, D. B., Silva, S. J., Sörgel, M., Steiner, A. L., and Tai,
A. P. K.: Dry Deposition of Ozone Over Land: Processes, Measurement, and
Modeling, Rev. Geophys., 58, e2019RG000670, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000670" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000670</a>, 2020a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Clifton, O. E., Paulot, F., Fiore, A. M., Horowitz, L. W., Correa, G.,
Baublitz, C. B., Fares, S., Goded, I., Goldstein, A. H., Gruening, C., Hogg,
A. J., Loubet, B., Mammarella, I., Munger, J. W., Neil, L., Stella, P.,
Uddling, J., Vesala, T., and Weng, E.: Influence of Dynamic Ozone Dry
Deposition on Ozone Pollution, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2020JD032398,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020jd032398" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020jd032398</a>, 2020b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Darby, S. B., Smith, P. D., and Venables, D. S.: Cavity-enhanced absorption
using an atomic line source: application to deep-UV measurements, Analyst,
137, 2318, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1039/c2an35149h" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1039/c2an35149h</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Diskin, G. S., Podolske, J. R., Sachse, G. W., and Slate, T. A.: Open-path
airborne tunable diode laser hygrometer, in: Proceedings SPIE, Diode Lasers and
Applications in Atmospheric Sensing, International Symposium on Optical Science and Technology, 2002,
Seattle, WA, United States, 23 September 2002, 196–204, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1117/12.453736" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1117/12.453736</a>,
2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Faloona, I., Lenschow, D. H., Campos, T., Stevens, B., van Zanten, M.,
Blomquist, B., Thornton, D., Bandy, A., and Gerber, H.: Observations of
Entrainment in Eastern Pacific Marine Stratocumulus Using Three Conserved
Scalars, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 3268–3285, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3541.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3541.1</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Fiedler, S. E., Hese, A., and Ruth, A. A.: Incoherent broad-band
cavity-enhanced absorption spectroscopy, Chem. Phys. Lett., 371,
284–294, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2614(03)00263-X" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2614(03)00263-X</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Finkelstein, P. L. and Sims, P. F.: Sampling error in eddy correlation flux
measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 106, 3503–3509,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900731" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900731</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Gao, R. S., Ballard, J., Watts, L. A., Thornberry, T. D., Ciciora, S. J., McLaughlin, R. J., and Fahey, D. W.: A compact, fast UV photometer for measurement of ozone from research aircraft, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 5, 2201–2210, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-2201-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-2201-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Gomez, A. L. and Rosen, E. P.: Fast response cavity enhanced ozone monitor, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 487–494, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-487-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-487-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Gorshelev, V., Serdyuchenko, A., Weber, M., Chehade, W., and Burrows, J. P.: High spectral resolution ozone absorption cross-sections – Part 1: Measurements, data analysis and comparison with previous measurements around 293 K, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 609–624, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-609-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-609-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Hardacre, C., Wild, O., and Emberson, L.: An evaluation of ozone dry deposition in global scale chemistry climate models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 6419–6436, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6419-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6419-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Helmig, D., Lang, E. K., Bariteau, L., Boylan, P., Fairall, C. W.,
Ganzeveld, L., Hare, J. E., Hueber, J., and Pallandt, M.: Atmosphere-ocean
ozone fluxes during the TexAQS 2006, STRATUS 2006, GOMECC 2007, GasEx 2008,
and AMMA 2008 cruises, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117, D04305,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD015955" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD015955</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Horst, T. W.: A simple formula for the attenuation of eddy fluxes measured
with first-order-response scalar sensors, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 82,
219–233, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1000229130034" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1000229130034</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Kaimal, J. C., Wyngaard, J. C., Izumi, Y., and Coté, O. R.: Spectral
characteristics of surface-layer turbulence, Q. J. Rot. Meteor. Soc.,
98, 563–589, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49709841707" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49709841707</a>, 1972.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Kawa, S. R. and Pearson, R.: Ozone budgets from the dynamics and chemistry
of marine stratocumulus experiment, J. Geophys. Res., 94, 9809,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JD094iD07p09809" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/JD094iD07p09809</a>, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Lamarque, J.-F., Emmons, L. K., Hess, P. G., Kinnison, D. E., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Heald, C. L., Holland, E. A., Lauritzen, P. H., Neu, J., Orlando, J. J., Rasch, P. J., and Tyndall, G. K.: CAM-chem: description and evaluation of interactive atmospheric chemistry in the Community Earth System Model, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 369–411, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-369-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-369-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Langford, B., Acton, W., Ammann, C., Valach, A., and Nemitz, E.: Eddy-covariance data with low signal-to-noise ratio: time-lag determination, uncertainties and limit of detection, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 4197–4213, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-4197-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-4197-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Lenschow, D. H., Mann, J., and Kristensen, L.: How Long Is Long Enough When
Measuring Fluxes and Other Turbulence Statistics?, J. Atmos. Ocean.
Tech., 11, 661–673, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(1994)011&lt;0661:HLILEW&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(1994)011&lt;0661:HLILEW&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Lombardozzi, D., Levis, S., Bonan, G., Hess, P. G., and Sparks, J. P.: The
influence of chronic ozone exposure on global carbon and water cycles, J.
Climate, 28, 292–305, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00223.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00223.1</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Long, R. W., Whitehill, A., Habel, A., Urbanski, S., Halliday, H., Colón, M., Kaushik, S., and Landis, M. S.: Comparison of Ozone Measurement Methods in Biomass Burning Smoke: An evaluation under field and laboratory conditions, Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss., <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2020-383" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2020-383</a>, in review, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Mauder, M., Cuntz, M., Drüe, C., Graf, A., Rebmann, C., Schmid, H. P.,
Schmidt, M., and Steinbrecher, R.: A strategy for quality and uncertainty
assessment of long-term eddy-covariance measurements, Agric. For. Meteorol.,
169, 122–135, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.09.006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.09.006</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Mills, G., Sharps, K., Simpson, D., Pleijel, H., Broberg, M., Uddling, J.,
Jaramillo, F., Davies, W. J., Dentener, F., Van den Berg, M., Agrawal, M.,
Agrawal, S. B., Ainsworth, E. A., Büker, P., Emberson, L., Feng, Z.,
Harmens, H., Hayes, F., Kobayashi, K., Paoletti, E., and Van Dingenen, R.:
Ozone pollution will compromise efforts to increase global wheat production,
Glob. Change Biol., 24, 3560–3574, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14157" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14157</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Min, K.-E., Washenfelder, R. A., Dubé, W. P., Langford, A. O., Edwards, P. M., Zarzana, K. J., Stutz, J., Lu, K., Rohrer, F., Zhang, Y., and Brown, S. S.: A broadband cavity enhanced absorption spectrometer for aircraft measurements of glyoxal, methylglyoxal, nitrous acid, nitrogen dioxide, and water vapor, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 423–440, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-423-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-423-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Muller, J. B. A., Percival, C. J., Gallagher, M. W., Fowler, D., Coyle, M., and Nemitz, E.: Sources of uncertainty in eddy covariance ozone flux measurements made by dry chemiluminescence fast response analysers, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 3, 163–176, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-163-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-163-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
NASA/LARC/SD/ASDC: FIREX-AQ DC-8 In-Situ Trace Gas Data, NASA Langley Atmospheric Science Data Center DAAC, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5067/ASDC/FIREXAQ_TraceGas_AircraftInSitu_DC8_Data_1" target="_blank"/>,
2020a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
NASA/LARC/SD/ASDC: FIREX-AQ DC8 In-Situ Meteorological and Navigational Data, NASA Langley Atmospheric Science Data Center DAAC, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5067/ASDC/FIREXAQ_MetNav_AircraftInSitu_DC8_Data_1" target="_blank"/>,
2020b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Novak, G. A., Vermeuel, M. P., and Bertram, T. H.: Simultaneous detection of ozone and nitrogen dioxide by oxygen anion chemical ionization mass spectrometry: a fast-time-response sensor suitable for eddy covariance measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 1887–1907, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-1887-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-1887-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Pound, R. J., Sherwen, T., Helmig, D., Carpenter, L. J., and Evans, M. J.: Influences of oceanic ozone deposition on tropospheric photochemistry, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 4227–4239, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-4227-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-4227-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Ryerson, T. B., Williams, E. J., and Fehsenfeld, F. C.: An efficient
photolysis system for fast-response NO<sub>2</sub> measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 105, 26447–26461, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900389" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900389</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Sadiq, M., Tai, A. P. K., Lombardozzi, D., and Val Martin, M.: Effects of ozone–vegetation coupling on surface ozone air quality via biogeochemical and meteorological feedbacks, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 3055–3066, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-3055-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-3055-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Serdyuchenko, A., Gorshelev, V., Weber, M., Chehade, W., and Burrows, J. P.: High spectral resolution ozone absorption cross-sections – Part 2: Temperature dependence, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 625–636, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-625-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-625-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Sitch, S., Cox, P. M., Collins, W. J., and Huntingford, C.: Indirect
radiative forcing of climate change through ozone effects on the land-carbon
sink, Nature, 448, 791–794, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06059" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06059</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Spicer, C. W., Joseph, D. W., and Ollison, W. M.: A Re-Examination of Ambient
Air Ozone Monitor Interferences, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 60,
1353–1364, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.60.11.1353" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.60.11.1353</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Turnipseed, A. A., Andersen, P. C., Williford, C. J., Ennis, C. A., and Birks, J. W.: Use of a heated graphite scrubber as a means of reducing interferences in UV-absorbance measurements of atmospheric ozone, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 2253–2269, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-2253-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-2253-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Washenfelder, R. A., Langford, A. O., Fuchs, H., and Brown, S. S.: Measurement of glyoxal using an incoherent broadband cavity enhanced absorption spectrometer, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 7779–7793, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-7779-2008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-7779-2008</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Webb, E. K., Pearman, G. I., and Leuning, R.: Correction of flux measurements
for density effects due to heat and water vapour transfer, Q. J. Roy.
Meteor. Soc., 106, 85–100, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49710644707" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49710644707</a>, 1980.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Wesely, M. L.: Parameterization of surface resistances to gaseous dry
deposition in regional-scale numerical models, Atmos. Environ., 23,
1293–1304, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(89)90153-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(89)90153-4</a>, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Wesely, M. L. and Hicks, B. B.: A review of the current status of knowledge
on dry deposition, Atmos. Environ., 34, 2261–2282,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00467-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00467-7</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Wolfe, G. M., Kawa, S. R., Hanisco, T. F., Hannun, R. A., Newman, P. A., Swanson, A., Bailey, S., Barrick, J., Thornhill, K. L., Diskin, G., DiGangi, J., Nowak, J. B., Sorenson, C., Bland, G., Yungel, J. K., and Swenson, C. A.: The NASA Carbon Airborne Flux Experiment (CARAFE): instrumentation and methodology, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 1757–1776, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-1757-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-1757-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Young, P. J., Naik, V., Fiore, A. M., Gaudel, A., Guo, J., Lin, M. Y., Neu,
J. L., Parrish, D. D., Rieder, H. E., Schnell, J. L., Tilmes, S., Wild, O.,
Zhang, L., Ziemke, J. R., Brandt, J., Delcloo, A., Doherty, R. M., Geels,
C., Hegglin, M. I., Hu, L., Im, U., Kumar, R., Luhar, A., Murray, L.,
Plummer, D., Rodriguez, J., Saiz-Lopez, A., Schultz, M. G., Woodhouse, M. T.
and Zeng, G.: Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report: Assessment of
global-scale model performance for global and regional ozone distributions,
variability, and trends, Elementa, 6, 10, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.265" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.265</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
