<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">AMT</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Atmospheric Measurement Techniques</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">AMT</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Meas. Tech.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1867-8548</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/amt-14-1783-2021</article-id><title-group><article-title>Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an
evaluation under field and laboratory conditions</article-title><alt-title>Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{R. W. Long et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Long</surname><given-names>Russell W.</given-names></name>
          <email>long.russell@epa.gov</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Whitehill</surname><given-names>Andrew</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5996-8217</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Habel</surname><given-names>Andrew</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Urbanski</surname><given-names>Shawn</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Halliday</surname><given-names>Hannah</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9499-9836</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Colón</surname><given-names>Maribel</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Kaushik</surname><given-names>Surender</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Landis</surname><given-names>Matthew S.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8742-496X</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Office of Research
and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, United States of America</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Jacobs Technology Inc., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, United
States of America</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, Montana,
United States of America</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Russell W. Long (long.russell@epa.gov)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>4</day><month>March</month><year>2021</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>14</volume>
      <issue>3</issue>
      <fpage>1783</fpage><lpage>1800</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>17</day><month>September</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>29</day><month>September</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>25</day><month>January</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>25</day><month>January</month><year>2021</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2021 Russell W. Long et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2021</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/14/1783/2021/amt-14-1783-2021.html">This article is available from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/1783/2021/amt-14-1783-2021.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/1783/2021/amt-14-1783-2021.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/1783/2021/amt-14-1783-2021.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e157">In recent years wildland fires in the United States have had significant
impacts on local and regional air quality and negative human health
outcomes. Although the primary health concerns from wildland fires come from
fine particulate matter (PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), large increases in ozone (O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)
have been observed downwind of wildland fire plumes (DeBell et al., 2004;
Bytnerowicz et al., 2010; Preisler et al., 2010; Jaffe et al., 2012;
Bytnerowicz et al., 2013; Jaffe et al., 2013; Lu et al., 2016; Lindaas et
al., 2017; McClure and Jaffe, 2018; Liu et al., 2018; Baylon et al., 2018;
Buysse et al., 2019). Conditions generated in and around wildland fire
plumes, including the presence of interfering chemical species, can make the
accurate measurement of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations using the ultraviolet (UV)
photometric method challenging if not impossible. UV photometric method
instruments are prone to interferences by volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
that are present at high concentrations in wildland fire smoke. Four
different O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement methodologies were deployed in a mobile
sampling platform downwind of active prescribed grassland fire lines in
Kansas and Oregon and during controlled chamber burns at the United States
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Fire Sciences Laboratory in
Missoula, Montana. We demonstrate that the Federal Reference Method (FRM)
nitric oxide (NO) chemiluminescence monitors and Federal Equivalent Method
(FEM) gas-phase (NO) chemical scrubber UV photometric 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> monitors are
relatively interference-free, even in near-field combustion plumes. In
contrast, FEM UV photometric 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> monitors using solid-phase catalytic
scrubbers show positive artifacts that are positively correlated with carbon
monoxide (CO) and total gas-phase hydrocarbon (THC), two indicator species
of biomass burning. Of the two catalytic scrubber UV photometric methods
evaluated, the instruments that included a Nafion<sup>®</sup>  tube dryer
in the sample introduction system had artifacts an order of magnitude
smaller than the instrument with no humidity correction. We hypothesize that
Nafion<sup>®</sup>-permeating VOCs (such as aromatic
hydrocarbons) could be a significant source of interference for catalytic
scrubber UV photometric 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> monitors and that the inclusion of a
Nafion<sup>®</sup>  tube dryer assists with the mitigation of
these interferences. The chemiluminescence FRM method is highly recommended
for accurate measurements of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in wildland fire plume studies and at
regulatory ambient monitoring sites frequently impacted by wildland fire
smoke.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e251">Ground-level ozone (O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) is a secondary air pollutant generated from the
photochemical interactions of nitrogen oxides (NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). The most robust methods for 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> measurements
are based on chemiluminescence reactions with ethylene (ET-CL, for ethylene
chemiluminescence) or nitric oxide (NO-CL, for nitric oxide
chemiluminescence) (Long et al., 2014). The overall
reaction mechanism for ET-CL generally proceeds as detailed in Eqs. (1–2):

              <disp-formula specific-use="gather" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M12" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E1"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>1</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mtext>other products</mml:mtext><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E2"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>2</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

         <?pagebreak page1784?> The reaction generates electronically activated formaldehyde (H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>CO*)
which luminesces in the high-ultraviolet (UV) to visible portion of the
spectrum (380–550 nm) and vibrationally activated hydroxide ions which
luminesce in the visible light to the low-infrared (IR) portion of the
spectrum (550–800 nm). The number of photons emitted during the
reaction is directly proportional to the amount of 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> present and is
counted by a photomultiplier tube (PMT), with its response centered at 440 nm. Then the count is converted to 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> concentration. The ET-CL method
requires a constant supply of ethylene for continuous operation.
NO-chemiluminescence analyzers measure 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> concentrations using the
principle that the dry, gas-phase reaction between NO and O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> generates
nitrogen dioxide in an electronically excited state (NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>*) and oxygen
(O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Ollison et al., 2013; Boylan et al., 2014). As each unstable
NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>* molecule returns to a lower energy state (NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), it emits a
photon (hv). The reaction causes luminescence in a broadband spectrum
ranging from visible light to infrared light (approximately 590–2800 nm). The two-step gas-phase reaction proceeds as detailed in Eqs. (3–4):

              <disp-formula specific-use="gather" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M22" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E3"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>3</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E4"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>4</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msup><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

          The ET-CL method is no longer used nor produced commercially and has been
replaced by the NO-CL method. Similar to the ET-CL method, the NO-CL method
requires a constant supply of gas, in this case NO, for continuous
operation. Both the ET-CL and NO-CL methods are subject to slight
interferences by water vapor. However, these potential interferences can be
eliminated through the use of a Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based dryer or equivalent sample water
vapor treatment system. The ET-CL method was promulgated as the Federal
Reference Method (FRM) for measuring O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in the atmosphere in 1971, and
the NO-CL method was promulgated as the FRM in 2015 (U.S. EPA, 2015).</p>
      <p id="d1e531">While the chemiluminescence method for measuring O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is technically
robust and free of analytical artifacts (Long et al., 2014), it is not
widely used in the United States. Instead, Federal Equivalent Methods (FEM)
based upon UV photometry are employed at the majority of 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> regulatory
monitoring locations. According to July 2020 data from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air Quality System (AQS) database, the
UV photometric method represents 99 % of the roughly 1200 instruments
deployed in network monitoring for 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> National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) attainment. UV photometric methods for 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> are
generally considered easier to deploy and operate and in most cases do not
require external compressed gases for operation. UV photometric analyzers
determine 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 by quantitatively measuring the attenuation
of light due to absorption by 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> present in an absorption cell at the
specific wavelength of 254 nm (Parrish and Fehsenfeld, 2000; Williams et al., 2006).
The O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration is determined through a two-step process in which
the light intensity passing through the sample air (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) is compared with the
light intensity passing through similar sample air from which all 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> is
first removed (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" 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>). The ratio of these two light intensity values
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) provides the measure of the light absorbed at 254 nm, and the
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> concentration in the sample is then determined through the use of
the Beer–Lambert law as given in Eq. (5):
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><label>5</label><mml:math id="M36" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi>ln⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the length of the absorption cell (cm), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the 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>
concentration (ppm), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mi>K</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the absorption cross section 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> at 254 nm at standard atmospheric temperature and pressure conditions (308 atm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" 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> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" 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>). Photometric monitors generally use mercury vapor
lamps as the UV light source, with optical filters to attenuate lamp output
at wavelengths other than 254 nm.</p>
      <p id="d1e777">Air for the reference cell measurement (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" 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 typically obtained by
passing the ambient air sample stream through a catalytic scrubber
containing manganese dioxide (MnO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), hopcalite (a mixture of Cu, Mn,
and Ag oxides), heated silver wool, or another solid state material to
“scrub” only O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from the sample air while preserving all other
substances in the sample air that potentially absorb at 254 nm (e.g.,
elemental gaseous mercury [Hg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>], hydrogen, sulfide [H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>S], VOCs) so
that their effects are canceled in the differential <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement.
The integrity of the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> reference scrubber is critical and may allow
measurement interferences if it does not perform adequately. Similarly, any
tendency of the scrubber to fail to effectively remove all 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> from the
reference sample will result in a measurement bias. In addition to O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>,
catalytic scrubbers have been shown to remove UV-active VOCs
(Kleindienst et al., 1993), creating the potential
for positive artifacts in O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements when the efficiency of this
VOC removal is impacted.</p>
      <p id="d1e879">Although FEM-designated UV photometric instruments are accurate under most
ambient conditions, locations with high VOC concentrations can produce
significant analytical artifacts. Smoke-plume-impacted locations and
measurements downwind from wildland fires are a particular concern; O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
measurements of up to 320 ppb were observed in a smoke plume in western
Oregon using a Dasibi 1003AH UV photometric O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> monitor (Huntzicker
and Johnson, 1979), which also showed a correlation between apparent 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>
and aerosol concentrations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">scat</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, a combustion plume
indicator in this case). O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements from UV photometric
instruments exceeding 1500 ppb at night (22:00–05:00) were observed in Fort
McMurray, Alberta, during smoke impacts from the 2016 Horse River Fire, which
were positively<?pagebreak page1785?> correlated with NO and non-methane hydrocarbons (Landis et
al., 2018). Follow-up pyrolysis experiments demonstrated that ET-CL
instruments do not show a similar response to biomass burning smoke
(Huntzicker and Johnson, 1979). Photochemical chamber experiments
comparing the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> response of UV (Dasibi model 1003AH, Dasibi model
1008AH, and Thermo model 49) and ET-CL (Bendix model 8002 and Monitor Labs
model 8410) mixtures show negligible differences for irradiated paraffin–NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
and olefin–NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> mixtures but do show a positive UV interference in mixtures
with toluene and other aromatics present (Kleindienst
et al., 1993). Laboratory studies comparing the response of UV (Thermo model
49, Horiba APOA-370, and 2B Tech model 202) and ET-CL (Bendix) instruments
showed a positive interference for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mi>o</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-nitrophenol, naphthalene, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-tolualdehyde for the UV instruments but not the ET-CL instruments
(Grosjean and Harrison, 1985; Spicer et al., 2010). Additionally, during
the Mexico City Metropolitan Area (MCMA-2003) field campaign a mobile
laboratory using an FEM-designated UV photometric O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> monitor (unheated
MnO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> scrubber, Thermo 49 series) showed a large positive O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> interference (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">400</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppb) associated with PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) when following some diesel vehicles
(Dunlea et al., 2006). Although not compared to a chemiluminescence
instrument, those high O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> values are unlikely real considering the high
concurrent NO concentrations (in some cases <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppb). The
authors of this study attributed the interference to fine particles, based
on the correlation with PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and the lack of a correlation with
gas-phase organic species measured by the proton-transfer-reaction mass
spectrometer (PTR-MS; Dunlea et al., 2006).</p>
      <p id="d1e1048">In addition to interferences from the presence of aromatic VOCs and
semi-volatile PAHs, water vapor (relative humidity) issues have also been
observed with older-generation FRM- and FEM-designated chemiluminescence and
UV photometric O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> instruments, respectively (Kleindienst et al.,
1993; Leston et al., 2005; Wilson and Birks, 2006). As such,
Nafion<sup>®</sup>  tube dryers are regularly incorporated
into some newer-generation chemiluminescence and UV photometric O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
monitors in an attempt to mitigate the humidity-related measurement
artifacts.</p>
      <p id="d1e1072">A recently introduced variation in the UV photometric method, known as the
“scrubberless” UV photometric (SL-UV) method (Ollison et al., 2013),
specifies removal of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from the sample air for the reference by a
gas-phase reaction with NO rather than using a conventional solid-state
catalytic scrubber. The NO gas-phase chemical scrubber reacts with O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
much faster and more selectively than with other potential interfering
compounds and is very effective at removing the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> without affecting
other interfering compounds that may be present in ambient air. The
differential UV measurement can then effectively reduce interferences to an
insignificant level. Similar to NO-CL, the SL-UV method requires a
continuous supply of compressed NO or nitrous oxide (N<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O) (which the
instrument converts to NO) to serve as the scrubber gas.</p>
      <p id="d1e1111">In this study, we investigate UV photometric FEM instrument O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
measurement interferences in fresh biomass burning smoke plumes from
prescribed grassland fires and during controlled burn experiments in a large-scale combustion chamber. We directly compare NO-CL FRM O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements
to several FEM-designated UV photometric technologies, including a gas-phase
scrubber and catalytic scrubbers with and without
Nafion<sup>®</sup>  tube dryer systems. Based on the results
from the measurements, we assess the magnitude of the observed artifacts for
different technologies and under various smoke conditions and provide
suggestions for potential mitigation of the interferences.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Overview of methods evaluated</title>
      <p id="d1e1150">In this study we compared the measurement results from six different
commercially available FRM- and FEM-designated O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> instruments operated in
ambient or chamber-generated biomass burning smoke. All instruments were
operated according to their FRM or FEM designation. The six instruments
differed by measurement principle (chemiluminescence versus UV photometric) and
by sample treatment configuration (scrubber material, presence of dryer,
etc.). For interference-free O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements, we utilized the newly
designated FRM NO-CL method (U.S. EPA, 2015). For the UV photometric
methods, we compared both catalytic scrubber and “scrubberless” (gas-phase
chemical scrubber) technologies, with the scrubberless monitor using a
NO chemical scrubber. Finally, within the catalytic scrubber UV photometric
category, we compared instruments with and without Nafion<sup>®</sup>  tube dryer
systems. The operation principle and designations (FRM vs. FEM) for the
analyzers under investigation are summarized in Table 1 and described in
Sect. 2.1.1–2.1.4. These analyzers were operated immediately downwind
of fresh biomass burning plumes over 8 d of prescribed fires in
grassland ecosystems in Oregon and Kansas and during laboratory-based
studies at the U.S. Forest Service's (USFS) combustion facility at the Fire
Sciences Laboratory (FSL) in Missoula, Montana. The grassland fire fuels
consisted primarily of mixed native prairie tallgrass of varying moisture
content. A total of 7 of the 8 d of prescribed burning were conducted in the
tallgrass prairie ecosystem of central Kansas (4 d in March of 2017
and 3 d in November of 2017). The additional burn day was conducted
at the Sycan Marsh in central Oregon (October of 2017). Laboratory-based
chamber burns at the FSL were conducted during April 2018 and again during
April 2019. Fuels for the laboratory based chamber burns consisted of
ponderosa pine needles and fine woody debris. Details of the individual
studies are provided in Sect. 2.2–2.6.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1177">Ozone measurement methods investigated. N/A – Not applicable</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="justify" colwidth="3cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="justify" colwidth="2cm"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Name</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Manufacturer</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Model</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Method</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Scrubber</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Cells</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Humidity</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">Deployment<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">correction</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col8">U.S. EPA Federal Reference Methods (FRM) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NO-CL</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Teledyne API</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">T-265</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">CL (NO)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">N/A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(dryer)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">K1, S, K2, <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>T, M1, M2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col8">U.S. EPA Federal Equivalent Methods (FEM) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">UV-C</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Thermo Scientific</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">49i</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">UV (254 nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Catalyst (MnO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">None</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">K1, S, K2, <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>T, M1, M2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">UV-C-H</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2B Technologies</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">205</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">UV (254 nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Catalyst (hopcalite)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(equilibration)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">K1, S, K2, <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>T, M1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SL-UV</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2B Technologies</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">211</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">UV (254 nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Gas chemical (NO)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(equilibration)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">K1, M1, M2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">UV-G</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2B Technologies</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">211-G</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">UV (254 nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Heated graphite</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(equilibration)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">M2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e1180"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> K1 – Konza Prairie March 2017; S – Sycan Marsh, October 2017; K2 – Konza
Prairie November 2017; T – tallgrass prairie November 2017; M1 – Missoula
chamber April 2018; M2 – Missoula chamber April 2019.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<?pagebreak page1786?><sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1.SSS1">
  <label>2.1.1</label><title>NO chemiluminescence</title>
      <p id="d1e1474">The FRM O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement method was the Teledyne API (San Diego, CA, USA)
model T265 chemiluminescence monitor (TAPI T265), which utilizes a NO-CL
measurement principle. These NO-CL O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> analyzers have been shown to be
free of interferences (Long et al., 2014) and have been used as a reference
method in other O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> comparison studies (Williams et al., 2006; Landis
et al., 2021). Although there is a known water vapor interference with
chemiluminescence technology (Kleindienst et al., 1993), the TAPI T265 uses
a Nafion<sup>®</sup> tube dryer system to remove water vapor
from the air prior to making the measurement, thus eliminating any
humidity-related effects. Like the ET-CL technologies
(Kleindienst et al., 1993), the NO-CL analyzers have
no documented VOC interferences. Manufacturer-provided performance
specifications for the NO-CL-based TAPI T265 are given in Table S1.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1.SSS2">
  <label>2.1.2</label><title>Catalytic scrubber UV photometric</title>
      <p id="d1e1515">For this study the UV photometric method with no humidity correction was
represented by the Thermo Scientific (Franklin, MA, USA) model 49i (Thermo
49i), which is a dual-cell instrument with a manganese oxide (MnO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)
catalytic scrubber, referred to as UV-C. Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based humidity systems or dryers have been employed within photometric
O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> monitors with catalytic scrubbers before the measurement cell,
offering a reduction in relative humidity interferences and artifacts
(Wilson and Birks, 2006). Manufacturer-provided performance
specifications for the UV-C-based Thermo 49i are given in Table S1.</p>
      <p id="d1e1539">The UV photometric with a Nafion<sup>®</sup>  humidity
conditioning system was represented in this study by a 2B Technologies
(Boulder, CO, USA) model 205 (2B 205) O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> monitor. The 2B 205 utilized a
dual-cell design where sample air and scrubbed air are measured
simultaneously. The 2B 205 uses a hopcalite (CuO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>MnO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) catalytic
scrubber to remove O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from the reference stream. This instrument will
be referred to as UV-C-H. Manufacturer-provided performance specifications
for the UV-C-H-based 2B 205 are given in Table S1.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1.SSS3">
  <label>2.1.3</label><title>Scrubberless UV photometric</title>
      <?pagebreak page1787?><p id="d1e1587">For comparison with the NO-CL, UV-C, and UV-C-H methodologies, a
scrubberless UV (SL-UV) photometric analyzer with a gas-phase (NO)
chemical scrubber was employed (Ollison et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2014).
The addition of NO gas to the reference stream selectively scrubs O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> while not significantly affecting interfering VOC species, resulting in an
interference-free O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> determination. Inclusion of this instrument in
the study allows evaluation of the impact of the UV method in general (compared with chemiluminescence) versus the influence of specific scrubber
technologies. The SL-UV method is represented by the 2B Technologies model
211 scrubberless ozone monitor (2B 211). The model 2B 211 requires a
continuous supply of compressed NO or nitrous oxide (N<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O) (which the
instrument converts to NO). The SL-UV method also utilizes a
Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based sample humidity conditioning system
to eliminate any humidity effects. The SL-UV instrument was not used in the
October or November 2017 burns due to the lack of the necessary reagent gas
(nitrous oxide, N<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O) needed to run the instrument. Manufacturer-provided performance specifications for the SL-UV-based 2B 211 are given in
Table S1.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1.SSS4">
  <label>2.1.4</label><title>Heated graphite scrubber UV photometric</title>
      <p id="d1e1637">During the final phase of laboratory-based burning, a 2B Technologies model
211-G UV photometric analyzer (2B 211-G) was operated for comparison to the
monitors detailed in Sect. 2.1.1–2.1.3. The 2B 211-G differs from the 2B
211 in that it employs a heated graphite scrubber to remove O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from the
reference sample stream (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" 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>) (Turnipseed et al., 2017). The 2B 211-G
utilizes the same Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based sample humidity
conditioning system as employed in the 2B 211. For the purposes of this
paper the UV photometric method employing the heated graphite scrubber
is referred to as UV-G. Manufacturer-provided performance specifications for
the UV-G-based 2B 211-G are given in Table S1.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Prescribed fire burn mobile sampling platform</title>
      <p id="d1e1672">During the prescribed fire grass burns, all study instrumentation
(analyzers, data acquisition systems, and peripheral systems) were mounted
in portable instrument racks and installed inside an enclosed EPA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
vehicle (Whitehill et al., 2019). The instruments were connected via
perfluoroalkoxy alkane (PFA) Teflon<sup>®</sup>  tubing (0.64 cm diameter) to PFA Teflon<sup>®</sup>  filter packs loaded
with 47 mm, 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m pore size pressure-drop-equivalent Millipore
(Burlington, MA, USA) Omnipore<sup>®</sup>  polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
filter membranes which were (i) mounted to a rooftop sampling platform
during spring 2017 sampling or (ii) connected to a cross-linked
Teflon<sup>®</sup>-coated high-flow manifold mounted on the
inside roof of the truck compartment during fall 2017 sampling. The truck
was positioned downwind of active biomass burning plumes, usually within
meters to hundreds of meters of the active fire line, and positioned so that
the trailer was downwind of the sample inlets (to avoid interferences from
generator exhaust). In addition to the 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> analyzers under
investigation, additional monitors were also operated for the determination
of carbon monoxide (CO), NO, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, total oxides of nitrogen
(NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> NO <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), and total hydrocarbons (THCs, to approximate VOC
concentrations). The operation principle and designation (FRM vs. FEM)
information for the additional analyzers deployed in this study are
summarized in Table 2. Data from all instruments were recorded on an Envidas
Ultimate data acquisition system.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1757">Additional measurement methods operated during the present study.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Pollutant</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Manufacturer</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Model</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Method</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">FRM/FEM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Deployment<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CO</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Teledyne API</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">48C</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">NDIR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">FRM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">K1, S, K2, T, M1, M2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Teledyne API</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">T500U</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">CAPS<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">FEM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">K1, S, K2, T, M1, M2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NO, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Thermo Scientific</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">42C</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">CL (O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">FRM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">K1, K2, T, M1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NO, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Teledyne API</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">T200/T201<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">CL (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>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">FRM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">M1, M2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">THC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Thermo Scientific</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">51i</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">FID<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">NA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">K2, T, M1, M2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e1760"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Non-dispersive infrared absorption.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Cavity-attenuated phase shift.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Ozone chemiluminescence.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Flame ionization detector.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> The Teledyne API model T201 is not a designated FRM or FEM; however it
employs the same operating principle as the FRM-designated model T200.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> K1 – Konza Prairie March 2017; S – Sycan Marsh October 2017; K2 – Konza
Prairie November 2017; T – tallgrass prairie November 2017; M1 – Missoula
chamber April 2018; M2 – Missoula chamber April 2019.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e2080">All instruments were calibrated with multipoint calibrations before and
after each sampling day. All pre- and post-calibrations met our quality
performance objectives of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % and linearity of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" 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>.
For the 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> analyzers under investigation, field and laboratory
calibrations were performed using a Teledyne API model T700U dynamic
dilution calibrator with a NIST traceable 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> photometer and 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>
generation system. Zero air for the calibrator was supplied by a Teledyne
API model T701H zero-air generator. Calibrations for NO, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>,
and CO were performed using the same calibrator and zero air generator
utilizing a certified EPA protocol tri-blend (CO, NO, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) gas cylinder
(Airgas). Per the manufacturer-provided operator's manual, calibrations for
THC were performed using the T700U calibrator and a certified EPA
methane–propane gas cylinder (Airgas). FID response factors for organic
compounds can vary significantly based upon factors such as carbon number
and compound class (Tong and Karasek, 1984). The carbon numbers for methane
and propane vary by a factor of 3 and the FID response factors for those
compounds may also vary by a similar amount. In addition, the complex
mixture of hydrocarbons found in smoke will have large variations in carbon
number and FID response factors. As such, the results obtained with the THC
analyzer are an approximation of THC (and VOC) concentrations in smoke. In
addition, for THC calibrations, the T701H zero-air generator was replaced
with scientific-grade zero-air compressed gas cylinders (Airgas).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Kansas prescribed burns, March 2017</title>
      <p id="d1e2171">Biomass burning plumes were sampled over 4 d of prescribed burns
(15–17 and 20 March 2017) on the Konza Prairie Long Term
Ecological Research (LTER) site outside of Manhattan, Kansas. The fuels for
this series of burns consisted of mixed native prairie tallgrass of varying
moisture content. Over the 4 d period, a total of 13 burns were
conducted and sampled.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Oregon prescribed burns, October 2017</title>
      <p id="d1e2182">A single 10 h day of prescribed grassland burning was measured at the
Sycan Marsh Preserve in central Oregon on 11 October 2017. Fuels for the
Sycan Marsh burn consisted of mixed native prairie tallgrass of varying
moisture content.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <label>2.5</label><title>Kansas prescribed burns, November 2017</title>
      <p id="d1e2194">Biomass burning plumes were sampled during a single day of prescribed
burning (10 November 2017) on the Konza Prairie LTER site outside of
Manhattan, Kansas, and on 2 additional days (13 and 15 November 2017) at the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve outside Strong City,
Kansas. Fuels for the November 2017 burns consisted of mixed native prairie
tallgrass of varying moisture content. During the 10 November sampling, two
separate burns were conducted. Three burns were conducted over the 2 d
at Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS6">
  <label>2.6</label><title>USFS Missoula burn chamber burns 2018, 2019</title>
      <p id="d1e2205">Laboratory-based studies were performed at the US Forest Service's
combustion testing facility at the FSL in Missoula, Montana, by EPA and USFS
personnel. These static chamber burns occurred in the spring of 2018 (16–24 April 2018, 33 burns; Landis et al., 2021) and again in the spring of 2019
(15–26 April 2019, 31 burns). The main<?pagebreak page1788?> combustion chamber is a square room
with internal dimensions of 12.4 m <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 12.4 m <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 19.6 m high and a total volume of
3000 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and has been described previously (Bertschi et al., 2003;
Christian et al., 2004; Yokelson et al., 1996; Landis et al., 2021). During
the combustion chamber studies, the facility was fitted with identical
instrumentation racks, calibration systems, systems for sampling of test
atmosphere, and data acquisition systems as those described in Sect. 2.2.
All instrumentation was housed in an observation room immediately adjacent
to the combustion chamber with PFA inlet lines extending through the wall
into the chamber. All inlet lines contained an identical filter pack and filter
assembly described in Sect. 2.2 to protect inlet lines and the analyzers
from particulate contamination. Fuel beds consisting of ponderosa pine
needles and mixed woody debris were prepared and placed in the middle of the
chamber. The amount and moisture content of the fuels were varied to
generate different flaming/smoldering conditions during the burns. During
the chamber burns the combustion room was sealed and the fuel bed was
ignited. Two large circulation fans on the chamber walls and one on the
ceiling facilitated mixing and assured homogeneous conditions during the
burn periods (Landis et al., 2021). In general, chamber relative humidity (RH) values were below
50 %, facilitating dry burning conditions.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results and discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Results from ozone measurements in prescribed grassland fire plumes</title>
      <p id="d1e2247">O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement results from the Oregon and Kansas prescribed grassland
fire studies are shown as the difference between the FEM and FRM in Fig. 1,
and 1 min average time series plots for the studies are presented in
Supplement Figs. S1–S3. There were significant differences in the
measurement results obtained from the different O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> monitors operated
during the prescribed fires. The UV-C instrument (Thermo 49i) consistently
showed large increases in O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration readings in fresh biomass
burning plumes, with measurements exceeding the FRM measurement by 2–3 ppm.
The O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> exceedances were generally correlated in time with CO and THC
(biomass burning indicators) and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. These correlations will be
discussed separately. The UV-C-H instrument (2B 205) also showed increased
readings in smoke plumes (also correlated with CO, THC, and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), but
with absolute measurements roughly an order of magnitude smaller than the
UV-C instruments. The NO-CL (T265) instrument results showed the opposite
behavior, with reductions in O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> readings inversely correlated with
increases in NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations, as expected from general O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
titration by NO (NO <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>→</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>). For the March 2017 measurements the SL-UV instrument (2B 211) produced readings roughly
comparable with the NO-CL monitor, but with substantially more noise on a
minute-to-minute timescale. The “in-plume” average O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations
from the four prescribed grassland burning periods are shown in Fig. 2. For
the purposes of this comparison, CO measurements were used as an indicator
of when sampling occurred in plume. In addition, ambient RH values were
generally below 50 % indicating that the spring and fall 2017 prescribed
burns were conducted under dry conditions.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e2384">Ozone concentration differences between FEM instruments and the
FRM instrument (FEM <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> FRM) and the measured NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, CO, and total
hydrocarbons (THCs) during the three 2017 wildfire deployments. All
measurements included are within-smoke-only measurements, and show both the
elevated smoke tracers (NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, CO, THC) and the persistent elevation of
the FEM O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements. The box-and-whisker plots indicate the
25th, 50th, and 75th quartiles, with the whiskers extending
to 1.5 times the inner quartile range. The open dots indicate the mean
values for each instrument within smoke.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/1783/2021/amt-14-1783-2021-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e2429">In-plume O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration averages from the 2017
prescribed grassland burns and the 2018 and 2019 Missoula chamber burns. For
the 2017 grassland burning periods, CO concentration results (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm)
were used as an indicator of when in-smoke sampling was occurring.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/1783/2021/amt-14-1783-2021-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Results from ozone measurements in USFS chamber burns</title>
      <?pagebreak page1790?><p id="d1e2465">O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement results from the 2018 and 2019 USFS chamber burn studies
are shown in Fig. 3. Time series plots of the chamber study data are
included in Supplement Figs. S4 and S5. Figure 4 gives a more detailed
view of UV-C and NO-CL O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> results (2 d from 2018 and 1 d from
2019) during the chamber burns. In contrast to the prescribed grassland
burns, the Missoula chamber burns employed differing fuel types (ponderosa
pine needles and fine woody debris) that are more typical of fuels
consumed during western US forest fires. In addition, the concentrations
of pollutants generated and observed during the chamber studies were
approximately an order of magnitude smaller than those observed during the
prescribed grassland fires. For reference, maximum PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations
observed during the prescribed fires were in excess of 50 mg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" 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> while
maximum chamber PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations
were less than 2 mg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" 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>. Regardless of these differences, there
were still significant (order of magnitude or more) differences in the
measurement results between the different FEM O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> instruments operated
during both the 2018 and 2019 chamber studies. The NO-CL method showed
identical trends to those observed during the grassland burns in that its
measured 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> concentrations dropped to near zero during the active
burning periods as indicated in Fig. 4 (active burning periods shaded in
grey). The only periods when significant O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations were
measured by the NO-CL method were when outside air was brought in to flush
the chamber in between burns. The post-burn calibration checks on 23 April 2018 revealed a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % bias in the NO-CL method and a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % bias in the
UV-C-H method. These biases were evident during the chamber flush periods on
that day. Each analyzer was re-zeroed and spanned, resulting in the
elimination of the bias between the two methods as observed in the results
from the subsequent day (24 April 2018). No other calibration corrections
were made during the 2018 and 2019 chamber studies. As in the grassland
fire plumes, the UV-C method showed increased O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration
(positive analytical artifact) readings that were correlated in time with CO
and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>; see Supplement Figs. S9 and S10. Similarly, the
UV-C-H instrument also showed increased positive analytical artifacts during
the chamber burns but with absolute measurement values about an order of
magnitude smaller than the UV-C instruments. The SL-UV method gave similar
results to the NO-CL method during both the 2018 and 2019 chamber burns.
Newly added during the 2019 burns, the UV-G method (2B 211-G) gave mixed
results: at times it provided similar results compared to the NO-CL and
SL-UV methods, and at others it provided results in line with those provided
by the UV-C method. See Supplement Fig. S5 for the 2019 chamber burn time
series plot. The burn average 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> concentrations from the 2018 and 2019
chamber burns are presented in Fig. 2.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e2606">Differences between the FEM and FRM instrument
concentrations (FEM <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> FRM) and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, CO, and total hydrocarbon (THC)
concentrations during the 2018 and 2019 Missoula chamber studies. All
measurements included are within-smoke-only measurements and show both the
elevated smoke tracers (NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, CO, THC) and the persistent elevation of
the FEM O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements compared to the FRM. The box-and-whisker plots
indicate the 25th, 50th, and 75th quartiles, with the
whiskers extending to 1.5 times the inner quartile range. The open dots
indicate the mean values for each instrument within smoke.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/1783/2021/amt-14-1783-2021-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e2651">Time series example of USFS chamber burn O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> results
from the NO-CL, UV-C, and UV-C-H (2018 only) from 23–24 April 2018 <bold>(a)</bold>
and 22 April 2019 <bold>(b)</bold>. O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations are displayed on a
logarithmic scale. The post-burn calibration checks on 23 April 2018
revealed a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % bias in the NO-CL method and a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % bias in the
UV-C-H method. These biases were evident during the chamber flush periods on
that day. Each analyzer was re-zeroed and spanned, resulting in the
elimination of the bias between the two methods as observed in the results
from the subsequent day (24 April 2018).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/1783/2021/amt-14-1783-2021-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2706">During the 2018 chamber burns the UV-C results were biased high by 15–20 ppb
even during non-burn (i.e., overnight) periods as evident in Figs. 4 (top
panel) and S4. The initial hypothesis was that the bias was associated
with high chamber backgrounds of interfering species due to years of heavy
burning in the chamber. However, it was later discovered during a subsequent
summer–fall 2018 ambient air study in North Carolina in the absence of
smoke that sampling heavy smoke plumes during the fall 2017 prescribed
grassland burns followed by subsequent storage of the UV-C analyzer
irreversibly damaged the MnO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> scrubber in the UV-C instrument. It is
hypothesized that the damage resulted in the scrubber removing some of the
interfering species in addition to ozone, preventing them from being
subtracted off as background in the reference measurement and subsequent
detection as ozone (positive bias) during the measurement cycle. The effect
of the bias was observed mainly when sampling ambient and chamber air and not
readily observed during routine calibration checks (zeroes and spans) except
for an increase in the time required to obtain stable zero and span values.
The bias was not observed during any of the 2017 prescribed grassland burns.
During the summer–fall 2018 North Carolina study and prior to the start of
the 2019 chamber burns, a new MnO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> scrubber was installed and resulted
in a significant and immediate reduction of the observed high bias, shown in
Figs. 4 (bottom panel) and S5.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Methodological influence on ozone measurements in biomass burning smoke</title>
      <p id="d1e2735">As discussed in Sect. 3.1 and 3.2, there are large (order-of-magnitude
level) differences in 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> concentration measurement results obtained
from the FRM (NO-CL) and the FEM UV photometric with catalytic scrubber
(UV-C) 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> methods. The extremely low O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations measured by
the NO-CL instrument are consistent with 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> depletion in the presence of
high NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations (up to parts-per-million levels) observed in the grass
burning plumes and during chamber burns. The reaction between NO and 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>
is rapid and occurs on the timescales of seconds to minutes. As a result,
high NO in the fresh biomass combustion plumes will efficiently titrate out
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>, leading to near-field depletion within the plumes relative to
background concentrations. There was no sign of a positive interference in
the NO-CL monitors, and it remains the most robust and accurate routine
method for O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement in fresh and downwind biomass burning plumes.</p>
      <p id="d1e2811">In contrast with the NO-CL FRM instrument results, the UV-C FEM results
showed substantial increases in reported 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> concentrations in the fresh
biomass burning plumes. There is no known pathway for direct 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>
emission from biomass burning, and the proximity (meters to hundreds of
meters) and timescales (travel time of seconds to minutes from the combustion
source to measurement) involved are too short for the usual NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>–VOC
photochemistry to produce secondary 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>. Further, since the FSL chamber
interior is not exposed to sunlight, photochemistry would not have been
active in the Missoula laboratory burns. For the purposes of this work, the
positive analytical artifact in the UV-C method, termed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, is estimated using Eq. (6) as the difference between UV-C
and the NO-CL 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> concentration measurement results for the same time
period:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><label>6</label><mml:math id="M196" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mtext>3(UV-C)</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mtext>UV-C – NO-CL</mml:mtext><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Figure 5 shows in-plume regressions between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and
the FRM measurement and CO for the three measured prescribed grassland burns
in 2017 (Supplement Fig. S6 shows the time series of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and CO). Figures 5 and S6 show good
correlations within the smoke plumes. The average and maximum values of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are summarized in Table 3. It is hypothesized that
the large “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>” measurement observed in the UV-C method results from a
positive interference or artifact, likely linked to VOC emissions in the
grassland burn plumes. VOCs are emitted in higher concentrations from the
smoldering phase of combustion, which is also characterized by large CO
emissions (Yokelson et al., 1996, 1997), so a correlation
between CO and O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> artifacts would support the<?pagebreak page1791?> hypothesis of a VOC-linked
interference for the UV-C instruments. This is also consistent with observed
VOC interferences in previous studies (Grosjean and Harrison, 1985;
Kleindienst et al., 1993; Spicer et al., 2010) and observed following
fireworks (Fiedrich et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2018).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e2964">Scatter plots between FEM and FRM O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> differences and the CO
measurements within the grassland fire smoke plumes. The FEM measurements
are differentiated by color and shape. The SL-UV method was only run during
the Konza March 2017 measurements.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/1783/2021/amt-14-1783-2021-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Table 3</label><caption><p id="d1e2986">Ozone artifact (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) averages, maximum values, and CO,
NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and THC averages from the prescribed fire and USFS chamber burns
as measured by the UV-C, UV-C-H, and UV-G instruments.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Study</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> avg.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>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> max</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">CO avg.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> avg.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">THC avg.</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(ppb)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(ppb)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(ppm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(ppb)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(ppm)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mar. 2017 Konza Prairie (KS)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">295.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2423.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">15.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">147.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Oct. 2017 Sycan Marsh (OR)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">170.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3235.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">8.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">60.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.7</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Nov. 2017 Konza &amp; tallgrass prairies (KS)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">330.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3156</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">14.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">156.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Apr. 2018 USFS chamber (MT)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">36.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">309.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">35.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Apr. 2019 USFS chamber (MT)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">66.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">530.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">31.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C-H)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mar. 2017 Konza Prairie (KS)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">42.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">227.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">15.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">147.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Oct. 2017 Sycan Marsh (OR)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">21.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">316.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">8.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">60.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.7</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Nov. 2017 Konza &amp; tallgrass prairies (KS)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">40.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">369.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">14.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">156.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Apr. 2018 USFS chamber (MT)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">136.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">35.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-G)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Apr. 2019 USFS chamber (MT)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">22.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">376.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">31.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(SL-UV)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mar. 2017 Konza Prairie (KS)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">8.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">74.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">15.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">147.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Apr. 2018 USFS chamber (MT)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">11.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">35.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Apr. 2019 USFS chamber (MT)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">32.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">31.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e3488">The presence of a Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based humidity
conditioning system (Nafion<sup>®</sup>  tube dryer)
significantly reduced the magnitude of the observed artifact as evident by
comparing the UV-C and UV-C-H results shown in Figs. 1–3 and S1–S5. As with the UV-C method, the artifact in the UV-C-H method,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C-H)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, is calculated using Eq. (7) as the difference
between UV-C-H and the NO-CL 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> concentration measurement results for
the same time period:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E7" content-type="numbered"><label>7</label><mml:math id="M225" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mtext>3(UV-C-H)</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mtext>UV-C-H – NO-CL</mml:mtext><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          The addition of the Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based humidity
conditioning system reduces the magnitude of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C-H)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
artifact by approximately an order of magnitude compared with the UV-C
method. This is further illustrated in the 2018 chamber burns, where prior
to beginning the final burn day on 24 April 2018, a
Nafion<sup>®</sup>  tube dryer (PermaPure, MD Monotube Dryer
Series) was installed in the UV-C method (Thermo 49i), in effect converting
it to a UV-C-H method. As shown in Figs. 4 and S4, the
addition of the Nafion<sup>®</sup>  tube dryer significantly
reduced the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> artifact to a point comparable with that
observed in the UV-C-H method (2B 205). A possible explanation for this
effect is presented and discussed in Sect. 3.5. In addition, the
previously described bias related to the damaged MnO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> scrubber was also
reduced upon addition of the Nafion<sup>®</sup>  dryer to the
UV-C method.</p>
      <p id="d1e3596">For the March 2017 Konza Prairie study (Fig. 1) and the 2018 and 2019 USFS
chamber studies (Fig. 3) the SL-UV instrument concentration results were
comparable to, although noisier and slightly higher than, the NO-CL
reference instrument. On numerous occasions during the prescribed and
chamber burns, the SL-UV instrument shows short (i.e., 1 min data point)
positive or negative excursions that are not also observed in the NO-CL
results. In addition, these excursions are not correlated with changes in CO
concentrations. Because the SL-UV is a dual-cell instrument that measures
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> by comparing the absorbance of two cells, it is critical in highly
dynamic environments (such as during this study) that both cells be
measuring the same air at the same time. A slight difference in flow rates
or residence times between the two pathways (or a delay in one pathway
relative to the other) will cause short-term variability in the difference
between the two cells. Although this does not pose an issue for longer time
averaging (i.e., hourly data) under stable conditions, the dynamic nature of
biomass burning plumes (i.e., changing on the order of seconds) and short
time averages (i.e., minute) can create issues (noise) for the SL-UV method.</p>
      <?pagebreak page1793?><p id="d1e3608">Significant analytical artifacts were observed for FEM UV photometric
O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> instruments with (UV-C-H) and without (UV-C)
Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based humidity conditioning systems, where
it appears that the dual effect of ambient humidity fluctuations and VOC
interferences caused large positive over-measurement of in-smoke O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
concentrations. Chemiluminescence monitors are highly specific to 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>
and have long been known to be free of VOC interferences (Long et al., 2014;
U.S. EPA, 2015). However, studies have shown that the chemiluminescence
method can be impacted by changes in relative humidity (Kleindienst et al.,
1993). As such, upon promulgation in 2015, the new NO-CL FRM regulatory text
requires a humidity correction–dryer system to eliminate the potential water
vapor interference. As configured from the manufacturer, the NO-CL-based
Teledyne-API model T265 instrument operated during this comparative study
employs Nafion<sup>®</sup>  drying technologies to reduce or
eliminate the water vapor interferences. The use of a chemical (NO) scrubber
for UV photometric instruments (such as the 2B Technologies model 211) is
very specific to O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and shows a much better response than the catalytic
scrubber instruments, performing almost as well as the NO-CL FRM, and has
significant potential as a low-interference 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> method. Of the catalytic
scrubber photometric instruments, those with Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based humidity equilibration (2B Technologies model 205) perform
significantly better than those without (Thermo 49 series).</p>
      <p id="d1e3666">In areas highly impacted by smoke or for studies focusing on biomass burning
plumes, the use of a NO-CL FRM instrument is highly recommended as it was
found to be essentially interference-free. These instruments are anchored to
absolute O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations through the use of certified O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
calibration sources, many of which are based on UV photometry. The newest
generation of commercially available NO-CL FRM instruments, including that
used here (the Teledyne T265), have a built-in drying system to correct for
the humidity artifacts that affected earlier-generation chemiluminescence
instruments (Kleindienst et al., 1993), making
remaining interferences negligible compared to other technologies.</p>
      <p id="d1e3687">The gas-phase chemical scrubber UV instrument (2B 211) did not perform as
well as the FRM under the prescribed grassland burns or chamber experimental
conditions tested here, with the high-time-resolution (1 min) data
showing a much higher degree of variability than the NO-CL FRM instrument.
We hypothesize that the main factor driving this divergence between this
method and the NO-CL FRM is the dual-cell differential configuration of the
instrument, which is not conducive to rapidly changing concentrations in
O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> or other absorbing gases, such as VOCs.</p>
      <p id="d1e3700">In smoke-impacted monitoring situations where the use of a UV photometric
instrument is still preferred or required, the choice of a monitor with
humidity equilibration provides a significant analytical improvement over
those monitors without the humidity corrections. In the absence of an
instrument with a Nafion<sup>®</sup>  tube dryer and in
non-regulatory applications, a dryer can be installed before the inlet or
measurement cells to reduce the interference, as was demonstrated on the
final day of the 2018 Missoula chamber burns. This will have the added
benefit of reducing positive biases from humidity and reducing equilibration
time for calibrations (especially when<?pagebreak page1794?> switching from high-humidity ambient
air to dry calibration gases).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>Magnitude of ozone artifact in fresh biomass burning plumes relative to
markers of combustion</title>
      <p id="d1e3714">It is difficult to estimate an absolute magnitude or correct for the
observed O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> analytical artifact since primary emissions from biomass
combustion are highly variable and depend upon the fuel loading, fuel type
and condition, phase of the fire, and the burn conditions (Yokelson et al.,
1996, 1997). However, assuming the interference is driven
primarily by VOCs, the artifact should be correlated with the excess CO
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO <inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">plume</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>–CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">background</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>). Because
CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">background</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> during the prescribed grassland burns was below 200 ppb
(relative to typical conditions of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm in the plume), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO is estimated as the total measured CO concentration. A simplified view
of biomass combustion assumes an approximate linear combination of two
dominant emission phases, flaming combustion (characterized by emission of
highly oxidized compounds, such as CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
smoldering combustion (characterized by emission of reduced or mixed
oxidation state compounds, such as CO, CH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>S, and
most VOCs)  (Yokelson et al., 1996, 1997). Because the
majority of VOCs are in a reduced or mixed oxidation state, they tend to
co-emit with CO during smoldering combustion, and the VOC concentrations
tend to be highly correlated with CO in fresh biomass burning plumes
(Yokelson et al., 1996). Scatter plots comparing the FEM instrument artifacts
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) and CO for the three prescribed grassland burning
periods are shown in Fig. 5. Regression statistics of the comparison of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C-H)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> with CO and THC
for grassland burns are given in Table 4. The magnitude of the artifact
(estimated by the slope of the regression line of the CO vs. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
comparison), in parts per billion of apparent O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> per part per million of CO, ranges between 16–24 ppb ppm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" 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 UV-C instrument and 1.5–3 ppb ppm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" 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
instrument with humidity correction (UV-C-H). It is important to point out
that CO, in and of itself, is not considered to be an interfering species in
the UV photometric determination 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> in that CO absorbs in the
infrared (IR). The slight differences in the magnitude of the artifacts
(fitted regression slopes) along with the low uncertainty (standard errors)
values indicate that the magnitude of the artifact may be influenced by
local conditions that make each burn unique. Such conditions might include
meteorological conditions, fuel composition, fuel moisture content, and
time spent in combustion phase (flaming vs. smoldering). Similar to CO, THCs
and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are indicative of combustion processes and are correlated with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> as given in Table 4 and Figs. S7 and S8. In
terms of THC, the magnitude of the artifact, in parts per billion of apparent 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> per part per million
THC, is significantly higher at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">88</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppb ppm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" 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
UV-C instrument and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppb ppm<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> for the UV-C-H
instrument. Both the prescribed grassland and Missoula chamber burns
resulted in what would be considered high PM concentrations (2–50 mg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" 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>). These high PM concentrations, however, are not considered to be
interfering due to the presence of the inline particle filter assemblies
described in Sect. 2.2 and 2.6.</p>
      <p id="d1e4039">Since the CO concentrations (from upwind fires) observed at most stationary
sites from fire plumes are usually on the order of 1 ppm to greater than
10 ppm (Landis et al., 2018), it is reasonable to assume that 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>
artifacts in the range of 15 ppb to greater than 250 ppb can be observed
when employing a UV-C method. Similarly, 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> artifacts in the range of
1.5 to above 30 ppb might be observed at smoke-impacted sites monitoring
with UV-C-H methods. As such, Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based
humidity conditioning systems are highly recommended for use if employing UV
photometric methodology for monitoring O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in areas impacted by
wildfires or prescribed burns. As stated previously and as seen in Fig. 3
and Table 3, 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> artifacts were observed during the Missoula chamber
2018 and 2019 burns in both the UV-C and UV-C-H methods, although reduced
compared to the prescribed grassland burns. The presence and magnitude of
the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> artifact strongly suggest that smoke generated from fuels
typical of forests in the western United States also result in a measurement
interference in UV photometric methods. Since downwind O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> production in
biomass burning plumes is a significant issue in fire-impacted regions,
having reliable, interference-free methods is critical for assessing the
contribution of wildland fires to ambient O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> levels.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Table 4</label><caption><p id="d1e4112">Regression statistics for the ozone artifact (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)
versus CO and THC for UV photometric instruments without (UV-C) and with
(UV-C-H) a Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based humidity equilibration system during
the 2017 prescribed grassland burns.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Study</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Slope (ppb/ppm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Intercept (ppb)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> vs. CO </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mar. 2017 Konza Prairie (KS)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">16.46 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.34</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">18.53 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6.72)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.79</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">653</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Oct. 2017 Sycan Marsh (OR)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">24.02 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">28.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.73</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.96</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">295</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Nov. 2017 Konza &amp; tallgrass prairies (KS)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">23.51 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.73</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13.03</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.74</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">461</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> vs. THC </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Nov. 2017 Konza &amp; tallgrass prairies (KS)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">87.14 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.74</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">85.36</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18.63</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.59</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">461</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C-H)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> vs. CO </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mar. 2017 Konza Prairie (KS)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.46 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.04</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.87 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.03</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.80</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">163</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Oct. 2017 Sycan Marsh (OR)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.21 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.44 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.54</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">296</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Nov. 2017 Konza &amp; tallgrass prairies (KS)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.24 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.09</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.17</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.67</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.77</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">461</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C-H)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> vs. THC </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Nov. 2017 Konza &amp; tallgrass prairies (KS)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">13.27 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.39</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14.53</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.92</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">461</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col5">THC vs. CO </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Nov. 2017 Konza &amp; tallgrass prairies (KS)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.21 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.004</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.55 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.08</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.79</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">461</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e4134"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Standard error or uncertainty of the linear regression slope in parts per billion per part per million. <?xmltex \hack{\\}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Standard error or uncertainty of the linear regression intercept in
parts per billion.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <?pagebreak page1795?><p id="d1e4702">Figure 6 gives a detailed time series view of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and
CO from 2 burn days from 2018 and a single day during 2019. As indicated,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and CO appear to be correlated in time, but when
performing linear regression comparisons of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>3(UV-C)</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and CO
during each year's chamber burns as a whole, correlations tend to be poor. We
suspect the positive O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> bias is driven by one or more VOCs (likely
oxygenated VOCs). In fresh smoke the excess concentrations of individual
VOCs (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and VOC sums (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>VOC) tend to be highly correlated
with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO (Yokelson et al., 1999; Gilman et al. 2015). The emission
ratios of individual VOCs to CO (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>CO) can vary
considerably with combustion conditions such as fuel type and condition
(e.g., moisture content and decay state); fuel bed properties, such as bulk
density; and the relative mix of flaming and smoldering combustion (Gilman
et al., 2015; Koss et al., 2018). Additionally, the response of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>CO to burn conditions varies among VOCs. When each burn is
considered individually or in groups with similar conditions, the
correlations between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, CO, and THC are enhanced. An
example of this behavior is shown in Fig. S10. For the chamber
burns
the magnitude of the ozone artifacts in parts per billion of apparent O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> per part per million of CO,
ranges between 6–210 ppb ppm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" 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 individual burns. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
standard error values were consistent with those observed during the
prescribed burns (see Table 4). The lack of a consistent relationship
between the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> artifact and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO across all FSL chamber burns,
while observing a good correlation for individual burns, likely reflects the
variable response of artifact-producing emission(s) to the different
combustion conditions of the burns.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e4883">Time series example of USFS chamber burn <inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>(UV-C)
and CO concentration results from 23–24 April 2018 <bold>(a)</bold> and 22 April 2019
<bold>(b)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/1783/2021/amt-14-1783-2021-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4914">One interesting observation from the data obtained from both the prescribed
grassland and chamber burns is the order of magnitude difference in the
average and maximum O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> artifact between the UV-C and the UV-C-H
instruments as shown in Table 3. Considering that the prescribed grassland
and chamber burns were conducted under dry (RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %) conditions,
the size of the difference (as large as hundreds of ppb) cannot be explained
purely by the previously observed relative humidity effects on measurements
(Leston et al., 2005; Wilson et al., 2006), suggesting that the
Nafion<sup>®</sup>  dryer is directly impacting the
concentrations of other interferents in the sample stream.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5">
  <label>3.5</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Potential reason for lower artifacts with methods employing
Nafion\textsuperscript{\textregistered}-based humidity equilibration}?><title>Potential reason for lower artifacts with methods employing
Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based humidity equilibration</title>
      <p id="d1e4952">Nafion<sup>®</sup>  is a sulfonated tetrafluoroethylene
polymer that is highly permeable to water but shows little permeability to
many other organic and inorganic species (Mauritz and Moore, 2004). As a
result, Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based drying systems are often
used as part of sample preparation or conditioning systems in analytical
chemistry to remove water vapor from sample streams prior to sample
analysis. Nafion<sup>®</sup>  membranes were introduced to
some O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> monitors as a method to address humidity effects observed in
UV-C O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> monitors, particularly when there are rapid changes in relative
humidity level (Wilson and Birks, 2006). Humidity can affect the
transmission of the UV light through the detection cell, and catalytic
O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> scrubbers can modulate the water vapor in the scrubbed channel by
acting as a temporary reservoir, resulting in significant positive or
negative O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> interferences during rapid swings in relative
humidity (Wilson et al., 2006). Adding a
Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based equilibration dryer immediately
prior to the measurement cells reduces this water vapor interference without
affecting O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations and thus significantly reduces the
humidity artifacts in UV photometric O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> instruments.</p>
      <p id="d1e5022">Despite the high selectivity of Nafion<sup>®</sup>  to water
vapor, it does demonstrate partial to complete permeability to various VOC
or semivolatile organic compounds. Nafion<sup>®</sup>
membranes are highly permeable to alcohols, amines, ketones, and some
water-soluble ethers (Baker, 1974), as well as some biogenic oxygenated
compounds (Burns et al., 1983). In addition,
Nafion<sup>®</sup>  membranes have been shown to catalyze the
decomposition and rearrangement of monoterpene compounds (Burns et al.,
1983). Systematic study of Nafion<sup>®</sup>  permeability
and reactivity for polar and oxygenated compounds has been limited, with
most users of Nafion<sup>®</sup>  membranes basing their use
on operational testing and confirmation for specific applications.</p>
      <p id="d1e5040">The significant (order of magnitude) reduction in the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> artifact with
the addition of a Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based dryer to the UV-C
suggests that the Nafion<sup>®</sup>  dryer is directly
impacting the major interfering species, which was hypothesized to be VOCs
emitted during combustion<?pagebreak page1796?> processes. The species that are responsible for
most of the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> artifact in UV-C O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> instruments would have to be
permeable through Nafion<sup>®</sup>  membranes or reactive
with Nafion<sup>®</sup>  membranes; would have to be scrubbed by
solid-phase, catalytic O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> scrubbers (such as MnO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> or hopcalite);
and would have a significant absorption cross section around 254 nm. The
absorption cross section of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> around 254 nm is on the order of
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">17</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" 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> (Molina and Molina, 1986), which means
species with absorptions around 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">17</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" 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> at 254 nm would be potential interfering species. As a class, aromatic VOCs and
specifically oxygenated aromatic species (and other polar-derivatized
species) absorb strongly in this region of the UV spectrum, and their
potential permeability through Nafion<sup>®</sup>  membranes
results in them being likely compounds to interfere in UV-C instruments. As
an example, aromatic aldehydes such as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:mi>o</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-tolualdehyde and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-tolualdehyde
absorb around <inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M366" 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 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M367" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M368" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively (Etzkorn et al., 1999). Both
2,4-dimethylbenzaldehyde and 2,6-dimethylbenzaldehyde have absorption cross
sections above 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M370" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">17</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M371" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M372" 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> at 254 nm (El Dib et
al., 2008). Baker (1974) found 75 % of benzaldehyde was removed by a
Nafion<sup>®</sup>  membrane, meaning that the
Nafion<sup>®</sup>  permeability of tolualdehydes and
dimethylbenzaldehydes is also likely to be high. In addition, benzaldehyde
was almost quantitatively removed by several commercial catalytic O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M373" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
scrubbers, including the Thermo 49i MnO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M374" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> catalytic scrubber
(Kleindienst et al., 1993), so similar aldehydes are likely to behave in a
similar manner. Therefore, substituted aromatic aldehyde species are one
class of compounds that fit the necessary criteria for causing the
interference on the UV-C while having a reduced interference on the UV-C-H
instrument. Future work examining the potential interferences from different
species (or classes of species) on a species- or class-specific basis are
required to confirm this potential mechanism and suggest others.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page1797?><sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Implications</title>
      <p id="d1e5341">Wildland fires (wildfires and prescribed fires) emit significant amounts of
VOCs and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M375" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, two important precursors in the photochemical formation of
tropospheric O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M376" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. Therefore, it is not surprising that large increases
in O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M377" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are routinely reported at ambient monitoring sites downwind from
wildland fires (DeBell et al., 2004; Bytnerowicz et al., 2010; Preisler et
al., 2010; Jaffe and Wigder, 2012; Bytnerowicz et al., 2013; Jaffe et al., 2013;
Lu et al., 2016; Lindaas et al., 2017; Baylon et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018;
McClure and Jaffe, 2018). For example, Buysse et al. (2019) examined
regulatory air monitoring data from 18 cities over a 5-year period and found
that July–September exceedances of NAAQS for O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M378" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> were far more common
on days with known wildland fire smoke impacts (4.6 %) than those without
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M379" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %). However, the results of this study suggest caution when
interpreting UV photometric method O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M380" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements under conditions of
wildfire smoke impact due to the significant positive artifacts that were
observed. The analytical artifacts were also shown to be positively
correlated with widely used markers of combustion such as CO and THC
suggesting that the artifacts arise from photometric measurement
interferences by VOCs and further complicate the interpretation of smoke-impacted UV photometric O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M381" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> data. As described in Sect. 3.4, it
is reasonable to assume that O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M382" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> artifacts in the range of a few parts per billion to
greater than 250 ppb in addition to actual photochemically formed O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M383" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
can be observed when employing UV photometric methods at sites downwind from
fires.</p>
      <p id="d1e5427">A detailed example of observed artifacts in the UV photometric method
occurred during the 2016 Fort McMurray Horse River wildfire in Alberta,
Canada, where elevated O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M384" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations were observed at multiple
community-based air monitoring sites utilizing UV-C instruments in the
vicinity of the fire (Landis et al., 2018). Reported O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M385" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
concentrations reached maximum hourly concentrations in excess of 1500 ppb
using UV-C methods at night (between 22:00 and 5:00 local) in the
absence of photochemistry and were positively correlated with the combustion
markers NO and non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHCs). Peaks in O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M386" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
concentration are expected to be negatively correlated with peaks in NO
concentration as it rapidly titrates O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M387" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> to NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M388" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the authors
hypothesized that UV photometric measurement artifacts may have been
responsible for the unexpected observations.</p>
      <p id="d1e5475">The findings from this research effort and the observations from ambient
studies (Landis et al., 2018; Akagi et al., 2012) raise concerns that routine regulatory
monitoring and wildland fire research study O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M389" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements utilizing
UV photometric FEM instruments may be reporting positive measurement
artifacts as O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M390" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> during smoke-impacted events. Some studies have
hypothesized that rapid photochemical processing was responsible for
elevated O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M391" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations reported in downwind wildfire plumes (Liu et
al., 2017). Since downwind O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M392" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> production in biomass burning plumes is a
significant issue in fire-impacted regions, having reliable,
interference-free methods is critical for assessing the contribution of
wildland fires to ambient O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M393" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> levels and developing and validating accurate
deterministic air quality models. Air quality researchers and environmental
regulators are strongly encouraged to utilize NO-CL FRM O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M394" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> instruments
in areas routinely impacted by wildland fire smoke.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e5542">In this study, we compare two different O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M395" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement methods
(chemiluminescence and UV photometry) in fresh biomass burning plumes from
prescribed grassland fires and during controlled chamber burns. Within the
UV photometry category, we look at two different technologies, one using a
gas-phase chemical scrubber (NO) and the second using solid phase catalysts
to scrub O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M396" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from analytical reference channels. Among the UV
photometric instruments employing solid phase catalytic scrubbers, we
evaluated and compared methods that include a Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based humidity equilibration system with those that do not.</p>
      <p id="d1e5566">The NO-CL method (recently promulgated as the O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M397" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
FRM) performed well even in fresh plumes, whereas the UV photometric methods displayed varying degrees of positive
measurement artifacts. The UV photometric method
employing the dynamic NO gas-phase scrubber performed comparably with the
NO-CL method but was not well suited to the rapidly varying concentrations
of VOCs in the smoke plumes. The catalytic scrubber photometric methods
demonstrated positive analytical artifacts that were correlated with CO and
THC concentrations (both biomass burning plume indicators). There was a
significant difference between the catalytic scrubber UV instruments with
and without Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based humidity correction,
with the dryer system reducing the positive O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M398" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> artifact by an order of
magnitude compared with the UV photometric method employing no humidity
correction. The observed reduction in artifacts cannot be attributed only to
elimination of the relative humidity and water vapor interferences and likely
results from post-scrubber equilibration or reaction of
Nafion<sup>®</sup>-permeable VOCs prior to the measurement
cell. The results of this study strongly suggest that careful consideration
be given to employed measurement methods when monitoring O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M399" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
concentrations in regions where impacts from biomass burning routinely occur
due to the significant impact of potential measurement interferences. In
addition to consideration of operating methods containing
Nafion<sup>®</sup>-based humidity condition systems,
attention should be focused on the scrubbers employed by UV photometric
methods and the adverse effects that operation in smoke may have on those
scrubbers. Further research is being conducted to evaluate the magnitude of
the artifact in the UV photometric method at routine monitoring sites that
are often impacted by wildland<?pagebreak page1798?> fire smoke events under the EPA Mobile
Ambient Smoke Investigation Capability (MASIC) program (U.S. EPA, 2019).</p>
</sec>

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

      <p id="d1e5610">Datasets related to this paper can be found in the Supplement.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e5613">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1783-2021-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1783-2021-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e5622">RWL served as principal investigator and prepared the paper
with contributions from all co-authors. RWL, AW, AH, MC, SU, HH, and MSL performed the prescribed grassland fire and FSL chamber-based data collection and/or analysis. SK performed supervisory review of
this research effort and corresponding paper.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e5628">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d1e5634">The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of EPA. It has been subjected to
agency review and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for
use.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e5640">The EPA through its Office of Research and Development (ORD) conducted this research. We thank Kansas State University, The Nature
Conservancy, Konza Prairie Biological Station staff, Sycan March Preserve
staff, Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve staff, numerous burn crews, Brian Gullet (EPA), Cortina Johnson (EPA), Melinda Beaver (EPA), Libby Nessley
(EPA), and Kyle Digby (Jacobs).</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e5645">The EPA through its Office of Research and
Development (ORD) funded this research.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e5651">This paper was edited by Glenn Wolfe and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Akagi, S. K., Craven, J. S., Taylor, J. W., McMeeking, G. R., Yokelson, R. J., Burling, I. R., Urbanski, S. P., Wold, C. E., Seinfeld, J. H., Coe, H., Alvarado, M. J., and Weise, D. R.: Evolution of trace gases and particles emitted by a chaparral fire in California, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 1397–1421, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-1397-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-1397-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Baker, B. B.: Measuring trace impurities in air by infrared spectroscopy at
20 meters path and 10 atmospheres pressure, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., 35, 735–740, 1974.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Baylon, P., Jaffe, D. A., Hall, S. R., Ullmann, K., Alvarado, M. J., and
Lefer, B. L.: Impact of Biomass Burning Plumes on Photolysis Rates and Ozone
Formation at the Mount Bachelor Observatory, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 2272–2284, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bertschi, I., Yokelson, R. J., Ward, D. E., Babbitt, R. E., Susott, R.A.,
Goode, J. G., and Hao, W. M.: Trace gas and particle emissions from fires in large
diameter and belowground biomass fuels, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 8472, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002100" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002100</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Boylan, P., Helmig, D., and Park, J.-H.: Characterization and mitigation of water vapor effects in the measurement of ozone by chemiluminescence with nitric oxide, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 1231–1244, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-1231-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-7-1231-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Burns, W. F., Tingey, D. T., Evans, R. C., and Bates, E. H.: Problems with a
Nafion® membrane dryer for drying chromatographic samples, J. Chromatogr. A,
269, 1–9, 1983.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Buysse, C. E., Kaulfus, A., Nair, U., and Jaffe, D. A.: Relationships
Between Particulate Matter, Ozone, and Nitrogen Oxides During Urban Smoke
Events in the Western US, Environ. Sci. Technol., 53, 12519–12528, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Bytnerowicz, A., Cayan, D., Riggan, P., Schilling, S., Dawson, P., Tyree,
M., Wolden, L., Tissell, R., and Preisler, H.: Analysis of the Effects of
Combustion Emissions and Santa Ana Winds on Ambient Ozone During the October
2007 Southern California Wildfires, Atmos. Environ., 44, 678–687, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Bytnerowicz, A., Burley, J. D., Cisneros, R., Preisler, H. K., Schilling, S.,
Schweizer, D., Ray, J., Dulen, D., Beck, C., and Auble, B.: Surface Ozone at the
Devils Postpile National Monument Receptor Site during Low and High Wildland
Fire Years, Atmos. Environ., 65, 129–141, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Christian, T. J., Kleiss, B., Yokelson, R. J., Holzinger, R., Crutzen, P.
J., Hao, W. M., Saharjo, B. H., and Ward, D. E.: Comprehensive laboratory
measurements of biomass-burning emissions: 2. First intercomparison of
open-path FTIR, PTR-MS, and GC- MS/FID/ECD, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos,  109, D02313, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003874" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003JD003874</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>DeBell, L. J., Talbot, R. W., Dibb, J. E., Munger, J. W., Fischer, E. V.,
and Frolking, S. E.: A Major Regional Air Pollution Event in the
Northeastern United States Caused by Extensive Forest Fires in Quebec,
Canada, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 109,  D19305, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004840" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD004840</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dunlea, E. J., Herndon, S. C., Nelson, D. D., Volkamer, R. M., Lamb, B. K., Allwine, E. J., Grutter, M., Ramos Villegas, C. R., Marquez, C., Blanco, S., Cardenas, B., Kolb, C. E., Molina, L. T., and Molina, M. J.: Technical note: Evaluation of standard ultraviolet absorption ozone monitors in a polluted urban environment, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 3163–3180, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-3163-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-3163-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
El Dib, G., Chakir, A., and Mellouki, A.: UV absorption cross-sections of a
series of dimethylbenzaldehydes, J. Phys. Chem. A, 112, 8731–8736, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Etzkorn, T., Klotz, B., Sørensen, S., Patroescu, I. V., Barnes, I.,
Becker, K. H., and Platt, U.: Gas-phase absorption cross sections of 24
monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the UV and IR spectral ranges, Atmos. Environ., 33,
525–540, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page1799?><ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fiedrich, M., Kurtenbach, R., Wiesen, P., and Kleffmann, J.: Artificial O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M400" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
formation during fireworks, Atmos. Environ., 165, 57–61, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gilman, J. B., Lerner, B. M., Kuster, W. C., Goldan, P. D., Warneke, C., Veres, P. R., Roberts, J. M., de Gouw, J. A., Burling, I. R., and Yokelson, R. J.: Biomass burning emissions and potential air quality impacts of volatile organic compounds and other trace gases from fuels common in the US, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 13915–13938, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-13915-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-13915-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Grosjean, D. and Harrison, J.: Response of chemiluminescence NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M401" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> analyzers
and ultraviolet ozone analyzers to organic air pollutants, Environ. Sci. Tech., 19, 862–865,
1985.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Huntzicker, J. J. and Johnson, R. L., Investigation of an ambient
interference in the measurement of ozone by ultraviolet absorption
photometry, Environ. Sci. Tech., 13, 1414–1416, 1979.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Jaffe, D. A. and Wigder, N. L.: Ozone Production from Wildfires: A Critical
Review, Atmos. Environ., 51, 1–10, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Jaffe, D. A., Wigder, N., Downey, N., Pfister, G., Boynard, A., and Reid, S. B.:
Impact of Wildfires on Ozone Exceptional Events in the Western US,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 47, 11065–11072, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Johnson, T., Capel, J., and Ollison, W.: Measurement of microenvironmental ozone
concentrations in Durham, North Carolina, using a 2B Technologies 205
Federal Equivalent Method monitor and interference-free 2B Technologies 211
monitor, J. Air Waste Manage., 64, 360–371, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Kleindienst, T. E., Hudgens, E. E., Smith, D. F., McElroy, F. F., and
Bufalini, J. J.: Comparison of chemiluminescence and ultraviolet ozone
monitor responses in the presence of humidity and photochemical pollutants,
Air Waste, 43, 213–222, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Koss, A. R., Sekimoto, K., Gilman, J. B., Selimovic, V., Coggon, M. M., Zarzana, K. J., Yuan, B., Lerner, B. M., Brown, S. S., Jimenez, J. L., Krechmer, J., Roberts, J. M., Warneke, C., Yokelson, R. J., and de Gouw, J.: Non-methane organic gas emissions from biomass burning: identification, quantification, and emission factors from PTR-ToF during the FIREX 2016 laboratory experiment, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 3299–3319, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-3299-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-3299-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Landis, M. S., Edgerton, E. S., White, E. M., Wentworth, G. R., Sullivan, A. P., and
Dillner, A. M.: The impact of the 2016 Fort McMurray Horse River Wildfire on
ambient air pollution levels in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, Alberta,
Canada, Sci. Total Environ., 618, 1665–1676, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Landis, M. S., Long, R. W., Krug, J., Colon, M., Vanderpool, R., Habel, A., and Urbanski, S.: The US EPA Wildland Fire Sensor Challenge: Performance and evalution of Solver Submitted Multi-Pollutant Sensor Systems, Atmos. Environ., 247, 118165, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.118165" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.118165</ext-link>,
2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Leston, A. R., Ollison, W. M., Spicer, C. W., and Satola, J.: Potential
interference bias in ozone standard compliance monitoring, J. Air Waste Manage., 55, 1464–1472,
2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lindaas, J., Farmer, D. K., Pollack, I. B., Abeleira, A., Flocke, F., Roscioli, R., Herndon, S., and Fischer, E. V.: Changes in ozone and precursors during two aged wildfire smoke events in the Colorado Front Range in summer 2015, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 10691–10707, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-10691-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-10691-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Liu, X., Huey, L. G., Yokelson, R. J., Selimovic, V., Simpson, I. J.,
Müller, M., Jimenez, J. L., Campuzano-Jost, P., Beyersdorf, A. J., Blake, D. R., Butterfield, Z., Choi,
Y., Crounse, J. D., Day, D. A., Diskin, G. S., Dubey, M. K., Fortner, E., Hanisco, T. F., Hu, W.,
King, L. E., Kleinman, L., Meinardi, S., Mikoviny, T., Onasch, T. B., Palm, B. B., Peischl,
J., Pollack, I. B., Ryerson, T. B., Sachse, G. W., Sedlacek, A. J., Shilling, J. E.,
Springston, S., St. Clair, J. M., Tanner, D. J., Teng, A. P.,Wennberg, P. O., Wisthaler, A., and Wolfe, G. M.:
Airborne Measurements of Western US Wildfire Emissions: Comparison with Prescribed
Burning and Air Quality Implications, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 6108–6129, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Liu, Z., Liu, Y., Murphy, J. P., and Maghirang, R.: Contributions of Kansas
Rangeland Burning to Ambient O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M402" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>: Analysis of data from 2001 to 2016, Sci. Total Environ., 618,
1024–1031, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Long, R. W., Hall, E., Beaver, M., Duvall, R., Kaushik, S., Kronmiller, K., Wheeler, M., Garvey, S., Drake, Z., and McElroy, F.: Performance of the Proposed New Federal Reference Methods for Measuring Ozone Concentrations in Ambient Air, EPA/600/R-14/432, available at: <uri>https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_file_download.cfm?p_download_id=520887&amp;Lab=NERL</uri> (last access: 25 January 2021), 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lu, X., Zhang, L., Yue, X., Zhang, J., Jaffe, D. A., Stohl, A., Zhao, Y., and Shao, J.: Wildfire influences on the variability and trend of summer surface ozone in the mountainous western United States, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 14687–14702, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-14687-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-14687-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Mauritz, K. A. and Moore, R. B.: State of Understanding of Nafion, Chem. Rev.,
104, 4535–4586, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
McClure, C. D. and Jaffe, D. A.: Investigation of High Ozone Events due to
Wildfire Smoke in an Urban Area, Atmos. Environ., 194, 146–157, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Molina, L. T. and Molina, M. J.: Absolute Absorption Cross Sections of Ozone in
the 185- to 350-nm Wavelength Range, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 91, 4719, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JD091iD13p14501" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/JD091iD13p14501</ext-link>, 1986.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Ollison, W. M., Crow, W., and Spicer, C. W.: Field testing of new-technology
ambient air ozone monitors, J. Air Waste Manage., 63, 855–863, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Parrish, D. D. and Fehsenfeld, F.C.: Methods for gas-phase measurements of
ozone, ozone precursors and aerosol precursors, Atmos. Environ., 34, 1921–1957, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Preisler, H. K., Zhong, S., Esperanza, A., Brown, T. J., Bytnerowicz, A., and Tarna,
L.: Estimating Contribution of Wildland Fires to Ambient Ozone Levels in
National Parks in the Sierra Nevada, California, Environ. Pollut, 158, 778–787, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</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., 60, 1353–1364, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Tong, H. Y. and Karasek, F.W.: Flame ionization detector response factors for
compound classes in quantitative analysis of complex organic mixtures,
Anal. Chem., 56, 2124–2128, 1984.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</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.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone, Federal Register, 80, available at: <uri>https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-10-26/pdf/2015-26594.pdf</uri> (last access: 25 January 2021), 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page1800?><ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Studies Advance Air Monitoring
During Wildfires and Improve Forecasting of Smoke, availabe at:
<ext-link xlink:href="https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/studies-advance-air-monitoring-during-wildfires-and-improve-forecasting-smoke">https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/studies-advance-air-monitoring-during-wildfires-and-improve-forecasting-smoke</ext-link> (last access: 25 January 2021),
2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Whitehill, A., George, I., Long, R., Baker, K. R., and Landis, M. S.: Volatile
organic compound emissions from prescribed burning in tallgrass prairie
ecosystems, Atmosphere, 10, 464, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10080464" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/atmos10080464</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Williams, E. J., Fehsenfeld, F. C., Jobson, B. T., Kuster, W. C., Goldan, P.
D., Stutz, J., and McClenny, W. A.: Comparison of ultraviolet absorbance,
chemiluminescence, and DOAS instruments for ambient ozone monitoring,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 5755–5762, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Wilson, K. L. and Birks, J. W.: Mechanism and elimination of a water vapor
interference in the measurement of ozone by UV absorbance, Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 6361–6367,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Xu, Z., Nie, W., Chi, X., Huang, X., Zheng, L., Xu, Z., Wang, J., Xie, Y.,
Qi, X., and Wang, X.: Ozone from fireworks: Chemical processes or
measurement interference?, Sci. Total Environ., 633, 1007–1011, 2018.
 </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Yokelson, R. J., Griffith, D. W. T., and Ward, D.E.: Open-path Fourier transform
infrared studies of large-scale laboratory biomass fires, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
101, 21067–21080, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Yokelson, R. J.,  Susott, R., Ward, D. E., Reardon, J., and Griffith, D. W. T.:
Emissions from smoldering combustion of biomass measured by open-path
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,  102, 18865–18877, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Yokelson, R. J., Goode, J. G., Ward, D. E., Susott, R. A., Babbitt, R. E., Wade, D. D., Bertschi, I., Griffith, D. W. T., and Hao, W. M.: Emissions of formaldehyde, acetic acid, methanol, and other trace gases from biomass fires in North
Carolina measured by airborne Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 104, 30109–30125,  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900817" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/1999JD900817</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>In recent years wildland fires in the United States have had significant
impacts on local and regional air quality and negative human health
outcomes. Although the primary health concerns from wildland fires come from
fine particulate matter (PM<sub>2.5</sub>), large increases in ozone (O<sub>3</sub>)
have been observed downwind of wildland fire plumes (DeBell et al., 2004;
Bytnerowicz et al., 2010; Preisler et al., 2010; Jaffe et al., 2012;
Bytnerowicz et al., 2013; Jaffe et al., 2013; Lu et al., 2016; Lindaas et
al., 2017; McClure and Jaffe, 2018; Liu et al., 2018; Baylon et al., 2018;
Buysse et al., 2019). Conditions generated in and around wildland fire
plumes, including the presence of interfering chemical species, can make the
accurate measurement of O<sub>3</sub> concentrations using the ultraviolet (UV)
photometric method challenging if not impossible. UV photometric method
instruments are prone to interferences by volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
that are present at high concentrations in wildland fire smoke. Four
different O<sub>3</sub> measurement methodologies were deployed in a mobile
sampling platform downwind of active prescribed grassland fire lines in
Kansas and Oregon and during controlled chamber burns at the United States
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Fire Sciences Laboratory in
Missoula, Montana. We demonstrate that the Federal Reference Method (FRM)
nitric oxide (NO) chemiluminescence monitors and Federal Equivalent Method
(FEM) gas-phase (NO) chemical scrubber UV photometric O<sub>3</sub> monitors are
relatively interference-free, even in near-field combustion plumes. In
contrast, FEM UV photometric O<sub>3</sub> monitors using solid-phase catalytic
scrubbers show positive artifacts that are positively correlated with carbon
monoxide (CO) and total gas-phase hydrocarbon (THC), two indicator species
of biomass burning. Of the two catalytic scrubber UV photometric methods
evaluated, the instruments that included a Nafion<span style="position:relative; bottom:0.5em; " class="text">®</span>  tube dryer
in the sample introduction system had artifacts an order of magnitude
smaller than the instrument with no humidity correction. We hypothesize that
Nafion<span style="position:relative; bottom:0.5em; " class="text">®</span>-permeating VOCs (such as aromatic
hydrocarbons) could be a significant source of interference for catalytic
scrubber UV photometric O<sub>3</sub> monitors and that the inclusion of a
Nafion<span style="position:relative; bottom:0.5em; " class="text">®</span>  tube dryer assists with the mitigation of
these interferences. The chemiluminescence FRM method is highly recommended
for accurate measurements of O<sub>3</sub> in wildland fire plume studies and at
regulatory ambient monitoring sites frequently impacted by wildland fire
smoke.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Akagi, S. K., Craven, J. S., Taylor, J. W., McMeeking, G. R., Yokelson, R. J., Burling, I. R., Urbanski, S. P., Wold, C. E., Seinfeld, J. H., Coe, H., Alvarado, M. J., and Weise, D. R.: Evolution of trace gases and particles emitted by a chaparral fire in California, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 1397–1421, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-1397-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-1397-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Baker, B. B.: Measuring trace impurities in air by infrared spectroscopy at
20 meters path and 10 atmospheres pressure, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., 35, 735–740, 1974.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Baylon, P., Jaffe, D. A., Hall, S. R., Ullmann, K., Alvarado, M. J., and
Lefer, B. L.: Impact of Biomass Burning Plumes on Photolysis Rates and Ozone
Formation at the Mount Bachelor Observatory, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 2272–2284, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bertschi, I., Yokelson, R. J., Ward, D. E., Babbitt, R. E., Susott, R.A.,
Goode, J. G., and Hao, W. M.: Trace gas and particle emissions from fires in large
diameter and belowground biomass fuels, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 8472, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002100" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002100</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Boylan, P., Helmig, D., and Park, J.-H.: Characterization and mitigation of water vapor effects in the measurement of ozone by chemiluminescence with nitric oxide, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 1231–1244, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-1231-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-1231-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Burns, W. F., Tingey, D. T., Evans, R. C., and Bates, E. H.: Problems with a
Nafion® membrane dryer for drying chromatographic samples, J. Chromatogr. A,
269, 1–9, 1983.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Buysse, C. E., Kaulfus, A., Nair, U., and Jaffe, D. A.: Relationships
Between Particulate Matter, Ozone, and Nitrogen Oxides During Urban Smoke
Events in the Western US, Environ. Sci. Technol., 53, 12519–12528, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Bytnerowicz, A., Cayan, D., Riggan, P., Schilling, S., Dawson, P., Tyree,
M., Wolden, L., Tissell, R., and Preisler, H.: Analysis of the Effects of
Combustion Emissions and Santa Ana Winds on Ambient Ozone During the October
2007 Southern California Wildfires, Atmos. Environ., 44, 678–687, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Bytnerowicz, A., Burley, J. D., Cisneros, R., Preisler, H. K., Schilling, S.,
Schweizer, D., Ray, J., Dulen, D., Beck, C., and Auble, B.: Surface Ozone at the
Devils Postpile National Monument Receptor Site during Low and High Wildland
Fire Years, Atmos. Environ., 65, 129–141, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Christian, T. J., Kleiss, B., Yokelson, R. J., Holzinger, R., Crutzen, P.
J., Hao, W. M., Saharjo, B. H., and Ward, D. E.: Comprehensive laboratory
measurements of biomass-burning emissions: 2. First intercomparison of
open-path FTIR, PTR-MS, and GC- MS/FID/ECD, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos,  109, D02313, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003874" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003874</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
DeBell, L. J., Talbot, R. W., Dibb, J. E., Munger, J. W., Fischer, E. V.,
and Frolking, S. E.: A Major Regional Air Pollution Event in the
Northeastern United States Caused by Extensive Forest Fires in Quebec,
Canada, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 109,  D19305, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004840" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004840</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Dunlea, E. J., Herndon, S. C., Nelson, D. D., Volkamer, R. M., Lamb, B. K., Allwine, E. J., Grutter, M., Ramos Villegas, C. R., Marquez, C., Blanco, S., Cardenas, B., Kolb, C. E., Molina, L. T., and Molina, M. J.: Technical note: Evaluation of standard ultraviolet absorption ozone monitors in a polluted urban environment, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 3163–3180, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-3163-2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-3163-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
El Dib, G., Chakir, A., and Mellouki, A.: UV absorption cross-sections of a
series of dimethylbenzaldehydes, J. Phys. Chem. A, 112, 8731–8736, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Etzkorn, T., Klotz, B., Sørensen, S., Patroescu, I. V., Barnes, I.,
Becker, K. H., and Platt, U.: Gas-phase absorption cross sections of 24
monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the UV and IR spectral ranges, Atmos. Environ., 33,
525–540, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Fiedrich, M., Kurtenbach, R., Wiesen, P., and Kleffmann, J.: Artificial O<sub>3</sub>
formation during fireworks, Atmos. Environ., 165, 57–61, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Gilman, J. B., Lerner, B. M., Kuster, W. C., Goldan, P. D., Warneke, C., Veres, P. R., Roberts, J. M., de Gouw, J. A., Burling, I. R., and Yokelson, R. J.: Biomass burning emissions and potential air quality impacts of volatile organic compounds and other trace gases from fuels common in the US, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 13915–13938, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-13915-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-13915-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Grosjean, D. and Harrison, J.: Response of chemiluminescence NO<sub><i>x</i></sub> analyzers
and ultraviolet ozone analyzers to organic air pollutants, Environ. Sci. Tech., 19, 862–865,
1985.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Huntzicker, J. J. and Johnson, R. L., Investigation of an ambient
interference in the measurement of ozone by ultraviolet absorption
photometry, Environ. Sci. Tech., 13, 1414–1416, 1979.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Jaffe, D. A. and Wigder, N. L.: Ozone Production from Wildfires: A Critical
Review, Atmos. Environ., 51, 1–10, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Jaffe, D. A., Wigder, N., Downey, N., Pfister, G., Boynard, A., and Reid, S. B.:
Impact of Wildfires on Ozone Exceptional Events in the Western US,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 47, 11065–11072, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Johnson, T., Capel, J., and Ollison, W.: Measurement of microenvironmental ozone
concentrations in Durham, North Carolina, using a 2B Technologies 205
Federal Equivalent Method monitor and interference-free 2B Technologies 211
monitor, J. Air Waste Manage., 64, 360–371, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Kleindienst, T. E., Hudgens, E. E., Smith, D. F., McElroy, F. F., and
Bufalini, J. J.: Comparison of chemiluminescence and ultraviolet ozone
monitor responses in the presence of humidity and photochemical pollutants,
Air Waste, 43, 213–222, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Koss, A. R., Sekimoto, K., Gilman, J. B., Selimovic, V., Coggon, M. M., Zarzana, K. J., Yuan, B., Lerner, B. M., Brown, S. S., Jimenez, J. L., Krechmer, J., Roberts, J. M., Warneke, C., Yokelson, R. J., and de Gouw, J.: Non-methane organic gas emissions from biomass burning: identification, quantification, and emission factors from PTR-ToF during the FIREX 2016 laboratory experiment, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 3299–3319, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-3299-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-3299-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Landis, M. S., Edgerton, E. S., White, E. M., Wentworth, G. R., Sullivan, A. P., and
Dillner, A. M.: The impact of the 2016 Fort McMurray Horse River Wildfire on
ambient air pollution levels in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, Alberta,
Canada, Sci. Total Environ., 618, 1665–1676, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Landis, M. S., Long, R. W., Krug, J., Colon, M., Vanderpool, R., Habel, A., and Urbanski, S.: The US EPA Wildland Fire Sensor Challenge: Performance and evalution of Solver Submitted Multi-Pollutant Sensor Systems, Atmos. Environ., 247, 118165, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.118165" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.118165</a>,
2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Leston, A. R., Ollison, W. M., Spicer, C. W., and Satola, J.: Potential
interference bias in ozone standard compliance monitoring, J. Air Waste Manage., 55, 1464–1472,
2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Lindaas, J., Farmer, D. K., Pollack, I. B., Abeleira, A., Flocke, F., Roscioli, R., Herndon, S., and Fischer, E. V.: Changes in ozone and precursors during two aged wildfire smoke events in the Colorado Front Range in summer 2015, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 10691–10707, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-10691-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-10691-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, X., Huey, L. G., Yokelson, R. J., Selimovic, V., Simpson, I. J.,
Müller, M., Jimenez, J. L., Campuzano-Jost, P., Beyersdorf, A. J., Blake, D. R., Butterfield, Z., Choi,
Y., Crounse, J. D., Day, D. A., Diskin, G. S., Dubey, M. K., Fortner, E., Hanisco, T. F., Hu, W.,
King, L. E., Kleinman, L., Meinardi, S., Mikoviny, T., Onasch, T. B., Palm, B. B., Peischl,
J., Pollack, I. B., Ryerson, T. B., Sachse, G. W., Sedlacek, A. J., Shilling, J. E.,
Springston, S., St. Clair, J. M., Tanner, D. J., Teng, A. P.,Wennberg, P. O., Wisthaler, A., and Wolfe, G. M.:
Airborne Measurements of Western US Wildfire Emissions: Comparison with Prescribed
Burning and Air Quality Implications, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 6108–6129, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, Z., Liu, Y., Murphy, J. P., and Maghirang, R.: Contributions of Kansas
Rangeland Burning to Ambient O<sub>3</sub>: Analysis of data from 2001 to 2016, Sci. Total Environ., 618,
1024–1031, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Long, R. W., Hall, E., Beaver, M., Duvall, R., Kaushik, S., Kronmiller, K., Wheeler, M., Garvey, S., Drake, Z., and McElroy, F.: Performance of the Proposed New Federal Reference Methods for Measuring Ozone Concentrations in Ambient Air, EPA/600/R-14/432, available at: <a href="https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_file_download.cfm?p_download_id=520887&amp;Lab=NERL" target="_blank"/> (last access: 25 January 2021), 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Lu, X., Zhang, L., Yue, X., Zhang, J., Jaffe, D. A., Stohl, A., Zhao, Y., and Shao, J.: Wildfire influences on the variability and trend of summer surface ozone in the mountainous western United States, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 14687–14702, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-14687-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-14687-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Mauritz, K. A. and Moore, R. B.: State of Understanding of Nafion, Chem. Rev.,
104, 4535–4586, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
McClure, C. D. and Jaffe, D. A.: Investigation of High Ozone Events due to
Wildfire Smoke in an Urban Area, Atmos. Environ., 194, 146–157, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Molina, L. T. and Molina, M. J.: Absolute Absorption Cross Sections of Ozone in
the 185- to 350-nm Wavelength Range, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 91, 4719, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JD091iD13p14501" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/JD091iD13p14501</a>, 1986.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Ollison, W. M., Crow, W., and Spicer, C. W.: Field testing of new-technology
ambient air ozone monitors, J. Air Waste Manage., 63, 855–863, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Parrish, D. D. and Fehsenfeld, F.C.: Methods for gas-phase measurements of
ozone, ozone precursors and aerosol precursors, Atmos. Environ., 34, 1921–1957, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Preisler, H. K., Zhong, S., Esperanza, A., Brown, T. J., Bytnerowicz, A., and Tarna,
L.: Estimating Contribution of Wildland Fires to Ambient Ozone Levels in
National Parks in the Sierra Nevada, California, Environ. Pollut, 158, 778–787, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</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., 60, 1353–1364, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Tong, H. Y. and Karasek, F.W.: Flame ionization detector response factors for
compound classes in quantitative analysis of complex organic mixtures,
Anal. Chem., 56, 2124–2128, 1984.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</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.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone, Federal Register, 80, available at: <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-10-26/pdf/2015-26594.pdf" target="_blank"/> (last access: 25 January 2021), 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Studies Advance Air Monitoring
During Wildfires and Improve Forecasting of Smoke, availabe at:
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/studies-advance-air-monitoring-during-wildfires-and-improve-forecasting-smoke" target="_blank">https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/studies-advance-air-monitoring-during-wildfires-and-improve-forecasting-smoke</a> (last access: 25 January 2021),
2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Whitehill, A., George, I., Long, R., Baker, K. R., and Landis, M. S.: Volatile
organic compound emissions from prescribed burning in tallgrass prairie
ecosystems, Atmosphere, 10, 464, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10080464" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10080464</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Williams, E. J., Fehsenfeld, F. C., Jobson, B. T., Kuster, W. C., Goldan, P.
D., Stutz, J., and McClenny, W. A.: Comparison of ultraviolet absorbance,
chemiluminescence, and DOAS instruments for ambient ozone monitoring,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 5755–5762, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Wilson, K. L. and Birks, J. W.: Mechanism and elimination of a water vapor
interference in the measurement of ozone by UV absorbance, Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 6361–6367,
2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Xu, Z., Nie, W., Chi, X., Huang, X., Zheng, L., Xu, Z., Wang, J., Xie, Y.,
Qi, X., and Wang, X.: Ozone from fireworks: Chemical processes or
measurement interference?, Sci. Total Environ., 633, 1007–1011, 2018.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Yokelson, R. J., Griffith, D. W. T., and Ward, D.E.: Open-path Fourier transform
infrared studies of large-scale laboratory biomass fires, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
101, 21067–21080, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Yokelson, R. J.,  Susott, R., Ward, D. E., Reardon, J., and Griffith, D. W. T.:
Emissions from smoldering combustion of biomass measured by open-path
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,  102, 18865–18877, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Yokelson, R. J., Goode, J. G., Ward, D. E., Susott, R. A., Babbitt, R. E., Wade, D. D., Bertschi, I., Griffith, D. W. T., and Hao, W. M.: Emissions of formaldehyde, acetic acid, methanol, and other trace gases from biomass fires in North
Carolina measured by airborne Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 104, 30109–30125,  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900817" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900817</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
