Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions

Long, Russell W.; Whitehill, Andrew; Habel, Andrew; Urbanski, Shawn; Halliday, Hannah; Colón, Maribel; Kaushik, Surender; Landis, Matthew S.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1783-2021

Articles | Volume 14, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1783-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1783-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 14, issue 3

Research article

| Highlight paper

|

04 Mar 2021

Research article | Highlight paper |

| 04 Mar 2021

Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions

Russell W. Long, Andrew Whitehill, Andrew Habel, Shawn Urbanski, Hannah Halliday, Maribel Colón, Surender Kaushik, and Matthew S. Landis

Download

Final revised paper (published on 04 Mar 2021)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 29 Sep 2020)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of amt-2020-383', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Oct 2020
- AC1: 'Author response to reviewer 1 commnets', R. W. Long, 18 Dec 2020
RC2: 'Reviewer Comments', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Oct 2020
- AC2: 'Author response to reviewer 2 comments', R. W. Long, 18 Dec 2020

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by R. W. Long on behalf of the Authors (25 Jan 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (25 Jan 2021) by Glenn Wolfe

AR by R. W. Long on behalf of the Authors (25 Jan 2021) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

This manuscript details field and laboratory-based evaluations of ozone monitoring methods in smoke. UV photometry, the most widely used measurement method for ozone in ambient air, was shown to suffer from a severe positive interference when operated in the presence of smoke, while chemiluminescence-based methods were shown to be free of interferences. The results detailed in this paper will provide monitoring agencies with the tools needed to address smoke-related ozone measurement challenges.