Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
AMT
Articles | Volume 14, issue 5
Articles | Volume 14, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-3631-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-3631-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 14, issue 5
Research article
 | 
20 May 2021
Research article |  | 20 May 2021

The importance of size ranges in aerosol instrument intercomparisons: a case study for the Atmospheric Tomography Mission

Hongyu Guo, Pedro Campuzano-Jost, Benjamin A. Nault, Douglas A. Day, Jason C. Schroder, Dongwook Kim, Jack E. Dibb, Maximilian Dollner, Bernadett Weinzierl, and Jose L. Jimenez

Viewed

Total article views: 4,328 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
2,959 1,293 76 4,328 573 127 188
  • HTML: 2,959
  • PDF: 1,293
  • XML: 76
  • Total: 4,328
  • Supplement: 573
  • BibTeX: 127
  • EndNote: 188
Views and downloads (calculated since 15 Jun 2020)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 15 Jun 2020)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 4,328 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 4,315 with geography defined and 13 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 14 Nov 2025
Download
Short summary
We utilize a set of high-quality datasets collected during the NASA Atmospheric Tomography Mission to investigate the impact of differences in observable particle sizes across aerosol instruments in aerosol measurement comparisons. Very good agreement was found between chemically and physically derived submicron aerosol volume. Results support a lack of significant unknown biases in the response of an Aerodyne aerosol mass spectrometer (AMS) when sampling remote aerosols across the globe.
Read more
Share